Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Stuck on finding text:Thomas Arundel

I am currently disambiguating Thomas Arundel, and the bulk is gone, with the remainder at Article namespace. The remaining few have Thomas Arundel in the {{Archbishops of Canterbury}} template. Now I have been in and modified the template accordingly, and VDE links show that it all is modified, that said, there are still stubborn links in only a few of the remaining archbishops. Where else do I look? Thx --billinghurst (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes a while for template changes to register. You can do a null edit on any remaining pages to force the change, see Help:Dummy edit. Tassedethe (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Problem solved. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Two other uses

Re this revert -- what's the contradiction? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, later in the page it says that if there are more than two uses, a disambiguation page should "normally" be created. Do we want to tighten up "normally", or define cases where it's acceptable not to have a dab page even when there are three uses?--Kotniski (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, or maybe you mean the dab page should still exist, but the hatnote might direct straight to the two other uses instead of to the dab page?--Kotniski (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In the case of a primary topic and (only) two other uses, the primary topic can go to the base name and the {{two other uses}} hatnote can provide all the navigational aid needed; or, the primary topic can go to the base name and an {{otheruses}} hatnote can direct the reader to a disambiguation page for the navigational aid. If {{two other uses}} is used, there's no need for what would be an orphan (disambiguation) page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough, but it would mean a change to the guidance - is this to everyone's liking? Are there any criteria for deciding which method is more appropriate?--Kotniski (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(When you say {{two other uses}} do you mean {{otheruses4}}? {{two other uses}} seems to create a link to a (disambiguation) page as well which I don't think is what is needed if there are 3 articles (primary + 2). Or have I got that wrong?) I did get that wrong! Be that as it may, I think a disambiguation page should be recommended if the other 2 items cannot be simply disambiguated with either their (dab) extension or one or two extra words i.e. the {{two other uses}} hatnote should be avoided if it brings unnecessary clutter to the top of a page. Similarly if there needs to be a wikitionary link or a See also section a disambiguation page should be recommended. Tassedethe (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Every hatnote that brings unnecessary clutter should be avoided; any hatnote that provides sufficient navigational aid to warrant its clutter may be used. But that's more a guidelines for WP:HATNOTE than here, I think. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lists of things with the dab phrase in the title

Some additional input at Talk:Wizard#Cleanup would be helpful, please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless?

The sections on wp:dab#Sister projects and wp:dab#Summary or multi-stub pages mean nothing to me (and I understand dab pages quite well); what do they mean? would an example of each make them more accessible? Abtract (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the sister project bit I get; it means (I presume) that we shouldn't create a dab entry for something just because it has an article on Wikiquote etc. if it isn't mentioned in WP. The multi-stub pages are something I don't recall ever seeing, but I guess they must exist (or have existed) given that someone once wrote about them here - an example would certainly help if anyone can find one.--Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the multi-stub idea is that you have multiple articles possible, stubs ready for each, and rather than creating ToPix (person stub) and ToPix (place stub), you create ToPix and have the text of both stub articles mashed into the same article (and the instruction here is to avoid tagging that abomination as a disambiguation). Ugly, but apparently how it was done. I'd be happy to see the instruction removed from here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If it isn't done any more, we don't need to retain the instruction, even if there may happen to be a few such beasts still lying around.--Kotniski (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For an old example of how this used to be, see this revision of Companion. Should we note that this was a former standard that's now deprecated? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's another example [1] Note the article at that time was titled simply Belle Isle. It was fairly typical for multistubs then to use horizontal rules to separate the different senses. I think it is mostly historical. I'm sure there are still some instances around, but I agree the practice should be deprecated. older ≠ wiser 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm excising that section from the guideline then.--Kotniski (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask again whether we should have a note that formerly, stubs with the same potential title were often combined into a "multi-stub", but that this practice is now deprecated. I could imagine a conflict erupting over such a page, and someone coming here looking for guidance, remembering vaguely that there used to be something here about multi-stubs. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't object, if you consider it necessary.--Kotniski (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and on further reflection, the removed text mentioned that these should not tagged as disambiguation pages. I seem to recall there might still be some valid uses -- not so much as for disambiguation as for certain sorts of thorny conceptual overview types of pages that provided a sort of roadmap to related topics with a little more description differentiating the entries than would typically be found on disambiguation pages. Although perhaps such usage is not really the same as the multistub. older ≠ wiser 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Roadmaps (good name) would probably include things like History of Greek and Roman Egypt and History of the Soviet Union. The former is stuck the way it is because there is a lot of edit history (see the talk page for the details of the split that led to this) that can't be deleted, and redirecting one way or the other makes no sense. Ditto, I suppose, for the other one. Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone pointed me here from this discussion. My examples there were people: Abundantius, Aglaophon, Alexander (artists). I'd call them a special type of disambiguation page - a dead-end disambiguation page, where instead of the dab page directing you somewhere, the information you need is somewhere on the page. People of the same name about which so little is known (common in antiquity) that they get covered in one page instead of tiny, tiny permanent stubs. Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems that these creatures are not extinct after all. I'll re-add a short note about them - others may like to expand or modify.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A word is preferred to an abbreviation

I known this has been discussed ad nauseum previously, but I have to ask, why? In general I think I agree that if there is a page with very roughly equivalent proportion of word-like forms and abbreviation-like forms, then the word form should be preferred. But does it really make sense to force a page where the majority of entries are abbreviations to use a word form? The page that made me think about this is PUB, which a user has requested to be moved to Pub (disambiguation), with the reason being it is the "Expected location for PUB/Pub combined disambiguation page". This is not really such a big deal and I suppose either form is acceptable, but it made me wonder if always defaulting to word form is necessarily the best rule. older ≠ wiser 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite know why, but to me it seems intuitively more reasonable to find "PUB" entries under "Pub" than "Pub" entries under "PUB". Perhaps it's because "PUB" is more likely to be pronounced [pub] than "Pub" is to be pronounced [pee-you-bee].--Kotniski (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Except in this case there is a primary meaning for pub. If someone types in all caps, they are most likely looking for an abbreviation. And since most of the entries on the dab page are abbreviations, wouldn't it be more user-friendly for the title to match, rather than the artificial title Pub (disambiguation)? older ≠ wiser 11:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There are also two albums called Pub in this case; it seems to me to violate the "principle of least astonishment" (which discusses article names as well as content) to look for an album called Pub at a disambiguation page called PUB (as linked from Pub); for whatever reason, the reverse is not true for me, as for Kotniski above. --Rogerb67 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just more easily astonished. The seven terms (that granted are not exactly high-profile) known primarily if not exclusively as PUB, versus two relatively unknown albums would in my mind argue for locating it at PUB based on the principle of least astonishment. But then if it is at PUB, I suppose that might raise messy questions about whether pub should be treated as the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the previous discussions of this topic? --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The text says "A word is preferred to an abbreviation. For example, the disambiguation page for Arc and ARC is named Arc." This is a bad example: currently there are two pages, Arc and ARC ! 128.232.1.193 (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No replies, so I removed the example. I don't really understand what the guideline means now.. is the Arc case "wrong"? 128.232.1.193 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the Arc page split since it grew so large. The meaning of the clause is clear; I added a current example. --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Exception regarding categorization

Recently, I was somewhat disappointed to learn of a rule (?) that apparently says that "content-specific categories are inappropriate for a disambiguation page." I request that an exception be made in this regarding a certain project that I started over two years ago.
Since March 2006 I've written almost exclusively about snakes and have worked to provide some 500 articles with a complete set of redirects for all known common names and taxonomic synonyms. These outnumber the articles by about 10 to 1. To keep this large number organized, I created a series of categories for them, for example Crotalinae by common name and Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms. Some of these categories are now actually rather complete and links to the relevant ones are present in all of the articles.
Of course, every once in a while it is discovered that a common name or taxonomic synonym that can refer to more than one taxon (e.g. genus, species, subspecies). In such cases, the redirect is turned into a disambiguation page and the new entries and category tags are added. This is where the problem lies.
Obviously, if the rule against using content-specific categories in disambiguation pages is applied in this case without any further consideration, several years of my work will be undone: the categories rendered forever incomplete as there will be many obvious omissions. I cannot imagine that anyone would consider this to be constructive. Therefore, to preserve this work I humbly request that an exception be made to the aforementioned rule when it comes to the systematic categorization of disambiguation pages for common names and taxonomic synonyms. --Jwinius (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what you say makes sense. In fact if these categories contain primarily redirects, then perhaps they don't fall into the "content-specific categories" class in the first place. Has anyone actually objected to their presence on dab pages, or are you just anticipating that they might?--Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply. Yes, I have encountered objections twice now. The first time was in August regarding a disambiguation page for "Sand boa", the discussion of which was moved here. I intended to come here with it, but then an alternative solution presented itself. The second time was today and involves the Moccasin disambiguation page, the discussion of which can be found here. I would be very grateful for any efforts to clear up this matter. --Jwinius (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

One solution that normally keeps people happy is to reclassify these pages as "set index articles" (see at WP:Disambiguation) rather than dab pages. This is justified since they are not lists of random terms with the same name, but lists of things of a specific type. This doesn't necessarily require any change to the content of the page, just the removal of the {{disambiguation}} template (and the use of {{SIA}} instead, although I don't know if that's considered obligatory). You will then have more freedom to categorize and format the pages as appropriate for the subject matter, without attracting complaints from those who enforce the disambiguation page rules. --Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That certainly sounds like a step forward, but what about cases such as Copperhead, Viper, Python, Boa, Pilot, Congo, etc.? These are examples of disambiguation pages that contain mainly information that is not snake-related. In such cases many other editors are often involved, so I expect that some would protest the substitution of {{Disambig}} for {{SIA}} just to suit my needs. If that happens, what could I do or say? --Jwinius (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, in those cases you could create something like Viper (snake), either as a redirect to Viper or as a set index article itself, and place the category there.--Kotniski (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Moccasin is not a suitable candidate to be a set index as the contents dissimilar types. I would suggest creating a redirect such as Moccasin (snake) and adding the categories to the redirect. older ≠ wiser 11:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not exactly what I was hoping for. The last solution means that if, for example, there were to be a nice {{SIA}} page for "Keelback" with 30 snake entries and one day somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it, then that person may very well decide (and be within their rights) to change the article to a {{Disambig}} page. Subsequently, it's possible that the category tags would also be removed. Another example would be when there is only a redirect for "Keelback" with a category tag and somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it. They would of course change it to a {{Disambig}} page and again the category tag would probably be removed, immediately or eventually. In both cases it would be unlikely that any of these people would think to create "Keelback (snake)," so that it would almost certainly be up to people like myself to keep a constant lookout for this kind of damage and fix it. Oh, goodie. However, even that won't work in the long run, because after I'm gone and if there is no one else left who has this page on their watchlist and cares (or understands), then in many cases deterioration of this kind will likely be permanent. --Jwinius (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a common problem -- anyone can edit Wikipedia including persons who might know nothing of your project or might even disagree with it. Categorization in particular is problematic, since it is nearly impossible to track pages that are removed from a category unless someone happen to see the change on their watchlist or there is some separate list page for tracking purposes. Looking at the category intersection of Category:Snakes by common name (and subcategories) with Category:Disambiguation pages (and subcategories), there are a few disambiguation pages with these categories. Personally, I think it is a mistake to attempt to categorize common names by relying on disambiguation pages in this way, and you will likely continue to face problems with maintaining such categorization. But if no one else objects, then I don't really care about it all that much. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the relevant guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Categories:

Categories aid navigation between articles. However, disambiguation pages are non-articles and do not require categorization other than for maintenance purposes; they already get auto-categorized by using {{disambig}}, {{hndis}} and {{geodis}}. No other categories should be added, except Category:Surnames, Category:Given names or their subcategories (if the disambiguation page includes sections of name information or lists of people), or disambiguation subcategories that might apply.

Pending the outcome of this discussion, that section may need to be modified. older ≠ wiser 14:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

When I started categorizing those redirects and disambiguation pages back in mid-2006, that guideline did not yet exist. There was no problem. The Categories section you refer to was only added in July 2007. I'm not an administrator, so I don't keep track of these things. On the other hand, in cases such as these, should administrators not be mindful of the needs of the editors? This particular guideline is killing my project. Or, is my project no longer deemed worthwhile? --Jwinius (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly reasonable to categorize as a snake a "disambiguation page" (or better, a "set index article") that only contains snakes, but I don't think it's a good idea to categorize as a snake a disambiguation page that mixes snake and non-snake entries, such as copperhead. Creating entries such as copperhead (snake), whether as a SIA page or as a redirect, sounds like a good solution. Like you say, there is always the risk that someone will screw up the page later, but that's a problem with every wiki page! (And someone will screw it up regardless of what the guidelines say.) If you find that maintaining this as a category is too much of a hassle, perhaps you'd find it easier to handle it as a list instead? That way only one page needs to be watched. Otherwise, I think you'd have a higher chance of success at preventing good-faith decategorization by using SIA pages instead of dab pages, and adding a comment to each page saying something like "this is a set index article about snakes. If other, non-snake topics with this name exist, please, do not turn this into a disambiguation page, but create a separate disambiguation page instead." You can also add a similar comment to the redirects. Of course, if you are interested in this approach, it is possible to use a bot so that you don't need to edit hundreds of pages by hand. --Itub (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a workaround that has already been suggested. I find it depressing that WP's administrators have become so bureaucratic that so little flexibility can be demonstrated in cases like this. Obviously, a small change to the rule in question would save me a lot of work and safeguard my project. Is this not a case of the tail wagging the dog? --Jwinius (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The rule already contemplates what you need, under the set index article. There is no need to change the rule for dab pages, which are a different thing. If anything, perhaps a "rule" could be added saying that "set index articles should not be turned into dab pages, at least not without discussion". --Itub (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As a solution, the set index concept is not good enough. Here's why. If, for example, there were to be a nice {{SIA}} page for "Keelback" with 30 snake entries and one day somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it, then that person may very well decide (and be within their rights) to change the article to a {{Disambig}} page. Subsequently, it's possible that the category tags would also be removed. Another example would be when there is only a redirect for "Keelback" with a category tag and somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it. They would of course change it to a {{Disambig}} page and again the category tag would probably be removed, immediately or eventually. In both cases it would be unlikely that any of these people would think to create "Keelback (snake)" even if a note asking for this had been attached, so that it would almost certainly be up to people like myself to keep a constant lookout for this kind of damage and fix it. However, even that won't work in the long run, because after I'm gone and if there is no one else left who has this page on their watchlist and cares (or understands), then in many cases deterioration of this kind will likely be permanent. --Jwinius (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I already read that above, and proposed two different solutions, but you don't seem to notice. --Itub (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why mention set index articles as a solution? That's already been suggested and it's not good enough. As for the idea of using list articles instead, first of all it's more work to have to update a list as well every time a new redirect or disambiguation page is created, and secondly such articles are more likely to be vandalized because they are easier to edit. Besides, my initial reason for making the categories was because I wanted a way to keep track of all the redirects and disambiguation pages that I had created for the articles (thousands, and only those with references have been categorized). In addition, not only are these categories self-updating, but they are unique: the (category) lists of taxonomic synonyms exist only in one of my most expensive books, while the (category) lists of common names exist nowhere else at all (they come out of many books). Finally, it's one thing to contemplate the possibility of vandalism resulting in random decategorization, but it's quite another to be faced with a rule that all by encourages this to happen. --Jwinius (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned it because don't agree it's not good enough, and proposed specific ways of addressing the problem: adding a comment to each SIA page discouraging people from turning it into a dab, or adding some text to this guideline page discouraging people from turning SIA pages into dab pages. SIA pages and dab pages are different things, and what you need is a SIA page, not a dab page. A dab page can list a hodgepodge of items that have nothing in common other than the name, which is the reason it is inappropriate to categorize them. SIA pages do have a topic, and don't have the layout and content restrictions of dab pages. If someone turns your SIA page into a dab, they would be doing something wrong. I think the best way of preventing that is to make a SIA page that doesn't look like a dab page. A SIA page can have a lead, it can have pictures, and it can have more links than a dab allows. That, in addition to having a SIA template instead of a dab template, should discourage any editor with a clue from turning it into a dab page. As for clueless editors, nothing you write in the guideline page will help. They might as well turn your entire SIA page into an article about a video game! --Itub (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the case of editing a redirect, I think it is almost certain that the category will get removed when the redirect is edited, whether it is turned into a dab page or not. That's the sad reality of wiki maintenance, and especially the maintenance of redirects and categories, which are harder to keep track of. --Itub (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And I don't like your solutions because they only mean more trouble for me. But, it looks like a compromise is out of the question. Thanks. --Jwinius (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A well-constructed SIA that is supported by an active project (such as the ship index or nountain index pages) is extremely unlikely to be converted to a disambiguation page. Your objections about people futzing with pages constructed according to practices that are rather persnickety and completely undocumented and so far as I can tell idiosyncratic to yourself seem rather unrealistic. older ≠ wiser 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambig to disambig

What is the purpose of WP:INTDABLINK? My understanding is that it was always preferable to link to an exact target, rather than a redirected target, especially on disambiguation pages. For example, in the "see also" of a disambiguation page, I normally put something like:

• William Watson (disambiguation)

However, I see some other editors changing it to:

• William Watson (disambiguation)

Even though the second one is a redirect which goes to the same place.

I am not understanding why this is preferable, could someone please explain? Thanks, --Elonka 21:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is that when checking for mistaken links to disambiguation page, it is easier to recognize that these are intentional links to the disambiguation page. IMO, it's not much of a difference either way. older ≠ wiser 22:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's about it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It actually makes a big difference to editors involved in the WP:DPL project. SlackerMom (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

New search feature

I see there's a new search box feature, whereby if you prefix the search term with "intitle:" you return just articles which have that term in their titles. Might be useful when creating dab pages... it might also be useful to include hard links to such searches on certain dab pages (like we already use links to "all pages beginning with..." on some given-name pages and the like).--Kotniski (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In case this is sometimes desired (I'm not saying we should suddenly start putting such things everywhere), I've created a quick template for this purpose: {{intitle}}. Foer example, {{intitle|Dab}} produces All pages with titles containing Dab.--Kotniski (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

ANother example of ignore primary usage

This discussion is another example of ignoring primary usage as a criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I find an appropriate disambiguation template ?

I cannot find any pointers here on how to locate an appropriate template for a disambiguation page. Without that we can't create the page.. the format appears to be {{xxxdis..}} ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• What about {{disambig}}? --Russ (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• See WP:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The disambig notice Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses in articles with brackets

The Template Template:Otheruses should not be used in articles with brackets, since you get there only following a already qualified link in another text or a disambiguation page, not by searching. I removed all those cases in the German wikipedia (about 50), but there are much more in the English WP. You can find them by searching for ") (transclusion)" on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Otheruses&limit=5000.

