Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 44

Disambig links in navboxes

A number of disambiguation pages have started sporting navbox-type templates for Latin species name abbreviations; I have proposed at Template talk:SpeciesAbbreviation changing these to a list format that would be more visually consistent with the other links on disambig pages. Please comment there if you are interested. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Primary topic"

Slight definition conflict I found regarding "primary topic."

WP:PT defines primary topic as a topic that "is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term." This is far more strict than the def. given at WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic: "When a page has "(disambiguation)" in its title – i.e., it is the disambiguation page for a term that has a primary topic." By this def., if Foo exists, and a disambiguation page located at Foo (disambiguation) also exists, then by article name pattern Foo is automatically the primary topic! Definition of "primary topic" is reduced to mere patterns in article titles. But what if "Foo" was not PT according to WP:PT by any stretch of the imagination?

Small inconsistencies like this can cause different understandings between disambiguation article collaborators.--Bxj (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this a few times in discussions. Shall we use primary topic as 1) the article that SHOULD be treated specially or 2) the article that currently IS treated specially? It is often clear in context, but as pointed out here, in the guideline we need to be more careful. We should probably say something like "...i.e., it is the disambiguation page for a term for which a primary topic has been identified." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of primary topic is WP:PT -- WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic is part of the style guide describing how to link back to a disambiguation page when there is an existing primary topic. It is true that the article at the undisambiguated title might not actually qualify as the primary topic, but that should be discussed as a WP:RM. The style guideline simply explains what to do if there is a disambiguation page with "(disambiguation)" in the title. older ≠ wiser 20:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think a slight rewording of the MOSDAB sentence is in order, as Jwy suggests.--Kotniski (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Order of entries allowing geographic order explicitly, again

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 39#Order of entries allowing geographic order explicitly concluded with no objection to my revised proposal for wording that would explicitly allow for geographic order in dab pages.

The need for explicit mention is apparent again, from discussion at Talk:St. Paul's Church#Grouping of red links. An editor not involved in the previous discussions has arrived and is stating his/her intention to apply MOS:DAB#Order of entries, with intent to move redlink items before bluelink ones, or vice versa. This will cause churning in many dab pages.

There were other discussions in the same Archive 39 as the above link, about redlinks before bluelinks. I believe that ordering by redlink vs. bluelink status was generally rejected by consensus there and/or in several discussions at WikiProject Disambiguation, too. Just inserting explicit permission for a place-oriented dab page to be organized geographically would suffice to address that question, too.

So, I propose again to add the clarifying sentence needed to MOSDAB. The current "order of entries" section is:

Entries should generally be ordered as follows:

1. The primary topic should be placed at the top. In unusual cases, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below.

2. Long dab pages should be organized into subject sections, as described below.

3. Within each section, entries should then be grouped by how similar the name of the target article is to the name of the disambiguation page. A recommended order is:

a. Articles with a clarifier in parentheses: e.g., Moss (band)

b. Articles with a clarifier following a comma: e.g., Moss, California

c. Articles with the item as part of the name: e.g., Spanish moss as part of a Moss dab page (Only include articles whose subject might reasonably be called by the ambiguous title.)

4. See also:

a. Synonyms: e.g., Bog as part of a Moss dab page

b. Broader-subject articles that treat the topic in a section: e.g., Bromeliaceae as part of a Moss dab page
Often, the latter two groups (synonyms and broader articles) should be separated from the rest of the entries, into a See also section.

5. Finally, within the above groups, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This order might be by most likely target, alphabetical, chronological, geographical, or by some other method.

I suggest again that should be changed to the following (same, just with addition of "Other orderings..." paragraph:

Entries should generally be ordered as follows:

1. The primary topic should be placed at the top. In unusual cases, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below.

2. Long dab pages should be organized into subject sections, as described below.

3. Within each section, entries should then be grouped by how similar the name of the target article is to the name of the disambiguation page. A recommended order is:

a. Articles with a clarifier in parentheses: e.g., Moss (band)

b. Articles with a clarifier following a comma: e.g., Moss, California

c. Articles with the item as part of the name: e.g., Spanish moss as part of a Moss dab page (Only include articles whose subject might reasonably be called by the ambiguous title.)

4. See also:

a. Synonyms: e.g., Bog as part of a Moss dab page

b. Broader-subject articles that treat the topic in a section: e.g., Bromeliaceae as part of a Moss dab page
Often, the latter two groups (synonyms and broader articles) should be separated from the rest of the entries, into a See also section.

5. Finally, within the above groups, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This order might be by most likely target, alphabetical, chronological, geographical, or by some other method.

Other orderings than this may be preferred for special cases, such as ordering places by geography. Disambiguation of places may be organized by country, and within each country by districts such as counties or towns.

I believe this is consistent with views of JHunterJ and some comments of Bkonrad in the prior discussion, and is in effect the last consensus. I'll pause for discussion, otherwise will implement this change. --doncram (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the exact change you are proposing? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest adding the sentence "Other orderings than this may be preferred for special cases, such as ordering places by geography. Disambiguation of places may be organized by country, and within each country by districts such as counties or towns." as stated above. And as previously proposed and pretty much accepted, as i recall. --doncram (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything to object to, unless this already repeats something stated elsewhere (no use feeding instruction creep). GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Bkonrad objected then, I believe.[1] -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

At one point in that previous discussion BKronrad said "I agree with the general sense Doncram's edit, but it was a little clumsily done, as it broke the numbered list.", in support of an edit like this one proposed. At another point Bkonrad said what you point to. I interpret Bkonrad's views as having been basically in support of a reasonable edit as proposed again here, but Bkonrad also seeking to make a point that he disapproves of the contentiousness that has been associated with dab pages having NRHP entries. I seek to settle one of many aspects of disambiguation pages about places that has caused contention. I think this would just be a clear step forward for the MOSDAB page, allowing for simpler-to-understand order of dab page entries in some cases. Back then, the generally advised ordering had 4 elements, by the way. Now it has 5 elements. It is not simple to understand. Allowing for simple ordering of some dab pages would seem to be a very good idea. If this were a workplace, that would perhaps threaten some people's jobs. Here, it may just allow for less contention and churning on some dab pages. --doncram (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I continue to strongly object for exactly the same reasons as previously stated. Station1 (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Station1 was the one editor strongly objecting then and now. Is it fair to say there is an adequate consensus, a consensus of all-but-one, for the change? I do believe the change is an improvement and will be helpful. --doncram (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please explain how it is possible to order geographically ... I understand grouping geographically but not ordering. Abtract (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Group by hierarchical divisions, arrange within each group by alphabetizing the subgroups, and so on until you reach the entry. So, if the largest groups chosen are nations, Los Angeles would be in the United States group (sorted under "U") and then within that group would be grouped with the other California cities ("C"), and then within that group would appear sorted under "L". -- JHunterJ (talk)

Thanks. Abtract (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've posted notice of this discussion at WikiProject Geography, WikiProject Historic sites, WikiProject NRHP, towards getting more comments. --doncram (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how this proposed change would improve the current guideline, which says "5. Finally, within the above groups, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This order might be by most likely target, alphabetical, chronological, geographical, or by some other method." That sentence provides all the flexibility the people need to make sensible decisions. --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Long reply: The current section 5 is a qualifier only at the last stage. The generally recommended order, overall, does not allow for a page organized like the current version of Hunter House dab, which has its U.S. section currently sorted by state then city. Editors have interpreted the current ordering guideline as requiring strict adherence to its hierarchy, dictating non-geo order based on nuances of wikipedia article title grammar. For example, places having articles with wikipedia titles "Smith House, County" (as frequently but not always used in Great Britain articles) are required to be listed after places given wikipedia titles of "Smith House (County)" or "Smith House (City, State)" (as frequently but not always used for U.S. places) per clause 3b vs. 3a. There is no general wikipedia standard about use of parentheticals vs. commas in place article titles, and both approaches are found everywhere.

Note that the current geo order of Hunter House puts 2 Detroit, Michigan places together, allowing reader looking for one to realize that he/she needs to pick the right one there. There is no primary usage of places in this dab. All the places probably are known locally as "Hunter House". We cannot argue with sources in the dab itself about whether or not "Andrew Hunter House" or "Hunter-Coulter House" are commonly known as "Hunter House", as sources and footnotes would be deleted, and i hope we wouldn't want to. I think it is reasonable to think some readers arriving are looking for either of those, and to find them among others in the same state and city.

