Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

New collaboration

/from templates is basically wrapped up, with only a handful of particularly problematic links left lingering. I think /from portals is not nearly as urgent, so I propose a return to an old-fashioned collaboration of the week pick. So what's next up? bd2412 T 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Most of the articles with lots of links require specialist knowledge, but conservation looks like it could be attacked by just about anyone. That'd be my suggestion. Soo 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• What about Special:Whatlinkshere/Syndicated (~100 ~30 links)? It's a redirect to Syndication a bunch of them can be easily changed to Print syndication or Television syndication. Or is this too easy for a collaboration? --Dual Freq 15:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the ones left are radio syndication links, but no good spot to send them to. Special:Whatlinkshere/Syndication might still be a good one to try. I changed a few syndication links to radio syndication before I noticed that it was just a circular redirect. Anybody up for making it a real page so I don't have to go back and fix the ones I sent there? --Dual Freq 15:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a request for it at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences#Communications though now I think it migt belong at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts#Radio. In anyevent based on the other thigns on the DAB I would say that this article really should not be a redirect so if no one else creates a good version in the next few days we should create it as a stub. I think we should wait and see if someon who will do more than stub it comes allong form the requests page first. Dalf | Talk 07:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The first line of Television syndication says "In the television industry (as in radio) ...". Couldn't the problem be solved by having radio syndication be a redirect to television syndication? --Russ Blau (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That might work, but the TV name makes the article seems to exclude radio, begging for a separate radio article. Maybe one article named syndication (broadcasting or media) could include both. It would probably need a slight rewrite to include more radio information. I've been disambiguating the print and tv ones, but maybe I'll stop until this gets resolved. --Dual Freq 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Links that don't exist

I'm currently working on the CE disambig page, and here's what I'm noticing - a lot of them are articles in the "History of Malaysia" series. However, none of these articles, nor the HoM series box link to CE, the box links to Common Era, as it should. So, the 'what links here' says they link to CE, when they don't. I dunno. Search4Lancer 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a known problem with Whatlinkshere and templates. Template:History of Malaysia used to link to CE, and any article which uses that template and hasn't been edited since it was fixed still has the old link information attached. Bo Lindbergh 21:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So I could fix it just by say, adding a space to the end of the articles, or some useful edit such as a new link or something, and it should fix it, yes? Search4Lancer 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just answered my own question, as this method works.Search4Lancer 22:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

To do a null edit, you don't even have to put a space to end of the article, you can just hit save without modifying the article at all.--Commander Keane 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for future dumps

How about putting the list from each new dump in a subpage and transcluding it? This would simplify the changeover procedure. Bo Lindbergh 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have updated (significantly) the list on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance. Perhaps it would make more sense to use that as the regularly-updated list for this page, rather than using lists generated from dumps that become outdated after a couple of weeks. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I support the use of transclusion.

The history of this page has become unmanagable, and since the dump gets cut/paste to a subpage eventually transclusion is a good idea.

• I support using Maintenance as the new basis for reports.

Database dumps are too unreliable and become outdated too quickly. The only question is what we call them (ie database dumps isn't appropriate). I'm happy for a new maintenance report to be generated right now.--Commander Keane 04:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about that. It is an endless task after all, so breaking it into discrete rounds (each of which has a steadily advancing progress meter) probably helps improve the contributors' fighting spirits. ;) Bo Lindbergh 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for discrete rounds, it is just that a new round needs to be generated periodically. At the moment the database dumps are too unreliable, we have been waiting for nearly 2 months for an update - which is unnaceptable. I would like to see monthly updates, and this appears only possilbe by using Maintenance. I feel that peak efficiency for the Project occurs when there are many options for people to choose from, at the moment output is low. Just to confirm, the only disadvantage of Maintenance is that it has the possibility to be non-discrete?--Commander Keane 06:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by non-discrete? Do you mean without defined end points? If that is the case then we still suffer the problem of inevitable overlap. It might be better to change our way of thinking about the completeness of the project. The percentage complete is an artificial construct that does not map very well to this project. I think simply tracking (estimated) corrected links, number of disambig pages with less than X links, Number of DAB pages total etc might be the better plan. In other words we should think of a coherent status box of vital stats about disambiguation pages in wikipedia. We might compare the status at different times (including the total number of DAB pages). I think that sort of thing would give users who are helping and passers by a better view of the improvement in usability the project is creating. This also frees us to format the list of pages needing to be processed or maintained that will foster the best and most work, without having to worry about making the list do something else (like tracking an artificial and somewhat nonsensical percentage). Dalf | Talk 07:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Global statistics exist (example) but I think with multiple users adding comments like "15 links cleared" there is a want for more localised progress. Localised progress is achieved by discrete reports with a progress bar. Localised progress motivates people. --Commander Keane 08:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why can't we do both? Those that need that boost of seeing the progress made can work from the dump page (I'm probably in this category most of the time), and those with near-indestructable wills (and anyone who gets really motivated) can work from the maintenance page. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 16:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

One recent feature on Maintenance shows the change in the link count from week to week. A possible way of measuring progress would be to count up all the articles showing a reduction in link count; e.g., "15143 links to 78 disambig pages were removed since last week." --Russ Blau (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That makes for depressing reading when new links are added faster than the old ones are removed.

2005-11-13	2005-12-13
pages links articles 32166 410987 templates 936 1207 Σ 33102 412194	pages links articles 34126 425120 templates 349 400 Σ 34475 425520

Bo Lindbergh 16:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, that wasn't quite what I had in mind. Consider the following excerpt from the Maintenance page (obviously a real-life calculation would include many more entries, but I'm doing this by hand):

1. Cruiser (780 links) (new)
2. Temple (652 links) (-1)
3. Drug (640 links) (-299)
4. Premier (607 links) (new)
5. Boer War (551 links) (new)
6. Radiation (544 links) (+3)
7. Rock (494 links) (-11)
8. Sorbonne (479 links) (new)
9. Economy (478 links) (-26)
10. Foundation (471 links) (new)
11. Occupation (457 links) (new)
12. Signal (425 links) (-12)
13. Communications (422 links) (+5)
14. Telegraph (412 links) (new)
15. Arts (405 links) (+2)
16. Autonomy (400 links) (+6)
17. Keyboard (397 links) (+77)
18. Epic (394 links) (+12)
19. United Provinces (381 links) (new)
20. Pound (364 links) (new)