Couldn't that job be done easily by a bot?

--Abe Lincoln (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that articles with brackets should not use {{Otheruses}} on its own, then that's right, since that would normally generate a red link to Foo (tag) (disambiguation). However I suspect most of the cases involve {{Otheruses}} with a parameter, which is acceptable use (though in most cases not necessary). I don't think such hatnotes do any harm, and I don't believe a bot would be capable of identifying the cases where the hatnotes are actually beneficial. The main benefit comes, I think, in cases where the reader has clicked on a link of the form [Foo (something)|Foo] hoping to get to an article on Foo (something else). If there is a (something else) reasonably close semantically to the present (something), then the hatnote makes sense. For example, I use similar templates (otherplaces2/3) at the top of articles like Głęboczek, Greater Poland Voivodeship, because people are likely to get there by clicking on a link that says simply "Głęboczek", and they might think they're going to an article on some other Głęboczek that they happen to know about. In this case the hatnote serves not only as an aid to further navigation, but also a kind of warning that this isn't necessarily what you were looking for.--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then the English WP has a different approach than the German WP regarding this. For instance, if I already am on article Aquarius (constellation), I actually don't really need a hint that there other meanings. I can clearly tell from the expression in the brackets, in this case (constellation). A hint is useful in article Angst, since there are no brackets. I would see it as some kind of information overload. Also, it is not consistent, as Aquarius (astrology) does not have any hint. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we lack the German rigour;) But I think it's a matter of judgement whether any particular article would benefit from a hatnote. Not all readers are so familiar with Wikipedia's ways as to deduce the existence of other articles from the name of one (and those who are familiar know that a dab tag is often added pre-emptively or to conform to some naming convention, like the US city+state rule). And if you've come to a page by clicking a link that you hoped would take you sommewhere slightly different, even if you assume other articles exist, it's nice to have a note right at the top that confirms that and contains a link to the dab page. --Kotniski (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with removing such hatnotes from articles with brackets is that it assumes the parenthetical disambiguation is sufficient to differentiate the subject from all others; however, there are many, many case where a reader coming from a search results page (or from a mistakenly linked page) might not be certain that the subject is the one intended. The parenthetical disambiguation phrases are not intended to precisely define all aspects of the subject, they are simply phrases that capture one major aspect of the subject. This can be particularly problematic for people who may be notable for several reasons, but the parenthetical term usually only reflects one. Whether a hatnote is appropriate in any particular article would be a topic for discussion on the talk page (or perhaps for WP:BRD, if one is so inclined). older ≠ wiser 16:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If I am looking for a special James King, I will find James King, from where I will find the right one. If I get to the wrong one, then the disambiguation is bad and should be improved. If I get to the wrong one somehow else, for instance James King (footballer), than I now that I have to look at James King for other meanings. This can be easier by a hatnote. But then every page with brackets could automatically be supplied with hatnote, that does nothing more than to either remove the brackets or add (disambiguation). I understand your point, but it's just not consistent right. Eventually it's a matter of taste though. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is a lack of consistency. But you make assumptions about how readers navigate which may work OK for experienced editors, but leave those unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Wikipedia naming conventions at a loss. older ≠ wiser 17:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Before driving in a country for the first time, you need to learn whether to drive on the right or left side of the road. In the US drivers who are accustomed to driving on the left are not accommodated, and in the UK they don't accommodate those accustomed to driving on the right. Making assumptions about certain basic knowledge of its users is inherent in any system. The only assumption made by User:Abe Lincoln above is that a reader chancing upon James King (footballer) will realize that this article is about the footballer and not any other James King. If said reader then becomes curious about what other James Kings there may be, surely the only reasonable thing to do, whether one has familiarity with "the peculiarities of Wikipedia naming conventions" or not, is to enter "James King" in the box labeled "Find" and to press "Go" or "Search". I also think it is inaccurate to characterize the Wikipedia convention of providing specific distinguishing information about a particular usage of a name or term in brackets as a "peculiarity" - this method should be familiar to anyone who can read English (language). There is lack of consistency, period. No buts about it. And no excuses either, especially lame excuses about Wikipedia "peculiarities" which are not peculiar at all. We should all be working in unison to eliminate these inconsistencies, one at a time, or with bots when appropriate. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Total consistency is not going to help anyone. There are situations (probably most) where your arguments hold; there are other situations (for example, when the bracketed tag is imperfect - as many of them are - or not immediately comprehensible to all readers) where they don't. This isn't a distinction a bot can make - in any case the superfluous hatnotes are doing no harm. --Kotniski (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my characterization of Wikipedia naming conventions as peculiar. And no amount of Serge's calling such characterization as lame makes them any less peculiar. older ≠ wiser 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Error on this page - linking to redirects

This guideline says:

"To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect – for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages.

This is wrong. We don't link to redirects but to the target article. That's standard practice and guidelines should reflect standard practice. I changed the wording to reflect that reality but I was reverted.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it has never been standard practice to link to target articles rather than redirects. In fact, there's a guideline specifically recommending against editing redirects to point to target articles, WP:R2D. --Muchness (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree -the guideline is IMHO correct. I think it's a useful and increasingly common practice, because it makes clear that one intends to link to the disambiguation page, and that further disambiguation is neither needed nor appropriate. (Contrast this with unintentional links to dab pages, which have a whole WikiProject devoted to fixing them.) See, for example, User:PamD's comment here for a recent example. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're disagreeing with Scott? Because I agree with your argument, and was indirectly trying to make the same point, that there are many contexts (including this one) where intentionally linking to a redirect is preferable. --Muchness (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is wrong. And I hereby protest at another example of MOS legislation being imposed on the wiki. But my time is scarce, I can't be bothered, and so you win. However, some fine day we'll rise up and rid wikipedia of MOS nonsense. Unwatching.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's this "we"? This fine day we managed to rid the MOS of the "Thou shalt not link to redirects" nonsense in a perfectly Wiki way (see WP:BRD and WP:R#NOTBROKEN). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• This decision was only hammered out this month at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping_and_redirects. I'm still not sure I agree that linking to Chrome (browser) instead of Google Chrome (as seen at Chrome) makes sense for the benefit of our readers. I can see how it helps editors, but we're not the primary audience...
• WP:R#NOTBROKEN refers to editing a page just to fix a redirect. It does not apply to how to write a link initially and ideally, which is what we're discussing here.
• Scott is here because of the changes at Barack (disambiguation). There are a few related dab threads
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Dealing_with_dab_pages_that_reference_other_dab_pages
  • Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Barack_.28disambiguation.29
  • Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#When_the_primary_topic.27s_a_redirect...

Informing him of these threads would have been much more useful than biting him. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree that he should have been invited to participate or at least pointed to existing discussions. However, Scott's issue with Barack (disambiguation) has little or nothing to do with the recent discussion regarding Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping_and_redirects. That discussion was primarily concerned with using redirects or piped links for entries in the page. Scott's apparent gripe concerned the deliberate links to other disambiguation pages in the see also section. That practice has been in place for quite a while. older ≠ wiser 20:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Scott's gripe is about the formatting/piping/intentional-link-to-redirect of those links. The "see also" links go to the same targets in both diffs, just the label is changing. Check! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes, that's what I said, isn't it? I don't see how that has any connection to the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping_and_redirects discussion. The practice under discussion there was about something else. older ≠ wiser 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't both discussions about "When should a disambiguation page link to a redirect as opposed to an actual or piped link"? Scott wants the link to go directly from Barack (disambiguation) to Baraka, whereas the people reverting him want the link to target Baraka (disambiguation) (which is a redirect). -- Quiddity (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping_and_redirects was not about deliberately linking to disambiguation pages. It was about linking to redirects in the main listing. Scott objected quite specifically about the practice making intentional links to disambiguation pages use a redirect. I could see how they might be confused, but they are different topics with very different rationales and covered by different parts of the guidelines. I completely agree that intentional links to disambiguation pages should always be to marked form. But for entries in the main listing, I am much more inclined to favor linking directly to the topic rather than a redirect except in certain cases.03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean about the fine distinction of topics. I guess I was suggesting that one might lead to, or have unwittingly led to, the other.

What I'm trying to verbalize, is that there are 3 choices for how to format the link to Baraka at the page Barack (disambiguation):

1.	Baraka (disambiguation)	[[Baraka (disambiguation)]]
2.	Baraka (disambiguation)	[[Baraka]] (disambiguation)
3.	Baraka (disambiguation)	[[Baraka|Baraka (disambiguation)]]

1. leads to a redirect, 2. & 3. do not. I think Scott and I both essentially want either 2 or 3, because purposefully-writing-a-link to send all the readers to a redirect is "less good" in the end, than sending them directly to the actual page's title. Partially because the redirect notice is visually distracting/crufty, partially because it is at odds with the standards elsewhere. Possibly other reasons? (I can't speak for him. I also didn't realize he was a former admin until just now)). (the 4th option is to move the page to the expanded title, but that way windmill-tilting lies...)

I'd been trying to avoid getting into it actually, whilst glancing through the #Piping_and_redirects thread for the last few weeks, but for some obscure biochemical reason I chose this iteration to speak up in. It's a mess of related topics, with a mess of related ramifications, and a mess of subjective stances. All horribly convoluted and intractable. Ahhhh, Wikipedia, how we love thee. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The basic rationale for clearly identifying such intentional links to disambiguation pages can be found at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. The reasoning is that in general there should not be any links to a disambiguation page. Repairing such mistaken links is the raison d'être for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages task force. Using such redirects unambiguously indicates that such links are intentional and do not need to be repaired. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Partially because the redirect notice is visually distracting/crufty, partially because it is at odds with the standards elsewhere." How is it distracting/crufty? If the small-text notice at the top is somehow bad, I believe that the benefit Bkonrad described outweighs it. What standards elsewhere is it at odds with? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The benefit you're describing is for editors - we're not writing an encyclopedia for editors.

It is crufty because it is completely irrelevant to a reader (In this Baraka (disambiguation) case. In the case of Baking soda it is actually useful). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "crufty" means in this context -- but if it is irrelevant to a reader, then why shouldn't the guidance be to the benefit of editors? I'm also not sure what utility is being compared/contrasted by the mention of Baking soda. I'm as yet unaware of any formal guidance to prefer using direct links over redirects or that specifically mentions that redirect messages are to be avoided. older ≠ wiser 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The "decision" (or consensus) existed before this month's discussion. As for "Chrome", a reader who reaches Chrome (disambiguation) clearly didn't enter "Google Chrome" in the search box; if they are looking for Google Chrome, they are doing so by searching for a web browser by the search term "Chrome". In that scenario, Chrome (browser) best fits what the hypothetical reader is thinking. I'm not sure what benefit it gives to the editor, but the redirect is used to benefit the reader. NOTBROKEN was brought up as a counter to Scott's claim of "invariable practice" -- it lists other reasons for linking to redirects besides the reason he was negating with his edit here. And what bite are you talking about? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• It gives benefits to the editor as described at WP:INTDABLINK ("helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages"), thereby removing them from the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links list of items we need to fix.
• "buh-bye" was unhelpful to anyone who reads it.
• I do agree that for the specific Barack example, it is more helpful to readers to have the text "(disambiguation)" either next to, or as part of, the see also links (either of these 2 diffs). What I object to here, is forcing there to be a redirect-notice at the top of the page for the reader (i.e. just an "aesthetic" objection). This is a primary-topic/page-naming-convention issue, mixed with a redirect issue. It makes more sense to me, to move the Baraka article to Baraka (disambiguation), if all of the incoming links point to the second title.
• For Chrome (browser) and Ten (character) etc, I'm not convinced. I believe using the actual article-title name would be clearer for some readers (perhaps "most" readers? I'm not sure).

Having 3 main discussion forums for disambig matters isn't helping any of this... but that's yet another topic -- Quiddity (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• This was unhelpful to anyone who reads is (and edit summaried "Pah"). "Buh-bye" was an appropriate response to that petulant note of farewell.
• Moving all dabs to (disambiguation) has been discussed before, and opted against. Changing the consensus is certainly possible if you want to reopen it, but not really relevant to the use of the redirects for intentional links to base-name dab pages.
• Again, how would a reader who is clearer with Google Chrome vs. Chrome (browser) have gotten to the Chrome dab page in the first place? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• But you're an admin: You're supposed to be setting a better example. (yes "he started it". how about we just drop it... wasn't that big of a deal at all)
• Moving all dabs to (disambiguation) is relevant if redirects are (widely?) objected to and are being mass-implemented because of a recent guideline/standard change.
• It seems to be the same as changing the link at Mercury for the Bristol Mercury to read Mercury (aircraft engine), and changing the link to Project Mercury to read Mercury (space project). Referring to it as Chrome (browser) is a completely invented and Wikipedia-centric label for a link. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving all dabs to (disambiguation) is relevant if redirects are (widely?) objected to and are being mass-implemented because of a recent guideline/standard change. This is confusing two separate issues. The practice of having intentional links to disambiguation pages use redirects with the (disambiguation) form is not the result of a recent guideline change. That practice has been in place for a very long time now (even if not evenly applied). The practice of linking main entries through redirects is a somewhat more recent development, but is still goes back quite a bit farther than the recent discussion you linked to above. Regarding Google Chrome, I'm inclined to agree with you. older ≠ wiser 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Being an admin does not mean I cannot have a sense of humor. There is nothing wrong with the example set. No personal attacks, etc. Any non-admin is welcome to respond similarly to other such farewells. But if you'll stop making it a big deal, I'll be happy to stop answering your points about it.
• What Bkonrad said.
• I still don't understand how you are proposing to help someone who is looking for an article on a browser and enters "Chrome" in the search box -- obviously they'll reach the page sought by scanning blue links and clicking on Chrome (browser), even if they don't know it's from Google. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• So do you think we should change all those links at Mercury? Change Project Mercury to Mercury (space program), and change Blackburn Mercury to Mercury (British aircraft)? If so, go for it (I'll wait here for you to be reverted); if not, how is changing Google Chrome to Chrome (browser) different? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about links on Mercury, and I'm not familiar with that dab page. Your "So" there is incorrect; one does not lead to the other. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Mercury is the page/word we use as the main example in the introduction at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I think my example is a perfect pattern match, to the "Exact titles are not preferred" stance that we should invent a new label for something that already has an agreed-upon label (the target article's current title).

Pick any of the actual redirects linking to Project Mercury, and explain how it would be more useful to use that on the Mercury disambig page, rather than the exact-page-title.

Then change all of the links at Mercury to follow this "Exact titles are not preferred" concept (it is our example page after all...). It may look "cleaner" to an editor's eye seeing the word "mercury" running down in a straight column as the first word in every item, but it is less accurate (and can reinforce the weight of an improper name), and arguably far less useful to a searching reader. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While that would be one way to approach getting consensus on the Chrome disambiguation page, it's not the only one. I'll continue down the current path rather than be directed down two paths. (If a redirect has undue weight on an improper name, it should probably be RfDed. If it exists, then it gives the appearance of usefulness, and will likely be used by some dab editors.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Energy (disambiguation)

I would appreciate someone keeping an eye on this page for a while. Abtract (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with two entries

Rinku, Hellsing (disambiguation), and Ryuk come to mind. IIRC, the guideline prefers hatnoting when it comes to dabs with really two entries. So does anyone have any suggestions on what to do here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It partly depends on whether either of the two is significantly more well-known than the other. If there is not a primary topic, IMO, a two-topic disambiguation page is preferable to misleadingly implying that one is primary. older ≠ wiser 11:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

All 3 seem justified in different ways: to avoid a dab page for Rinku would mean that it had to point to one or the other, as a Primary Usage, and the Primary Usage seems not to be established. The "See also" to Rinku Town seems worthwhile too. Hellsing (disambiguation)- well, the SA seems again to justify its existence. Ryuk - again, the alternative would be to decide that one or other was a primary usage, and have a complicated "Redirect" hatnote to lead to the other - a dab page seems the tidiest solution. Maybe the "no dab page if only 2 articles" rule is one where WP:IAR needs to be invoked if the result will be a more helpful page for more readers. PamD (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

#1 and #3 look alright as dab pages, but I'd personally get rid of #2 and replace it with hatnotes. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

NB. Someone recently changed the guidelines. Under "Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?", it used to say: "If there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page may be used; an alternative is to set up a redirect from the term to one of the topics, and use disambiguation links only." It now says: "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.". Sam⁵ (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

But WP:HATNOTE still says "When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. It is not necessary to create a separate disambiguation page.". Consistency, anyone? Sam⁵ (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That text on WP:HATNOTE says nothing about primary topic -- if one title is disambiguated and the other is not, that implies one is a primary topic (at least by definition, if not in fact). However, it could be stated more clearly there. And include a link or two to WP:PRIMARY. older ≠ wiser 17:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) What he said. Also, I'm increasingly in favour of adding a dab page where there's any greyness to the issue. I think it helps to reduce the incidence of fighting over the base page by proponents of either of the 2 disambiguated topics. Further, it's much easier to start with each destination disambiguated than to put one at the base page, only to move it later and hence have to revise all the links to the base page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments above of AndrewHowse. Issues like the one concerning the Matthew Williams disambiguation page (See move on 25 November 2008) would not arise if disambiguation had occurred as early as possible. --Bejnar (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In some ways it is worse when there are many entries. Eg Harrisburg and Harrisburg (disambiguation). --Una Smith (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with Commons entries

I just happened upon the page Johann Salver. It is a disambiguation page with no article links, just mentions of three people, two of whom may be the same, all (or both) 18th century engravers. It follows these with two links to Commons image galleries of engravings by the various Johann Salvers. Is this a proper use of a disambiguation page? Rklear (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a disambiguation page at all. There was a similar case at Vladimir Sherwood not long ago. This needs to be split into at least two stubs, Johann Salver and Johann Octavian Salver with Johann H. Salver redirecting to the latter unless/until shown to be a separate person. I'll try to do that. (Whether either of these is notable enough for an article is a separate question I'm not sure about.) Station1 (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Captain (fictional spaceships)

I've been banging on fixing links into Captain and noticed that it would be helpful to have a page like Captain (fictional spaceships) to cover myriad books, movies, T.V. shows, and so forth. Unfortunately, every time I take a stab at starting such a page, it comes out pretty snarky. Maybe Han Solo is the [[captain (spacecraft)|captain]] of the M.... would be more like it? Anybody have any feelings on this? Cheers. Haus^Talk 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Those links to Captain are something else; they grow faster than we disambiguate them. The Trouble With Captains...? --Una Smith (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

primary topic clarification - Primary topic in Wikipedia are in all of English?