The MOSDAB current "recommended" ordering has been interpreted by other editors to require putting all the "Hunter House (City, State)" ones first (splitting the Detroit ones), and I think it would require putting the "Hunter House at Fort Augusta (Northumberland County, Pennsylvania)" one last, separate from any other Pennsylvania ones. Also some would prefer for the redlink items to appear after the bluelink items within each subtype, i.e. have redlink "Hunter House (City, State)" ones separate from the bluelink "Hunter House (City, State)" ones. This redlink vs. bluelink sorting issue has been generally rejected in consensus decisions but keeps coming up again; it is addressed indirectly by this proposed change. I can't fully guess what the proper complete preferred ordering would be by the current "recommended" order; different editors come out with orders that seem random to me. Edits changing order churn the dab pages and are especially unhelpful when combined with deletions of items. It gets very difficult to detect what changes were made.

Anyhow, I believe most readers looking for a place are coming in with some idea about where it is located, but not necessarily how its wikipedia article title is formatted, and they want to know about the local options. Also, they want to be able to perform a simple lookup by geography and not have to understand about local entries being split up into different sections of the dab page, requiring complex lookup by 5 step hierarchy. So, I think geographical order should be allowed, and it needs to be explicit to help stop churning of many thousands of dab pages by editors focussed upon the one current recommended order. --doncram (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Doncram has been at this longer than me, and I don't agree with all his edits, but I can't see the objection to spelling out his idea that geography can be used in delineating DAB pages, if that is indeed what he is suggesting. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for 'splaining, Doncram. Now I understand what you are trying to do, and I think it's a good idea. However, I think the objective might be achieved more effectively by putting the alternative approach into the heart of the guidelines, at item 3. My strawman proposal (criticism welcome!):

3. If the resulting sections are short, entries can then be grouped within each section by how similar the name of the target article is to the name of the disambiguation page. A recommended order is:

a. Articles with a clarifier in parentheses: e.g., Moss (band)

b. Articles with a clarifier following a comma: e.g., Moss, California

c. Articles with the item as part of the name: e.g., Spanish moss as part of a Moss dab page (Only include articles whose subject might reasonably be called by the ambiguous title.)

However, if the individual sections is large, it often is advisable to further divide entries into subgroups based on criteria such as geography or chronology. --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have no objection. If this helps avoid instruction creep and would allow almost any rational grouping, I am for it. !GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to understand, Orlady, and thanks GeorgeLouis for commenting, too. Orlady's strawman is useful to consider. One good thing about it is that it puts the geo option below the 1st and 2nd ordering criteria, which actually i think is useful. There are at least a few cases where there is a primaryusage for a place name, and I think that can/should appear first, then be followed by everything else in geographic order.

It does not fully suffice, though, because it does not clearly enough allow for geographic order. I believe it would be argued that the passage requires following the non-geographic order within "short" sections, transforming a page otherwise organized by geography into one that is organized by geography in some parts and by other order elsewhere. For example Pierce House is a dab page that is organized by geography (by state then city in the U.S.) but an editor has set out subsections for Massachusetts New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC. It would be unhelpful, IMO, to require those subsections' entries to be ordered NOT by city. Adding or subtracting state headers should not require re-ordering of the entries.

So, how about the following reworking of sections 3, 4, 5 into just two sections, as follows:

3. Within each section, entries should then be grouped to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This order might be by a natural ordering, such as by chronology or by geography. For example, for disambiguation of places, order could be by country, then within country by state or province or other district, and then by city or town. If there is not a natural ordering, the order mightOr the order deemed best to assist readers could be by most likely target, alphabetical, or by some other method. A recommended order is:

a. Articles with a clarifier in parentheses: e.g., Moss (band)

b. Articles with a clarifier following a comma: e.g., Moss, California

c. Articles with the item as part of the name: e.g., Spanish moss as part of a Moss dab page (Only include articles whose subject might reasonably be called by the ambiguous title.)

4. See also:

a. Synonyms: e.g., Bog as part of a Moss dab page

b. Broader-subject articles that treat the topic in a section: e.g., Bromeliaceae as part of a Moss dab page
Often, the latter two groups (synonyms and broader articles) should be separated from the rest of the entries, into a See also section.

I believe there does seem to be a consensus that allowing the geographic ordering is okay/good. We're only talking now how best to work that into the text now. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your "3." above specifies geographical as preferred to alphabetical (that is, alphabetical is only an option when geographical is not). I disagree with any suggestion that puts "most likely" anywhere but (tied for) first. The only reason to use anything besides "most likely" is because the list is long enough that people searching for entries need to have them "indexed" in a natural way, e.g., alphabetically, chronologically, or geographically. For short lists, there is no such problem to solve. I have no issue with "allowing" geographical sorting where it helps the reader navigate the listing (and reach the sought article faster), but I disagree with giving it precedence over either alphabetical or especially likelihood. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean to make that implication. I revised 3. above by strikeout of text and insertion of italicized text. Is that better? Or please suggest alternative wording. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"6. For long lists, sorting all entries by likelihood may hinder readers' efforts to locate the sought article. In such lists, very popular entries might be placed at the top, but otherwise groups of geographic entries should instead be arranged geographically (perhaps with multiple geographic sections), historical entries should be arranged chronologically, and other entries should be arranged alphabetically, to make it easiest for the readers to find the sought articles." -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to work JHJ's text in (which I basically like), and trying to put it all together, how about:

Entries should generally be ordered as follows:

1. The primary topic should be placed at the top. In unusual cases, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below.

2. Long dab pages should be organized into subject sections, as described below. For long dabs, sorting all entries by likelihood may hinder readers' efforts to locate the sought article. In such lists, very popular entries might be placed at the top, but otherwise groups of geographic entries should instead be arranged geographically (perhaps with multiple geographic sections), historical entries should be arranged chronologically, and other entries should be arranged alphabetically, to make it easiest for the readers to find the sought articles.

3. Within each section, entries should then be grouped to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This order might be alphabetically, by most likely target, by a natural ordering, such as by chronology or by geography. For example, for disambiguation of places, order could be by country, then within country by state or province or other district, and then by city or town. An approach that may be valid when article title formats suggest target likelihoods is to group by:

a. Articles with a clarifier in parentheses: e.g., Moss (band)

b. Articles with a clarifier following a comma: e.g., Moss, California

c. Articles with the item as part of the name: e.g., Spanish moss as part of a Moss dab page (Only include articles whose subject might reasonably be called by the ambiguous title.)

Finally, within groups, entries should again be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This order might be by most likely target, alphabetical, chronological, geographical, or by some other method.

4. See also:

a. Synonyms: e.g., Bog as part of a Moss dab page

b. Broader-subject articles that treat the topic in a section: e.g., Bromeliaceae as part of a Moss dab page
Often, the latter two groups (synonyms and broader articles) should be separated from the rest of the entries, into a See also section.