A script would count only the red entries, and output "Since last week, at least 349 links to 5 disambig pages have been cleared." --Russ Blau (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps one thing we can do to knock down this trend is to drop a note on user pages for folks who make disambig links. Is there any way to pick out the individual editors who have made such links, particularly the ones that have done so most frequently? bd2412 T 16:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Try checking the page history for the main page. You'll be able to pull out the names of anyone who made significant contributions, at least. Soo 18:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I mean the opposite! I want to find people who routinely write articles with links to disambig pages (when they should be making links to the specific articles disambiguated) and tell them to stop (and perhaps fix their mess)! bd2412 T 20:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The table is not depressing if you read it differently. The number of total links in Wikipedia has been increasing by 1 million in that time interval, and the percentage of links that go to disambiguation pages has actually been decreasing, so this project is making a visible impact in that metric. Kusma (討論) 17:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point. Perhaps we should include some kind of "total number of links" factor, so we can see the percentage going down. I personally like the percentage meter we have now, as updating it is very satisfying, and seeing it go up from the efforts of others shows what a great group effort the project is. More frequent dumps would be good; the number of pages that I'm interested in fixing is dwindling. So, good ideas all round, folks - I'll be following this carefully. Soo 18:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the avrage number of links per DAB page might be an intresting stat as well... Dalf's comment continues below in the 'More radical measures' section.--Commander Keane 10:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)...

Transclusion

I've moved the most current list of dab links to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Current list and transcluded it on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance. If there is a consensus to do so, it could be transcluded onto the main WP:DPL page as well. --Russ Blau (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus for that. In case it wasn't clear, what I supported above was the monthly creation of a report with information extracted from the Maintenance list. The report would be discrete, and independent of Maintenance, with a progress bar. The only difference to the current system is that we wouldn't wait for the database dump, which are included in Maintenance now anyway. As far as I can see, this idea is exactly the same as the current method.--Commander Keane 03:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

More radical measures

I have moved a few comments from the 'Suggestion for future dumps' down here, to facilitate wider disucssion--Commander Keane 10:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the creation of new ones I still think we should request (or ask about how muh load it woudl generate) a feature that warns a user in the privew page when they edit a page and add a link to a DAB page. User:Lupin's popup script is capable of doing some of this and even suggests the disambiguation targest. I have a feeling that it would likley generat too much load but it is worth asking about anyway. I mean it would be really cool if you clicked save or preview and it gave you the preview page with a warning like "You have added a link to Native American which is a Disambiguation page and may not lead to the article you desire ...." and then suggestions about alternatives. Or maybe I am just dreaming. Dalf | Talk 09:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dalf, that exact system has been a dream of mine for some time now. I didn't realise that Lupin's script could be used. In that case, couldn't the script just check against a list of dab pages (maintained by us) and therefore not generate any extra server load? I'm not sure how slow (CPU wise) that would be to use though. I don't how eager the developers are for load generating features though, for example you can't select the namespace in "Whatlinkshere".--Commander Keane 09:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if warnings on the preview page would be enough. Making all links to redirects and disambiguation pages green or orange might work better. Bo Lindbergh 10:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's actually a great idea, IMO. Orange, most likely, since external links are already green. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There was some minor discussion about this colouring idea previously: here.--Commander Keane 10:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

New dump is here!

Bo Lindbergh has kindly (thanks Bo!) generated a new report, from the Dec. 13 database dump. As we discussed previously, the new dump exists on a subpage (Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/2005-12-13 dump). However, if you hit one of the [edit] buttons on the main project page you are taken straight to the right spot. All discussion will continue on this page, not the subpage. More importantly, I suggest Broadway (disambiguation) for the next collaboration, thoughts?--Commander Keane 00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My goodness—that's alotta dab pages! Well, at least I won't want for anything to do on Wikipedia. Broadway sounds good. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 07:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I helped knock off some of these, but nice job to the person who did all of the bulk! JHMM13 (T | C) 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, bugger-all work went into Broadway (disambiguation). Broadway was redirected to Broadway theatre without discussion. I would have liked to see some consensus, because now there is a risk that the redirect will be overturned.--Commander Keane 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually switched it back. As much as I like to see the green progress bar move, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a bunch of articles about NYC subway stations, for example, linking to Broadway theatre. --Russ Blau (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the guilty party who redirected Broadway to Broadway theatre without consensus. Sorry about that. Still, I think the redirect is correct. Maybe 1% of the Broadway links go to something other than Broadway theatre.--Bill 15:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill, since it's rather controversial the proper way to obtain consensus for the redirect will be a Requested move.--Commander Keane 19:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Well I agree with Bill either way :-). JHMM13 (T | C) 23:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Staten Island (disambiguation)

Updating a topic that is now in archive 03, I have nominated the Staten Island disambiguation page for deletion. If you have an opinion one way or the other, place your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staten Island (disambiguation). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

3 nearly-done pages

The following 3 dabs have 15 or less links to them in the main namespace, but due to difficulty or lack of motivation I can't bring myself to finish them off:

• Flemish
• Vatican
• Charles I

--Commander Keane 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How could I resist? All done. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Standardized edit comment

I'm getting going on some of the pages from the list, and I'll be cut/pasting this into my edit comment:

Corrected link to disambiguation page. ([[Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links|you can help!]])

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotter (talk • contribs)

Interesting. I think this edit summary is clearer, since it removes any confusion between disambiguation pages and disambiguation links. I might start using it. Does anyone else think it should replace the current version on the project page?--Commander Keane 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#How to help? I like that note a lot, and I wouldn't vote to replace it. I started using this note because removing links to disamb pages is a slightly different activity.--dpotter 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant "disambiguation link repair (You can help!)". Found on this project page; WP:DPL (step 8 on the instructions). You have caught me, I do tend to be a little liberal in the use of the word "project" around here :).--Commander Keane 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon capitan! It is you who have caught me. I missed that instruction, and I'll revert to that comment, which IMHO works nicely. dpotter 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ironic. I'll be using the edit summary you introduced to me and you will be using the edit summary I introduced to you.--Commander Keane 02:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

When finishing a page..

Do the instructions still stand for what to do when a dab page's links are fixed? The layout of this page has changed a little since I was last here, and now I noticed a lot more people editing the graph total themselves.

Not wanting to screw up stats, I've followed the instructions literally and just struck through Bisexual but left it in the main list.. --OliverL 11:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The instruction in question is outdated. It currently reads as:

If you fix all the main namespace links to that disambiguation page, please strike it (using <s></s>) from the list below, and add it to the list at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance.

Since we now move completed entries to the done section, and maintenance doesn't require human intervention (I think it reads the dumps itself these days) I propose the statement be changed to:

If you fix all the main namespace links to that disambiguation page, please move it to the ''Done'' section and strike it (using <s></s>).