The lead sentence for the primary topic section currently reads:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

There are recent and current disputes at Talk:Nice at Talk:Malice (legal term) respectively which are essentially about whether the "ambiguous term" refers to usage within Wikipedia, or all English usage regardless of whether the term is covered in Wikipedia. For example, the argument is being made against moving the article about the legal usage of Malice to Malice since the primary topic for that term is the emotion, yet there is no article in Wikipedia about that usage (since Wikipedia is not a dictionary). So should that usage even be included in the consideration? I think our guideline needs to be clear on this one way or the other. Essentially, I think we should clarify with one of the following (proposed clarifications noted with underscores in each):

a) When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other Wikipedia topic to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

b) When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other usage of it in the English language (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

I think (a) is correct and (b) is arguably nonsensical, but want to make sure we have consensus before I make the revision. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Since dab pages are intended to disambiguate between wp articles, I see no place for primary topics that are not also articles ... dictionary defs are well covered by using the wiktionary tag. To be even more clear, imho what a word means is quite imaterial for dab purposes; articles with that title, regardless of meaning, is what counts. You have my support for a). Abtract (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a very succinct way to put it. If you have an improvement on the proposed (a) wording to suggest, please do. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "topic covered in Wikipedia" rather than "Wikipedia topic"? But you have my support too.--Kotniski (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Given the recent discussion on a primary topic for Plymouth the latest of many on British cities, I wonder if we should abandon the primary use criteria. Yea, this is a bit cynical, but recent discussions on British cities seem to be saying that primary use is not a consideration. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is cynical. That aside, I think we need to make sure the guideline is adhered to more consistently, and one way to do that is to clarify the guideline, which is what this proposal attempts to do. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think that abandoning the guideline is a mistake, instead these discussions perhaps should not have went the way they did. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the sentence per this discussion as follows:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. When a topic is the primary topic for more than one name the more common should be the title, and the less commmon should redirect to the article.

--Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This invites "divide and conquer" tactics. Among 30 or 50 entries, one entry may be the largest yet not even the majority. Should it be the "primary topic"? I say not, particularly because such an ambiguous title is likely to get a lot of incoming links. Harrisburg is a case in point. --Una Smith (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. I recall on Weymouth, I gave London and Paris as examples of a link that should go to a primary topic (London UK and Paris France, respectively) rather than to a dab page. You argued that even London should be a dab page rather than an article. Do you still feel that way? Because I think that is not a commonly accepted view. With the example of Harrisburg, what are the likely common hits? And what is their frequency? ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer Lar's last question last. First, I will try to explain my view more clearly. It is not as simple as Lar describes. Here goes... Both London and Paris are exemplars of the "primary topic" concept: names so well known globally that those names connote their respective cities for almost everyone. They are primary topics, no question. My point about them is that beside the clear benefits of putting a primary topic at the ambiguous or "base" title, there are costs. I think the costs are underestimated by many Wikipedians. Those costs include the impracticality (I am tempted to say impossibility) of disambiguating incoming links to those articles. How many thousands of links to London are in error, because they actually intend somewhere or something else? At the outset of disambiguating Weymouth, I estimated 10% of the incoming links were wrong. But after all the links were disambiguated, counting the links to Weymouth, Dorset shows that in fact 40% of the incoming links were wrong or not exactly right. For example, there were multiple instances of each of these:

• [[Weymouth]] Beach rather than [[Weymouth Beach]]
• [[Weymouth]], [[Dorset]] rather than [[Weymouth, Dorset]]
• [[Weymouth]], [[Massachusetts]] rather than [[Weymouth, Massachusetts]]

It is my impression, from my occasional work disambiguating all incoming links to a given article, that the proportion of wrong or inexact links increases with the length of the disambiguation page. Furthermore, when the disambiguation page has been "cut down" to a tidy package, the problem is even worse; I suppose many contributors just give up trying to disambiguate their links. There are some pages (eg Captain) where disambiguating is a nightmare, not because (or not just because) of the number of links but because it is so hard to figure out which is the correct link to use. Now, Lar's last question: With the example of Harrisburg, what are the likely common hits? And what is their frequency? That is hard to answer without first disambiguating the links to Harrisburg, because those links are the combination of links intending Harrisburg PA (per se, not any other article related to Harrisburg PA) and links not intending Harrisburg PA. How many in each category? I don't know, but after disambiguating Weymouth and Harris, I can say the answer is likely to dismay. --Una Smith (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear... you think London should be a dab page? If you do, then there may be little basis for common ground, because I don't think that's a commonly accepted view. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note, in reference to the original example, that disambiguation to Wiktionary is perfectly acceptable, especially for well-known meanings with no hope for an article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to Wiktionary. --Bejnar (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  You may like to re-read that section which does not encourage disambiguating to Wiktionary, but simply adding an initial link "outside" the disambiguation process, which is all about articles with a similar name not definitions. But it's an easy mistake to make. :) Abtract (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Incontinence

Incontinence is a hard one. There are 3 pages on Wikipedia, but many incoming links to incontinence cannot be changed to any of the 3 and I cannot think how to cast yet another article to cover the most common sense of "incontinence", which is in effect the person needs to wear a diaper, never mind why. Ideas? --Una Smith (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The incoming links could be made interwiki links to Wiktionary instead. Or the dab page could be replaced with a very short dictionary-definition-like article (I know that WP is not a dictionary, but this may be a case where we ignore that rule) that gives a brief description and links to the types of incontinence (with a hatnote to the philosophy). Or the dab page could be moved to Incontinence (disambiguation) and the base name be made into a soft redirect to Wiktionary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes... Or we could make Incontinence (medical) and move most of the incoming links there. Except, that page also would be little more than a dab page. A similar situation exists with Founder. --Una Smith (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Say What? and Say What

I came across a kind of odd situation that I can't quite decide what to do about. There are three articles with variations on the title "Say What". One is Say What, which is a single, and there are two other articles for "Say What?", one being a game, Say What? (game) and the other being an MTV show, Say What?. Should there be a disambiguation page? And if so, should it for all three? Or is a hatnote sufficient for each of the two with the "?" in the title? Thanks in advance for your help. Raven1977 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Say What!, another single by Stevie Ray Vaughan. And there may be a different song with the name by Kovas. Looks like there should be a disambiguation page including all the variants. Personally, I would not consider the LL Cool J single as the primary topic, but I don't know much about popular music. So unless you want to move the current Say What, the dab page would be at Say What (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 22:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on Say What!; I totally missed it. I wouldn't consider that LL Cool J single the primary topic either, so I'm moving the LL Cool J song to Say What (LL Cool J song) and creating Say What as the dab page for all of the above. Thanks for the quick response, Raven1977 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:INTDABLINK

WP:INTDABLINK says to create a redirect "Foo (disambiguation)" to a dab page "Foo" if that redirect does not already exist. Why? --Una Smith (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Found answer above. (Is this a FAQ?) In short, doing this gathers legitimate links to the dab page via a redirect that has a standardized name. These links are easy for editors to recognize and ignore. I read the guideline several times and did not get that point. --Una Smith (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you get it now. English can be effective, but is far from perfect, at conveying concepts, and often fails. If you can word it more clearly, please do. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a bot going around, "fixing" redirects to "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. See for example this diff. --Una Smith (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That example's a redirect, rather than a link in an article, and I think perhaps the bot has got it right. Is it doing the same thing to any links in articles or dab pages? PamD (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixing double redirects may be the correct behavior, but it conflicts with this guideline, which says that to isolate intentional ("correct") links to dab pages the links should go to a companion page with "(disambiguation)" in the title. Hence, Ann Hathaway is a redirect to Anne Hathaway (disambiguation), which is a redirect to Anne Hathaway, which is a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Such double-redirects are considered to be non-functional and should be repaired. When examining what links here for disambiguation pages, redirects are already identified as such and do not need to be fixed. Howver, pages that link to the dab page through a redirect should be repaired. older ≠ wiser 20:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that makes the advice in WP:INTDABLINK pretty much useless. --Una Smith (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Una, you refer to "intentional ("correct") links to dab pages", but Redirects don't count as "links" in that context. If you're looking at "What links here" you can exclude Redirects. If Ann Hathaway redirects directly to Anne Hathaway, and you then look at "What links here" for Anne Hathaway, you can exclude redirects and thus not see the one where the bot has just removed the double redirect. Does that help clarify, I wonder? PamD (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:INTDABLINK needs a rewrite. --Una Smith (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at doing so. PamD (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new disambiguation template

I've spent a lot of time since the summer on cleaning up incoming links to disambiguation pages for broadcast call signs (e.g., KAAN, WFLA, etc.), and I think I've landed on an idea that'll make this easier going forward.

In the spirit of {{geodis}} for place names and {{schooldis}} for educational institutions, I'd like to create a new template called {{callsigndis}}. This template would be used instead of {{disambig}} on disambiguation pages that are exclusively for call signs, and would be coded to include the article in both [[Category:All disambiguation pages]] and a new [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]]. If the dab page has a mix of call signs and general articles (such as at WECC), then the same approach as is used for {{geodis}} would apply — the instruction would be to tag it with both {{disambig}} and [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]], so that it has the general disambiguation page visual at the bottom of the page but still hits the relevant category. There are currently some 2000 pages that would be members of the new category.

The primary benefit is that it would allow for regular comparison between the constituents of the two disambiguation categories. Since call sign pages generally fall within specific alphabetical ranges, that comparison will easily identify new pages that have been created, which can then be retagged, watched by project members, kept clean of incoming links, etc.

This proposal has been up for discussion for a couple of days now at the radio station and television station projects and, while there hasn't been much comment to date, what comment there's been has been supportive. In the meantime, while I don't see any policy problem with this, I wanted to also bring the idea here to the folks who are regularly engaged in disambiguation to get your thoughts. Mlaffs (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Parenthetical clarifiers in article titles

I've gotten into a discussion with another editor at Talk:Pop music#Discussion about the correct usage of parenthetical clarifiers in article titles. My position is that they are appended to articles names to distinguish between multiple articles with the same name, the other editor's is that they can be added to any article title, even a primary topic, if they make the title less confusing. I'd appreciate if interested parties familiar with disambiguation naming conventions could offer their opinions here or at the Talk:Pop music discussion. --Muchness (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In theory, I see no reason against using parenthesis for additional precision per WP:PRECISION when necessary. The difficulty is showing that the additional precision is necessary for any reason other than disambiguation. I don't know that that has ever been done. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A three month Pop music RfC consensus decided here that disambiguation was needed generally. I knew also how to implement this consensus in title parentheses. Please reconsider your oppose at the Talk Pop music RM survey. (See my post below.) Milo 10:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I routinely remove unnecessary bracketed disambiguators from articles I Stub-sort. A reader who types in Nutrition and Cancer to look for a journal of that name can't be expected to type Nutrition and Cancer (journal) just because some editor thought the title wasn't clear. The first sentence of the article must explain what the topic is. And in many cases, editors who add unnecessary disambiguators to article titles don't even make a redirect from the undisambiguated form. PamD (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for your input, your responses are in keeping with my understanding of current guidelines and practice. As Born2cycle points out, it's determining when necessary that's the crux of the issue – in practice, I can't think of many (if any) situations where it would be an improvement to add a parenthetical term for purposes other than disambiguating articles sharing the same name. It may be worth looking into explicitly stating somewhere at WP:D or WP:NAME that disambiguators are only necessary for distinguishing between articles with the same title, if adding unnecessary disambiguators is fairly commonplace. --Muchness (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) This is a case of a Pop music RfC consensus for disambiguation, being blocked by Muchness' wikilawyering of WP:D ("same name" is a special case of the WP:D first sentence - see my explanatory post at [2] - find "special case"); plus his jamming of the RfC with a unilateral and unfair competing WP:RM process. This apparently happened because he isn't familiar with the less common types of title disambiguation. I've previously expressed my annoyance with his stubbornly-wrong yet good intent, so let's move on.
I'm a long time editor not previously involved at Pop music, who tried to wind up the three month RfC by summarizing and implementing a disambiguation consensus. Talk:Pop music#RfC: What is the intended subject of this article?. I was just trying to quickly help out a struggling music editor who needed experienced help in closing and implementing a process, but now I wish I'd never gotten involved.
This article's title term fits the WP:D definition of disambiguation: The single term pop music can be associated with the topic of the genre called "pop". But for some people and cultures, "pop" is also associated with the concept of "popular music"; that is, music of many genres having mass media market appeal, including the "pop" genre. As a result, editors filled the Pop music genre article with off-topic text intended for the article Popular music.
The process mess is unfair to the Pop music article, because the RM participants aren't reading the RfC, and so don't understand the ambiguation problem, or know there is a consensus to fix it.
Born2cycle is an example (see my response to him above). He apparently didn't read the RfC, and posted as opposed to the rename – yet he mentioned conditions similar to those the article faces, which I understand as validating a disambiguation title of Pop music (genre).
I request help in cleaning up the unfair process mess. If editors here agree that the Pop music article RfC consensus is getting screwed, that might encourage an admin to pull the plug on the unfair RM that will otherwise pile-on uninformed editors for weeks. Milo 10:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is true that until now I had not read the RfC. Now I have. It has not explained why Pop music needs to be disambiguated from Popular music since the two names are already distinct. Are you arguing that the genre does not have primary usage of the name Pop music? That Pop music is sufficiently likely to mean Popular music rather than the genre to warrant making Pop music a dab page? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The latter, if by "dab page" you inclusively mean an article with a parenthetically disambiguated title, as well as a page with content like Pop music (disambiguation).

The title needs to be disambiguated because the technical distinction you correctly observe is one that many Pop music editors don't know about or don't perceive the way the way encyclopedia techies like ourselves do, and that has led to a persistent slow edit war. See more at my posts below. Milo 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, a "dab page" is defined by its contents, not its name. A "dab page" is essentially a list of references to uses of the name it disambiguates. If the name in question has a primary topic, then the article about that topic is at Name while the dab page is at Name (disambiguation). See Paris and Paris (disambiguation). Alternatively, if an ambiguous name does not have a primary topic, then the dab page is at the name. See Portland, to use another city as an example.

So I'm asking you whether you want to make Pop music a dab page, or are you suggesting that Pop music be moved to Pop music (genre) and that Pop music be a redirect to Pop music (genre)? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a primary topic occupy the ambiguous title, and it has not been shown that Pop music (genre) in fact is the primary topic. On the contrary, the extent of confusion over this point is, to me, convincing evidence that neither Pop music (genre) nor Popular music belongs at the page title Pop music. I think the volume of incoming links to Pop music is a really good reason to move Pop music (disambiguation) to Pop music. --Una Smith (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether any given topic is the primary use of a given name is ultimately a subjetive call determined by consensus. If I'm not mistaken, so far you're the only one coming close to objecting, and even you have only questioned it. You are not arguing that the genre is clearly not the primary topic, are you?

I don't understand why merely a high number of incoming links to a given name indicates that the page at that name should be a dab page. Say 90% or more of those links end up being for the genre; then you will have just about as many incoming links to Pop music (genre) as we have now to Pop music. What would that solve? So unless we also have evidence that a substantial percentage of those incoming links is not for the genre, I don't see the point of moving the page, at least not for that reason. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not merely the high number of incoming links, but also the ambiguous title and the content of the article at that title. Pop music has hardly any text, but a long infobox with navigation, a navbox, and a huge "see also" section. Pop music is a disambiguation page trying to be an article. It reminds me a lot of Captain, before it became a disambiguation page. The disambiguation is not just between pop music and popular music, but within pop music. In disambiguating Joshua Tree, I found a lot of instances of [[Joshua Tree]], [[California]] that needed to be changed to [[Joshua Tree, California]]. Similarly, I expect Pop music has many incoming links in the form of (eg) [[bubblegum]] [[pop music]] that should be changed to [[bubblegum pop music]]. --Una Smith (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

The bottom line appears to be this: at least one editor thinks Pop music needs to be disambiguated. At least one other editor does not. Rather than arguing about it, how about exploring the idea? That can be done in several ways. Two that I find useful are (1) creating or expanding a disambiguation page, and (2) disambiguating incoming links to the article with the (claimed) ambiguous title. Pop music (disambiguation) exists, but arguably needs to be expanded: it lacks the sub-genres and fusion genres and relevant see-also's found on Pop music. Pop music has over 10,000 incoming links: Special:WhatLinksHere/Pop music. Probably those links should be dispersed among the many related pages. How about all of you involved in the RfC have a go at disambiguating those links as if Pop music were a disambiguation page with links? --Una Smith (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

10,000+ links, eh? I notice that Special:WhatLinksHere/Pop music doesn't organize them very well. Maybe sombody in that editing group should request that those pages should get Mediawiki selection tools like the edit log pages. Milo 07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Milo seems to believe Pop music needs to be dabbed, but not for any reason that would be clarified by what you propose, so far as I can tell. That is, if he had a traditional argument - that the genre is not the primary topic; that there is no primary topic - then your proposed exercise would be helpful to ascertain that. But I think he's saying that even if the genre is the primary topic (he's stated that primary usage is irrelevant here) it still needs to be dabbed because of the confusion in meaning between the two terms. No one is protesting the existence of some confusion in meaning, so far as I can tell. The issue seems to be about whether that confusion makes more precision in the title necessary. I have not seen a compelling case for that position. Not here. Not in the RfC. Not at the RM discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for summarizing my position.

The very real problem to solve is a persistent slow edit war at Pop music caused by the ambiguity that you acknowledge. The necessity for conceptual disambiguation to "genre" has been determined by RfC, which it is policy to accept. The specific necessity for parenthetical title disambiguation is determined by the failure of hatnotes and conflicting rewrites to solve the problem in a traditional way. Parenthetical title disambiguation for this situation may be infrequently used, but it is allowed under current WP:D guiderules. See the details in my posts below. Milo 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand Milo's position, and agree with it, up to a point. I agree that "pop music" is ambiguous, and that it would be useful to move the article now at Pop music to Pop music (genre). The page titled Pop music has a huge number of incoming links. The combination of ambiguous title and huge number of incoming links is a nightmare for fixing links unless the page is a disambiguation page. Were it a disambiguation page, Pop music would be far more tractable; in fact, it would be just one more regular item on to-do lists of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Pop music#Discussion Hike395 was concerned that "Pop music (genre)" was too hard to find, and I innocently assured him that "pop music" would continue to redirect to Pop music (genre). I think that would satisfy the most readers/editors in use, as this arrangement would allow both quick access as well as instant education that the most common use of "pop music" is the genre (per RfC).

That does leave the technical problem of dab link servicing. How about using AWB to change all of the 10,000+ links?

If it's really important to make the disambiguation page work, AWB change [[Pop music]] to [[Pop music (disambiguation)|Pop music]] , and [[pop music]] _{(lower case)} to [[Pop music (disambiguation)|pop music]] . This is likely to make editors revolt against the name change intended to calm down the slow edit war, so I don't recommend it.