--doncram (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OTOH, I thought mine was all tied together, intentionally placing the exception at the end. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I thot your comment related to the current 2nd section. I am unsure of what you suggest as a complete suggestion. Your section 6. added to the current MOSDAB section would not suffice, IMO, as it would be interpreted to disallow geographic order except within a geographic section in a long dab. Also I'm afraid the difference between short or medium vs. long is not defined and would engender conflict. Maybe we have an actual disagreement. In the series of dab pages covering historic houses, geographic order should generally be allowed, and not just in very long ones. In a short dab page of places, geographic order is good for having consistency with dab pages that are slightly longer. I don't care so much about the order in truly short dab pages, because as you say it does not really matter, but likewise use of other orders does not really matter either. But we should not require different-than-geographic orders in short or medium dab pages, causing churning that adds no value. --doncram (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram says "In the series of dab pages covering historic houses, geographic order should generally be allowed, and not just in very long ones." As stated previously, I believe this is the core purpose of doncram's proposal, to allow what he calls geographic order in preference to ordering by likelihood. His proposal seeks to change the guidelines to suggest pages such as Young House and Ward House are acceptable, when consensus indicates that pages allowing quick navigation to most-likely sought articles are preferred. Station1 (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Any way of using JHJ's idea without mentioning "long," "medium" or "short"? I like its brevity. Doncram's suggestion seems a bit wordy to me. Editors (especially new ones) don't like to wade through a lot of words to get to the gist of the rule. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to get too far off topic, but the Order of entries section used to be much simpler and straightforward, as shown here. It basically said "place the items in order of usage" with a brief illustration of specifics. I thought that was easier to understand than the current version, which came in about a year ago after a discussion. Station1 (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis, my idea includes the idea of length. For short lists, order them by likelihood. Only if the list is long enough for readers to have trouble finding the sought entry without a predictable order (alphabetical, chronological, or geographical) would that extra order be used. Without "long", "medium", or "short", it is not my idea, and (I think) it is not the consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous version that Station1 points too is a good model to aspire to, for its brevity and its clear example. However, ordering by likelihood/usage is NOT POSSIBLE for many if not most dabs. I believe that sorting by article title format types must have been meant to sort by likelihood/usage, but that serves readers less well in many cases (such as for places where at least two types of title format signify nothing). Similarly, the many previous discussions about grouping redlinks before bluelinks have confused that with likelihood (as it has been pointed out that redlink topics for places often are equally or more likely to be sought than bluelink topics). And geographic order is a good order for many dabs or sections of dabs that simply must be allowed, must not be banned by inadvertent or accidental-on-purpose wording. Bottomline: I would like to support something more simply written than a 4, 5, or 6 point specified order, more like the previous version, but geographic order must be allowed, explicitly, at this point. There's been too much contention, and consensus for allowing geographic order has been adequately established several times over. --doncram (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is, I think, no consensus for the claim that red links often are equally or more likely to be sought than blue links. I think it's clear that you want to be able to dictate geographic ordering on some pages; I do not think that geographic ordering on all the pages you want it on is the best ordering. There is indeed contention over that, which means that the guidelines cannot be changed to make the contention vanish. Consensus leads to guidelines, not the other way around. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. This is the heart of the issue. Station1 (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A comment or two, as I was most certainly offering up personal interpertation on WP:MOSDAB at the Talk:St. Paul's Church page. While I whole heartedly suppose dab sorting geographically, I do have concerns that it, unlike other sorting methods, such as alphabetically or by 'type', is not always very easy to distern on a page with many items. I think doncram was alluding to this in one of his earlier statements, but I just want to raise it again, to highlight a potential problem we may encounter going forward. Geo ordering works well in many cases where the articles are very clearly defined such as if we had for instance:

• Blue house, A town, A State
• Blue house, B town, B State
• Blue house, C town, C State

It can though get much more confusing, espically if some entires have multiple locations attached and if you follow the rules of WP:PIPING and use the full article title, for instance

• Red house, A town A State
• Red house, A town, A city, A State
• Red house, A village, A district, A city A state
• Red house, A Park, A City, A State

If I was a lowly reader and just stumbled across that page, I wouldn't necessary clue in right away to how the items are arranged, especially as we read left to right. And if I was looking at places for a country I was unfamiliar with (which most certainly does happen) the structure would just confuse me. Solution? Perhaps it means we just need to be more consistent in article naming. Perhaps its a larger MOSDAB issue. I know that doncram has on some pages made a point to clarify: (by state then city), such as at Hunter House perhaps this 'clarification' should be a requirement. Just a thought. -France3470 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

multiple primary topics

What should be done when there are multiple primary topics? google "twins" and you will see the problem. 0¹⁸ (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I used Bing but can't really get your point. If there is more than one topic that can be considered primary, then you make use of a Disambiguation page, where both topics are listed. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, to have been unclear the question is, how do you do two primary topics? 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Answer: you don't. If there is exactly one primary topic, it goes to the base name. If there isn't, the disambiguation page goes to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify that, "primary topic" means there is one single topic that is the topic for this name. For example, Apple or John Marshall, for which all other uses are secondary, and are listed at Apple (disambiguation) or John Marshall (disambiguation). Something like Mercury, for which there several big important topics, is still a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, both the Minnesota Twins and two human births from a single pregnancy are mixed up in the top 10 on search engines when i search for "Twins". It seems like, if we want to get people where they are going... we need to help them find both of these two quickly, right? Right now, one of them is half way down a page with tens of entries. 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Since by definition there can't be two primary topics, what you're suggesting is that there is no primary topic. Generally, the action to take in that situation would be to request a move so that users who search for that term are taken to the disambiguation page instead of to an article. The move proposal would then be discussed, and hopefully a consensus decision would eventually appear.

In this case, my own opinion is that the two-births usage is the primary topic for both "twin" and "twins", but that you're right that the current situation makes it too hard to get to the Minnesota Twins. What I would probably do is expand the hatnote at Twin to say "For the baseball team, see Minnesota Twins. For other uses, see Twin (disambiguation)." I also think (although this is pretty far beyond the question you asked) there may be value in creating a second disambiguation page at Twins (disambiguation), because at a glance, it looks like there's not a great risk of confusion between usages of "Twin" and usages of "Twins", and there are more usages of "Twins" anyway. Propaniac (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Propaniac, thanks for the thoughtful post. I like the idea of a Twins DAB page, since I'm not sure many of the Twins items might really be called, "Twin" and so don't really belong on the "Twin" page. But then how would that be referenced from Twin? Would you have three hat note links? What would be the main article (twins is now a redirect to twin)? Also, I think my confusion started with I was looking for information about the Minnesota Twins and got linked to information about multiple births after searching for "Twins". I've added a redirect Twins (baseball) so that a search for "Twins" might at least show the suggestion that is obviously the baseball team. 0¹⁸ (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

After I made my previous post, I actually went ahead and made the changes I mentioned (since they're easily enough undone if there were disagreement): I split the dab page (after cleaning it up) into Twin (disambiguation) and Twins (disambiguation), and I linked both of those from the top of Twin, along with a direct link to Minnesota Twins. So now, if you search for "Twins" looking for the baseball team (which I think it's reasonable to assume happens quite a lot), the link to the right article is right at the top. But if you did end up at Twins (disambiguation), I think it would also be easier to find the team there than it was before, now that the page is less cluttered. Do you think that solves the problem? Propaniac (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what you did makes a lot of sense to me. I think the hat note solves most of what I was concerned about. 0¹⁸ (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm having a discussion with User:Rak-Tai regarding Maas and I thought someone here might clarify. I think MOS:DABINT is very clear that the first line should only include "Maas may refer to:". Then again, User:Rak-Tai has a very valid point, that this information is very often included in DAB pages which are primarily surnames, e.g. Popov. My thinking is that maybe if a DAB page "Foo" is about surname "Foo" but also some other meanings of "Foo" then the best would be to create "Foo (surname)", with {{surname}} and put the lead information there, in essence spliting the DAB page. But I haven't seen this done many times so I am not sure. Can anyone clarify on what the guideline is? --Muhandes (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Maas wasn't a disambiguation page, but a list of surname-holders. I've changed to tag and the project. As an anthroponymy list article, it should have some introductory information in the lede. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a way around it, since there was just one item (Maas River), it could be made a surname page. But what about pages that have a mix of surname and other uses? How should Ayala be treated? Popov? Audley? Farnsworth? The issue here is pages which serve both for a list of people (surname or given name) and for other meanings. Many of them have surname leads, or at least someone might want to add one. --Muhandes (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In the general case, if it is an issue, the disambiguation page and anthroponymy list article should be split into separate pages. They are only kept merged if it's not an issue (typically, when the surname-holder list is very short). Either the article or disambiguation page might be kept at the base name. If the surname-holder list article is split, it can have the (surname) disambiguator. If the disambiguation page is split, it gets the (disambiguation) disambiguator. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Muhandes (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a further note: If one comes across a page that needs to be split, [[Category:Disambiguation pages in need of being split]] can be added to the bottom. Station1 (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

foreign language and proper nouns

I don't understand how the foreign language section applies to proper nouns. i.e. in White House (disambiguation). Thanks, 0¹⁸ (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That section shouldn't even be in there. The target pages don't mention White House. Feel free to delete it, and I will support you in case of a squawk. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Witte Huis, the article starts with, "The Witte Huis or White House is a skyscraper in Rotterdam."? 0¹⁸ (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

New formatting templates

I've created some new templates that can be used in disambiguation pages to correctly format song, album and film titles. Rather than having to type something like

[[The Most Beautiful Girl in the World (Prince song)|"The Most Beautiful Girl in the World" (Prince song)]]

...you can use the new "Dab song" template, like so:

{{Dab song|The Most Beautiful Girl in the World|Prince}}

The documentation for these templates is at Template:Dab templates and a working example, on a disambiguation page I recently created, can be found here: Shake It Up (disambiguation) User:28bytes/Shake It Up (disambiguation). There are templates for songs, albums, films and general italicizing and quoting needs.