Incidentally, anyone is welcome to update the stats, but if you don't feel like it then they will be taken care of by someone else.--Commander Keane 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Need some help troubleshooting 'What Links Here'

Can I ask someone to take a look at the "what links here" page for lathe? It contains a rather longish list of articles that don't seem to actually include any links to the lathe article. Most of them include one of the Wikiproject Metalworking templates, but I can't find any lathe links in there, either - only links to lathe (tool). Help. dpotter 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Of hand, I remember lathe being changed to lathe (tool) on a metalworking template. What you are seeing in the "Whatlinkshere" are false postives - the Wikimedia software won't update the false postives (to preserve server resources) until they are next edited. To get rid of them, you can perform a null edit (=blank save). You just save the page without changing anything and it will be removed from the "Whatlinkshere" (note: the edit won't show up in the history). Alternatively, you can get a bot (eg I have a bot that will do this, so does RussBlau) to do the blank saves (sometimes called touching) for you. My bot is currently working on Lathe. You can request a bot do this for any page, anytime, on this talk page. If you need further explanation of what I have explained, just ask.--Commander Keane 17:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, wow it feels fantastic to get a nice solid explanation like this. Thanks very much, I understand perfectly. That was driving me nuts! Is there an easy method for doing touching a page without a bot? "Edit this page" followed by "save" doesn't seem to actually create a new revision, but is it recalculating the 'what links here' by just doing this? Should I add a space or extra newline somewhere? dpotter 18:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Edit this page" followed by "save" is recalculating the "What links here". A new revision isn't created, but I can assure you that a false postive will be removed by doing this. Incidentally, my bot has finished running through Lathe, there shouldn't be anymore false positives there.--Commander Keane 18:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention, no space or newline is needed.--Commander Keane 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. The bot worked great, took me from 100+ links to about 5 that actually needed fixup. Thanks for both the help and the education! dpotter 18:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

re-indentingI have a slightly different problem. Template:Wikiproject Indian cinema was added to some relevant talkpages; later, it was modified to ensure that all the talkpages are automatically placed in Category:WikiProject Indian cinema. However, not all the previously up-dated talk pages are reflected in the category. Guess some null edit needs to be done on them. Can your bot handle this? btw, Commander's bot seems to be making the Working Man's barnstar redundant; great work, way to go!! --Gurubrahma 05:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that categories also suffer from a lack of database updating. I'll get my bot to touch each of the pages that use Template:Wikiproject Indian cinema, hopefully this solves your problem. The bot will be done in 1.5 hours. I don't have any tools (apart from my eyes physically looking at the category page) to check if this works, so maybe you could check for me Gurubrahma, since you are familiar with the category.--Commander Keane 07:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a ton Commander, it seems to be working; it was sub-100 when i posted the request, it is now 200. --Gurubrahma 09:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

fastest way to disambiguate links?

Just wondering, what is currently the fastest way to do this tedious task? Gflores ^Talk 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a great guide here: Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links/Guide#Editor.27s_techniques D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately the fastest way is to use a bot to assist you (you still need to make every descision though). I use m:Solve disambiguation.py. The fastest I've gone is 375 in 30 minutes, but at that speed my brain began to fry. If you don't want to install the bot, a browser with tabs, and popups (which let you open a page directly in the edit window from the "What links here") are useful.--Commander Keane 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for. Is a bot flag required to use the solve disambiguation? Gflores ^Talk 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well you definitely have to request permission to run any bot (including one that just does link repairs) at WP:BOTS. You will be approved for a one week trial, after that you may apply for a bot flag. A bot flag is generally needed for accounts that edit many times per minute (they clog up recent changes). solve_disambiguation.py can run very fast, so a bot flag is recommended. I welcome more questions.--Commander Keane 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have not read everything that has been said on the matter, but I came here to see if I could help.. Is it not possible for certain disambiguation tasks to be performed automatically on the servers? The results could be tagged for humans to check? Regards, Gregorydavid 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "on the servers" means. And I can't think of any disambiguation edits that can be automated - generally a human has to check every edit first.--Commander Keane 05:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Pop redirect to pop music?

I've been doing some dabs for pop and it appears that most of the links are coming from album/music artist articles, meaning they are referring to pop music. I noticed techno and rap also were redirected, should the same be done with pop with a (otheruses) template? Gflores ^Talk 17:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Keeping track of progress number-wise

I'm hoping to start working on fixing links to disambig pages, but I wanted to ask a few clarification questions:

• I understand that if an entire page gets fixed, it gets striken through and moved to the 'Done' list. However, is the instruction "and add it to the list at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance." something different? What is the difference between the way the pages are listed on this page and they way they are listed on the Disambiguation pages maintenance with the (+,-) in parenthesis?
• If a page is not entirely fixed at one point, should that be noted, or just left as is until it is entirely fixed? Is it fine (as I see on the page) to just add to the end how many are left as of whatever the date is?

Thanks -- Natalya 20:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore the instructions about Disambiguation pages maintenance -- it is no longer valid, and I am going to delete it now that you have pointed it out. As for your second question, my personal opinion is "leave it alone" unless you want to note something that might be helpful to others working on the same page. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense now. I just put a small update next to the one I was working on, but it shouldn't be there for too long since they will hopefully be all done soon. -- Natalya 00:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ash

• Many, if not most, of the pages which link to Ash refer to "the remains of fire", which is merely defined on the disambig page, and does not have its own article. Should links to this meaning of the word be delinked? Jdcooper 12:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• The links to the meaning will have to be considered on a case by case basis, keeping in mind Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and that you can link to wiktionary, eg [[Wiktionary:ash|ash]]. Personally, I consider whether the reader will benefit from a link to a definition of such a simple word, if not then I will unlink.--Commander Keane 13:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I will bear that all in mind, thank you. Jdcooper 17:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Word origin links

Is there any consensus on what to do for disambiguation links for pages that list words from a certain origin? For example, the following pages link to the yam disambiguation page:

• List of English words of African origin
• List of English words of Portuguese origin

Is there any way to tell if they are refering to a certain usage of the word or if it is just the word in general (and then would leave the link to the disambiguation page)? Thanks -- Natalya 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes editors want to link to the disambiguation page, for example in the fictional List of words starting with y and end with m, there would be Yam, which some like to link to the disambiguation page (I prefer Wiktionary, but others don't like Wiktionary). There's no consensus, but editors will get rather peeved if you de-link.