If the purpose of dab page servicing the links is to make the articles point directly to targets, and if nearly all the links should point to "genre", why not just AWB change all the links from [[Pop music]] to [[Pop music (genre)|Pop music]] , and [[pop music]] _{(lower case)} to [[Pop music (genre)|pop music]] ? Milo 07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Milo, so your argument is that the slow edit war is what makes adding precision to the title necessary per WP:PRECISION. If I understand you correctly you would favor continuing to recognize that the genre is the primary topic for the term, and so Pop music should redirect to the article about the genre at Pop music (genre) (rather than have Pop music be a dab page as Una favors). I'll have to think about that. In general I'm opposed to having A redirect to B when A is clearly the more common name for the topic and B is a dab of it, but I understand that there are special cases and will concede that this might be one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the best solution I can think of which implements the RfC consensus, quiets the slow edit war, and doesn't rile up editors like Hike395, who would object to a redirect of Pop music to Pop music (disambiguation) (or the equivalent page renames). See my comment to Una above about technical solutions to dab link servicing. Milo 07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

←Una, thanks for the research that you and Sssoul did today.
All the useful work you are describing is wasteful to undertake "bottom up", when some other editor will undo or work against it, because s/he has a different "top down" interpretation of the title.
I respectfully disagree with your analysis, analogous to the synthetic controversy 'one scientist thinks there is man-made global warming and another does not'. A consensus to disambiguate the article's concept to "genre" has been made by the three month Pop music RfC. Without implementing that RfC consensus, there is no way to stop the long, slow, Pop music edit war. There is no way to implement that RfC consensus without "top down" disambiguating the title using parentheses. Sssoul helped discover that a previous disambiguation hatnote had failed due to being both ignored [3] and removed [4].
Ok, I take your point that you want to avoid the argument, thanks for your help. I see no way to avoid an argument, if standing firm for the principle of RfC consensus, against trivial wikilawyering that the community firmly opposes, and even worse, factually incorrect wikilawyering. Milo 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The wikilawyer argument defeated twice

This is a rebuttal to Muchness' opening counter-argument at the top post of WP:D#Parenthetical clarifiers in article titles:

Muchness (02:42): "...the correct usage of parenthetical clarifiers in article titles. My position is that they are appended to articles names to distinguish between multiple articles with the same name..."

The counter-argument itself is not substantive for two reasons. It's a wikilawyering of WP:D, and it's also incorrect wikilawyering.

Wikilawyering is the attempt to defeat principle by arguing details. In this case the principle is that ambiguous titles used in Wikipedia should be disambiguated for the reader. The wikilawyering here is about the trivial difference between the same name used for two different articles, and nearly the same name used for two different articles (Pop music and Popular music).

And worse still, the actual wikilawyer position is wrong in its detail. The first line of Wikipedia:Disambiguation reads:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic...

Ok, pop music is a single term that can be associated with more than one topic.

Guiderule2 at WP:D#Naming the specific topic articles reads:

2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses.

Ok, Pop music (genre) has the consensus of the RfC added in parentheses. Milo 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 05:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Milo, your argument here is essentially, "It's ambiguous, therefore it should be disambiguated." No one is disputing the fact that Pop music is ambiguous (it's a single term that can be associated with more than one topic). But being ambiguous in and of itself does not necessarily mean disambiguation is required. That's the whole point of having a primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added a new header paragraph to make the context clear.

Born2cycle (00:24): "...being ambiguous in and of itself does not necessarily mean disambiguation is required."

Since I only described a principle rather than a practice, I'm not sure whether you are disputing the principle that ambiguous titles used in Wikipedia should be disambiguated for the reader. If you are actually disputing the principle, it's too unencyclopedically iconoclastic for me to address. Milo 05:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Highlighting most sought disambig entries

This has been mildly bothering me for a while now, and I thought I'd mention it and see if others felt the same way. I often use Wikipedia to help solve crossword puzzles, and frequently face clues like "Pop singer Jones". This leads me to the disambiguation page, List_of_people_with_surname_Jones#Music where I see a list of everybody named Jones involved in music. That's fine of course, but obviously some of the people listed are going to be more prominent or famous that all of the others, and thus more likely to be who myself or other readers are looking for.

Another example is the disambiguation page for Buffalo#United States, which lists 29 different US cities named Buffalo. I know that one of them is a quite large city and home to the Buffalo Sabers, but I (as a Canadian) had no idea which one, and no way of finding out short of trying each link (or using Google—I've since added a "Largest US city name Buffalo" description).

It would be great if there was some clear way of highlighting those disambiguation entries on the list that a reader is most likely after, for example using bold face for the link. Obviously a danger here is creating arguments about whether borderline entry X is prominent enough to deserve highlighting or not, but Buffalo, Oklahoma with a population of 1200 is quite clearly less prominent than Buffalo, New York (apologies to any of the 1200 Oklahoma Buffalonians who may be reading this...)

Thoughts? --jwanders^Talk 08:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the disambiguation page manual of style recommends sorting the entries in a disambiguation page by order of usage, with more prominent usages at the top of the list (see MoS:D#Order of entries). Sorting by frequency of usage and providing adequate descriptive text for each entry should go some way towards addressing the issue you've outlined. Regarding "List of" articles, these are actually list articles, not disambiguation pages, so the disambiguation guidelines don't apply to them. --Muchness (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If it came down to it on a big disambiguation page, you could probably just imagine that the subsection was its own disambiguation page, and give it a note that in that subsection, the primary meaning is such-and-such. A potential wording occurs to be to be "In [subsection subject], [dab subject] is generally [usual meaning]. It may also be:" (naturally, this can be revised). That occurs to me to be the most effective solution. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By what metric should "prominence" be determined? Also, the more entries there are on a disambiguation page, the less likely it is that most readers are looking for any one entry. Essentially the same argument is revisited continually in entries on Wikipedia:Requested moves, with frequent reference to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Una Smith (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying disambig

A few months ago a very limited discussion was held by a few editors on an disambig redirect page which is associated with William Faulkner. The result was a claimed "consensus" that the article As I Lay Dying should redirect to As I Lay Dying (disambiguation). The reasoning was that a band named after the novel was now more well known than the novel, meaning the main "As I Lay Dying" phrase shouldn't link only to the novel.

The problem is that as it clearly states here, disambig pages should only be created "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term" and if one of the topics isn't the primary topic. That is not the case here. Since the band is named for the book, the book is the primary topic. In addition, the band's album has part of its title taken from the band's name, meaning there aren't three true items on that disambig page. As a result, the proper course is to have a disambig link at the top of the novel article and allow "As I Lay Dying" to either be the main article or redirect to the main article.

If people want to change this guideline, that is fine. But to do that, we need to have a true consensus building discussion. Please go to this link [5] to voice your opinion on this issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite what the guideline says. The full text is as follows: "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term (in which case disambiguation links may or may not be desirable on the specific topic articles – see below). If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.".

The last sentence there is the key one - if there are two topics and neither is primary, then a disambiguation page is the right solution. I don't have an opinion in this case about whether or not the book is the primary topic — although I'll look at the discussion — however, the fact that the discussion is actually necessary about whether a topic is primary is usually a pretty good clue that a disambiguation page is the better solution. Mlaffs (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For me the entire issue comes down to the band being named for the novel. When you add in that the novel is one of the most famous of the 20th century--resulting in such honors as having a metal band named after it :-) --the novel is obviously the primary topic.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The concept of "primary topic" involves numerical primacy, not inheritance. That said, if examination of incoming links from mainspace (here) shows links needing disambiguation, then it may be better to move the disambiguation page to the base name. That is, to move As I Lay Dying (disambiguation) to As I Lay Dying. --Una Smith (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a cut-and-dried numerical measurement, although several metrics can inform the consensus of primary-ness. I agree that the novel is the primary topic in this case, but the claim that "Since the band is named for the novel, the novel is the primary topic" is not true. It is possible to have a primary topic for a particular title be the newer of two or more things, and even named for one of the older ones, and still be the primary topic. For example, Barack Obama and Barack Obama, Sr.. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For further example, U2 and Lockheed U-2. Or Iron Maiden and Iron maiden (torture device). Or Bad Company and Bad Company (1972 film). Or AC/DC and AC/DC (electricity), which I think is an example of a particularly bad disambiguation decision. Mlaffs (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: "AC/DC (electricity)" page has been moved to AC/DC receiver design. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I like the principle "when in doubt, disambiguate". JHunterJ, do you agree? --Una Smith (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it isn't "when anyone doubts, disambiguate". If there is consensus for a primary topic, then the disambiguation page should not be at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This case has been argued for over a year without finding a primary topic. To me, that is adequate evidence there is none. Is it really necessary to spend hours on an exhaustive search for "data"? --Una Smith (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for an exhaustive search for data. Let's just give the discussion time to decide what the consensus is. If no consensus can be had, then we'll likely have to go with a disambig link.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

An additional problem with relying on Google hits or incoming searches is that can be a temporary thing. For example, will the band be as well known in a few years? Should we discount library and academic lit searches, which would break almost exclusively for the novel? What defines a primary topic isn't based on mere numbers alone.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been a continual topic of discussion on Talk:As I Lay Dying (disambiguation). Time to settle it, no? The usual method is via Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Una Smith (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support giving this discussion more time. The problem with the previous "consensus" on this issue is that only three editors or so took part in the discussion, which isn't enough (especially when there was no notice about the discussion given on relevant article talk pages and such). --SouthernNights (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's consolidate discussion here: Talk:As I Lay Dying (disambiguation)#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"previous consensus"? What previous consensus? The only discussion which you keep on calling an attempt at "consensus" was a discussion, not a consensus. There was no need to give notices about the discussion, you may as well just put this discussion on {{cent}} if you reason like that. Jerry teps (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Una Smith's end run around current guidelines on primary topic disambiguations

User:Una Smith has been requesting, all over Wikipedia (see AN/I for diffs), that the primary topic page be made the disambiguation page. This is, however, contrary to current guidelines for naming primary topic pages. This alone should be changed, the policy, if editors want it changed, rather than piecemeal allowing this user to de facto change the policy without discussing the change with the community as a change to the guidelines. I have posted at AN/I about her doing it with a plant article, learned about other attempts, some successful, and posted those diffs there.[6]

Now, if editors want to change the entire policy, this is the place to discuss it, as Born2cycle has started above.[7] I'm getting a better idea now of why plant editors are being attacked, though. It's about Born2cycle's disagreement with this policy.[8]

Anyway, this is the place to discuss it. Go ahead and get together, make a change if the community agrees it is necessary, and go for it. But, until then, Una Smith should stop policy shopping. And, don't keep coming over and shooting at plants editors as your battleground, either.

--KP Botany (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

KP Botany claims above that I have a disagreement with this policy. I don't have a disagreement with this policy, and the citation associated with his assertion that I do links to something I did not write, so I'm not sure what he's talking about. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is it you want, KP Botany, a user conduct complaint against me, or a policy discussion? --Una Smith (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want either. I want you to stop attempting to change policy without discussion, and to stop moving pages in your attempt to change policy without a discussion. If you want to change the particular policy you are running all over Wikipedia forum shopping for changes, you should be stopped now, and required to discuss that policy here where the community can weigh in.

The current user complaint against you is about your doing this, and it is at AN/I where it belongs. What belongs here is a discussion of changing the primary topic disambiguation guidelines.

Your saying I am harassing you without diffs, your complaining about me in retaliation, your picking at me in any way you can on article and user talk pages won't impact this one bit.

The place to discuss a change in this policy is here, with other interested members of the community. You don't get to act as if it says something different instead of consulting the community like you did with the tumbleweed articles, which I will require the reversion of.

It's simple, discuss the changes you want to this policy, and if other editors agree that these changes serve a purpose, then they will be enacted, then you can disambiguate primary topics all over Wikipedia, or get a bot to do it.

Until then, stop doing it, stop shopping for forums to get the changes done, stop attacking me for your inability and/or unwillingness to discuss it with other editors in the community.

You want those guidelines changed, discuss it here. Otherwise, follow the existing guidelines. --KP Botany (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The ANI that KP Botany mentioned is here. --Una Smith (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, the same link that is at the end of my last paragraph above. However, if you think it will help people discuss policy here to have the AN/I discussion multiply wiki-linked, that's fine. However, it would be more useful to start a new section about the policy you want changed and are attempting to change by forum shopping rather than by posting the link to AN/I a second time in this thread. --KP Botany (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

While I've disagreed with Una Smith on some of the moves, I think they stem from a view that those names in particular do not have primary topics. Before y'all get much farther down the official dispute resolution processes, perhaps we might be able to identify some possible solutions that might come out of them anyway? Like:

1. Una Smith volunteers to use to WP:RM process for any future move of a (disambiguation) page to the base name. OR
2. Una Smith posts a note to this talk page (or some other page) listing moves after they've been made, so that they can be reverted if KP Botany or someone else disagrees, along WP:BRD.

? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How about everyone does that, not just me? Or, how about we take the logical next step and remove from all editors the ability to move pages, reserving it for admins. Never mind Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, eh? --Una Smith (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support a policy that no one should redirect a title from a primary topic to a disambiguation page, without first discussing it on WP:RM. And I say this as someone who has done it in some instances in the past. Page moves are potentially very disruptive to users of the encyclopedia, and therefore I think that the added "instruction creep" is justified by the need to prevent this disruption. Suppose that one user decides that Flagstaff, Arizona should no longer be the primary topic of Flagstaff and moves Flagstaff (disambiguation) to that title (this is a hypothetical example). Well, maybe that's right and maybe it's not; we can all discuss whether the city is or isn't the primary topic. But, because the move was done without discussion, hundreds of links to Flagstaff that were created by editors who expected that link to go to the article about the city were broken by the move. One of the conditions of approving any page move that eliminates a primary topic should be that all the links to that title must be fixed before the move is carried out by an admin. In short, don't make a mess of Wikipedia and leave it for other editors to clean up. --Russ (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Russ, your objection concerns failure to disambiguate incoming links after a page move, rather than the page move itself? --Una Smith (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a side issue. The key point is that we really ought to adhere to "no one should redirect a title from a primary topic to a disambiguation page, without first discussing it on WP:RM." ... that's a good general principle. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Editors should not disregard the guidance at WP:RM to discuss moves that may be controversial (and surely by now you can agree that many of the moves you made were controversial). Editors who persistently flout that guidance may need some form of additional restrictions. Such eventualities, whether imposed by sanctions or agreed to as a compromise are common outcomes for such misbehavior. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Last I looked, the ANI concerns moves that already were or are being discussed via WP:RM. --Una Smith (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it concerns your tendency to try to end run around policy by using fait accompli as an argument against undoing things, your tendency to argue the point rather than concede that consensus is against you, and the logical fallacy of wanting things like London to be a disambiguation page. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Una Smith, I wasn't trying to shackle you alone. Yes, everyone should follow those instructions (which are not creep instructions, but just a specific instance of the general instruction not to make controversial moves without discussion). Your moves of plant-related disambiguation pages to the base name have generated controversy. The solutions are to stop, to discuss before moving, to let the "controverter" know, or to continue along one of the more formal dispute resolution paths. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What plant-related disambiguation pages have I moved to the base name? --Una Smith (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Joshua tree and Tree peony; given KP Botany's user name, I perhaps incorrectly assumed that those were more controversial than some of the others... -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, have been a bit horrified by Una Smith's theory that a heavy volume of page hits for the name of a recent rock music album or movie (or some other piece of popular ephemera) can be used to indicate that the venerable name of a plant is no longer the "primary usage" of that name. This seems like an instance of the recency fallacy. --Orlady (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Una, you moved Tumbleweed (disambiguation) to its primary topic page Tumbleweed, then made up a silly title for the tumbleweed article, Tumbleweed (diaspore) wikilinking it to an article about spores, yet fail to discuss the spores in the article you wrote anyhwere.

It's clear from this and the AN/I, that User:Una Smith is not discussing this with good faith. She has not addressed the issue at AN/I and now actually asks, when the entire issue arose from her moving a plant disambig page to a primary topic title.

As long as she fails to discuss the issue with good faith, the real issue, namely her refusing to discuss the issue, she is the one who should be shackled. She cannot and will not address her actions, and simply denies and accuses. None of this changes the underlying problem: User:Una Smith is attempting an end run around a guidelines change by implementing the guideline in a way that editors have spoken out against, doing it unilaterally, doing it before discussing it, and doint it even after (in the case of tumbleweeds) other editors have clearly spoken out against it.

This is part of using the internet that is well studied. Users don't want to go to disambiguation pages and have to click on another link. User want to enter tumbleweed and go to tumbleweed. The ones looking for something else or something weird know that they will, in likelihood, be taken to a page not on the topic they are interested in, and will expect another step, so will be looking for the disambiguation link at the top.

Users entering London in a general purpose encyclopedia want to find out about London. Tumbleweed. Not be sent to a lame disambiguation page that redirects to "Tumbleweed (diaspore)," which most readers won't even know what is. And, when they click on the link and it takes them to an article about spores, but the tumbleweed diaspore skips over the spores, they'll be even more confused.

I'd like Una stopped from making these changes. They're not in accordance with guidelines because they're bad for user. --KP Botany (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

KP Botany's accusations are simply untrue. I never moved any article to Tumbleweed; check the logs. Also, Tumbleweed (diaspore) is not a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page is Tumbleweed (disambiguation). The user's other accusations merit no reply. --Una Smith (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion is untrue, Una Smith. You moved Tumbleweed to Tumbleweed (diaspore), which had the effect of converting Tumbleweed to a redirect (see this diff).
I think I know something about botany and tumbleweeds. The "Tumbleweed" article that KP Botany wrote yesterday seems to me to be a sensible contribution to Wikipedia. In contrast, when I got to Tumbleweed (diaspore) (where Tumbleweed redirects, thanks to Una Smith's rename) I thought there was something wrong because the article was about some topic other than tumbleweed. --Orlady (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tumbleweed was a redirect to Salsola before yesterday, when KP Botany made the redirect an article in the face of my requested move (that KP Botany knew about). I moved the article to Tumbleweed (diaspore), restoring Tumbleweed to a redirect. The redirect now goes to a different article than before, but I think Tumbleweed (diaspore) is a more appropriate target than Salsola was, and furthermore anyone who disagrees is able to change the redirect without going through WP:RM. --Una Smith (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tumbleweed (diaspore) appears to me to be an obfuscation page. --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what it is, especially since "tumbleweed" is just a redirect to "tumbleweed (diaspore)," which, nowhere in its texts or references, explains what a diaspore is. Una wikilinked it in the lead to an explanation which says that you need a microscope to see a diaspore, but doesn't include any micrographs of her diaspores. --KP Botany (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orlady and Lar are welcome to try changing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I wish them luck. My view is that all such metrics, Wikipedia page stats and the "googletest" alike, indeed are based on a fallacy. That fallacy is the "primary topic" concept itself. I think it almost always makes more sense to put the disambiguation page at the ambiguous title, because at least then the incoming links can be corrected per Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and it would eliminate much of the rather pointless debate and power struggles for control of Wikipedia page titles. An example is the often cited debate over Joshua tree and Yucca brevifolia. "Joshua tree" is just one of several common names for Yucca brevifolia; that common name may be the most commonly used common name in western Arizona but it probably is not the most commonly used common name for the species throughout the species' range in English-speaking North America. The debate over what to name the Wikipedia article on the species is little more than "is to!" vs "is not!". For what it's worth, I think the common name is notable enough for its own article, but that would be an article about the name Joshua tree, not about the species. And let's not forget the years-long fight over Ireland, which went all the way to ArbCom. --Una Smith (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are misconstruing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Suffice it to say that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not say that Wikipedia page views (or Google hits) identify the primary topic for an ambiguous term. --Orlady (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in general, those arguing with plant editors are using google for supporting policies they are misreading. Una is the only one doing the "is so," "is not," however, with her moves to disambiguation pages she makes up. In fact, she has offered the evidence of her creating and moving the tumbleweed disambig and diaspore titles around as her proof that indeed, they needed moving around. See the AN/I for link.