I've put a link in the PIPING section to the new template document. Any corrections, clarifications or suggestions for improvement/expansion to the templates or documentation are welcome. 28bytes (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Was there a discussion about creating these templates? It could get confusing, what with the variation in article titles for these types of entries. I was also concerned that they would hide the entry from Navigation popups, but I tested that and it works OK. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I had asked if there were templates like this on the village pump, and was told no, but to create one if I liked. If this is problematic, by all means, revert... I certainly don't want to cause problems, it just seemed like these would be useful. 28bytes (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

They are neat, and it does seem useful, but I have to take back what I said: these template don't work with the popupFixDabs option of navigation popups. I use that option extensively, so this would be a big issue for me, to the point where I would probably remove the templates when I came across them. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Templates like this have been created before; see {{Di}}, {{Dqm}}, and {{Dqi}}. The opinion the in past was generally that such templates are not necessary and possibly more confusing, and that placing entries in unsubst'ed templates can interfere with some of the editing tools used by disambiguators. Also, I discovered that subst'ing at least one of your templates inserts a lot of code along with the link.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, if they interfere with the disambiguation tools, that certainly is a problem. If they did work properly with the disambiguation tools, would they be useful? I'd be happy to help with whatever's needed there. I see you reverted the reference to them in the MOS page, so there shouldn't be any immediate problems. I'll replace them on the couple of newly created disambiguation pages that have them now. 28bytes (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If the templates were always used subst'ed, and if the subst'ing left only the link behind, there would be no issue. The problem is that entries inside templates don't show up as available links in some editing tools, for example the Popups that Auntof6 and I use. So if the templates could be coded so that they could only be used subst'ed that could make them useable.--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll do that, and fix whatever problem(s) there are with subst: currently. 28bytes (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Subst problem fixed, all documentation updated to use "subst:Dab" instead of "Dab". What do you think? 28bytes (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I did a test on "dab song". It looks like it works OK, but I think it's just as easy to remember how to code things directly as it is to remember how to use the templates. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for testing it out. I hope the reference to it will be able to be added back to the MOS page, as I do think it offers a handy shortcut for creating Dab list entries, but I'll defer to you, ShelfSkewed, and the other editors here on that. 28bytes (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't cause problems with anything else (and I don't see any further problems), I don't have any objection to having the templates. I don't think I'd use them, but for folks who don't/can't/don't want to remember how things are supposed to be coded, they could be useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

With the fixes I also have no objections, but I'd like to wait another day or two before re-adding the material to the MOS, just to give others a chance to comment. If no one raises any other issues, I'll be happy to reverse my own edit.--ShelfSkewed Talk 21:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done--ShelfSkewed Talk 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ShelfSkewed! I'll keep an eye on the "what links here" for those to make sure they're subst:ed and not transcluded. 28bytes (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Auntof6, and thanks, ShelfSkewed. Sounds good to me. I appreciate your help and guidance! 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with these as long as they are subst'd, and perhaps some users will find them useful. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also {{Title without disambig}} if you want to build something simpler, but that one isn't really subst'able. — Dispenser 00:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on Pig (disambiguation)

On Pig (disambiguation) (and talk page) is a content dispute about which takes precedence, WP:MOSDAB or WP:PIPING. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I replied there. The Piping section of WP:MOSDAB and WP:PIPING are the same thing, they're not in conflict. If there is a conflict it's internal to the WP:MOSDAB style as a whole, but there aren't two competing distinct policies. Shadowjams (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Aurora or Aurora(disambiguation)

My edit was reverted [2] with summary "still is an intentional redirect". Please explain what was the intention, so that we could discuss the relative merits of our text versions.

IMO the usage of a redundant redirect from unnecessary page with artificially constructed title is more confusing than helpful for a beginner. First, one may think that "XX (disambiguation)" pages are always required. Second, it gives a suggestion of bad style. I would think that a link to "XX (disambiguation)" page is necessary only when the intention is to point to a disambig page. But in this case it points to a redirect. Lom Konkreta (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Intentional links to disambiguation pages use links to titles (base-name disambiguations or redirects) that include " (disambiguation)", per WP:INTDABLINK. This assists editors who are repairing incorrect (unintentional) links to disambiguation pages by making it easy to identify correct (intentional) links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Lom Konkreta (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change

Some changes were made to the page yesterday that were reverted by an editor who suggested that further discussion is required, so let's discuss. For comparison, here are the two alternatives:

• Current version: Set index articles are list articles about a set of items that have similar or identical names.
• Proposed revision: Set index articles are list articles about a set of items that not only have similar or identical names, but also have other features in common. The distinction is that the items on a disambiguation page generally have no relationship to each other besides having the same or similar names, while items listed in a set index article have some other relationship in addition.

I viewed this simply as a clarification. The current version, as Lom Konkreta pointed out yesterday in starting this series of changes, isn't really consistent with WP:Set index article, which says "A set index article is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name." The current version above did not contain the "of a specific type" qualification; I have since added it to the MOS page pending the outcome of this discussion. However, I thought it would be helpful to spell out the distinction more clearly. I'm not sure exactly what the objection to that clarification is, so I hope the objecting editor will provide his/her views. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To avoid duplicating content, the content here should be minimal and point back to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles. The only point that needs to be made here is that WP:MOSDAB doesn't apply to set indices. older ≠ wiser 16:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Beg to disagree somewhat. While the content should be minimal, the definition must be clear about the distinction, otherwise the reader is confused, as I was. The point about "doesn't apply", while important here, is not part of the definition; it is just a clarification of policy applicability. Lom Konkreta (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The definition, and any clarification if needed, should be at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles, not here. This page is the manual of style for disambiguation pages and all it needs to say is that Set index pages, which are defined elsewhere, are not required to follow MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 17:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd go one more step. These guidelines should point to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists)#List articles for any definitions or clarifications of how these articles->lists->set index articles should be formatted. The improvement after that would be to point to an as-yet-non-existent Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists)#Set index articles section. Just like they don't need to be defined in this MOS, they also don't need to be defined in the main Disambiguation page either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say, and whatever will be written, strife for formalities should not create confusion for a user. The old version certainly is confusing. As for absense of definition, I disagree that an obscure technical term must be left without any basic explanation. There should be a reasonable trade-off between duplicating content and turning wikipedia manual into a maze or arcade game of mouse clicks. After all, we are talking about a subsection, and it is subject to wikipedia:Summary style. Lom Konkreta (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I made the revert, yes because I believe that changes (even what may come down to a simple clarification) to the MOS should require discussion before. The reason I also made this revert was because I noticed it at the exact time when I also was going to contest the move of a set index to a different title (due to a primary topic clause in those guidelines; this discussion is going on at WT:SHIPS if anyone is interested) and thought that the two were coordinated due to a discussion I came across on R'n'B's talk page. Set index pages are not required to adhere to MOSDAB, and as such they are a hybrid of a fully-fledged list and a pure disambiguation page. This is the reason that WP:SHIPS uses them almost exclusively in the place of pure disambig pages for multiple ships of the same name. For instance, compare a fully-outfitted list of ships under WP:Ship's project scope (the Featured List List of battlecruisers of Germany) and a well-developed set index also under WP:Ships scope (USS Constellation). Which follows the project's guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Index_pages.
What I would advocate for on this MOS page is what Bkonrad suggests above the content here should be minimal and point back to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles. The only point that needs to be made here is that WP:MOSDAB doesn't apply to set indices.. JHunterJ, the issue with your suggestion is that set index articles are used in place of disambigs in some parts of the encyclopedia (WP:SHIPS as an example) and are frequently mis-identified by editors attempting to enforce MOSDAB as disambig pages which means that a mention of the distinction is necessary here on the MOS page for disambigs. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Set index articles are not a hybrid of a pure disambiguation page and anything. Set index articles are articles, disambiguation pages are not. Where no ambiguity exists beyond the items covered in a set index article, I agree that a disambiguation page is not needed. One thing that will help with the issue you have is my suggestion: make it clearer that set index articles are not a type of disambiguation, and a good way to do that is to cover their style in the appropriate place: with the rest of the list articles. "XXX (disambiguation)" should not be nor redirect to a set index article (and there's some cleanup to be done with respect to that in the ship index space). If a disambiguation page is needed (or just exists superfluously alongside a set index article), then the disambiguation page would follow the disambiguation style guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

New MoS bot like tool

I originally created dabfix when I noticed that we were missing links on disambiguation pages. The program will try to find places (comma separated), names (2 or 3 capitalized words), and subjects (parenthesis qualifier) blue and red link using the stems from redirects. It will list these a new section.