In this specific case, the meaning (from OED online) in both cases is "To eat, esp. with relish." (and I thought we were talking about a vegetable). It's derived from the a couple of West African words. How do we deal with this on the List of English words of African origin page? Mmm, Wiktionary doesn't have that meaning. The disambiguation page will never have that meaning. I don't know. How do we deal with this on the List of English words of Portuguese origin page? I don't think the Portuguese can claim the orgin to the word, so I will remove it and place a note on the talk page.--Commander Keane 02:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Wiktionary and Dictionary.com, give yam (among other derivations), "From the Portuguese inhame...", which might be where they got the Portuguese origin from. However, the OED is probably more reliable on the subject, so thanks for changing it. I'll post a question on the List of English words of African origin talk page just to see if anyone who's been editing it has more information, but will leave it for now. -- Natalya 03:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

While not especially helpful in this specific instance if you do decide to leave the link to the disambiguation page I would suggest directing it to Yam (disambiguation) and making that page a redirect to Yam so that future editors doing disambiguation link repair will know that someone intended the link to go to the disambiguation page. Dalf | Talk 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good idea. I've changed it for now, and if we ever get more information it can always be directed to where it should be. -- Natalya 12:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: Though it has already been dealt with, from the reply on the List of English words of African origin talk page, it turns out that the word origin is referring to yam (vegetable), and has been correctly linked.

Is a rose by the name "life form" still as sweet?

I am seeing too many pages where the same word is disambiguated according to where it is used. For example, the efficiency page should not be called a disambiguation page. Efficiency is one word. It is starting to have its own article. The others are special cases that should be linked from the main article for the word. Of course there are cases that should go the other way, as in the social sciences. ("Function" has several meanings in psychology alone, not to mention ordinary English and mathematics.)

What I am saying is that a word (not a tense of a verb or other derived word) often deserves its own article, even if that ends up resembling a disambiguation page. This may or may not be easy but it is part of the difference between rote memory and real learning for our readers. David R. Ingham 06:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

birth

I can't find anything ambiguous, but I can't find how to put it in the done list either. David R. Ingham 06:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That rose question above is a little too abstract for me to respond to, but I'll give this one a go. Usually a dab page is put on the done list when no more pages link to it (eg for German all the "What links here" were pointed to go to either German language or Germany). Birth is a special case, because although it has a {{disambig}} that is incorrect. It's really just an article that directs people to things about the same topic. So what should be done is remove the {{disambig}}, and move any real disambiguation material to Birth (disambiguation). I've done that now.--Commander Keane 07:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. David R. Ingham 08:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Debut

A lot of the links refer to a debut of some other kind, such as directorial debut, debut single, and film debut. What should be done in this case? Gflores ^Talk 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like that might be the case of excessive wikilinking - if it is only referring to the definition of debut, you might just consider removing the link all together? -- Natalya 02:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Natayla, and my response to this question is indentical to my repsonse aobut the Ash question above [1].--Commander Keane 04:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I just disambiguated Debut and only saw this after so I'm glad the consensus was with me. I unlinked most of the references. This is one case where there the presence of the dab page has encouraged wikilinking in error, by turning the errant links blue ~ Veledan • Talk 21:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Radiation

Lots of choices here but given the casual usage of the term in general I think a large number of them actually SHOULD point to the DAB page. I have created Radiation (disambiguation) to sort out the ones that should go to a DAB from the rest. Dalf | Talk 04:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there are many cases where one should point to the disambiguation page. For example, if you're talking about radiation in the sense that "radiation can cause lung cancer," then you're definitely talking about ionizing radiation, which is a general term encompassing all types of radiation that can be harmful. To be even more general, you can link to particle radiation, which encompasses both harmful and non-harmful (neutrino, etc) types of particle radiation (and which could use some expansion). However, I can think of few cases where you'd actually want the disambiguation page. TomTheHand 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not do that many links in this one but I did point two specifically to the DAB page. Those were Black Mesa Research Facility which is from a videogame and talks about doing research on radiation so it was either the DAB page or de-wikify. The second was Bolometer which used the term in this sentence The bolometers are sensitive not only to light but to every form of energy. They can be used to search for unknown forms of mass or energy (like dark matter) as well as normal particles and radiation. Should we move this discussion to the talk page and shoudl we do it here or on the articles talk page? It seems out of place in this list. Dalf | Talk 02:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know... it seems to me there are very few cases where an article can be referring to any type of radiation. It's too broad of a term. It seems to me that if an article doesn't know whether it means alpha radiation or thermal radiation then there's a problem with the article and somebody knowledgeable about the subject should clear it up. I've played Half-Life and I would think the Black Mesa article would be best pointed at ionizing radiation. It's fictional, after all, so there's probably no "wrong" answer, and the author almost certainly means "the kind of radiation that messes you up." On the subject of bolometer, I think someone who knows more about it should look at the article. If "radiation" needs to get broken up into a couple of types, like "particle or electromagnetic radiation" with links to both, it would be a better solution than linking to disambiguation. TomTheHand 14:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've always felt that an article was needed at radiation - even if its only purpose was to outline a general definition and present the articles Wikipedia has on offer. I asked at the physics portal with no luck. If you think it's a good idea I'd love for someone to whip up the article.--Commander Keane 15:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Commander Keane. Gflores ^Talk 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Radiation is used in popculture as a generic term more often than you might think. Average people will say or hear radiation and not think (or even be aware of) what/diffrent types. From that standpoint I think this particular disambiguation page has significant educational value. Simply reading the list and seeing the diffrent types is I think worthwhile for a lot of people who click on the word Radiation (even in some cases where the article is refeering to something specific. Is there any precident for having a Disambiguation page deviate significantly from the given style in the manual of style for disambiguation pages and be a sort of hybrid article dicussing the term as well as a disambiuation page? If so I really like Commander Keane's idea. Dalf | Talk 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

People may say "radiation" and not understand all the different types there can be, but that's why the disambig page pops up when you type "radiation." In an encyclopedia, how can there be articles that can use the word "radiation" and not have any kind of idea what radiation they mean? There are already several generic articles about different kinds of radiation. There's ionizing radiation, the kind that messes you up, electromagnetic radiation, which covers everything from radio waves to gamma rays, solar radiation, covering all the fun stuff the sun spits out... how can an article have no idea what kind of radiation it means? TomTheHand 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

How can there be articles that use it and not know what it means? Because we have a lot of articles on popculture fiction and other non-science articles. There *IS* some unifying simmilarity that got all of these things which are diffrent to be called radiation, and in a number of the articles on nontechnical things it is this unifying similarity that is refered to. There is also the case (with all disambiguation pages) where the article in question is actually discussing the term and all teh things it might mean. This is especially the case with radiation as the place to approach a significant demographic of readers is with the term. I like the idea of expanding the disambiguation page out a bit beyond the standard DAB style and only redirecting links that are very clearly fering to something specific (which will be most of them). Dalf | Talk 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

(less indenting) I could be doing a better job of articulating my position here, but I just realised something else that bothers me about this, and makes me lean twards pointing links to the disambiguation page. There are some entries on the DAB that for every link sent to them the link could probbly be just as validadly sent to another of the items. Can you think of many instances of when you woudl send the link to Radiant energy when it coudl not also be sent to one of the other links? How many of the specific types of radiation listed are also Ionizing radiation? Alpha particles are! Infact virtually every article listed in Specific types in physics: is can be grouped into one of the articles under General types in physics: How do we decide when to send the link to which one? Or worse when I do the DAB am I going to uyse a diffrent standard than you would? What about artciles that could link to three of the targets on the page?