The article and access to information about tumbleweeds for the reader of Wikipedia has been desroyed by one editor trying to change a guideline without having to discuss it or provide evidence. --KP Botany (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there isn't consensus for what Una is doing, I suggest it be undone. Restore things the way they should be and if Una tries to revert in the face of consensus, that can be dealt with. But that's probably something to take up at the individual articles. ++Lar: t/c 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did. --KP Botany (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And, I put a patent nonsense speedy tag on the tumbleweed diaspore creation without meaning. --KP Botany (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone is misconstruing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since it gets argued about so often in the context of requested page moves, but that someone isn't necessarily me. --Una Smith (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the way to bet, though. I'm sorry to point this out, Una, but you really are giving the appearance of someone convinced they are right who wants to have their way in the face of consensus. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Something's not right here

What happens if a primary topic is another disambiguation page, such as in the case of Zip (disambiguation) and Zip? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would make zip redirect to zipper, and combine the two dab pages at Zip (disambiguation). Certainly something needs to be done about it.--Kotniski (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks as if an anon in May 2008 decided to create a second dab page and no-one spotted this till now! Need also to consider where the ZIP redirect goes: I'd suggest better to point to dab page. PamD (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We need to establish whether there's a primary usage for "Zip" or not - the page at Zip assumes not, and over-wrote a redirect to Zipper, while the page at Zip (disambiguation) assumes that Zipper is the primary usage. PamD (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, I've been WP:BOLD and decided the primary usage of Zip is Zipper, while ZIP has no primary usage, and tidied up accordingly. I think there's now a consistent set of pages and hatnotes. If consensus now decides that Zip hasn't got a primary usage, or has another primary usage, the hatnotes at Zipper need to be updated as well as Zip and Zip (disambiguation) and ZIP. And I've redirected ZIP to Zip (disambiguation) (it previously redirected to ZIP (file format)), and moved the two most prominent usages (OK, that's an opinion, maybe controversial) to the top of the list on the dab page. Have also added the handful of entries which were on the small dab page at Zip but not in the full dab page at Zip (disambiguation) into that latter page. PamD (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

      I don't think "zipper" is the primary meaning of Zip; that seems to be a Brit/Am difference. I would put the Zip dab at the base name, redirect ZIP to it (if anything, I would have expected ZIP to redirect to ZIP code, but that may be another Brit/Am difference). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

      • I agree, Zip should be a disambig. It is a verb, for one thing, not another name for a zipper, and as a noun (the sense for which people would be looking in an encyclopedia, it has no primary meaning. bd2412 T 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Over on this side of the big pond it is definitely a noun, and a name for what I understand Americans call a "zipper"! I don't mind it being a dab page, but please don't believe that only your version of the language matters, as in "I know of no one who refers to a zipper as a zip...". (See also d:zip). This is an international encyclopedia. 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
          • All now tidied up - have disambiguated almost all the Zip and ZIP links - a mixed bag of file formats, ZIP codes, zippers, and undisambiguatable mysteries. PamD (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom or Thomas Brock

Hello. This is a request for a personal name dab page. I'm not sure if it should be titled Tom or Thomas Brock. In any case, I was looking for the famous microbiologist Thomas Brock (microbiologist), when I discovered Thomas Brock, (needs to be moved to Thomas Brock (sculptor) and Tom Brock (needs to be moved to Tom Brock (singer). Should the microbiologist title use his full name instead (Thomas D. Brock)? Any and all help with this would be appreciated. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he used "Thomas D. Brock" the books he authored, so that is probably the name he is best known by. But, unless primary usage can be shown for one of them, it does sound like Thomas Brock should be a dab page, and Tom Brock should redirect to it. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please move Thomas Brock (sculptor) back to Thomas Brock? It should be the primary dab, at least for now. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

‎Db-move added, whichever comes first. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Upper/lower case dab

I don't know where to ask this, so I'm hoping someone here might know.

I want to create an article called "Dirty hands," a concept in moral and political philosophy. There already was a page called Dirty Hands (upper case), the name of a Jean-Paul Sartre play, so I moved it to Dirty Hands (play). But now Dirty Hands is a redirect, and it won't let me create "Dirty hands" (lower case); when I type that in, it takes me to Dirty Hands (upper case).

Does anyone know of a way round this? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Have created a sub-stub Dirty hands article for you. Went to the Dirty Hands page, then altered case of H in the browser address bar, and took option to "start a page". PamD (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ... thank you! I'll know what to do next time. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just go to any page (your talk page for instance) and make a link to [[Dirty hands]]. bd2412 T 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And shouldn't the disambig be at Dirty hands, with Dirty Hands redirecting there, and the article on the philosophical concept at something like Dirty hands (philosophy)? bd2412 T 21:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it might be better like that. --Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Order (sort)

Can I get some input about the dab page Order (sort) before I clean it up? I am pretty sure it should be merged into Order or into some existing non-dab article. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It may even be a redirect to Sorting, but otherwise, yes, merging it to Order as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} would work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The incoming links perhaps need some attention - it doesn't seem helpful that Chronological order is a redirect to this page, from where people then need to pick Chronology as the next link.PamD (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversal of recent posting

I believe the latest posting by Wolfkeeper is related to a dispute that he alone has had with several other people, including me and an administrator. I will not go into the details of the dispute which was referred to the Administrators' Noticeboard. However he made a previous attempt to justify his opinion on an article by simultaneously amending the NPOV guidelines. This was stopped. Wolfkeeper attaches an unusual meaning to the NPOV policy and has tried to use it to justify some very odd edits. This amendment to the disambiguation guidelines seems to be another attempt to alter the meaning of NPOV. If you believe that this amendment by Wolfkeeper was justified, or if you have a contrary view, please may we have a debate here before altering a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. If Wolfkeeper disagrees with the reversal, I hope that he will explain his point of view here first and will allow a debate before making this change JMcC (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I intended it to be a correct and accurate statement of current policy and added it to help users of the guideline. Unless somebody can explain how this is not a correct view, I will reinsert it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Diff for the edit in question: [9]. The following text was added: Note that if the topics are not distinct and instead overlap, then NPOV policy considerations normally force the articles to be merged, giving each interpretation of the title appropriate weight, and disambiguation is then unnecessary. This actually doesn't fit with my understanding of WP:NPOV as it applies to WP:MERGE. I have always understood merge procedure as, "if two articles overlap, duplicate content or are otherwise redundant, propose a merge; if talk page consensus supports the proposal then go ahead with the merge." NPOV may be a consideration in a given merge discussion, but (at least in my experience) it's not normally the sole determining factor in deciding whether to merge, as the above quote seems to imply. Accordingly, I'm opposed to adding the edit back to this guideline. --Muchness (talk)

It's the other way around though, NPOV is policy, whereas WP:MERGE is just a guideline. The only other policy I can think of off-hand is WP:CONSENSUS but that can override anything, as can WP:IAR and so I see no point in mentioning it. And note here that we are talking only about things that have the same name and have significant overlap; it's a 'bit of a clue' that there's very, very probably a more general article trying to get out there. Also disambiguation usually occurs via discussion anyway, this is just point out relevant policy, and is in no way binding per se (or no more than policy is anyway.)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that changer. Wolfkeeper's version and arguments do not make sense to me. --Orlady (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask in what way?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it doesn't make any sense at all, it's hard to explain what aspects don't make sense, but here's a try:

1. I don't see any need to emphasize the distinctness of topics as having bearing on the need for a disambiguation page.
2. I have never heard of a situation in which NPOV policy considerations forced two articles to be merged.
3. I can't think of what such a situation might look like.

Additionally, I fail to see that a discussion of mergers is a helpful addition to the page about disambiguation. It's more likely to confuse people than it is to help them understand disambiguation. --Orlady (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the text added by Wolfkeeper does not really help clarify anything with regards to disambiguation (or anything else for that matter). older ≠ wiser 12:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but I was probably born that way. Your not arguing that it's not a correct statement of NPOV, your entire argument seems to be me to more or less resting entirely on you claiming to have a lack of imagination about whether it would be applied in practice. Are you saying you cannot under any circumstances imagine that NPOV has or would force articles to merge? I mean, isn't that usually called a content dupe?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia's guidelines can be changed too quickly. They are not just any set of articles, but fundamental to how Wikipedia works. I have suggested on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) that there should always be a discussion period. JMcC (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it help to clarify your position, Wolfkeeper, if you were to construct an example of the situation your proposed change would address? Might help others to understand your concern? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

More than one parenthetical qualifier

Just seems wrong to me, e.g. Now That's What I Call Music (album) (N.Z. series). Is this normal practice, unusual but accepted practice, or cause for moving an article, or something else? My reading of policy is that there is no explicit ban on this, but a single qualifier is implicitly assumed. Opinions and pointers to applicable policy welcome.--Rogerb67 (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked to see if there's policy or guidelines about this, but in any event it just looks ugly. I suspect it resulted from an unimaginative split of "Now That's etc (album)", when "Now That's etc (NZ album series)" would be far better. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be moved. And Now That's What I Call Music! (album) should be merged into and redirected to Now That's What I Call Music! (disambiguation). And cleaned up. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do we put the people bearing a name, in a general dab page?

Following on the discussions above about Zip, there are now different views about where the people named "Zip" (forename or surname) should appear in the list of Zips. It's a general point: if a term is a personal name as well as having various senses, where should these entries appear in the sequence of the dab page. One of us thinks that "People with the name" should come after "Other uses"; one of us thinks before. Has anyone any views, or policies to cite? PamD (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See the Manual of Style DAB page MOS:DAB for this kind of thing. The answer is in MOS:DABSUR; people whose first or surname is "Zip" and who are not known unambiguously by a single name (e.g. "Elvis", "Aristotle"), should not be mentioned at all on the "Zip" DAB page. Such terms should be disambiguated on a "name", "given name" or "surname" page. This page should be mentioned on the DAB as what amounts to a double disambiguation of course.

This rule is frequently broken and is quite time-consuming to fix unless you are prepared to just delete the links, so it tends to just get left. It is a good rule however; the number of people with many given and surnames is very large; much larger than the number generally added to the DAB pages. For example, here is a partial list of the Leopolds in Wikipedia from a half-finished project I started a while back.

In general, there is no hard and fast rule as to which order entries should be displayed once there are sufficient to merit breaking up into sections; I would say, try to keep entries for which the disambiguated term is a synonym near the top.

At first sight, none of the "Zip"s on the Zip page meet the criteria for inclusion; if you can't agree and it's causing headaches, make the split per the MoS and be done with it.

--Rogerb67 (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DABSUR goes on to say "For short lists of such persons, new sections of Persons with the surname Title and Persons with the given name Title can be added below the main disambiguation list. For longer lists, create a new Title (name), Title (surname) and/or Title (given name) page.". After the main disambiguation list is after the "other uses", since those are entries in main list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Before the "See Also" would be fine though I think. --Rogerb67 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic and bird of paradise

On Talk:Bird of paradise (disambiguation)#Requested move is a debate over which of two candidates, a bird family or a plant family, or neither, is the primary topic for "bird of paradise". --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem is not limited to that discussion. That is why I suggested a wording change here to basically say 'use the dab page at the main name space unless it can be shown that there is a primary use'. Right now if the editors of the article want it to stay they can pretty much have it their way. I think a lot of editors here don't see a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that whenever a move request involves a question of which of 2 or more topics is the primary topic, that the onus needs to be on those claiming one of the given topics is primary, or the name needs to be a dab page? If so, that implies a change to WP:RM rules, doesn't it? The default there is to favor the status quo when there is no consensus for change. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

While there may be changes in other places, I believe that we need to start with this phrase in this project.

'If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".'

Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you in spirit, Vegas, but I want to be careful that we don't create a situation in which someone who believes the concept of "primary topic" is a fallacy [1] can easily state that some obscure usage is a primary topic for a given name, and then use that to claim that by this new rule there is no primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a real concern. However your example goes more to the definition of unique name rather then primary use. If a common name only refers to a specific plant then it should be allowed under WP:COMMONNAME, but that is a different, albeit related, issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. The only point of the example was to cite an instance of someone referring to the primary topic guideline as a fallacy. I'll now make an official proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: be more clear about dab pages

The second paragraph at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC currently states:

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

See discussion above. I think we also want to ignore the case where there are exactly two uses for one name. Regardless of whether one of the two uses is primary, often it is preferable to have a hat note on one to the other (ideally the hat note on the one whose use is more common, even if it's not "primary"), rather than having a dab page. So, maybe something like this?

Whenever there are three or more articles for which it cannot be determined through consensus which (if any) is clearly the primary topic for a given title, the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title (without (disambiguation)).

I'm using the "three or more" wording because of the point I just made above.

I think the reference to WP:CONSENSUS should suffice in preventing a few "outliers" -- the one or two who argue that one of the other topics is primary when everyone else agrees on one other -- from causing non-unanimous consensus about one of the articles being the primary topic to be overturned.

I think this will also appropriately handle the case where only one of the three or more is even a candidate for primary topic (everyone agrees it's not any of the others - the only debate is about whether one in particular is primary or not). If consensus cannot be reached on that point, the dab page should be at the plain title.

Thoughts? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Three seems a little arbitrary. If there are only two items known by the same name and both are roughly equally signficant (or insignificant, as the case may be) how to determine which is primary? As a trivial example, there are two cities named Algona. Neither is particularly well-known. Algona, Iowa had a population of 5,741 in 2000, approximately twice that of Algona, Washington. But the Washington city is in the Seattle metro area, and is likely more prominent because of that. However, in general I'm inclined to agree that the default should be weighted towards having a disambiguation page at the base name if there is no clear indications of one subject being the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of three is that when there are only two, one may be at the plain name (with a hat note to the other) even if it does not mean WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. But, if there are three or more uses for a given name, the plain name should be a dab page unless one them clearly meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Yes, this does not address the problem of what to do when there are only two and neither is primary nor even obviously more important than the other, but, frankly, I wasn't trying to solve that problem! There certainly is nothing in the current wording or in the proposed wording that precludes use of a dab page at the plain name in that situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you on the "three or more" criterion, Born2cycle, but it's been a bone of contention in the past, if I recall correctly, so it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie. On the other stuff, I would be opposed to anything that mandates a dab page where there's no agreement on primary topic. If one article is at the ambiguous name, and there's no consensus to move it so the dab page can be put at the ambiguous name, then it should remain where it is. It should be on the proponents of the move to show that there is no primary topic, not the other way around. However, this does not mean that I am against dab pages in general: if someone wants to move an article to the ambiguous name, where before there was a dab page, then it should be up to the proponents of the move to show that there is a clear primary topic.--Aervanath (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As the system works now, if a move request for the dab page fails to reach consensus, it is not moved to the plain title. If a move request for the dab page reaches consensus, it is moved to the plain title. There's no circularity in the determination of consensus. However, if we have your wording, and a request to move the dab page fails to gain consensus, but engenders some support, that would result in a move--a change to the status quo without consensus. I don't think you'll find many admins willing to process such a thing, because they'd be tarred and feathered for not paying attention to the discussion. It appears paradoxical to me--as a WP:RM closer, I only close requests as "consensus to move" or "no consensus to move". Dekimasuよ! 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

DMR

DMR (disambiguation) page states DMR for Democratic Republic of the Congo : I doubt this is true. Common abbreviations for that country are mentioned in the article : DRC (english), RDC (french). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.72.245 (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned and removed several entries from DMR whose target articles did not mention "DMR". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Changes have just been made at WP:NC and WP:Naming_conventions_(common_names) that I believe wrongly give precedence to the jargon of specialists over that of non-specialists (assuming there is a conflict) in the process of choosing a name for a WP article title. I've started a strawpoll to see if there really is consensus for this. Your participation would be greatly appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fashion House

I'm not sure this is the place to bring up specific page issues, but I was hoping the "disambig experts" could take a look at something that doesn't seem right to me, and make any necessary assisted moves. Someone moved Fashion House (the TV series) to Fashion House (TV series), and then redirected both Fashion House and Fashion house to Fashion house (disambiguation), which consists merely of a dictionary-style definition of the generic term and a link to the series. I am of the mind that none of these moves and redirects should have occurred at all since the TV series seems to be the most notable or (at least) substantive topic at this point, the alternative being a dictionary entry. And even if the experts agree with the disambiguation of the series article, I would think the disambig page itself should drop the "(disambiguation)" qualifier.— TAnthony^Talk 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I undid the move and placed hatnotes on Haute couture and Fashion House and prodded the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussions now in-flight at Talk:Fashion house and Talk:Fashion house (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Snowball. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies; Vancouver BC is the primary topic for "Vancouver"

---

Vancouver versus Vancouver, Washington

Currently the article Vancouver lands on the Canadian city in British Columbia. There is a United States city of Vancouver, Washington to which the occasional editor (usually from Vancouver, Washington) wants to have Vancouver as a disambiguation page rather than landing on the Canadian city. I'm looking for some unbiased opinions. Below is a link to an essay I constructed on the argumentative points on why Vancouver has the notability as well as fits the criteria of a primary topic.

Please read User:Mkdw/Vancouver why no disambiguation

Results of a previous vote in 2006

Survey

Make Vancouver a disambiguation page and move its content to Vancouver, British Columbia?