The tool has since grown to over a 1000 lines and included times saving function like: multiple blue link removal, birth & death dates for biographies, release years for music and films, automatic description, primary link detection, Wiktionary definitions, and Manual of Style fixes.

You can run this tool by either using the bookmarklet found on the tool's page or by clicking the Dabfix tab in Dab solver. If you looking for page to try it out on I suggest mosdab-enwiki.log. Warning: may take about 10 minutes to run. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC) For the more gung-ho, I've noticed that pages in Category:Japanese given names are missing either {{disambig}} or {{given name}} tags, so you might want to try it on those. — Dispenser 19:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody has used the tool or commented. I take it that an example is needed. In less than 10 minutes on Yoshinori I added 8 entries and 19 descriptions. That is in addition to any of the fix ups it does automatically. On Akira (given name) you can see what it outputs and the corrections needed in the next diff. — Dispenser 22:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I missed the original announcement. All the pending changes hubbub overflowed my watchlist until I expanded it by 500 changes. The tool is pretty cool. It worked quite well on Virtualization. However, it fell apart on my acid test of Lincoln. If you can get it to work on that one, it will be gold. Please note a few things about that page: The redirect from Lincoln (president) to Abraham Lincoln was done on purpose to collect stats and settle a heated dispute about the primary topic of this dab page. I don't expect the tool to be this smart. However, the surnames are listed separately on Lincoln (surname) per MOS:DAB and the tool tried to add them all to this dab page, but it realized there were too many and gave up half way through. Also, only a fraction of the place names had additional information collected by the tool and on the ones that did, I found the population stats to be unnecessary clutter and difficult to maintain. Lastly, please note that the structure of the page and criteria for inclusion has also been the subject of heated debate on the talk page. The tool didn't upset too much in this area, I just mention it for your information. I haven't saved any tool corrections for the page yet so you would have a pristine test case. Thanks for putting this together; I think it has great promise. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That is one heck of an acid test. I've made a few changes, it no longer lists entries linked from other dab pages and only shows entries who's backlinks count is greater than the median for the page. — Dispenser 08:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's getting better, but I don't have time to go through it all today. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just used it on Badlands (disambiguation)‎, and though it was far from automated, it was useful in finding a bunch of items I would have missed otherwise. I think it can most certainly be a useful tool for dab cleanup and plan to use it again. Oddly though I can't see to get it to work at the moment. Might not have anything to do with the tool at all. I'll give it a go in a little bit, perhaps it will work again then. Good work, and thank you. -France3470 (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Two buttons at the bottom are for removing the automatic descriptions and entries, for the truly lazy that don't want to copy edit. I can program for specific actions, like linking to NHRP lists for NHRP red links. I only show a limited amount of information ("Show debug" to see more) as most can be figured out from the diff. — Dispenser 08:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reports reminder

The reports announced back in July have grown rapidly, in particular the list of MoS issues which is over 5,000. This tool should be useful in eliminate the backlog. — Dispenser 22:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Help clarifying whether/how to include National Academy of Design at Na

Could some folks here used to dealing with MOSDAB have a look at the lead of the article National Academy of Design, where there is a footnoted source establishing that NA are post-nominal letters used to designate a "National Academician"? An editor at Na feels very strongly about the exclusion of this item from that disambiguation page, and my efforts to get an explanation I could understand at the talk page only caused that editor to remove my questions from the dab page talk and to boldface the label "ignorant" applied to me on my talk page. I would like to improve Na with a relevant link to an article that discusses the use of "NA" with a source, but at this point I would prefer that an uninvolved editor intervene, as I am not interested in Wikipedia war. I may not understand the subtlest niceties of MOSDAB, but I did think I understood the basics of it, and this escalation has been a surprise. Wareh (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Intervened. (You may have tried engaging at Talk:Na first, and the other editor could certainly have assumed good faith and not called the edit vandalism.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly).

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style ranks 10th, with 17753 kilobytes.
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) ranks 11th, with 16097 kilobytes.
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) ranks 269th, with 2609 kilobytes.
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) ranks 285th, with 2498 kilobytes.

Perhaps this will be a motivation for greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

How? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It might do so by reminding editors of the cost of servers, and by inspiring new insights regarding efficient discussions.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it may do to have editors stop posting things without explanation, thereby requiring further discussion regarding that thing, especially when that thing is of little consequence to the project. I'd like to see an inefficient discussion before I get inspired to optimize my thoughts so the server doesn't have to parse an extra hundred bytes or so. Your time may be better spent earning some money to donate to Wikimedia instead. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 10:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please also read Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Given names or surnames - why are they not dab pages?

MOS:DABNAME currently states:

For longer lists [of people whose surname is the ambiguous term being disambiguated], create an article called Xxxx (name), Xxxx (surname), Xxxx (given name), or List of people with surname Xxxx,... Pages only listing persons with a certain given name or surname (unless they are very frequently referred to by that name alone) are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them.

Can someone please explain why what apparently seems to be a basic split of a dab page is not considered itself to be a dab page? A dab page that includes a short list of people whose surname is the ambiguous term of that dab page is not an article with a topic, but if that list gets long enough to split that list out, that is an article?

What if it's a short list (and so is a section on the dab page), but there is only one non-person use linked on the page, and then that article (and the link) gets deleted. So what we're left with is a dab page with only links to articles about persons listed on it. Does it magically transform from being a dab page to a surname article?

The declaration -- Pages only listing persons with a certain given name or surname (unless they are very frequently referred to by that name alone) are not disambiguation pages -- strikes me as being arbitrary and not well considered.

What seems much more logical to me is to treat pages with lists of surnames as specialized dab pages that have been split out from parent dab pages due to size issues. I mean, that's really what they are. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have considered it and don't think its arbitrary. As always, there are always gray areas around the edges. The dab pages are navigational. The name pages serve a dual purpose as navigational and informational. Some name pages have extensive discussion of the name; others are simple lists. The name pages exhaustively list people with the name. The dab page - in current practice - includes only those persons "likely" (above some minimal probability) to be searched for using the dab term. If we included all the names on the dab page, they would (often) become unmanageably large. Instead, listing the name page as an entry in the dab page allows the name to be used in the "navigational" mode in a simple and understandable way. If we choose to have the dual mode name pages, then they will have somewhat different style requirements. The Anthroponymy project has taken over that work. I think it works. What do you think is broken? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, please read the linked discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Background reading, where this was hashed out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a relatively mellow guy and have found the recent discussions surrounding this topic overly agressive, scattered and unproductive. The discussion has spread from the details of particular instances of a name, discussions of what was established as consensus, the intended meaning of words and the behavior of various editors. To me, the key issue seems to be the one addressed here: How should we handle (given and sur-) names on dab pages? In my experience - supported by consensus and MOS wording or not - the recent standard action by those of us in "the DAB business" has been as JHJ has described: "longish" lists of names are moved off to a name page and only "Elvis-like" people, who are well known by a single name, remain on the dab page. I believe this to be a reasonable approach as I outline above, but am open to discussion about the topic. Why do you think this approach is a problem in practice? Can we address this question directly? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree one of the issues here is about how to handle these names on dab pages, but I think the larger issue is about how much consideration we should give to the use of just these names in searches by users when we are determining primary topic for a term that is a homograph (ignoring case) of such a name. More specifically, it is about whether surnames of persons that do not meet the "Einstein hurdle" (commonly and widely referred to by surname only) should be given any consideration at all when determining primary topic for the homograph of that surname.

