Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Disambiguating (the verb) vs. disambiguation pages

A lot of the confusion in the topics above stems from the distinction between disambiguation pages (those with nothing but links) and article pages which contain disambiguation (such as {{otheruses}}). The recently-developed Manual of Style only applies to disambiguation pages, and the distinction needs to be clearer on this page. There's a third class of pages described here, in which a single page contains stub articles on several uses unrelated meanings of the same word, but current WP practice seems to have moved towards making those all separate stub articles; maybe it's time to reconsider that policy.

Many of these articles are merely colelctions of dicdefs. They may serve a good sources for wiktionary. Many of them exist from early days of wikipedia, when the policies were not crystallized yet. Now they are being gradually cleaned up: transwikified/stubbifiesd (at least I do this whenever I stumble upon and easy one). But there are some difficult cases, like bug (disambiguation), which require editors of truly encyclopedic expertise to handle. mikka (t) 16:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm planning to work on clarifying these distinctions (after the first-name-page uproar dies down), but now would welcome any thoughts on the subject.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems like the First Name Dab uproar is very contentious, but managed to produce a lack of consensus and as such isn't going anywhere.

Perhaps the distinction is between Ambiguous Pages and Disambiguation Pages. My preference would be for there to be no Ambiguous Pages in Wikipedia, and anything linking to them needed to be dabbed. Josh Parris ✉ 23:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Propose to archive

I'm proposing to archive the section "Name disambiguation policy" since it's clear that this proposal isn't going to garner consensus. Please advise if you object to this archiving. This does not resolve the problem of how to handle these first-name pages, although I'm not certain this page is any longer the right venue to resolve that. For the moment I'll leave the section "FND: an alternative guideline". —Wahoofive (talk) 01:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If this page is not the right venue, then what is? —Lowellian (talk) 15:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I also think it is too early to archive. You should wait until some period (say, a week) after discussion on related topics has completely died down. Also, why is there a need to archive now? Most of this disambiguation talk page right now is on this topic. It should be archived after the disambiguation talk page moves on to other topics, and archiving should start with the earliest topics first (there are currently some topics under discussion at the top of the page before the name disambiguation section). —Lowellian (talk) 09:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Templates for Disambiguation Notices - fold into article?

The discussion on the templates (see top of the talk page) is extremely useful - so useful, I think it ought to be included into the article. Any objections? Josh Parris ✉ 02:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Object. There are too many templates mentioned up there. Do we really need all those? —Wahoofive (talk) 17:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the following ought to be included:

• Template:Otheruses (links, talk) {{otheruses}}
• Template:Otheruses2 (links, talk) {{otheruses2}}
• Template:Otheruses3 (links, talk) to add one or two links {{otheruses3}}
• Template:Otheruses-number (links, talk) for year pages {{Otheruses-number}}
• Template:Otherplaces (links, talk) {{Otherplaces}}
• Template:Otherplaces2 (links, talk) {{Other places2}}

Josh Parris ✉ 00:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm working on a draft for a major rewrite of this policy here. The intent of this rewrite is to make the text clearer, not to make any significant changes to the policy. Please comment on the article's talk page. (A side-by-side comparison can be seen here). This draft assumes that we'll come to some consensus eventually about the first-name-article issue; PLEASE don't rehash that issue there. Whatever conclusion we come to here will be reflected on that page. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands

Problem whether to use Tsushima, or Tsushima (disambiguation) for disambiguation in Talk:Tsushima Islands. Mr Tan 05:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That debate has nothing to do with this page.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixing links on talk pages?