• Opposed per User:Mkdw/Vancouver why no disambiguation Mkdw^talk 21:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed: Y'all have convinced me. TastyCakes (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed: there's really no use in doing that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You would think so, but every 4 months this comes up, especially with the 2010 Winter Olympics approaching. Recently an editor was banned over edit warring over this subject and in the past similar cases have been as involved. Mkdw^talk 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed: The larger city should have priority.--Ducio1234 (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed again for the same reasons. Vancouver BC is an internationally known city, a large port to the Far East from Canada, the largest city in BC, and the host of the next Winter Olympics. Again, Vancouver Island, nobody calls the island just plain "Vancouver". -Royalguard11(T) 21:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and User:Mkdw/Vancouver why no disambiguation -- OlEnglish (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed even before I read Mkdw's essay. I am European (i.e. no US bias) and have never heard of Vancouver, Washington before today, while "Vancouver" immediately rings a bell as the Canadian City (for e.g. the film industry and the Olympics). This makes the primary meaning clear. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed (FD: I'm a resident of Vancouver in Canada) Mkdw's essay accurately summarizes the issues and previous discussions. The main thrust for this change seems to come from US-centric editors imperfectly understanding naming conventions and drawing convenient but false analogies (such as the recently blocked IP comparing to Portland as an example of primary-dabbing). Authoritative sources such as The Economist, a global newspaper, use the simple referent "Vancouver" when referring to Vancouver, BC. [10] Confusion may occur on a regional basis (Washington and Oregon state residents) but not among our global readership. Franamax (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed I'm a resident of Washington and the first city I think of is the Canadian one. Although, I have no idea what this survey is going to resolve. There will always be people appearing on Talk:Vancouver trying to get it turned into a DAB and this survey won't change that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that nothing will be resolved here, it's a wiki after all and we will always accomodate changing viewpoints. I think that what Mkdw is trying to establish is a new "line in the sand" based on his essay and a current consensus thereto, so that we have something solid to point to in future when this comes up again. As it will, as sure as the sun also rises. :) Franamax (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If this survey is on Mkdw's essay, then it should clearly say so, but instead it is worded in a manner that makes it appear that this is a move discussion on whether the article at Vancouver should be moved to Vancouver, British Columbia. If this is a discussion about using Mkdw's essay as an explanation as to why the BC city is at the base name, then are a number of flaws within Mkdw's essay that would prohibit me from supporting its use as such. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This survey is completely based on its own question. I am using my essay in the reason section (much like AfD's) based on the evidence I have found to support my oppose vote. Editors are free to dispute my evidence, but ultimately the question being asked is about moving the article regardless of my essay. However, this survey is not with out future purpose. I hope it's results will lead to a further guideline/different essay (possibly in WP:OUTCOMES) to resolve this reoccurring issue. It's not worth losing editors over as well as allows editors to spend their time contributing rather than arguing a repetitive argument. The difference between this survey and ones before was to include both US and Canadian editors, from the WikiProjects, Naming Convention sections, Vancouver articles (US and Canada), and BC & Washington. Also the time gap helps answer the question on whether the overall circumstances of this article will likely change in a noticeable way. Please vote on what you feel is right. I am also looking for feedback on my essay if you have the time. Mkdw^talk 04:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed 99% of the planet would say "Vancouver? Sure. I know it. In B.C., Canada, right?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Frodesiak (talk • contribs) Feb 9, 2009
• Opposed per MKDW's essay. єmarsee ^(Discuss) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed per MKDW and above; no new facts or situations have emerged since the 2006 vote which affects the basic comparison between the two Vancouvers. Since this seems to be going WP:SNOW, perhaps there should be a disambiguation version of WP:OUTCOMES to which we could add this result. Dl2000 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly not the primary topic, or this would not not have been brought up. - BillCJ (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic has criteria. The fact that someone brought this up, who in the end was banned from editing Wikipedia and likely did not read either primary topic or the naming conventions, does not supersede the use of the criteria for establishing or disestablishing primary topic and automatically make the page a disambiguation. Mkdw^talk 07:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

BillCJ's argument would mean that any one maverick editor could always get their own way - it doesn't work like that. PamD (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean like a certain user tried to do here? Actually, my comments were based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no '(disambiguation)'." All of this appears to be an "extended discussion" to me. Forgive me for not elaborating earlier, as I didn't think I needed to be so pedantic. Oh well. It's obvious I'm in the extreme minority on this one, but I am posted anyway in hopes of encouraging others who disagree with this issue to continue to speak out. I didn't expect harassment on my talk page, and stalking on the pages I edit. I guess some people handle disagreement differently. - BillCJ (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, the edit summary says "tongue in cheek" but the post says harassment and stalking. Both of these are very serious charges so BillCJ I'd expect you to presently either escalate or retract them. Such emotion is perhaps to be expected in US vs. Canada debates, or perhaps "can we clarify" vs. "you asked, so you automatically lose" catch-22's. Can we stick to the issue at hand? Franamax (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The bar for "extended discussion" is not set at "one user constantly objects". It's obvious that the current consensus (at 14-1) is that there is no issue and the status quo is fine. My interpretation of this is that Mkdw choose to have a preemptive straw poll to see if the status quo is still accepted by us editors. Just like survey companies do all the time with every single issue, just to test public response. Except ours can be done quickly and very publicly. -Royalguard11(T) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose As a resident of Portland, Oregon and frequent visitor across the river to the Vancouver in Washington State, the U.S. city is an unlikely target for Vancouver. A WP:google test gives

• Vancouver (BC OR "British Columbia" OR Canada): 33,600,000 hits
• Vancouver (WA OR Washington OR US OR USA) 19,800,000

which is a lot better than I expected. However, It think the disambiguation page should remain at Vancouver (disambiguation) and the major city at the main topic. —EncMstr (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose what a crazy idea. Why not make Berlin a dab because Berlin,_Illinois is also there? Jasy jatere (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. For all the reasons given. I'm surprised that this is even an issue. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RBC redirect to disambiguation page

RBC used to redirect to the Royal Bank of Canada and I thought it would be better if it redirected to RBC (disambiguation) because it is also often used to refer to red blood cells amongst other things. Another user has argued that it should redirect to the bank and after some discussion, we fail to have consensus. I argued that since red blood cells have more Wiki links and have more visitors than the bank, the bank shouldn't be the primary page. It is because the bank is 1st in a Google search that I feel that a redirect to the disambiguation page is a compromise that balances those arguments. The other user doesn't have a convincing argument that the bank should be the primary page. He argues that most of the top Google results point to the bank (which isn't the case) and that it's the more common acronym in everyday use, which he didn't provide other evidence (non-Google) for.

I would like to know what everyone's opinions on this are. Temporal User (Talk) 08:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and propose that RBC (disambiguation) be moved to RBC, with the reasoning that there is not a clear primary topic. older ≠ wiser 13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on closer examination -- RBC was a disambiguation page until 10 February 2009 -- no evidence was given for the assertion. Besides that, there is a need for a history merge. A previous version of the disambiguation page that was at RBC was moved to RBC (disambiguation) back on 12 August 2006 -- the disambiguation page was subsequently recreated at RBC. I'm going to do a history merge and leave the result at RBC. I'll leave it to those who think there is a primary topic to provide some evidence. older ≠ wiser 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation proposal being discussed

At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Use of prefix "Sir" as a disambiguation aid, a disambiguation proposal is being discussed. Editors active in the disambiguation project may be well placed to give their opinion on this. Fram (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a dab?

List of A9 roads, and other pages like it, are listed as dabs. However, this isn't our usual way to title a dab page, i.e. A9 (disambiguation). A list is not usually considered a dab page, but this is working much like a dab. Is this a set index article? Should the dab tag be removed? Dekimasuよ! 04:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like {{roaddis}} might need to be moved/renamed to indicate that it's a set index article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title removed from the disambiguation category. -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with J; it's a SIA, not a dab. M8 motorway, however, is a dab. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that Mediawiki:Disambiguationspage includes a number of SIA templates, including {{roaddis}}. Should all set index article templates be removed from that list? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  I think they should be removed. Maybe we need to field a "parent term" that would cover set index articles and disambiguations. Navigational directories? Navigational pages? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • To me, "navigational pages" consist of two things: Dabs, and Rdrs. I use the term whenever someone resists removing "useful information" from a Dab entry, when the info in question does nothing to facilitate the user arriving at the page they came looking for.
    --Jerzy•t 19:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    

  • WP:SETINDEX is clear that

  A set index article is not considered a disambiguation page...

  and

  A set index article is meant for information as well as navigation: just like a normal list article, it can have metadata and extra information about each entry.

  I agree with the apparent consensus that a Hndis is a species of Dab (and not an SIA), bcz we are used to holding those to what facilitates nav'n. Any SIA species that claims it is constitues a form of Dab is misusing either "Dab" or "SIA", and the only difficulty is that there is likely to be disagreement abt which of those it should not be; it will help if those discussants will focus on whether they want to

  1. optimize navigation (and thus staying terse), or
  2. maximize immediately available info.

  (And attention should be given to the possibility that -- to take the only case i can quickly lay my hands on -- something needs to be done to change Category:NRHP dab needing cleanup from saying

  The pages in this category are disambiguation pages that include National Register of Historic Places listings and that require some cleanup. These disambiguation pages contain essentially only links to other Wikipedia pages, where some of the links are to places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and where some of those entries need cleanup. Note, any NRHP place is documented and usually deemed wikipedia-notable.

  which seems to me to have been used to infer that anything with one of those plaques on it is an exception to DabRL.)
  --Jerzy•t 19:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  

  • On running across by chance a pair of NRHP rd-lk entries at Toll house (disambiguation), i am not sure i've actually ever seen their advocates insist on maintaining one that lacked a rdlk on a non-Dab page; the concern i was recalling was in fact abt responding to a valid RL-entry removal with the creation of a lk to the Dab entry's rdlk in an article (or list, and not usually more than one), and my considering that page as lacking "some meaningful information about the term". I checked out first of those two entries, and as it happens, the letter of the criterion is clearly not met: the blue lk is to National Register of Historic Places listings in Colorado, and the page has been split by removing some many-entry counties, so there was no mention altho another pg inherited the mention that had been on the blue-lk'd page. (This will, FWIW, befuddle those -- like me -- who quite reasonably go there expecting an article by that title, when searched for the name of the place, to produce a hit.) I was pleasantly surprised (but not entirely assuaged) to discover that, like the state list (but unlike what i thot i was recalling), it is not a bare list of lks, but instead there are columns in addition to the (80% red) lks:
    1. (thumbnail) Image (or rather, usually, empty space reserved for one)
    2. Date listed (on the NRHP, surely)
    3. Location (in almost every case, a street address or reasonable facsimile, and coords down to seconds of lat & long; one of the 25 is oddly listed with "Address Restricted"
    4. City or Town
    5. Summary (on the page in question, all blank)

  I'm inclined to say that that's a tad more "meaningful" than a dictdef, tho i'd rather see a dictdef in each Summary box.
  I think that takes care of the technical part of my concern, but (as with Dab listings of song titles, which also are seldom covered in the album's or performer's article beyond the sub-dictdef track-number/title/length entry), the proportion of red lks on the lists that provide the rdlks to these NRHP locations is very high and raises doubt abt whether articles will ever emerge, which is the prospect that i understand as the rationale for permitting rdlks at all (whether in Dabs or articles, i think). So while i think my initial focus was too tightly on Dabs, i continue concerned abt

  1. singling out any type of Dab that (unlike, say, a ship-name Dab) is not composed purely of the special type, and *::# using such cats as a platform for claims of a privileged presumption of notability.

  --Jerzy•t 08:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  

So...

There appears to be agreement all around that something can't be both a dab page and a set index article. As a basic example, we currently have List of A9 roads with a roaddis tag, List of highways numbered 9A with a normal dab tag, and a dab page called A9. The first two are also in Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title, and we have a previous argument at Template talk:Roaddis over whether something can be a dab page and be under a list category at the same time.

Our options seem to be:

• Turn the pages into normal lists. Not preferable because there is little to link them except for their titles; they'd be granfalloons.
• Turn the pages into normal disambiguation pages and change the titles to reflect that they aren't lists; change the name of the category as well.
• Merge the pages into their respective plain dabs--there isn't really any entity called "A9 road", so they could just all be listed at the dab page for "A9".
• Alter Template:Roaddis (and others like it, as Russ mentioned above) to reflect that they are SIAs and not dabs. Possibly alter category frameworks to reflect the relationship between SIAs and dab pages.

Which do we like? Dekimasuよ! 02:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we need to liaise with Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways and Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Roads etc, as these will be the people who've constructed the structure of road-related dabs/lists/SIAs/redirects/categories (albeit that other people will have added other such items inconsistently). PamD (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pam: SIAs are mostly edited by members of WikiProjects --- to get real consensus, we should check with the relevant WikiProject to get the right clean up. hike395 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways does not appear to be active. Maybe I'll start a move request for the template and link to the discussion from the UK roads and US highway projects. Dekimasuよ! 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please also notify Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads as that project maintains the lists. --Polaron | Talk 04:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dekimasu: it isn't clear from the discussion, above, what you are proposing to do. I would be in favor of altering the template to reflect that they are SIAs and not dabs, and recategorizing the template. Is that what you are thinking of? hike395 (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm hoping to have happen. The template should probably be renamed as well as recategorized, though, which is why I mentioned requesting a move... probably to Template:RoadSIA. Dekimasuよ! 06:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Parallel structure with {{shipindex}} and {{mountainindex}} would suggest {{roadindex}}. Shall we move to WP:RM ? hike395 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I'm wondering if we want to have any pages keep using the template at all. An alternative would be to say that a list is a list is a list, and drop the dab template entirely. There is new discussion, by the way, going on at WT:DPL about how to classify set index articles. Dekimasuよ! 03:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A similar note about simply taking off the dab/set index tag and leaving such articles as lists is underway at the deletion discussion for the template linked a few sections down from here. Dekimasuよ! 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Moves in the other direction

I think a lot of the articles currently being listed as set indices are actually just dabs, and not articles at all. See WT:DPL for more, but I think there are a lot more recategorizations to be done. Dekimasuよ! 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Georgina: redirect or disambiguation/name article?

Hello... I'd appreciate some advice as to how to proceed at Georgina. The page is under consideration for a new home for the article currently at Georgina, Ontario. However, it seems to me that the sheer number of articles using the given name "Georgina" (as evidenced at the newly created page Georgina (disambiguation)) and the fact that references to the given name far outweigh references to the city (in both Google hits and Wikipedia pages views) would speak against this. Anyway, the discussion is at Talk:Georgina, Ontario#Move proposal; any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of interest

Template:Public transport disambiguation pages is up for deletion. It's a template designed to be placed on dab pages and link to other dab pages, thus aiding navigation. However, it thus creates a large number of links to them, mixed in with the links that need to be fixed. Hoping for input. Dekimasuよ! 13:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghastly. Have commented there. When the dust settles (after deletion, I hope) it might be useful to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates whether there should be a statement to the effect that navboxes shouldn't point to dab pages. PamD (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Another place to make such a note might be WP:MOS-DAB. Dekimasuよ! 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments requested for Jafar hatnote

The issue on Talk:Jafar#Redirect usage is in regards to the redirect that is being utilised at the article's hat. Some editors are conveying that Ja'far (disambiguation) is "mundane" and Ja'far (the direct link) should take its place. I've already cited WP:D#Links to disambiguation pages and several Wikipedia examples, though there's only so much I can do alone. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I chimed in. You might try fewer insults in your initial requests on talk pages in the future. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. It's just that I'm sick of editors making blind reverts and applying IAR to places without completely knowing what they're talking about. But anyway, I'm glad you and Bkonrad were able to back me up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

All editors edit without completely know what they're talking about. The things that other editors do that make you sick they do because they don't know something you do, not because they want to screw up your work. The things that you do that make other editors sick are no different, nor are the things I do that make other editors sick. Part of this is captured in "assume good faith", but there's another psychological effect in play here, and I wish I could remember what it's called. If someone you don't know commits an error, the tendency is to assume that it's an inherent defect in their character, while if you know more about the person, the tendency becomes more about assuming that it's because of their current situation. But now I'm getting off-topic. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparent motion

Could someone turn this into a state-of-the-art disambig page? Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but I've made a start. Feel free to improve on it. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it could look any better than it is now ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:All disambiguation pages

There is now a discussion about how the disambig, set index and name boxes should categorise pages. See the discussion over at Template talk:Dmbox#Category:All disambiguation pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Set index etc categorization discussion

People may be interested in this discussion about the categorization of set indices, surnames, etc. --JaGa^talk 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the same discussion I am advertising in the previous section. So I made this a subheading of the previous section. :))

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Referencing policy of disambiguation pages

I'm sure this has already been dealt with somewhere or other, but am concerned about the inclusion of unreferenced/original research items on disambiguation pages. Do Wikipedia no original research, etc. criteria also hold on disamb. pages? My particular case is Francism (disambiguation), a page set up last month and which includes a term that I have never come across before and which gets re-directed to the commonly-accepted term. Feedback? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That dab was set up a year and a month ago, and the other two uses appear to be legitimate dab entries. Mouvement Franciste has references, and the rapper's page mentions the alias. Or is it the redirecting of the primary term to Spain under Franco that you find problematic? The page needs cleaning up in any case; I'll take care of it.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! sorry 'bout getting the dates worng :) Yes, I was specifically referring to the primary source issue, but my questions still hold. Thanks for reply/cleaning up. --Technopat (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. So the correct term is Francoism (thank you PamD); Francism should redirect to Mouvement Franciste--even as a misspelling, it's a likely one; and I fixed the dab page incorrectly. Fun indeed.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a redirect from FrancisM to the rapper, with a hatnote there pointing to the dab - and made redirects from his other alternative names as well while I was there. All looks OK now, I hope! PamD (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tool or bot?