I think we

1. might want to give some though to the header we put at the tops of these articles linking back to the DAB page.
2. we should include some more aids in the DAB to help people figure out where they want to go.
3. Think about getting rid of one of the two categories of radiation (general or specific) and putting it on a diffrent DAB page and linking to it form here or ... something I am just thinking out loud.

The problem as I see it is that for a large number of the links comming here even someon who knows about the subject might have a hard time deciding where to send the links, and even once he has decided someone else who also knows the subject might have done something diffrent and been just as valid. This is not as deterministic as I woudl like. Dalf | Talk 02:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that alpha and beta radiation are types of ionizing radiation is not a problem. If an article is talking harmful radiation, it should link to ionizing radiation, and ionizing radiation links to alpha and beta radiation for people who want more detail about different types. If an article is referring to multiple distinct types of radiation, like particle radiation and electromagnetic radiation, then it should say so and link to both, not link to a disambiguation page. That demonstrates that the article doesn't know what it's talking about. I can kind of see difficulty in linking something fictional like Black Mesa Research Facility to a specific type, since there is no real research going on and so no real type of radiation to link to. However, any article that is talking about real radiation should link to the appropriate real articles (more than one article if necessary) instead of saying "I have no idea what kind of radiation I'm talking about." TomTheHand 20:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've found the first article to convince me that there are pages that should link to radiation and the page should be expanded to include a definition: isotropy. Isotropy can refer to literally any kind of radiation. Still, I would be very careful about linking many pages directly to radiation, as such exceptions should be few. Almost every article should be referring to one or more specific kinds of radiation. TomTheHand 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Also since this is something of a hardone after we reach some sort of consensus on it, and make any changes we may or may not make to thedisambiguation page itself. Can I nominate this (allong with some written guidelines) as a colaboration of the week and see if we can get it done, this is one of the DAB pages that I think having it processed would add a lot of value to the user expirence of people on wikipedia. Dalf | Talk 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Lucky someone moved this conversation of the project page! To relax the MOSDAB guidelines on Radiation (to allow a better explanation etc) the {{disambig}} should be removed. The format would be like a Root page (which is a good concept, but just intstruction creep - you can have a root page without a template specifying it as one). Perhaps the concern about removing the {{disambig}} is that we still want someone to go through all the link to Radiation and point them to a better target if possible. If that is the only thing stopping the removal the dab template then I will set up a maintenence project that will list pages like this one (pages that are not dabs but still require their "What links here" to be checked periodically).--Commander Keane 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bosnia

I just did some 30 links, but there are 734 remaining. People continue linking to the disambig, so this might be an uphill battle. --Zsinj 00:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on these lately. Some of them are straightforward and some are not. I was hoping to start some discussion here so we can try to come up with some rules of thumb. I don't have any particular special knowledge of Bosnian history, but I've read through the articles involved and I'm trying to get a clear picture in mind. I wrote this while doing research and so it's long and rambling but it's a collection of my thoughts on different time periods. Here's what I've come up with so far:

If an article refers to Bosnia as the modern nation, it should be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's the name of the modern country. Herzegovina is, as far as I can tell, not governed separately, and it does not have its own distinctive cultural group. The Bosnia and Herzegovina page even says there's no solidly defined border between Bosnia and Herzegovina.

If an article refers to Bosnia in the sense of the Bosnian War, it should almost certainly be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosnian War was fought throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Even if it's describing an incident that happened in a city that's undoubtedly in Bosnia (region) it should, in my opinion, be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

From the end of World War II until Yugoslavia's breakup in 1992, references to Bosnia should be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina was one of the six Socialist Republics that made up the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

If an article refers to Bosnia during World War II, when Yugoslavia was invaded and a puppet state called the Independent State of Croatia was established, I'm not sure what to do. It would depend a lot on the context and this is one of the issues that I'd really like input on.

Between World War I and World War II, Yugoslavia was intentionally divided up into provinces that did not correspond to traditional boundaries. I wouldn't know what to do with a reference to Bosnia during this time period.

This picture shows that Bosnia and Herzegovina were considered one entity in 1878, when the Austro-Hungarian empire began to exert control over the area, ending in formal annexation in 1908. It seems to me that between 1878 and the end of World War I, the majority of references to Bosnia should point to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Between the late 15th century and 1878, Bosnia and Herzegovina were/was part of the Ottoman Empire. We have an article specifically for this located at Bosnia Province, Ottoman Empire, so I think most references to Bosnia during that time period should point to that.

Before annexation by the Ottoman Empire, things are very confusing for me. I'm not sure whether to link to Bosnia (region), to Bosnia and Herzegovina, or perhaps even to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The name Herzegovina was apparently first adopted in "1435/1448" according to the History article. I... don't know. TomTheHand 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Boer War

Needs an editor knowledgeable in British history to determine whether the reference means the First, Second, or both. See also Boer Wars and Talk:Boer Wars. --Smack (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also been working on Boer War, and while I agree that in some cases there is a need for someone knowledgeable in British history, there is a lot that can be done by people without specific knowledge.

The First Boer War was fought from December 16, 1880, to March 23, 1881. That's just over three months.

The Second Boer War was fought from October 11, 1899 to May 31, 1902. That's over two and a half years.

Both the twenty-year separation between the two wars and the difference in the lengths are of great help in figuring out which to link to. I would say that 80% of articles that refer to Boer War can be pointed at the right place by looking at the date. Also, the Second Boer War is often referred to in discussions of concentration camps. If it's talking about concentration camps, it's talking about the Second Boer War. TomTheHand 18:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Boer War disambiguation is done except for talk/user pages, and some others which I'm not completely sure of. Could someone else have a look? --CDN99 04:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

String

I've been working on String. I was pretty bad, but I think I've got it untangled. (Get it?) I ended up cleaning up Strings, too. I could use some advice at this point:

1. It seems odd to have both "string" and "strings" articles; Wikipedia usually doesn't have a plural as a seperate article. I suggested a merge, and I've not received any comments. Does a merge seem like a good idea?
2. "String" has plenty of links to it because it has a simple definition of "string" as rope or twine. I'm not really sure what to do with these; I'm surprised there are articles for "rope" and "Cord" and "twine", but not for "string"   history, making of, types, and so on, seem like something that could be covered. Should I follow the advice above for "Ash" [see #Ash], or should I just leave it alone? Do all of these "string" links make it a bad idea to merge "strings"?