I've been fixing up a lot of dab and redirect pages lately. While I'm happy to chase down the "What links here" entries and fix them up, I often find links from talk pages, and I'm not quite sure what to do with them. On the one hand, fixing them to point to the right place seems to make sense, but I'm uneasy editing something written in the first person and signed. What's the right thing to do here? RoySmith 3 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

If you want, you can link to the full http link, that's a way out that won't show up in WhatLinksHere. Another way is to disambiguate when the intention is clear, and fall back to the first technique first. Josh Parris ✉ 4 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

Ignore them. (Also, an unrelated semantic issue: many redirects don't need to be fixed.) --Joy [shallot] 4 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)

on that unrelated issue...true, but fixing them can, in the bigger picture, reduce the overall load on the servers, can it not? I might be misinformed. Courtland 18:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Not an issue. Talk pages are for editors to discuss things, the average user won't read it and follow links that they expect to go to a specific place. Neonumbers 5 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

The very least: if I'm moving a page or something similar to where the link will mean something else after I'm done, then I fix it. Cburnett July 5, 2005 14:06 (UTC)

I do tend to fix these (if there are not too many) because of the potential future action of deleting the original target article, which would leave a red-link on the talk page. Where I don't fix is on pages that are archives of official activities, such as the WP:VFD archive, where there is a note (sometimes) on the page indicating that the page should not be edited. Courtland 18:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Naming

Are there policies on the titles of disambiguation pages? I personally find it a little irritating when the regular article is a redirect to a disambiguation page (i.e. Yale). Shouldn't we just have the unambiguous page become the disambiguation page? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ah - yes - that. See the above discussion one the "Disambiguated Primary topic" method of disambiguation. It's a new addition (few months back now) that was added without discussion, as far as I am aware at least, on this talk page (the above discussion came after its addition). I propose (again) we discuss the removal of it. Neonumbers 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This actually appears to be yet another sort of disambiguation page, where the unqualified article redirects to the (disambiguation) article. It's clear to me that this does not fit any of the four forms listed on this project page, and so I'm going to fix it right now. The fourth form seems to refer to the ambiguous page redirecting to the primary topic, and then that having a link to the (disambiguation) page, if I'm not misunderstanding. For what it's worth I would vote against this new form of disambiguation. Deco 02:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Question about articles "a" and "the"

I recently did a bit of shifting around of article contents that has ended up with the creation of A Place in the Sun (disambiguation). I've included in this page a reference to Place in the sun, as well as the titles of the 1951 film and the British TV program. What I'm wondering is whether there is an element of the guideline that addresses when and how to disambiguate articles that are distinguished by the use of articles such as "a" and "the", as is the case here. I've expressed my own opinion in the form of the page I refer to, but don't really want to fly in the face of a consensus solution if one has been identified. As a related note, I'm of the opinion that this is a class of articles that do not really need a guideline to cover, but that they can/should be handled on a one-off basis as they arise; therefore, I'll happily bound on my way if there isn't a guideline. Thanks. Courtland 18:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I know of no guideline. I think it's obvious, though that such titles are likely to be confused and so should be disambiguated.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

For review, First Love

Could you review First Love and let me know what Guidelines I've violated and need to fix (and please, don't say "all of them" :))? This is an unusual disambiguation page, which is explained in the talk-space for the page. Thanks. Courtland 20:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

My comment would be that you've done good, although there seem to be a couple of defintions that you didn't "create" articles for - how come? And why is it "Freaky" and Nabokov's Congeries? Josh Parris ✉ 23:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• "Freaky" vs. Nabokov's Congeries: gut feeling, but I did not consult general style guidelines (the grammarian ones, not Wikipedian), which I probably should now that you've brought it up. I've never been good at typography in this sense.

information: I whipped out a book I look at once a year and found my instincts to be right. Quotation marks are used for "titles of magazine articles, chapters of books, names of songs, titles of poems, and other titles," while italics (underlining in non-typographic settings) is used for "titles of books, magazines, operas, and many works of art long enough to appear in book form." Thus, the quotating of a music video title (or song, I'm not sure which) and italicizing the name of a book. Hey! My gut has a decent memory! oh, considering I work on citation and fact checking too, this information is from the 1964 edition of Instant Spelling Dictionary Courtland 00:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the "done good". I've been thinking, though, on a balance between usability and what I'm coming to call the "Wikipedia Principle of Information Conservation" (?wipicon?). In more recent actions, for instance on DNA (disambiguation) (see talk space) and API (disambiguation) (see talk space), I've opted for maximum conservation by moving any red-links to the talk space with an explanation of why I did it. If this were applied to the First Love article, then the dab-page would look really clean and the effort others put in doing the linkages in the first place would have a representation in the talk space.

information: I went ahead and practiced what I preached here .. the page looks much better now without the many red-links, which now reside in the talk-space. Courtland 02:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Why didn't I create articles? umm, I know nothing about the topics. (nodding to myself) Yes, that's the reason (shoving the "you are lazy" sign back behind me out of sight).