I'm trying to look for a disambiguation tool or bot that I swear I've seen others use from time to time. I see no note of it on the page, so I'm hoping that maybe someone here can point me in the right direction (or maybe I'm just dreaming things up). Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:popups? WP:AWB? --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite what I'm looking for. Maybe I'm imagining these things. Wizard191 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you described it a bit more. Your current request is very ambiguous. There are a number of different tools and bots that do things related to disambiguation. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CLEANER? --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links#Tools? WP:TOOLS? (Since there's nothng wrong with giving lots of answers to a question I don't understand ... </sarcasm>) --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Trains

We are having a discussion about how to best disambiguate articles about named trains. Feel free to chime in, the more the merrier. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Disambiguation" to websites

I see this from time to time and usually take off since I'm quite sure it's not allowed. But can't find it in "What not to include." (Did I miss it?) If I am correct, that needs to be there. Currently trying to convince someone promoting a video at Israel lobby disambig page who has reverted and probably will keep doing it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dab pages are intended to help people to find the article they seek. In this case, the EL isn't an article. If there were an article for the documentary then, but only then, it could be linked. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We know that! But people intent on putting in links to sites need to see that their behavior is forbidden, either in the lead definition or in the "what not to include list." It just makes it easier for others of us to convince them if we have something to point to - the first time and not after 3 or 4 reverts. Sigh. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree - that seems a bit WP:CREEPy. If we have to point out where to find opportunities to make mistakes, then I might go to Template:Disambig_editintro instead. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It could be that the guideline you're looking for is MOS:D#Individual entries, which explicitly states that external links should not be added to disambiguation pages: "Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web. To note URLs that might be helpful in the future, include them as <!-- comments --> or on a talk page." --Muchness (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's just what's needed. If one runs into this behavior 3 or 4 times on different pages, it becomes a concern, not someting "creepy"?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "WP:CREEPy" is nothing like "creepy". And i'm a bit shocked that no one has considered the possibility, over the last six weeks, that there are editors & perhaps non-editing newcomer policy readers, who are equally as deaf to the sincerity/tongue-in-cheek-humor distinction as i am, but less familiar with our policies and the value of following the lk when in doubt [NON-wink].
  --Jerzy•t 04:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  

See also and homophones

I see several DAB pages having a See also section pointing to articles or other DAB pages which "look" very similar to the DAB page, i.e., having an extra alphabet or having an alphabet missing. I don't find a mention of this kind of disambiguation in the project page. Also what is policy on homophones, if 2 article titles "sound" very similar or sound exactly the same but are written in a different way, do they qualify for disambiguation? I wanted to create DAB links to each other from Reema Sen, Raima Sen and Rimi Sen. Jay (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See also sections are dealt with at WP:MOSDAB; it is perfectly normal to include these "almost similarly spelt" items. As for homophones, rather than create a dab page, you could put a hatnote at the top of each article, saying something like Not to be confused with..., generated by the {{Distinguish}} template.--Kotniski (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I always miss out the MOS pages. I'm unable to understand why the information that ought to be in a project page is available only in the MOS page. Jay (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's because the page would be too long otherwise. Perhaps there ought to be more visible links between the two pages to prevent confusion.--Kotniski (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• HatNotes supposedly exist to go on primary-topic articles, or (in the case of {{tl:redirect}}) to deal with situations where the name the Rdr is at would be, well, be the primary topic if there weren't an even better title to serve as primary topic. (Intentional parallel to the Dab tag language, emphasizing my frequent observation that a Dab is the dual of a Rdr, or if you like, the other side of the coin from it.) That is, i acknowledge there's a difference between {{tl:redirect}} and other HatNotes, but the difference is too subtle to treat them as a special case, and even if some WP sophisticates here find it sufficiently different, treating it as acceptable on Dab will spread the already occasional practice of putting other HatNotes on Dab pages (harmful in itself, and yet another occasion for editors to loose track of the Dab/Article distinction).
  --Jerzy•t 04:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  

Eyes needed...

...at Talk:Queens College to help resolve slow-burning edit war over the target of the redirect (Queen's College or Queens College, City University of New York). For that matter, is Queens College, City University of New York even the correct title for that page? Dekimasuよ! 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm thinking they used to be separate institutions & the double-barreled name is a sop to QC alumni to convince them no one abolished their alma mater when QC was brought under the CUNY umbrella. But a quick check discloses that also whether City College of New York (CCNY) also enters into this. (Note that the two CxNY names may go back to before NYC was expanded beyond New York County a.k.a. Manhattan (now Borough of New York -- i think, see e.g. Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Avenue, Borough of New York. Full disclosure: i also recall the name "Manhattan Borough Hall", but i wouldn't want to rule out the former NY City Hall having been rechristened as the borough hall in Manhattan and continuing to do whichever tasks of administering Manh didn't get passed over a new NY City Hall built for the enlarged task of administering 5 boroughs.) (I know that sounds like the ravings of a madman, but Borough or County of Richmond is Staten Island, and Borough or County of Kings is Brooklyn (and BTW that explains Dukes County, Mass., covering primarily Martha's Vineyard, Dukes County, New York shifted out of NY in colonial times.)
  --Jerzy•t 05:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC) (Only one save, but early-in-edit material mixed with late-in-edit material.)
  

Pradesh a disambig page?

I'm wondering if Pradesh would be considered a disambiguation page or not. Should it have {{Geodis}}? ~EdGl (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently, no, it's not a dab page. It seems to be a (foreign-language) dictionary article and then a list of articles that happen to contain the word. Not sure if it needs to be a Wikipedia article, but it's not a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

National adjectives

Over the past few months, a single editor appears to have engaged in a project to create a disambiguation page for the adjectival form corresponding to every one of the World's 200+ independent states -- e.g., Jamaican, Moldovan, Monegasque, Angolan, etc. Although I am sure this editor was acting in good faith, he or she appears to have been unaware of the concept of a primary topic, and in many cases replaced existing redirects with these new disambig pages. I and other users have in a few cases moved these pages (for example, Jamaican to Jamaican (disambiguation), and reinstated redirects to the primary topic, but I'm sure there are many that haven't been examined yet. I hasten to add that the country is not always the primary topic for these adjectives, although in many cases it is; each one has to be examined on an individual basis. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hun

We seem to be getting into a bit of a edit war over at Hun (disambiguation) concerning the correct way to list the term's use in relation to Protestantism and football. It would be helpful to get a few more eyeballs on this and break the deadlock. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Names of pop bands: disambig or not?

There is currently a debate about whether the Dio page should belong to a pop band or become a disambiguation page, see Talk:Dio#Dio or Dio (band). Similar pages are U2 and Iron Maiden. This is also being discussed on the Music Project here.

I note the guideline says "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"."

Any opinions? Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The primary topic gets the base name (or is the target of its redirect). A band can be a primary topic. A band can also be a non-primary topic. Bands are no different than other article subjects in this regard. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but is the 'primary topic' the one that is most basic, the origin of other usages, or is it merely the most popular article at the present time? This is relevant because many band names are derived from notable people or things. --Kleinzach 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of discussion and consensus if the band is the primary meaning. The things you mentioned influence the decision, but none of them decide it directly. It is not uncommon that A is named after the notable B, but then A overtakes B in primary meaning later on (think Uriah Heep (band) and Uriah Heep (David Copperfield), although better examples will be out there). Many other times, B remains the primary meaning. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Primary" topic, in the disambiguation sense, is the topic that is most likely sought by the Wikipedia readership. It has no implication of first, earliest, latest, biggest, most important, first-one-I-thought-of, or other stuff. Its only implication is "likeliest". I believe this project page could be made clearer in that regard -- it is definitely a point of repeated confusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is unquestionably lots of confusion about primary topic. And I, among others, very strongly disagree with any definition based solely on being most likely sought by the Wikipedia readership. By that criteria porn stars might turn out to be the primary topics for many pages. So long as there is any pretense that Wikipedia is an actual encyclopedia and not just a social networking fan club there has to be considerations other than popularity. Both Google (and other general web search engines), as well as more specialized searches of news, books and scholarly articles are also relevant to Avoiding systemic bias. older ≠ wiser 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of a primary topic as defined in policy the guideline is to aid searching; that is, direct the person to the topic they are most likely to be looking for (or perhaps, expect to see) first. The criteria of verifiability no original research and neutral point of view are intended to prevent Wikipedia becoming a "social networking fan club". One could argue a WP:IAR exception for primary topic cases which might bring an encyclopedia into disrepute or whatever. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic is not defined in policy. That the entire point is to merely to aid searching is debatable. And the topic they are most likely to be looking for is not necessarily the same as the topic they might expect to see. Applying the principles of verifiability or no original research to the likelihood or probability that most people are searching for one one term rather than another is problematic to say the least, which is why I advocate a fairly high standard for primary topic. It should be pretty much self-evident to most anyone. older ≠ wiser 01:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Primary topic is not defined in policy" sorry, slipped up. Corrected. I agree "want to see" and "expect to see" are different; that's why I mentioned both. You misinterpreted the rest of my comment, but I don't really see how I can make it clearer succinctly. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, porn stars might be the primary topic for some pages, and there's nothing wrong with that. Primary topic is defined in the guidelines: "significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings". Ideally, we would simply title each article with its title as determined by the titling guidelines. But sometimes collisions occur. When collisions occur, some (or all) readers may have to click through one or two extra pages before they reach the one they were looking for:

• 0: A primary topic has been identified, reader is looking for the primary topic (x)
• 1: No primary topic has been identified, reader is looking for any topic listed on the dab page (y₁)
• 1: A primary topic has been identified, and a hatnote on the primary topic article lists the article that the reader is looking for (either because there's only one or two other ambiguous articles, or because there is one other very likely choice article linked along with the dab page) (y₂)
• 2: A primary topic has been identified and the reader navigates from that page to the disambiguation page and then on to the sought page (z)

The purpose of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is (and I never suspected this was contested, although I thought it was sometimes misunderstood) strictly navigational, since disambiguation is a navigational aid: minimize the total number of pages clicked through. 0x + 1y₁ + 1y₂ + 2z should be lower than it would be with any other set of primary topic and hatnotes.

Now, if there is an additional criterion of non-disrepute or somesuch, that's fine too, but we could certainly clarify that in the guidelines and also minimize the confusion (mine and others'). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the purpose is primarily navigational, although the initial versions of this guideline used language that was not solely navigational, such as: If there is clearly one most important or central meaning of a term, the simple title can contain the full article on that topic. I'm not sure when the importance criteria was dropped. But in any case, the criteria has never been very clear. What precisely does it mean to be much more used than any other topic or significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings? I've always understood this to be a relatively high bar, lately people have been trying to argue that if a topic has some relatively small proportion of hits at wikistats more than any other single topic it should be the primary topic. Personally, I find relying on wikistats alone to be deeply problematic, but even granting that they can offer some limited indication, I think the minimum bar should be fairly high, something along the lines of at least an entire order of magnitude more than all other topics that might share the name combined in addition to widespread recognizability as substantiated by Google (or other) searches of the web, books and scholarship, and some substantially larger number of incoming links that are regularly created over time that are intended for one sense over all the others. older ≠ wiser 21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree the criteria should be fairly high, but yours aren't "fairly high", they're off the scale! I think several times higher than the next competing term (say at least 4) and clearly higher than all other terms combined (say at least double) is quite high enough. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose this alternative: if an unthinking editor is writing an article on a topic, and intends to link a term in the article, is that editor likely to link to the wrong page without thinking about alternative meanings of the linked term? If so, that page should be the disambig page because it's much easier for us to clean up errant links to disambig pages then it is to clean up link that are simply to the wrong article (because, for one thing, we already know there generally shouldn't be any links to the disambig page). Here's an example. Joe Bob Junior High is located in Phoenix. Their school mascot is a Phoenix. One of their students went on play Phoenix in the movie, X-Men 11. Someone writing any one of those sentences in isolation might not think at all before linking it, assuming the link will go to the term they are thinking of. Contra, John Adams. There have been scads of people named John Adams, but even the most unthinking editor will assume that the link would go to the article on the President, and would look for the disambig page at John Adams (disambiguation) to determine the correct link. bd2412 T 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it off the scale? Lets suppose the lesser topics of an ambiguous title combined get 1,000 hits in a given period. I don't think it is unreasonable for a topic that is claimed to be primary should have at least 10,000 hits in the same period to demonstrate any real significance. Otherwise having a primary topic would potentially be a disservice to greater than 1 in 10 readers. I don't think that is such an unreasonable standard. older ≠ wiser 02:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thinking a bit more about this — in connection with the lively ongoing debate at Talk:Dio#Dio or Dio (band) — I see two problems with simply defining the 'primary topic' by current Google/WikiStats popularity. 1. It implies that the structure of the encyclopedia should be constantly changing with the popularity of articles. 2. It encourages readers to access popular articles, thereby making the popular, more popular, and the less read, even less read. To take the Dio example, if the band is the primary topic it encourages pop music fans to use Wikipedia, but also discourages those who are interested in other subjects. So Wikipedia would be increasingly identified with popular commercial culture. --Kleinzach 01:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can change and is expected to change as consensus changes. Nothing wrong with that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Batman (disambiguation)

Some disruptive editor named User:SkyWalker has been moronically undoing my good faith reverts at this dab page for no reason. I could really use some help here, as this appears to be pure idiocy on his/her part. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with having Batman: Arkham Asylum as part of the disambig page; it has "Batman" in the title does it not? Anyway, you should talk to him about it; there's severe lack of communication between you two... ~EdGl (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What's there to talk about with that user? The game is not also known as just Batman or similar according to its current article. That's what WP:DISAM#Partial title matches is all about. I already explained it in this edit summary, though (s)he appears to be reverting constantly for nothing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think that people may in fact call the video game simply "Batman" or "the new Batman game," which would warrant disambiguation. (I would just let it go; it's too minor an issue to be edit warring over.) ~EdGl (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Or put it into "See also"; that's where I put all entries that would otherwise be omitted because they only contain the dab phrase but other editors would like to keep them on the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

RBI primary topic

There is a discussion going on about whether "RBI" has a primary topic, and if so, what it is. Interested editors may wish to participate. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Zero sum

A fellow editor has requested that I move Zero-sum (game theory) to zero sum (and consequently, zero sum to Zero sum (disambiguation) - up until today, Zero sum was a redirect to Zero sum (disambiguation), which I repaired). No strong opinion here. Thoughts? bd2412 T 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to BD2412 for bringing this here. Zero-sum (game theory) used to be at zero sum but was moved some months ago diff by an editor who felt that Zero Sum (The X-Files episode) ought not be subservient to the game theory term, and who then made zero sum into a dab page. But since (virtually all) uses of the term "zero sum" are derivative from the game theory term, it seems to me that following WP:Disambiguation#Is_there_a_primary_topic.3F would restore Zero-sum (game theory) as the primary topic article zero sum with a dab page at Zero sum (disambiguation). Thanks. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Restored primary topic, etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Pump

Hi. Here's a link to a discussion I began at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Redirecting plurals. The issue is basically what to do when the plural form is a proper noun in a way that the singular is not. An example of currently inconsistent use is: Freaks/freak, but Slackers/Slackers (film). Both are films with sole claim to their names (nothing else is called "Slackers" or "Freaks"), except that each has for its name the plural of a common noun. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Acronyms/Initials

I have found it a common practice for disambiguation pages titled with acronyms of several letters to list multi-word titles that happen to have the initials of the disambiguation page's title, even though the subject does not officially use such an abbreviation. For example, look at Is#Abbreviations. This has many titles that just happen to have the initials IS. LIT lists Long Island Iced Tea, which nowhere in the article says it is abbreviated this way. BOA lists Bank of America, which is mentioned in one of the sources under that title, but also Book of Abraham, which is not. And on Jew (disambiguation), one of the listings is Jimmy Eat World; not only is there no indication the subject uses this name, but since this refers to an ethnic group to which sensitivity is expected, some may be offended.

Some acronyms are well recognized for a subject. For example, MARC has several such meanings, including MARC Train. I see nothing wrong with such a listing. And some acronyms are so well known for one particular meaning that they redirect to that page, and all other more obscure meanings are found on a separate disambiguation page, like IQ redirecting to Intelligence quotient.

Before we go removing such listings from disambiguation pages, I would like to know what others think. Sebwite (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the main thing is to use common sense. I agree with you on all the cases you mentioned. ~EdGl (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - in general, if the abbreviation appears in the article, it belongs in the dab page (and should be bolded in the article); if not, then not. PamD (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO there are some categories of entries which it seems clear to me will be known by their acronym even though it may not be mentioned in the article ... for example schools where "Bradford High School" will obviously be known, locally at least by some people, as "BHS" whatever the article says (I made that one up). I suspect that most clubs will also be known by their acronym (sports clubs etc). My practice has been - if in doubt, include it. Abtract (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"If in doubt, include it." That seems to go against Wikipedia's no original research guidelines. I have noticed these dab pages go to the extremes of including quite a lot, including people with those initials, even though those people are not known that way in public life. Sebwite (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia article doesn't indicate the use of the initials as a reference for the article topic, then it shouldn't be included in the dab page. If the Wikipedia does, then it should be included. But relegating contentious entries to "See also" has the benefit of being quick and keeping the navigational benefit (the "real" entries precede the See also section). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, Buu could use a modification. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What modification? The name holders should be separated; was there something else? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the name holders. How about we make it like Emu (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Some titles, such as universities, are almost exclusively identified by initials, so those could be listed. But if you put no restrictions on anything, you would start listing people who just happen to have those initials, even if they never were publicly identified by them. FDR and JFK were notably identified by their initials. But the majority or people are not, yet I have found a lot of people listed on such pages.Sebwite (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Deciding to disambiguate" principle

Is there any sentiment against restoring the following text to WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate that was deleted on 28 October 2008?:

Ask yourself: When a reader enters a word in the Wikipedia search box and clicks “Go,” which article does he expect to see?

It is more succinct than the current version and is still cited at WP:PRECISION. — AjaxSmack 16:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the current form to the "ask yourself" form, so yes, I suppose that's sentiment against it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Me too (but I may be biased since it was probably me who deleted it). Anyway, if the "ask yourself" wording does have a place, then logically it must be under "Is there a primary topic?" rather than under "Deciding to disambiguate". And I don't see what it would add to the current wording of PRIMARYTOPIC except confusion (after all, different readers expect different things).--Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, just looked at WP:Naming conventions (precision) and it seems there's some useful information there which should either be merged into this page or referenced from it (the logic probably needs sorting out a bit, though).--Kotniski (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

References

I sometimes find references in disambigation pages. I delete them and leave in the edit summary "No references are needed in a disambigation page. If important, incorporate in article".

I think this is a good guideline, and would like to add to the section Wikipedia:Disambigation#What_not_to_include the subsection

== References ==

A disambigation page should not contain references. If you have a relevant reference, incorporate it into the pertaining article in stead.

Your opinions, please. Debresser (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct, disambiguation pages are not to include external links or references. If needed, those should be added to the disambiguated articles. I would rephrase it: "Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for guidelines on incorporating references into the disambiguated articles as needed." -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I added Wikipedia:Disambiguation#References, which has most of your formulation, but not all of it. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There are instances where no article exists for an item on the disambiguation page, but where a reference for its existence or significance is known. Should a stub article (containing just that reference) be created and linked, so as not to lose the reference information, and to occupy the appropriate place on the disambiguation page? TheFeds 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Help! Should links to nonexistent articles be included in a disambiguation listing?

This important criterion is still missing from the Project page. Answers are welcome here, and in said page as well. --AVM (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's covered in WP:MOSDAB, specifically at MOS:DABRL.

In a nutshell, plausible redlinks are OK, but the entry also needs to then include exactly one bluelink to a WP page that is a reasonable place to redirect the interested reader.--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Partial title matches

Is it worth adding to this section about allowing partial matches in disamb. pages about surnames? --neon white talk 14:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages aren't about surnames. Surname-holder list articles are different than disambiguation non-article pages. Is there a particular page that prompted the question? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, does that mean that partial bio matches should go on a seperate page and not on a genral disamb. page? An example is the Able page which contains George Graham Able, which seems like a partial match to me. However it's concievable that someone looking for that article might search 'Able' so the link is useful regardless. --neon white talk 06:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't (yet) a separate name-holder list article, then a section "People with the name" can be created in the dab page, before any "See also" section but after the actual disambiguation entries. One of the surname categories should also be added to the page along with the dab tag. If the name-holder list grows too long, it should be split to its own article (which may or may not be the primary topic). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DABNAME seems to suggest even though they are added to disambiguation pages they are not dismbiguation lists. If this is an except to the partial title matches rule should it be noted? --neon white talk 12:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. MOS:DABNAME is the noting of the exception. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What is purpose of examining What links here in determining primary topic?