That said, I am aware of two good reasons for which there is consensus to move links to persons from a dab page:

1. The dab page is too long and the section with surname links is sufficiently long to help that by moving it to a sub-article per WP:SPLIT. Example: List of people with surname Johnson, List of people with surname Smith.
2. There is sufficient material on the surname as a topic (not just a list of person who share that name) to warrant an article on that topic. Examples: Johnson (surname), Smith (surname).

I think it's important that at least one of these conditions applies in order to justify a separate article because a separate article adds an extra level of indirection for users searching for a person with this surname using just the surname in the search. That is, the problem with creating surname articles like the ones I just nominated for deletion is that readers taken to the dab page need to go through an extra click to get to the surname page before they can finally locate the link to the article they are seeking. I see no benefit in putting them through that, unless one of the two conditions above applies.

Now, let's consider the case of "Nixon". Until June 21, 2007 Nixon (disambiguation) contained the list of all persons with surname Nixon, and this is how it looked. That day, the list of persons was split out into a separate surname article at Nixon (surname). Note that the list of names is not much longer today than it was back in 2007. Also note that there is essentially no content (just one sentence) in this article, besides the list of people. Finally, note that the current revision of Nixon (disambiguation) is fairly short for a dab page (less than 20 entries) and could easily and effectively hold the list of persons with surname Nixon. I see no justification for this surname article at MOS:DABNAME and, again, it means anyone looking for any one of the Nixons searching by just surname ("I know he has the same last name as the ex-president but can't remember his first name") has to go through an extra link? Why? To what end?

So, answering your question, that's the problem with the current approach as manifested in this example. Now, here's my question: what would be the problem with merging the surname articles in cases where neither above condition is met (as in Nixon (surname) but not Johnson (surname) or Smith (surname)) back into the corresponding dab pages? Or, what is the benefit in keeping them separated out like that? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not in "the DAB business," but here are my two cents. (1) Born2cycle has a good point about Nixon. The "Elvis test" is too high a hurdle. In a specific context, any of the people at Nixon (surname) could, would, and should be referred to as "Nixon." Someone encountering such a reference (in a source that supposed contextual knowledge they lacked) will want those referents included in our disambiguation. It is more practical and tidy to have one page instead of two. (2) The orthodoxy that DAB pages navigate and do not inform can be taken too narrowly. Lists of notable referents and usages are helpful at dab pages as long as they are encyclopedic matter that is, or should be, treated in Wikipedia. What it leads to is something like Alexander, which, to my mind, is a very ungainly combination between a treatment of a linguistic and historical subject (the name "Alexander") and an informational list (referents of "Alexander"). My position is that any scheme that doesn't see the informational list as being more disambiguatory than anything else is at odds with common sense. The weaselly wording of {{given name}} to avoid the phrase "disambiguation page" should be seen as a silly evasion and a false distinction: it's not a disambiguation page, but undisambiguated internal links may have led you here? Huh? Note that the main DAB section of Alexander is DAB even by the stricter standard: people typically referred to without surname. To my mind, it would be much more logical to have Alexander (disambiguation) deal with them (of course, not ruling out a split if that page were too large). (Alexander incidentally provides an example of the problems of disambiguating/listing holders of common given names, which I do not want to support. I can see that a list of all persons surnamed Johnson in the encyclopedia is necessary (because you don't have to be Richard Nixon to be called by your surname), but people with the given name Alexander? Justified as "internationally famous" examples, even if no one calls them simply "Alexander"? That I wouldn't ask to see in a DAB page/complex. Wareh (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Wareh. Just to be clear, we're in complete agreement, because I too am not in favor of disambiguating articles about persons by given (first) name, and certainly did not mean to imply otherwise. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OTOH, I find the "Elvis" hurdle to be just high enough. No one will encounter the other Nixons in a reliable source that does not give another name. If there is a reliable source that mentions one of the other Nixons without another name, then they'd be in need of disambiguation. This helps the disambiguation page's navigational function in precisely the same manner that excluding other partial title matches does. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel the splitting out of the very long list of people called Nixon was entirely reasonable and entirely within the MOS guidelines. The point at which a list is too long is an editorial decision which if need be can be discussed at the page involved. The extra step to get to Nixon (surname) can be negated by adding a direct link from Richard Nixon, which I've done. Tassedethe (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking to a DAB that redirects from a DAB

List of highways numbered 295 has Interstate 295 at the top of the list. In order to make it apparent that it is an intentional link to a dab, the link is actually to Interstate 295 (disambiguation), which redirects back to Interstate 295. Should the entry at List of highway numbered 295 be Interstate 295 (disambiguation), or is piping allowed in this case, since it redirects back: Interstate 295. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

List of highways numbered 295 isn't a dab page, so these guidelines don't apply. (But since you asked, in this case I'd link to Interstate 295. If the reader is interested in Interstate 295, I think they'd want to click on the link whether or not it was a dab page, so I'd go with the tersest, least inside-WP-baseball, most readable text.) Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Even though neither page is technically a dab page (although I-295 most certainly is, there just isn't a separate tag for road-related dab pages), the logic behind the guideline still applies. By linking directly to I-295 instead of via the dab redirect, it puts the highways numbered 295 page in the list of articles that need the I-295 link disambiguated. (And for the record, the whole set index/dab split seems silly to me.) – TMF 08:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The set index / dab split came about because some editors didn't want to apply the disambiguation style guidelines to some specialized dab pages (such as what are now ship set index articles). List of highways numbered 295, for instance, doesn't follow the dab style guidelines. If Interstate 295 is a set index article, direct linking to it would be okay, and the (disambiguation) redirect should be deleted. Or the Interstate 295 set index article could be re-tagged as a disambiguation page, since that seems to be what it is (based on its function, formatting, the redirect, and the talk page). I think most (but not all) of the SIAs on Wikipedia could be turned into actual dabs with no loss of usability to the reader. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that {{roaddis}} needs to be converted into a dab template for pages like I-295, since that page is clearly a dab page and not a "set index article"? – TMF 01:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting any changes to the templates (although they might be made). Converting Interstate 295 to a disambig could use the {{disambig}} template if there is no more specific template available. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not implying that {{roadindex}} should be changed, but I am implying that {{roaddis}} should be resurrected if this is really that big of an issue. There are many, many more road-related disambiguation pages beyond I-295, and since I believe the pages should still be connected by way of a common category ("road-related disambiguation pages"?), the generic template doesn't cut it here. – TMF 14:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need to connect road-related disambiguation, but I have no objection to the connection either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on Category:Disambiguation pages, it's not unprecedented to do so. Plus, there's a category for road-related set index articles. If this split is going to happen, it makes no sense to me to leave the set index articles categorized and not categorize the dab pages. – TMF 18:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, the original question still remains unanswered. – TMF 01:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I did. If the concern is that this will trigger the DAB-signal, make it a pipe.--NapoliRoma (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's an article (SIA), then I would link directly to it (no pipe). If it's a disambiguation page, I would hatnote it in the other SIA, and leave it visible as "(disambiguation)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why a hatnote would be required anywhere. I assume you mean apply (disambiguation) to the link? – TMF 14:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If Interstate 295 were a dab page, I would put a hatnote on List of highways numbered 295 that links to Interstate 295 (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the logic behind that; also, the relevant example that the MOS page gives here doesn't have that setup. – TMF 18:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab pages are linked from hatnotes on articles or from See also sections on dab pages. List of highways numbered 295 is an article. Intentional links to disambiguation pages (from articles or dab pages) use the (disambiguation) link (direct or redirect). The hatnote would be an intentional link. QED. OTOH, I'm not seeing the logic behind not using the hatnote -- can you explain? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Interstate 295 is one of many highways numbered 295; there are several interstate 295's in the United States. Interstate 295 (itself a true DAB/SIA [I've never understood what the difference is, between the two]) should be an entry in the List of highways numbered 295 (which despite its title, is either a DAB or SIA). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest listing the interstate highways numbered 295 on the list of highways numbers 295, instead of linking to Interstate 295 SIA/DAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems silly to me to list all of the Interstate Highways with a particular number in two places. – TMF 18:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As presently constituted, Interstate 295 is a disambiguation page, not a set index. All of the entries are ambiguous with "Interstate 295" and there is no extraneous (for disambiguation) formatting or information as on ship index or mountain index pages. However, because it uses {{Roadindex}} it is not identified as a disambiguation page and I don't think it gets included in reports on disambiguation pages with links and links to Interstate 295 are not highlighted by linkclassifier, though it should be since links to "Interstate 295" are mistaken and should be corrected. I'm not sure how automated tools handle it.