• I came to the same conclusion about Grand Slam - most just wanted a definition. But folks started complaining when I de-linked, so I stopped. -Jcbarr 17:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. -- Mikeblas 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) directs that dictionary definitions should not be used - see the section "Individual Entries". Also, Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context points out that (in most cases), plain English words (such as string, referring to the general definition of string) should not be linked to. In cases where both of the previous style guides apply, I find it best to just take out the link. That happened a lot when fixing all the disambiguation links to field - most of them were just linking to main the definition of the word, which would not be linked. -- Natalya 18:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll try removing links about twine to "string", and put the brakes on if anyone complains. Meanwhile, can anyone comment on the "strings" to "string" merge? -- Mikeblas 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be in desperate need of a merge - I've put my comments on the talk page. -- Natalya 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tail

"Tail" really shouldn't be a disambig - the anatomical meaning is the overwhelming use, and the basic theme of links to the page. bd2412 T 19:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would also say that like the case with String, Tail should be merged with Tails -- Natalya 19:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Note - discussion continued at Talk:Tail. bd2412 T 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

nemesis

I'm sticking my toe in with Nemesis and finding that most examples are the common noun, which is not even mentioned in the disambig page. I've changed some to Nemesis (mythology)|nemesis, since that's the nearest thing available, but am not convinced that's the right thing to do. —Tamfang 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Although 'nemesis' (as the common noun) seems like a word that might actually have a page to itself, since it doesn't it probably shouldn't be linked to in those cases. See Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context for more specific terms. -- Natalya 17:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone back to those pages and removed the link. —Tamfang 04:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(disambiguation) in the title

Once upon a time, this list (or was it the Offline reports list in its day?) excluded links to pages that have "(disambiguation)" in their titles. That's because if somebody links to such a title, then it's obviously deliberate. And so by creating a redirect from the "(disambiguation)" title, a means was created for marking links as deliberate so that they don't appear in this list.

However, the current list includes some such pages. Why was this criterion for exclusion removed? Or am I just imagining it being in here in the first place? -- Smjg 14:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Don't know why the criterion existed in the first place, but it makes sense here because sometimes "Foo" or some variation of it redirects to "Foo (disambiguation)". This is occasionally the result of page moves. bd2412 T 17:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I just started to explain why it would have existed: so that people can deliberately link to disambiguation pages where it's appropriate to do so, and then such deliberate links would not be counted in this list. -- Smjg 18:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As BD2412 said, if Foogle (disambiguation) is on this list then it is often becasue Foogle redirects to Foogle (disambiguation) - under the current guidleines that situation is undesirable. Malplaced disambiguation pages has recently fixed up a few hundred of these situations, so currently there is only one page on the list with " (disambiguation)" in the title - Crusade (disambiguation) (that's becasue Crusaders and Crusader link there). Sure people can deliberatly link to a page like Foogle (disambiguation), but there will never be more than 100 such links, so Foogle (disambiguation) won't appear in this, WP:DPL, report.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander Keane (talk • contribs)

DPL True Link

Hi, I just wrote a PHP script that takes "What links here" page and sorts them into the different namespaces, so you can see exactly how many links remain. Would anyone be interested in having access to this tool? I was going to recalculate all of the figures and place them on a subpage of my Userpage, but if more people are interested, I can make it more widely available. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 20:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I ran the current top 25 though my DPL True Link script, and you can see the results here, feedback appreciated. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I now have the top 100 and 200 listed from my DPL page, along with the current top 25 re-counted. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 23:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I now see that RussBot does pretty much the same thing as my PHP script, but I suppose we could find some use for mine, maybe :-) --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting upkeep?

Would anyone be adverse to add a bit to the "How to help" section about upkeeping pages that one has fixed disambiguation links to? It would be nice to just say something along the lines of "after you have fixed all the links to a disambiguation page, check back once in a while to fix all new links to the page". I know Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance kind of deals with this, but adding something short to the instructions might make it easier on a smaller scale. -- Natalya 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's another complication. I would like to promote the ease of link repair - just dropping in and fixing ten links is awesome. I don't want to scare people off by saying they should remain loyal to a dab they have worked on.--Commander Keane 06:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

True. And hopefully those who it wouldn't scare will do it anyway. -- Natalya 12:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What if no separate article for ambigous term exist?

I just started doing this disambig thing and found that many times ambiguous term refers to a definition which doesn't have article of its own but is covered under that term's disambiguation page. Should I just leave it like that or remove the link at all? Example: circulation and its use as 'number of newspaper/magazines readers'. Ashish G 02:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If the link is simply to a dictionary definition of the word that does not have a page linked to from the disambiguation page, it is best to just delete the link (following Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context). While it might be appropriate to add a Wiktionary link to the disambiguation page, the above definition (and ones like it) still should not be linked to. -- Natalya 05:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: Upon inspection, circulation actually had quite a few entries that were not needed, as they were simply dictionary definitions. I have removed them and cleaned up the page, which should make fixing the disambigutaion links somewhat easier. -- Natalya 06:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. This is definitely something I can do without much knowledge requirement :) Ashish G 17:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome! It is good to have you working on the project. -- Natalya 19:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Another question: I see that most of links are repaired by removing the disambiguation page and making it redirect to most common use ('no longer a dab page'). Is there any way to check that what article is redirected is indeed most common use, other than to check all pages manually? Or it is just done based on sample of those pages? Because, otherwise, it is the easiest way of doing this. Ashish G 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think most links are repaired that way (take a look at the edit count of any link repairer!), mostly we keep the dab page and just fix the links. Sometimes a predoniment use will get the dab redirected to it. I can't think of an easier way to check if an entry is most popular, and common sense plays a part. Discussion must be undertaken because redirection can be contentious.--Commander Keane 05:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think disambiguation pages are a convenient place to accommodate alternative usage of a term that may not have an existing article. If these terms are always deleted from the disambiguation page one would loose a lot of variety coming from the user Wiki community. Is there an easy way to determine the Wiktionary content for the specific ambiguous term? Has the system not got counters to determine most populour usage? Gregorydavid 08:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

New tool, and encouragement

I have written a very short Python script that reports on our progress on fixing links in the current database dump; it is available for your inspection at User:RussBlau/dplcount.py. This tool makes it unnecessary to manually update the subtotals and running totals on the dump page.