Since my edit to the page had been reverted with a comment of "Where was this discussed? This clearly gives the article at the main name space pioroty", I'd like to open discussion on this. In the course of discussion a requested move at Talk:Portland, a user was suggesting that the fact that there were so many more incoming links to Portland, Oregon than any of the other similarly named pages is evidence that that article is the primary topic. I could not understand that reasoning. As far as I have always understood the guidance, the only really useful evidence provided by incoming links is to see the relative proportions of the links to the undisambiguated term. That is, if many, many links were persistently created for the undisambiguated term intending one particular topic, that is evidence that that topic might be the primary topic. On the other hand, if the intended targets of incoming links to the undisambiguated term were distributed amonst various titles, that would mean there is no evidence of primary topic on the basis of incoming links. I realize that if a page already occupies the undisambiguated title, it would be misleading to look at the preponderance of incoming links as evidence that it is the primary topic. In such a case, incoming links is not a useful test unless it can be shown that a substantial proportion of incoming links are intended for some other page. I don't see any case where examining links to already disambiguated titles 9that is, of examining anything other than links to the undisambiguated title) provides any meaningful evidence for determining primary topic. older ≠ wiser 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that interpretation. I think the language on the project page is capable of other interpretations, and that might have caused the confusion. Specifying the part about (undisambiguated) links to the base name would, for me, make the language less ambiguous. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that this might be valid when there is no article at the name. When there is an article at the name, is when there is confusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, suppose that there were a page, Foo, and another, Foo (bar). Then suppose that Foo, being a basenamed page, accumulated inbound links, some intended for itself and some intended for Foo (bar). If at some later date it was determined that 90% of the inbound links were intended for Foo (bar) and only 10% for Foo, then that would, all else being equal, support a move of Foo (bar) to Foo and of Foo to a disambiguated title.

If Foo is a bluelink then it's less likely that this sort of situation would occur than if it were a redlink, but I don't think that invalidates the principle.--AndrewHowse (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think both sides are right, in a way - one question to consider is how many links to the base term are intended to go to particular topics (i.e. what editors expect the term to link to if they don't think to check); the second question is simply how many links are made to the particular topics (i.e. how often each topic is a link target, this being one possible measure of how relatively important the topics are).--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is being commonly linked, is not an indicator of primary usage. I think it is easier to make the negative case and maybe that should merged into the guideline. However that would not be correct if someone is fixing the links to the wrong article. That's why I have supported a dab page when there is discussion. If there is significant discussion about what is the primary topic, then a dab page should be at the main name space. Likewise, pages not at the primary name because of a naming convention should be considered as if they are the primary use, and in that case the main name space should be the dab page or maybe a redirect. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If being commonly linked is not an indicator of primary usage, then shouldn't we be deleting the disputed line from the guideline altogether? And then you seem to raise separate questions about primary topics, which would probably be best discussed in separate threads. (I can't agree with saying "if there is significant discussion, then the result must be..." - this would simply open the door to point-pushers who would first create significant discussion, then point to the guideline to say that this means they have to have it their way. And if a page is the primary use for a term that is not the page title, then surely the answer must be a redirect - if we had a dab there instead, then by definition it wouldn't be the primary term.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As an example, can you really say that there is a primary topic for Plymouth and that the article at that title is it? This is an example of the problem. People seem to be afraid of an article somehow loosing importance if it is not at the main name space and that having a dab page at the main name space is bad. Articles do not need consensus to exist at the main name space. However they do need consensus to be moved out, if it there is no primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

While one can offer a number of such examples, are you trying to suggest that there can never, or should never, be a primary topic? I don't mean to imply anything; just trying to understand. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it is normal and accepted that there is no primary topic in many cases. I'm also saying that it is better to have a dab page at the main name space then to have an article that is not the primary use there. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To the first, I agree. (Of course). To the second, I agree as far as that goes and would add that if there is a primary topic, then the primary topic should go at the base name. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's as far as I would go as well. If there is no primary topic but only one topic is allowed by the naming conventions to have that name, then what harm is done by putting it there? You can mention the other major topic in the hatnote, as is indeed currently done at Plymouth. No-one loses, since people looking for the other topic have just the same number of clicks to get there as they would if there were a dab page. We shouldn't be encouraging people to play "my town's just as important as your town"; we should be arranging the information in a way that makes it quick and intuitive for readers to find what they're looking for.--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this not an issue of naming conventions. If there is not primary topic, then the dab page goes there, not some page that happens to also have the same name. That is simply wrong. Naming conventions are style sheets that may, or at least should make stuff here predictable. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Vegaswikian there. And I'd also suggest that a page which is today a primary topic might not maintain that status for ever. In that case, and at that time, it ought to be moved and either the new primary topic, or more likely, the dab page ought to be moved to the base name. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's disputing that primary topic status can change. But you both seem to be disputing my explanation of why it's advantageous to put an article at the base name rather than a dab page (in cases where there are just two major topics and one of them won't be using that name because of naming conventions, as with Plymouth). Can you be specific about how (and whom) it helps to have a dab page here? (Well, clearly those looking for the other minor meanings would have one less click, but I'm assuming that either of the two major meanings would be primary with respect to these minor meanings - i.e. that the one-less-click benefit to people looking for any one major meaning outweighs the one-more-click harm to all of those looking for the minor meanings.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I'm suggesting this: if it's established that there is no primary topic, then the dab page should go at the base name. This avoids contention and debate about which non-primary topic is more "important" or "common" etc. Note my "if it's established ..."; I'm not suggesting all dab situations need to be certified for primarytopic-ness with immediate moves resulting where it's not! --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, basically we agree, though I think the specific situation we're talking about (where one of two otherwise-primary topics can't be at the base name anyway due to naming conventions) can usefully be treated as an exception, precisely because in this situation the debate need not concern which topic is more important or common.--Kotniski (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

<-- I'm still perplexed. How is one supposed to use What links here to already disambiguated titles to help determine what a primary topic is? older ≠ wiser 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that interpretation has been deprecated. It's the other interpretation - to non-disambiguated titles - that's up for debate. (Can we still write "deprecated"?) --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know - if you can establish that there are 1000 pages linking to Plog (cat), and only 10 linking to Plog (dog), that may be evidence (that's all the section says - it doesn't say it definitely is evidence) of the cat's being primary usage with respect to the dog, just on the basis of the cat's being a more frequent topic of exposition. It's not proof, but it's something possibly to be considered, along with all the other evidence and arguments that may be presented.--Kotniski (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ticket to Ride

There is a dispute over whether Ticket to Ride should be a disambiguation page. Opinions from other editors would be appreciated at Talk:Ticket to Ride or Talk:Ticket to Ride (disambiguation). —Lowellian (reply) 23:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is not over whether the disambiguation page should be a disambiguation page, but whether or not the current primary topic (the Beatles song) is the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ascenders and descenders

Moved here boldly from WP:RM, since it's not yet a well-defined move request. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please help me I am in good faith here but really not sure what to do. I was doing some edits about fonts and looked up links for ascender and descender, checked they went where I wanted them to go (i.e. typography related). Ascender goes to a dab page; I needed ascender (typography). But Descender goes to the typography page.

Now, I could maybe live with that. But ascenders redirects to ascender (climbing) and descenders to descender i.e. the typography article, which doesn't have a dab page but says for the cycling term, see Bicycling terminology.

So: "descender" and "descenders" go to the typography article directly (which is just called "descender", and has a "for x see y") whereas "ascender" goes to a dab page (my desire being at ascender (typography) and "ascenders" goes to a climbing page. That seems rather off-balanced.

I imagine this has come about through the "gor there first" rule whatever it's formally called; and that the bicycling term was inserted by someone more interested in cycling than typefaces. That's just a guess at its evolution and I've no problem with that as such and I'm sure good faith all round but this is a bit of an anomaly and rather surprising. I don't know whether to suggest:

• Make "descender" also into a dab page; move current article to "Descender (typography)" to match "Ascender (typography)".
• Then not sure what to do with "ascenders" and "descenders".
• Suggest move to "Ascender (climbing)" or some such, and put "ascender" plain as the typographical meaning (in line with "descender").
• Something radical like put "ascenders and descenders" as a combined dab page. This has its attractions though I imagine I would be laughed out of court here, but what goes up must come down. Anybody who has an analogical example of such antonymic dab page, that would be great; equally if nobody has ever heard of such a ridiculous idea, that would be great too.

I'm sorry this is probably a bit out of order as I have not posted on those pages, but since I don't really know what pages to post on, and it seems fruitless to post on the redirect pages (and probably on the dab pages), whether there is any policy about that I don't know. I will happily follow the steps but really don't know which steps to follow, so I thought I would throw myself at your mercy first.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some precedent, even if it's not formalised, to have plurals redirect to the singular. Descenders follows that; ascenders is a bit of an outlier. I think I'm going to redirect ascenders to the dab page and then fix the inbound links. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be anything terribly wrong here. You could propose merging the two typographical articles together I suppose; that might be a decent idea, but I think you'd want to mention it on the 2 talk pages first. Dependent and independent variables works in a similar way. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That still leaves ascender and descender imbalanced in that one goes to a dab, the other to a page. I know (or rather guess) this comes out of the "got here first" rule, and I am sure there is no bad faith, but it's a nonsense all the same-- it would be better to have descender (typography) than have them imbalanced like that, I think. I agree with you in principle with plural -> singular though not sure how this works in practice in attempts to avoid double redirects, since it's a combinatorial explosion. (I had this earlier today wondering about which redirects are appropriate for new stub article wot I edited Citroën C1 ev'ie. Caps or lower C. Apos or not. Diaresis. Caps on second word. Omission of C1. etc.)

It's not the end of the world; what is perhaps more interesting is whether there should be a policy — guideline, whatever — on this kind of thing. Like kinda ancient lights really; if you've got the singular then you should have the plural too, unless something intervenes. (Divers is not always the plural of diver, for an example off the top of my head, although if divers are in the plural then there are divers divers.) SimonTrew (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I might propose merging the two typography articles, I'd have to read the articles first, I'd imagine it's been done before. Since I was basically just using them as a dictionary wikilink I didn't read the articles much and have no strong feelings to merge; my suggestion (and in a way I don't think entirely absurd) is that with very closely tied subjects — perhaps those that are tied as antonyms in all corresponding meanings, each to each — a single disambig page would serve the two.

I'm editing (rather than adding to) this my own entry as I just fouled up leaving detritus at the end. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You could always create descender (typography) as a redirect, if that makes it easier. Trying to match pairs of topics as either both or neither disambiguations pages, as you suggest, would be, um, a bit tricky. Even without homonyms with 2 distinct antonyms. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with terms that appear to be "even" having Wikipedia article titles that appear to be "uneven". Of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, only one goes to an anthroponymy article, and the others go to dabs. Firefox goes the the browser, but Chrome does not. If one of "ascender" and "descender" has a primary topic and the other does not, then one should go to an article and the other should go to a dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic for 10 Years?

I moved 10 Years to 10 Years (band) and created a disambiguation page at 10 Years. Fire 55 (talk · contribs) asserted on my talk page that the band is the primary topic. Before I could revert my actions (which would require an admin), another user reverted Fire 55's revert of my edits to 10 Years, implying he agrees with my initial decision. So, is the band the primary topic, or should 10 Years be a dab page? ~EdGl ★ 18:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Judging by traffic statistics and incoming links, the band is the primary topic. The band's article gets about 15 to 20 times the number of visits compared to the two albums combined, and the band has about 5 times the incoming links (keeping in mind that the band's incomers never got dabbed after the page move, and that one album's numbers are inflated by a template transcluded in several articles). The potential confusion with decade is unlikely (Who would capitalize the Y?) and negligible. I'd say put the band back at the plain title and move the dab page to 10 years (disambiguation), or to the plain title, 10 years, which currently redirects to the band.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To 10 Years (disambiguation). The entries being dabbed are proper names with one exception. And people looking for the band are apt to type "10 years" in the search box. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

JHunterJ, you're an admin; would you mind performing the necessary moves? I would appreciate it. ~EdGl ★ 13:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Uppercase/lowercase

Following up the "Primary topic for 10 Years?" topic above: I'm often unsure about whether to choose the uppercase or lowercase version when choosing a dab page title for an ambiguous phrase. Usually I opt for the uppercase, as JHunterJ did for 10 Years (disambiguation), when all (or nearly all) of the entries are proper nouns. I only suggested the lowercase version to be inclusive of the Decade entry. I've also seen other editors move dab pages from the uppercase page to the lowercase, asserting that this is "preferred", but without citing a guideline to support it. Is there a guideline or precedent for deciding this issue? And if not, should this page-naming issue be addressed in MOSDAB?--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be consistent across all pages & editors, but my own rules of thumb: if there's exactly one primary topic article for any or all of the capitalizations, then the dab page gets the (disambiguation) part and otherwise matches the the capitalization of the primary topic article. If not, then it matches the capitalization that the reader most likely meant (e.g., the capitalization of most of the entries, or the capitalization of the most likely set of entries). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Where to seek help?

Considering how complicate this can be, this article needs to be more explicit about where people might seek help with topics not clearly addressed here. Especially if Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation is such a place. (It's page also unclear but people have sought help on its talk page.) Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Set Index

'Another similar type of page is the multi-stub article. This is a page containing brief, stub-like information about a number of similarly-named topics, such as saints with the same name (e.g. Abundantius). Like set index articles, these pages are not subject to the disambiguation style guidelines.' I don't get it. I have never heard of these sorts of page before. Where is this rule to be found? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Multi-stubs are a concept from older versions of some guidelines; I think they're deprecated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Related guideline change

Editors of this page may be interested in this discussion, about deprecating the inclusion of external links on disambiguation and category pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with guidelines

I was wondering if someone with a better understanding of the rules could look at the situation with Brian Nelson. Originally there were only two Brian Nelson's on Wikipedia, so it was decided one would be the primary page, and the second would be disambiguated as "Brian Nelson (descriptor)" with a top hat saying "not to be confused with the other Brian Nelson". There was also a "Brian Nelson (disambiguation)" page created. Then about a month later, a third Brian Nelson was added to Wikipedia. What should happen? My understanding is, the "Brian Nelson" page becomes the new dab page, the "Brian Nelson (disambiguation)" page goes away (redirects to "Brian Nelson" which is now the dab page), and the three Brian Nelson's now all have the format "Brian Nelson (descriptor)". Is this correct? I've seen this often done, but am having trouble finding the MOS guidelines for it. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, at least that's what I would do. You need an administrator to move BN (dis) to BN though. ~EdGl ★ 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've added a move request if your interested in supporting or opposing it, discussion here: Talk:Brian_Nelson_(disambiguation) - Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevant Help Desk Question

Resolved

 – someone answered it ~EdGl ★ 15:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone posted a question on the Help Desk related to disambiguation here (dealing with primary topic) ~EdGl ★ 14:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about the {{about}} template

I am looking for a certain template. For example at Running amok, I see: {{about|the '''amok''' behaviour and state of mind|other potential meanings|Amok (disambiguation)}}. And I wonder if there is a template like {{about}}, which I don't have to include „ (disambiguation)” into using it. A template that would produce the same output, using: {{aboutX|the '''amok''' behaviour and state of mind|other potential meanings|Amok}}. I am looking for that aboutX template. There should be equivalent to every disambiguation template, for cases when you link to a page that contains „ (disambiguation)” into it or not. Thanks Ark25 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd've used {{redirect|Amok}} there, producing:

"Amok" redirects here. For other uses, see Amok (disambiguation).

But, beyond that, I don't see a big gain from creating an "about" template that automatically tacks on a "(disambiguation)" to the given link. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, I meant {{aboutX|USE|PAGE}} (only two parameters — the „other potential meanings” is somewhat redundant), to produce the equivalent of {{about|USE||PAGE (disambiguation)}} (or of {{this|USE|PAGE (disambiguation)}}):

This page is about USE. For other uses, see PAGE (disambiguation).

In case there is such a template, I would be happy to know it. If there is not, I think it would be usefull to be created. It would be an elaborate version of {{otheruses2|PAGE}}, just like {{this|USE|PAGE}} is the more elaborate version of {{otheruses|PAGE}}. Or it can be seen as the +„ (disambiguation)” variant of {{this}}. Thanks Ark25 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to stop you creating such a template if you want, but I don't think it would be useful very often. Usually the X in "X (disambiguation)" is the same as the current page name (and we already have templates for that situation) or, if it is not, then a {{redirect}}-type hatnote is normally more appropriate (as illustrated by JHJ above).--Kotniski (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, a combination of {{otheruses1}} and {{otheruses2}} wouldn't be too far removed from what we have. Maybe {{otheruses4}} just needs to start using named parameters. But you (or I, if you don't want to mess with this code) could make {{otheruses9}} that says:

{{otheruses4|{{{1}}}||{{{2}}} (disambiguation)}}

-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for late answer. I just created the otheruses9 template. In case the template is considered useful, it should be advertised with a more sugestive name, like "this1" (this2 is taken already), or I can suggest "dabthis" ( = "this" with disambiguation ) or "dabnote" ( = disambiguation note).

For example at Sydney, Nova Scotia:

{{otheruses|Sidney}}

For other uses, see Sidney.

{{otheruses2|Sidney}} {{otheruses2|Sidney}} {{This|the community in Nova Scotia, Canada|Sydney}}

This page is about the community in Nova Scotia, Canada. For other uses, see Sydney.

{{This1|the community in Nova Scotia, Canada|Sydney}}

This page is about the community in Nova Scotia, Canada. For other uses, see Sydney (disambiguation).

Therefore, if the editor is lazy, they can use "otheruses" or "otheruses2". If not, use "this" or "this1".

However, main question is: What is the recommended procedure: articles like Sydney, Nova Scotia, Evolution (film) shall include disambiguation note or not? For example many Avalon towns articles do not have any: Avalon, New South Wales, Avalon, Victoria etc; and most of the articles that end with (film) dont have disambiguation note. Seems Sydney, Nova Scotia is an exception. Therefore, if it's recommended to include a disambiguation note on that kind of articles, then this template would be quite useful. Otherwise, it would be only used in articles like The African Queen, where {{this|the film|African Queen (disambiguation)}} can be replaced with {{otheruses9|the film|African Queen}} - because of the "The" particle in the article name. Ark25 (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAMB recommends not. If the title isn't ambiguous (and isn't the target of an ambiguous redirect), then it doesn't require a disambiguating hatnote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)