On the other hand, List of highways numbered 295 is exactly what the title indicates and is not a disambiguation page. It might constitute a set index, but if this is a set index, then just about any list article based on some common criteria would also be a set index and the usefulness of set index as a concept becomes even murkier.

If List of highways numbered 295 is to be a comprehensive list, it should also include the entries at Interstate 295 and not merely reference the page. To address concerns about unnecessary duplication, it might be acceptable to make Interstate 295 redirect to a section of List of highways numbered 295. Although, in that case, I'm not sure how the redirect should be classified. Is it possible to classify a redirect as a disambiguation page where the target of the redirect is not a disambiguation page? older ≠ wiser 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If you mean for the talk page template(s), set index articles are already classified as dab pages for the purposes of assessment. – TMF 15:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the talk page templates are for the most part superfluous. While a project might classify an article as a disambiguation page through a talk page template, that does not necessarily correlate with how the page itself is classified. Putting {{Roadindex}} on a page does not include it in disambiguation page categories. I was wondering whether after merging and redirecting Interstate 295 into the list article, if Category:Disambiguation pages could be put on the redirect to facilitate identifying mistaken links to Interstate 295 for clean up. older ≠ wiser 16:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Realistically, nothing should be linking to the "list of highways numbered foo" pages; their sole purpose is to handle all of the generic redirects like "Route foo", "Highway foo", etc. If someone does use those links in an article, they should be retargeted to point to the actual Route or Highway foo in question. – TMF 18:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. The difference is that people will very easily create mistaken links to Interstate 295 as a function of natural language. It is extremely unlikely that anyone (except perhaps through misguided use of automated tools) would accidentally create a link directly to List of highways numbered 295. older ≠ wiser 00:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If nothing should be linking to the supposed list article, then it's not a list article. If it's a disambiguation page (for disambiguating the generic redirects), then it should be a disambiguation page instead of being disguised as a set index article. But it appears that this may be one of the many cases of the SIA tag being used to give a disambiguation "extra" formatting that isn't needed for disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

They were originally classified as disambiguation pages until you suggested that they be classified as SIAs here. – TMF 19:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"They" is a bit vague. Lists of roads by number, with highway icons and other non-dab formatting, are SIAs, not dabs. Disambiguation pages for names are roads that are ambiguous are disambiguation pages, although for convenience if there is an SIA that would otherwise exactly match the disambiguation page, we use just it. In this case, the list of roads is a superset of the interstate dab, so there we are. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Three comments above, you stated that these aren't SIAs. Now you are. If you can't see the contradiction in your own comments, there's really no point in continuing this conversation. – TMF 21:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to say "I don't understand" without "you're note making any sense". I stated that the pages being tagged as roaddis then were actually SIAs. If you can't see that Interstate 295 was not one of the "these" being discussed above, you're right, there's no point continuing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

TwinsMetsFan, since the set of interstate highways is a subset of the set of highways, it is not silly to list the interstates on the list of highways. That redundancy is beneficial to readers (assuming that the lists are beneficial to readers in the first place). The redundancy might be silly for editors, but the guidelines put value to the readers ahead of editor efficiency. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather take Bkonrad's suggestion of merging the dab pages into the larger SIAs than have unnecessary duplication. In short, I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. – TMF 15:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you're talking about merging the dab pages into a larger dab page. If there's ambiguity, disambiguation is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Two conflicting criteria in WP:MOSDABRL

Consider how the following two consecutive sentences suggest significantly different criteria for redlink inclusion:

1. A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link.
2. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics.

Now, I know that in the MOSDAB/dab-cleanup community here, #1 is the accepted standard. That is, red links to articles that are sufficiently notable and should be written (and may already exist on other-language Wikipedias) are routinely removed.

So my point in raising the conflict here is not to ask which standard to follow. It's to suggest that maybe #2 really is better. I am particularly concerned that editors and readers lack any guidance to topics already covered on interlanguage Wikipedias. Believing that many readers looking for specialized knowledge about (generally) foreign matters would be quite glad to have the interlanguage links, I would actually like to see them included via {{ill}} or {{ill2}} as in this old version of the Forte de São João dab page.

I know that many here will disagree. However, (A) I would be very pleased to see this considered from the perspective of information-seeking users, whose needs do sometimes conflict with considerations of tidiness etc. Also, (B) I think #2 above is superfluous and misleading if in fact #1 is strictly enforced. It should actually say (as much as I don't like it), "Even if the article is sufficiently notable, likely to be written, and interestingly covered in other Wikipedias, do not attempt to alert the reader to its existence and notability." Maybe when I put it that way you can see why I think it's a bit too restrictive.

Finally, please note that I would only like to see a more flexible approach to redlinks when it can be proven by interwiki coverage that the topic is in fact encyclopedically notable.

Thank you for your consideration. Wareh (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Those two do not suggest different criteria for inclusion, and are not in conflict. "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." does not mean or imply "Do create red links to articles that are likely to be written, or are unlikely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." If it's notable, there should be no problem with adding it to the article space first, and then adding it to the disambiguation page per the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with JHunterJ. I know I'm pretty liberal about leaving redlinks in place, if there is a plausible bluelink in place; I will usually even go out of my way to try to locate and add/replace a plausible bluelink rather than delete.

The guidelines as they exist seem similarly liberal, and I don't see how it's very hard at all to add entries that align with them -- and if there's an existing article in another language, and you feel strongly it should be represented here, why not create a stub?

What I don't think serves the reader is a dab page that is a sea of red, considering that the primary purpose of a dab page is to disambiguate existing articles with similar titles. Straying too far from that is mission creep.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with JHJ. Further, the presence of an article on another language Wikipedia doesn't necessarily imply that it would be notable on en, as each language maintains its own standards for inclusion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the others here. older ≠ wiser 23:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree too - if you think the topic ought to be included in the dab page, then either create a stub, or add it as a redlink in a relevant article which can be bluelinked. PamD (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur with my colleagues. If the redlinked term is not used anywhere on the English Wikipedia (neither in an article title nor even in the text of some article), then it's not appropriate to include it on a disambig page. The easiest way to get it included though, is simply to add the redlink to the text of an appropriate existing article, and then use that article as the bluelink that "anchors" the redlink on the dab page. --Elonka 03:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I've learned from the consensus expressed above is that I place more value than others on offering readers an article in another language, as a second-best for a missing article here. Sure, you can go and add a sentence with a redlink to some article here to justify it on the dab page, but this still leaves the foreign-language article (presumably more informative than such a sentence) invisible to the encyclopedia reader. Yes, our language here is English, but there are many subjects where a large proportion of information-seekers would be comfortable reading in another language.

Maybe there's the potential for a good cross-project tool here, perhaps enabled through user preferences so that English-only readers would not have to be troubled by it: a way that

1. editors could flag a redlink as belonging to a subject treated in another encyclopedia ({{ill}} and {{ill2}} already do this, but they are seldom used);
2. readers could have some way - search, dab, whatever - of knowing that the articles missing here exist on a sister Wikipedia.