Courtland 23:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Question about title preference

In the case where certain places are named after other places, the unambiguated article should refer to the originator, right? I have a question because the article at Montserrat is about the carribean island, and by the article's admission, the island is named after the mountain in Spain, whose article is at Montserrat (mountain). I have started a discussion at Talk:Montserrat#Rename. Please let me know if there is clear precedent here. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The primary title should be for the most common use of the name, if it's clear what that is. Doesn't matter whether it's the oldest use.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Is that really the case/policy? Fight Club is the book, and Fight Club (film) is the movie, although the movie is certainly more popular than the book; the first seven links from a google search refer to the movie. I'm fine with either, but I couldn't find a codified policy or precedent for this kind of thing. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of variation in application of this particular guideline, but (speaking as a relatively new arrival to this realm) I think the general feeling is one of "do no harm" meaning don't use a title that is obviously not as important/widely known/prevalently used as another available one. The bar should be higher for changing titles than for creating them. The matter of popularity is difficult to gauge sometimes, which is why some folks resort to the "Google Test": the object with the most and highest hits in Google wins as the recipient of the default title. I never do Google Tests myself for this particular purpose. Courtland 00:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Planets

Please see Talk:Planet#Naming for a discussion on the use of disambiguation pages as primary for planets. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Primary topic disambiguation

Discussion Part I

I don't understand the 4th method of disambiguation (which I'm sure didn't exist a few months back). Is this meant to be a temporary measure until consensus on one, standing, clear primary topic is found? That's the impression I get. And, I always thought that the main page (e.g. "Mercury") was never meant to be a redirect to a disambiguation page. Can someone explain the purpose? Neonumbers 11:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not the idea at all. The rationale is (I hope! :-) well explained on the proposal page; basically, the concept is to try and easily catch links which are made to disambiguation pages (i.e. someone makes a link and doesn't bother to check where it goes, to make sure it's to the right thing, and it's actually to a disambig page). Noel (talk) 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was added on May 17, 2005 by User:Josh Parris. It's confusing and should be removed. However, as I mentioned above, this whole section needs a rewrite. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The idea is due to User:Jnc (see User:Jnc/Disambiguation). --Smack (talk) 05:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, DPT disambiguation is not exactly what I proposed, but a variant of it (one I like, actually). My original proposal is sort of intermediate between the new #4, and the old #2 ("Equal"). Noel (talk) 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but it shouldn't have been added without any discussion. Give me one reason I shouldn't remove it right now.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because there's nothing that says people have to use DPT, and it's only a very slight variation on #2 ("Equal"), in that other pages which want to refer to the main meaning have to do so explicitly (so that it's not like the existence of this option is causing bizarre linking on pages which refer to the disambiguated topic, linking that we'd have to go around and change if we eventually decide to get rid of it)? Because there are a significant number of people who like this (or something like it)? Yes, it would have been better to discuss it before it was added, but now that it's been there for a while, removing it without discussing it would be just like adding it with no discussion. If we do decide to get rid of it, it will be trivial to turn them all into #2 disambigs; just delete the redir to the primary meaning, and move the disambig page there instead; none of the pages than link to anything will have to be touched. Noel (talk) 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)/19:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was some discussion, but it may not have taken place through officially approved channels. I'll ask Jnc. --Smack (talk) 18:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never started a formal Wikipedia discussion about it because I didn't have the time/energy. A number of people have seen it and discussed it with me, and I guess someone decided to be bold. Noel (talk) 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boldness doesn't apply to changing policies or guidelines. Does it?—Wahoofive (talk) 20:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I figured that:

1. it was a minor extension to the policy;
2. it seemed like the right thing to do; and
3. someone would slap me down if it was inappropriate.

