Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages

Next?

Which one should we do next? bd2412 T 13:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, good work! Why not just tackle them in order, starting with the first one? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages/01, then. Okay. bd2412 T 15:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Have we finished all of the pages that start with a letter? --Biblbroks (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that input - didn't read the project's content. :-/ Hope that tackling with those that start with numbers won't pose a difficulty. --Biblbroks (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There's really no difference. The hardest ones, I think, involve symbols, but I've already done most of those. bd2412 T 18:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Great work! Let's just roll up to the next one - Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages/02. bd2412 T 02:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it -- I was just about to post that I'd finished #1! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

#2 is down to the irresolvable issues. On to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages/03, already! bd2412 T 02:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I finished section 3, except for two that had notes on them, and I've moved on to section 4. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This job is about to get a lot easier - per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RussBot 5, we will soon get automated "foo (disambiguation)" links to all the disambig pages linked from this list. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yay! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I just read the info at the link. It says, "We don't want to create pages of the form "Topic (foo) (disambiguation)". I've been creating those -- should I not? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We actually have a complete list now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Incomplete disambiguations, and are working through them to either fold them into existing disambig pages, make them into properly titled disambig pages, or make them not disambig pages at all. For the time being, avoid creating any more but don't worry about the ones you've made (I've made plenty myself). The pages will be resolved, and redirects will be resolved as the pages are resolved. Of course, you're also welcome to jump into that list. It might make sense to hold off on this one until RussBot has made its run, within the next few days. bd2412 T 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RussBot is moving pretty fast, and has covered all the ground in list 04, so I'd say it's safe to get back to it. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Something to watch for

I've seen at least one entry coded like this:

[[Foo|Foo (disambiguation)]]

On the article, that looks like this:

Foo (disambiguation)

It looks like it links to a page with the "(disambiguation)" qualifier, but it really doesn't. If I hadn't looked at the code (or at least hovered my cursor on the link to see what it really linked to) it would have looked like the entry had been fixed. Just thought I'd mention it. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a javascript feature set up which makes redirects show up in green, and highlights disambig links in yellow (which means that redirects to disambig pages like the ones we are making show up as green text on a yellow highlight). It slows down page loading a bit on pages with many disambig links. It also makes self-redirects show up with a green highlight, and pages nominated for deletion show up as a magenta link. If you would like this feature, just create a subpage in your userspace at [[Your Username/monobook.js]] and pasting the following text into it:

importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js]]
importStylesheet('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css]]

You can turn it off by blanking your /monobook.js page. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've been using this and it's very helpful! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A question

Before posting it I would like to express my enthusiasm about this undertaking: it feels quite good doing this joint task, especially with bd2412's cheering. And the question that bothers me is how to resolve examples like Clique (disambiguation) linking to The Clique (band). Putting another parenthesis with disambiguation - The Clique (band) (disambiguation) - appears cumbersome, doesn't it? Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically, The Clique (band) is an improper partial disambiguation, and should just be merged into The Clique with a section redirect. There is another DPL project dedicated to rooting out all of those. For this project, links like those should be separated out to the "unresolved" page. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

New data.

R'n'B has compiled an updated set of links, bringing the list down to about 10,500. I will be importing those here shortly. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dab pages like 1300s BC

I think all these pages are showing up here because of template 00sboxBC. I'm looking into getting that template fixed. For now, I'm going to move all those pages to the unresolved page. They can be revisited if/when the template is fixed. Sound good? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! bd2412 T 11:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed now, so I deleted those pages from the "unresolved" page. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Using distinguish template at the top of dab page

Should this:

• Not to be confused with Adlington.

be changed to this:

• Not to be confused with Adlington (disambiguation).

? --Biblbroks (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it really should go to a "See also" section at the bottom of the page, which is where we generally tend to put links to similar spellings. bd2412 T 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ablution piping to Hygiene

In the article Basin it says:

• wash basin - a sink or bowl to contain water for cleaning hands and other minor ablutions

Should ablution be linking to Hygiene in this case? --Biblbroks (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would unlink it altogether, because there should be only one blue link per entry on a dab page. "Sink" is the pertinent link in this case. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Done like you suggested. --Biblbroks (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Links I'm leaving without the "(disambiguation)" qualifier

I've come across a few of these entries that showed up because they are proposed for merging. I'm not changing those, because it's that unqualified page that's proposed, not the redirect. For example, Atlantic Coast Line Depot links to Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Depot in the merge tag. If anyone thinks something different should be done with these, let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently linked tool

I used it to dab-repair Abdul, yet this article is not listed in this list. How come is that? Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Our current list is out of date - I have requested an update. The tool, on the other hand, is constantly refreshing, although I find it easier to track process with a list that we work down. bd2412 T 01:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for both informations. --Biblbroks (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)