Also, let me take this opportunity to thank and encourage everyone who has been working on this project. Sometimes it seems like a hopeless task to fix all the zillions of disambig links; and, in fact (as some have pointed out in the past), this project will never be "finished" because editors are creating new links to disambig pages every day. But looking at the statistics on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance does show that we are making progress. Even though the weekly scans continually pick up new disambig pages from the database dumps, and new links to existing pages, the general trend in the total number of links needing to be fixed is downward. On February 12 (the first week that I was able to merge in a new database dump since the Christmas/New Years hiatus), there were 169,272 links needing to be fixed. Two weeks later, despite two new database dumps that picked up over a hundred more disambig pages, and many new links to existing pages, the total was down to 168,255. In other words, we are fixing the links (a little bit) faster than others are creating them! If we can get a few more volunteers to pitch in, we can whittle down the total even faster. Keep up the good work, and recruit your friends!  :-) --Russ Blau (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, pages categorised: disambiguation are the only ones we are dealing with? Is it not possible to have classes of disambiguation, so that tools can be made quite specific?

Gregorydavid 08:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a recent vote to eliminate all (I think) disambiguation categories other than Category:Disambiguation because nobody could explain how having mutliple disambig templates and categories would actually be useful. If you have a specific idea for a tool that could actually make use of such categories, we'd love to hear about it. --Russ Blau (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The new tool is awesome, thanks Russ Blau! Note to everyone: manually updating the progress is no longer required.--Commander Keane 11:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Namespace filter for "What links here"

I have just submitted a bug report requesting a namespace filter for "What links here". This would allow us to view only the Main: namespace when doing link repair (like you can do in Special:Contributions) - a feature long sought after by many. If you would like the feature, I recommend that you vote for it at the bug description page.--Commander Keane 01:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been requested before, and if I understand correctly, put aside because "what links here" is generated from the (rather enormous) links table, which is built as pages are saved. Sorting or filtering this table, instead of just dumping the results in the same order as links are saved to the table, would cause a huge hit to the servers. Perhaps things have changed since then, and it can be done now, but don't be too surprised if it's marked as a duplicate or turned down. — Catherine\^talk 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The bug was a duplicate. Thanks for the explanation CatherineMunro - at least I now know the method behind the madness.--Commander Keane 00:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up dab pages

Would it be possible for those fixing the links to also clean up the dab page? Or is it too much to ask for? The reason I ask is because sometimes the person doing the dab page, say for lattice, may also have experience with those terms and would be better suited to fix and/or add descriptions to the links on the dab page. If they're not familiar with the DAB MoS, then they can just add a {{disambig-cleanup}} tag. It would also help with the countless number of dab pages needing clean up. Gflores ^Talk 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. It also makes your task of dab'ing the page easier if you clean it up a bit. I normally begin by stripping out excess entries and unlinking non-disambiguating words before beginning the disambiguation, and I'll usually come back to re-order the list and make one or two more amendments after disambiguating 100 links or so. ~ Veledan • Talk 07:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely, for all the above stated reasons. It makes everything so much easier when fixing the links to have the disambiguation page organized anyway. And if people don't want to take the time/aren't able to personally clean it up, adding the cleanup tag means WikiProject:Disambiguation will hopefully take care of it. -- Natalya 18:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Archived talk pages

I have been doing some dabbing of various articles mostly Perth and Keyboards what I'm finding is that a lot of the dab links are from talk pages that get archived. Is there any way to delink these pages totally from all articles when they are created. Take this page as an example User talk:Duncharris/archive1 does it still need to maintain links to articles, it contains 8 links to the Perth DAB page in one subsection. Gnangarra 15:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the de-linking, but the main need is to make sure that all the disambiguation links in the main namespace get fixed - it may not be too troublesome for those in talk pages (especially archived talk pages). -- Natalya 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• All the links could be removed (i.e. de-linked) by script easily enough, but I'm not convinced there is a good reason to do it. Fixing the main article space is the only part I think we have to be concerned with — I'll admit I don't usually fix talk page links at all when I'm disambiguating. And you do see "[[....]] is just a disambiguation page"-type comments on talk pages that I'm not sure I'd feel jusitified in de-linking. On the other hand, if people disagree with me I will be happy to create and provide a pywikipedia-based script that iterates through the list of dab pages and de-links all /archive talk page links preserving the displayed text ~ Veledan • Talk 17:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe it's more a case of the what links here list can filter out the User and User Talk pages, i just find it difficult in seeing the timber for the trees. Why produce a list of 100 pages when you need to only fix 20 of them. Gnangarra 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I wouldn't bother with talk pages. FYI, both Autowikibrowser and [solve dab.py both can filter out any user and talk pages.

FYI, the discussion two sections up called "Namespace filter for "What links here"" is dealing with the issue of filtering types of pages. -- Natalya 03:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

About archiving. An alternative to archiving to a new page (which then leaves heaps of entries in the "Whatlinkshere") is using the page history and a permanent link to archive instead. You can implement it on your own talk page (I'm not sure why it isn't popular for article talk pages), as I have done, to reduce wayward links. It's explained here.--Commander Keane 11:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Furry

Should be an easy one, if you want a job. I've outlined what I think are appropriate guidelines on the Talk:Furry page. --The Famous Movie Director 02:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Recruit your friends!

Above, Russ Blau inspired us (well me at least :) about the progress we are making and he ended with "Recruit your friends!"

Recruitment is important, and one way to achieve it is through talk pages. For example, I noticed that Perth had a few inbound links so I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Perth to see if anyone would be interested. This achieved 2 things:

1. Memebers of that WikiProject were made aware of that specifc dab page (hopefully they'll avoid linking to it now)
2. Someone discovered link repair. Gnangarra fixed a heap of Perth links, and now I see that he is at this project :)

So consider enlisting help from various projects and noticeboards (I'm not recommending spamming though).

Another way to attact attenion is the {{WPDPL}} template, discussed below.--Commander Keane 12:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

{WPDPL} - a template for talk pages

{{WPDPL}} is a template designed to go on the talk of troublesome (link repair wise) disambiguation pages.

It has been approved for use, so I guess now is the time to roll it out.

The first usage is at Talk:Italian and instructions are at Template talk:WPDPL (if you have any questions or suggestions, feel free ask here).--Commander Keane 12:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

/from categories

On BD2412's suggestion, I included the category namespace in the analysis of the latest dump and found a surprising number of dab links. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from categories. Bo Lindbergh 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Whoo hooo - fun dab'ing! bd2412 T 16:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

More templates?