Time seems to have bourne me out. But I don't know how many people actually paid attention to what I did, either following, or getting upset by, the method. But I agree, it is confusingly written. Sorry.

It seems like there's a lot of emotion kicking around disambiguation right now. Josh Parris ✉ 07:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My very best (and somewhat confused) understanding of User:Jnc/Disambiguation is that its only purpose is to make maintaining the links to the page easier. There are two (former) types of dab: Equal and Primary Topic. If you have Primary Topic, then the links that go to that page may or may not be correctly addressed. To find out, you must go to the page itself, unless its title is really that self-explanatory. With equal, most pages will be incorrectly addressed. To find out, you probably have to visit the page in question and then decide whether or not to change it.

With this proposed, or rather, fourth method, the only difference is that you don't have to sift through the links manually. All it does is eliminates the correct links - a small matter for Equal disambiguation, in my opinion. For Primary Topic disambiguation, this will eliminate hassle only for those which you couldn't tell from the title - the proportion of which I don't know, having never worked in the area.

Dare I say that (imo) the cost caused by confusion and disuniformity (as a user) outweighs the benefits of lesser maintenance. Anyhow, as of yet, this is not a place to discuss the method's validity. It still wasn't discussed properly, and was a major change (not pointing at anyone, btw). I think a month is a short enough time to remove it until a discussion is held and concensus formed. Any chance of that?

And, more importantly, is my second attempt at understanding this right? Neonumbers 09:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding in summary is: separating the Ambiguous Page from the Disambiguation Page allows simple maintenance of inbound links.

Having said that, I've just come to the realisation that having the Disambiguation Page at the same place as the Ambiguous Page isn't a problem - as long as there is a Topic (disambiguation) page redirecting to Topic, then intentional links to the ambiguity of Topic can be distinguished. Josh Parris ✉ 01:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So does this method stay or go? Neonumbers 5 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)

Discussion Part II

I propose that all Primary Topic disambiguation be discouraged. If an article name is ambiguous, there should be no article there.

Instead of putting an article at an ambiguous topic name, a disambiguation page should be created. And at the same time, a Topic (disambiguation) page should be created, redirecting to the Topic page. No article should intentionally link to Topic; if anyone wants to link to the ambiguous concept of Topic they'll link to Topic (disambiguation), which will redirect to Topic. Any inbound links to Topic are ambiguous. Josh Parris ✉ 01:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the advantage of this. I get the impression that your primary purpose is to distinguish legitimate links to dab pages (which would go to the page named Blah (disambiguation) from accidental links (which would go to Blah). But I don't think it's that difficult to distinguish the few legitimate links to a dab page. Do you? What am I missing? —Wahoofive (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It comes down to "I'm a bear of little brain". I don't like trying to remember/figure out all over again if a link to the dab page is meant to be there or not. I just want it to go away. No imbound links, no work for me to do. Simple. Josh Parris ✉ 01:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to cast aspersions on your brain size, Josh, but this is a pretty significant policy change just for your convenience. I'd like to hear from others that they'd also find it so much more convenient before I could support this.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• It can be quite onerous to sort through links on long pages, but I think it's worth it to do this manually. I learned my lesson in this respect on First Love .. I NEVER thought there would be so many references to this title as different objects on different pages where everone assumed that their reference would be the one-and-only. TLA's are also going to be nightmares, but worthy of manual treatment, I think. In summary, and if I understand things rightly, I think that the proposal is noble but unnecessary and falls into that class of actions aimed to predict the direction of editing, which are generally not pursued in this environment. A good case in point about that "descriptive rather than prescriptive" approach is the notion that we shouldn't add every possible article name to a dab-page that comes to mind when working on it, but restrict linkages to articles that actually exist in most cases (that First Love page needs some work from that point of view ...). Courtland 01:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, I think Primary Topic disambiguation's a very good method, especially when there's a Primary Topic. If there is dispute over which, then obviously that's not what you'll be using. But in many cases, there won't be dispute. I mean, if someone should ever make a film called Basketball, then that won't force the sport onto a dabed page. Primary topic disambiguation makes thing simpler for each case that uses it. Maybe more complicated in the sense that there are more systems, I accept, but simpler by the case. I still like it, and I still don't like the Disambiguated Primary Topic idea. Neonumbers 12:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's make sure we're all talking about the same thing. Neo, I think you missed the point of Josh's proposal. If I understand correctly, Josh is happy with Basketball, but doesn't want dab pages like Mercury to exist under the primary title; rather, the dab page should always be named with the (disambiguation) qualifier, and the primary name just be a redirect to the dab page. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Subsequently, he has suggested the reverse process, mandating a Mercury (disambiguation) redirect to the Mercury dab page. I don't have a problem with this — redirects are cheap — but I still want to hear from others before I'd support requiring it. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I re-read the first message... and I know I should really wait for Josh to clarify himself but the first sentence says that "all Primary Topic disambiguation be discouraged". That part if I interpret it correctly I'm definitely against.

But, true, the second part somehow came to me differently this time. So in Mercury's case, where dab page is at the Primary, then yes, I agree, there is some advantage in making a redirect at Mercury (disambiguation) and unlike Jnc's way, it doesn't interfere with the main system. But only create this redirect if necessary. I would suspect that almost all dab pages don't need it. And this should only apply where there is no primary topic. Neonumbers 12:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up the disambiguation category (TLA)

I'm wondering if anyone has considered splitting Category:Disambiguation into a couple of subcategories based on template usage. I'm right now thinking in terms of the use of {{TLAdisambig}} versus {{disambig}}. Presently, the former template directs labeled articles to inclusion in Category:Disambiguation. Could we consider modification of this template to allow direction of labeled articles to a new sub-category, Category:TLA_Disambiguation? My thinking is that such a category would be an identifiable finite chunk of page organization. As I've not thought through the numerous pros and cons of this, it would be helpful for a pros/cons discussion to proceed from here on this page. Thanks. Courtland 02:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The existing Category:Disambiguation is so large as to be useless, so my instinct is to support this. But there are some scripts (such as Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links which would need to be updated, so the ramifications might be larger than we think; maybe a mention on Village Pump would be indicated. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Would anybody be mad if I changed the text on this page as follows

I came to this page looking for simple instructions on how to create a piped link but had to look at "edit page" to see the example. I don't think this is clear since the Mercury example contains piped links but then does not even explain how they work. Would anybody be mad if I changed the text on this page as follows (this is a rough draft just to show you the idea):

Three different methods of disambiguating are discussed here: piped links, disambiguation links and disambiguation pages. In the first case, piped links are simply links which automatically redirect. In the second case, an article discussing one particular meaning of a term has a link at the top (or, rarely, at the bottom) pointing the user to another page with a similar title. Finally, a disambiguation page contains no article content, only links to other Wikipedia pages.

Then a brief description how to create a piped link, explainin where the pipe symbol is (over the slash usually?) and then walk people through how to do it using the Mercury example.

Please reply here or on my Talk page. Thanks!!! Laurap414 diligent semi-newbie Aug 12 1 pm CST (how do I insert the time?)

Now that you mention it, piping is the primary method of disambiguation used on Wikipedia. How about this revision of your opening sentence:

Three different methods of disambiguating are discussed here: piped links are simply links which automatically redirect to a more specific page. disambiguation links are links at the top of an article page offering the user the option to view a similarly-named article. disambiguation pages contains no article content, only links to other Wikipedia pages.

—Wahoofive (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Topics in disambigs

I just came across ABB, a disambiguation which was changed to its current style by User:Joshbaumgartner. I was just wondering what the general opinion of it was. Should we encourage that form or make sure nobody uses it? violet/riga (t) 10:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a very bad page. Discourage. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Wahoofive ... I wouldn't encourage this style. The design is pretty clearly based on the "dab pages as launchpads for exploration" style, over which we don't seem to have a firm consensus, though. Courtland 01:28, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

For TLAs, at some length, I think topics would be helpful. Not sure if "ABB" is of sufficient lenght and the suggested style is the preferable. -- User:Docu