Should we do another round on templates before restarting the main namespace? More than 700 templates have accumulated since the last time. Bo Lindbergh 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, refresh the template list (it can't hurt right?). And thanks for your tremendous work!--Commander Keane 16:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, but don't forget to knock out the ones already determined to be intentional links to disambig pages! bd2412 T 16:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Filtered and updated. Bo Lindbergh 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New tool - filtering out the main namespace in "Whatlinkshere"

pgk has just written a tool for us on the Toolserver (maybe you are familiar with the Toolserver from the edit counter).

The tool gives only the Main namespace links (and a Main namespace link count) from a "Whatlinkshere" report. It is located here.

Importantly, the toolserver sometimes lags and toolserver tools will appear to reflect an older state of Wikipedia — changes made on Wikipedia won't be seen immediately on the toolserver (more here). For example right now, the lag is 8 minutes, 55 seconds. This means that the "Whatlinkshere" will be 8 minutes 55 secs old - and incorrect if you have fixed any links in the past 8 minutes 55 secs. You can check the current lag here.

Also, the Toolserver has limited resources. So if you are going to use the tool extensively please list you name below (and no automated {ie bots} querying). Thankyou pgk! --Commander Keane 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Interiot has also implemented a similar tool, here. It orders the links by namespace instead, and has the replication lag at the top (34 minutes, 48 seconds right now). It doesn't have at (edit) link, which is tricky to implement since it's built around a common core (for the edit counter etc)--Commander Keane 19:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither tool displays links via redirects. And there may be caching going on, which means that even if the lag is zero you will still see an old version.--Commander Keane 22:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Do they display which links are redirects, which would be almost as good? Septentrionalis 23:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently, Interiot's tool does show redirects (with the ⇒ symbol), but pgk's does not.--Commander Keane 00:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Never ending task

I've just corrected seven new links to endemic, which was placed on the completed list by Draeco just nine days ago. It's a little discouraging how fast work can get undone. Isn't there some way to let more people know about this whole problem? --The Famous Movie Director 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Pantomime

I've done approximately half of these, the residue are slightly more complex and probably require the creation of a page to explain the American usage of Pantomime or $another_solution. Politepunk 13:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Chief of Staff

In many cases, when the term "Chief of Staff" is used it is used in a general reference. I believe there should be a non-disambiguation page for the general reference of "Chief of Staff." For example, it makes almost no sense to make a page for the Chief of Staff of the Prussian Army during the time of Carl von Clausewitz. The disambiguation page already has some info for the general meaning of the term. This should fix the disambiguity problem in this case. -Mac OS X 21:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Pages that aren't in the list

Excuse my ignorance, but I've encountered a few disambiguation pages with links that turn out not to be listed here - Daredevil, for example. Why aren't they on this list? Is it because they don't have enough links? Should I add them to the list myself? --The Famous Movie Director 09:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No you shouldn't add to the list (you can put a page in the Other pages currently in need of attention if you like though). The pages in this list are those that had >100 links in the December 13, 2005 database dump. At that particular time I think Daredevil wasn't a dab page, but rather an article about the comic. This list will get updated eventually, and Daredevil will probably be on there.--Commander Keane 09:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

user box

can someone make a user box for people who fix dab page links? if this has already been done, please point me to it, but I could not find one. --Phantom784 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion:

This user helps fix disambiguation pages with links.

The colors can probably be improved, though. Kusma (討論) 20:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... how about embedding Category:Wikipedians who help fix disambiguation pages with links into it as well! bd2412 T 20:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure! What should the userbox be called? I suggest Template:User WP:DPL. Kusma (討論) 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Without checking back here, I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Userbox. To use it you would put {{Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Userbox}} on your userpage. I didn't put it in the Template namespace because it's clutter there, is open to TfD etc, and take a look at how many link repairs need to be made on templates.--Commander Keane 21:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and instead of a userbox I've been using RussBlau's high maintenance page list, top left of my userpage:Commander Keane 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The Category is now embedded in the userbox - you can add yourself to the cat manually, or by putting the userbox on your page. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That was quick! nice box, adding it now. can we create it as a template and add it to Wikipedia: user boxes, or does the current controversy around user boxes prevent this. --Phantom784 21:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It functions just like a template already. I'd like to see it with the disambig-fork image, tho, instead of the DPL - any other opinions on that? bd2412 T 22:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant adding something like {{user_disambiguation}} or something like that, and putting up a link from the user box page. --Phantom784 22:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A added a link at the userbox page :Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects#Wikipedia. Add the fork if you like. I implemented DPL, but won't be using the userbox (so have no attachment to 'DPL').--Commander Keane 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the image, but kept the colors (for now). Kusma (討論) 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You can add yourself to the cat even if you don't use the box. :) bd2412 T 22:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool! On my page now. Gflores ^Talk 05:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mongol invasions

I'm struggling to understand why Mongol invasions is a disambig page, as it recites nothing more than the dates of a series of specific events within this category. bd2412 T 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see Mongol invasions as a disambiguation page, but a very trimmed down one. Relevant links seem to be Mongol Invasions of Japan and Mongol invasion of Russia. Everything else just links to irrelevant articles. -- Natalya 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just seems to me that the phrase "Mongol invasions" refers to invasions, by Mongols, at any time or place. Whether it's Russia, China, Japan, Iraq, Europe, it's still the same group engaged in the same activity. bd2412 T 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. What about merging the two appropriate articles into Mongol invasions, thereby removing the disambiguation page and having all Mongol-related invasion information in that one page? (That seems like it was your plan in the begninning :) -- Natalya 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think those should necessarily be merged - after all we have separate articles on the European Theatre of World War II and the Pacific War, but also have a single article on World War II which ties it all together. I envision the same kind of thing here. bd2412 T 23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm a tad confused. So having separate articles, but no disambiguation page? -- Natalya 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, in the same sense that WWII is not a disambig, although it guides you to sub-articles about the conduct of the war in particular regions. Or like Olympic Stadium, which used to be a disambig for a whole bunch of stadia, but is now an article on such stadia. bd2412 T 03:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea - all that would need to be written would be a main article that summarizes all the invasions, and then links to the main articles of each invasion, similar to the WWII article? There appear to be four now (at least, more keep popping up): Mongol invasions of Japan, Mongol invasion of Rus, Mongol invasion of Europe and Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria, though I wouldn't doubt that there are more. -- Natalya 03:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

...and I'm really struggling to understand why Crash Nitro Kart is a disambig, when it only links to two articles on different versions of the same game (one of which is short and the other is a stub). I'm going to merge them. bd2412 T 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

... left a note on the author's page, asking what the difference is between these games... bd2412 T 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the second version (quoting the disambiguation page) has "different unlockables and gameplay". I'd say the belong in the same article, with a separate section for these differences, but perhaps there is some subtelty I do not know about because I have not played those games. -- Natalya 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Much agreed. bd2412 T 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10