I welcome any suggestions about the advisability and technical potential for such added information about our nonexistent (redlinked) areas of knowledge. I realize this has now departed from the realm of MOSDAB, so I could also use suggestions about where ideas like that could get proper consideration. Wareh (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How about an interwiki link to the disambig page? So if there are several pages on the Portuguese Wikipedia that cover a term, just add [[pt:<name>]] to the English version of the disambig page? --Elonka 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. In this particular case, I'd have to learn enough Portuguese to properly disambiguate all their articles, which they haven't done. And then there are cases (like in my main field of interest, Ancient Greek studies), where the relevant articles are scattered through half a dozen different foreign-language Wikipedias. Wareh (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. Actually, thinking about it, I think I could write a Portuguese dab page & maybe will in this case. Wareh (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't care for redlinks. They are very noticeable for one thing. Usually the most notable item on the dab. They may point to nn people. How can I tell if "Ken Jennings (musician)" will ever be famous, or whether his brother has added him and he plays (only) in his garage? There are very few people that we would universally recognize that don't have articles already. If a person is so famous that he needs a dab, why doesn't he have an article? Most obvious answer: Because he isn't notable today and never will be. Redlinks are confusing to the general reader. They should normally be rm from dabs and unlinked in articles; deleted if not footnoted. IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Red links can serve a purpose; the intro to WP:Red link does a nice job of encapsulating that. Obviously, bad red links are, well, bad, but the answer to "why doesn't he have an article?" can also be "because no one's written it yet." (Good) red links serve to nudge someone to write that article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It is foolish to think that Wikipedia coverage has reached a point that if the article doesn't exist now the subject is therefore unnotable. Hundreds of articles are added every day on persons which pass muster for notability and this shows no sign of abating. WP:DABRL provides what I think are relatively clear criteria -- that the subject is linked to from other articles and there exists an article that can be linked to from the disambiguation page which contains some meaningful information about the term. It's worth noting that there are differences of opinion as to whether mere mention in a list type of article is sufficient. The general guidance at Wikipedia:Red link is appropriate to consider in this regard as well. older ≠ wiser 15:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there are many instances of people who appear to be notable but do not have articles. There are obscure kings of Old World nations, for example. But there are few modern day notables that we would all universally recognize as notable, who do not, as of today, have an article. And yes, someone is touting somebody's band who gets hired for a local gig once a month someplace. We were solicited recently to screen this excessive number of bios. Most probably got deleted on Afd. I nominated a couple. So why are 'sometimes these same people allowed, without research in a dab when no one even knows who they are or even if they exist? Student7 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So why are 'sometimes these same people allowed, without research in a dab when no one even knows who they are or even if they exist They are not by the current standard. If there is no meaningful information about the person in an existing article (which really should be referenced information), then there is nothing to link to on the disambiguation page and no reason to include the person. older ≠ wiser 15:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

dab-ing non-notable people, included in some article

Someone included a dab on a non-notable person, who was mentioned in an article. Let's say we had "Ken Jennings", Jeopardy contestant, then we had four other Ken Jennings who are not known generally but are included in four articles, each of which were linked. This is allowed for things and maybe concepts. But for people? Does this seem right? Student7 (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As an abstract concept, I don't see why not: people are things, too. In practice, I don't know if this somehow makes the dab page horrible or not without seeing the result.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, if they're truly not notable in any way, then it's unlikely the target page is really appropriate for that non-notable person, and thus unlikely that the entry is worth having.

It would be similar to an article saying something like "the treasure map was found in his aunt's sock drawer", and this being used to justify having a dab page that pointed to "sock drawer" as though this article had vital information about the topic of sock drawers.

On the other hand, if the article said "Ken Jennings found the treasure map in his aunt's sock drawer," and this gave this particular Mr. Jennings some degree of lasting notoriety, then perhaps it would be justifiable. But then he wouldn't be completely non-notable, would he?"--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For things, people, places, etc., yes, it's "allowed". As NapoliRoma alludes to, each entry in the dab page should be a separate topic, and link to either the article about that topic or an article (possibly of several) that mentions the topic. If the four articles, for instance, mentined the same Ken Jennings (one topic), only one entry with one link should be included on the dab page, but if they are four different Ken Jenningses (different topics), then four entries are correct. If he's truly non-notable, he shouldn't be noted (mentioned) in the article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to think that nn are not allowed in articles but this is not true. Reality shows, for example, routinely chronicle people who will (mostly) never have articles. One example. Student7 (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Another editor has requested additional comments about the disambiguation page Through a Glass Darkly. The discussion can be found at Talk:Through a Glass Darkly#Glass Hammer song, and anyone is welcome to contribute.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in people section

Under people it states: "...and only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name." While the examples presented directly below offer much more information:

John Adams (1735–1826) was the second President of the United States. John Adams may also refer to: John Adams (composer) (born 1947), American composer who came to prominence with his opera Nixon in China John Adams (physicist) (1920–1984), Director General of CERN and particle accelerator designer John Adams (martyr) (died 1586), Catholic priest and martyr under Elizabeth I of England

Should the examples be tightened up?Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem you describe. There is not much more information in the examples, and certainly not to the degree to cause a problem. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It actually already has caused confusion in at least one instance.[3] And there is too much information in the examples according to the line just above it. Maybe "much" was a little much but there is still an inconsistency.Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If taken to an extreme, all that is needed on the disambiguation page would be a list of the fully disambiguated page titles with no other description. Most readers would likely find that unhelpful. Taken to the other extreme, some editors try to include a short paragraph with each entry. How much description is necessary or helpful is a matter of negotiation. One edit is hardly evidence of a problem. older ≠ wiser 04:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's contradictory. For instance in the martyr example, there's certainly no need for the last part of the line 'under Elizabeth I of England' - it doesn't differentiate between entries, and it's the same with 'who came to prominence with his opera Nixon in China' in the composer's line - it wastes people's time reading it and isn't helpful. Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is useful to know that the third one is the list was from England and the mention of Elizabeth I helps to identify when he was alive. On the second one it may be too much to say; "and particle accelerator designer". On the first one in the list, I think that "Nixon in China" may be too much. Generally, I think that the lines are short and to the point, and I probably would not force the issue of shortening them, but it may be possible to improve them in other ways. Perhaps, this slightly extended information sometimes helps people find what they are looking for, and the lines as they are could be within the spirit of the guidelines. I would object to very long lines and try to avoid two lines for one listing showing up on small screens, because these would be clearly not in the spirit of the guidelines. Snowman (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, the guidance is meant to avoid overly long descriptions; brevity simply for the sake of brevity is not the goal. If the linked article reasonably conforms to the guidance at WP:MOSBEGIN, the first sentence is a good starting point for the brief description on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, then "only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name" should be removed because there is a discrepancy between what the guideline says and what it is meant to say. —LOL ^T/_C 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That depends on how one interprets that line. As I said above, taken to one extreme, all that is really necessary is a simple list of the fully disambiguated titles with no description at all. How much descriptive text is helpful for readers to distinguish between topics is not something that can be easily prescribed and there will likely always be some differences in opinion with regards to how much is enough. Disagreements in a particular case can be sorted out on the talk page. older ≠ wiser 14:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So it depends on whether one reads the line as is, or attempts to analyze what the line is intended to achieve? That's quite confusing. If the guideline is only "meant to avoid overly long descriptions", then something along the lines of "descriptions that help distinguish between entries but are not excessively long" is more accurate, even though "excessively long" is vague. —LOL ^T/_C 15:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you specify precisely what is meant by only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name? Unless one takes the extreme minimalist position, the inclusion of any amount of descriptive text is an exercise in editorial judgement, and there will invariably be differences in opinion with regards to specific details. older ≠ wiser 15:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement itself is already precise, because of the word "only". What's imprecise is not what's stated but what's implied: what constitutes as the minimum? This is why I'm suggesting a different statement if "only enough" is not what is meant by the statement. I'm still not sure what you mean by the "extreme minimalist". Is it the one who believes that "only enough" literally means "only enough", or is it the one who believes that a list of disambiguated page titles is sufficient? In the example above, assuming that the distinction between a composer, physicist, and martyr is very clear, a list of disambiguated page titles is just "enough". —LOL ^T/_C 17:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The precision you see is illusory. How do you specify how much description is enough in terms that everyone understands and that are broadly applicable. That is a matter of editorial judgement. By "extreme minimalist", (which I've tried to use as a straw man of sorts, apparently without much success), I mean that strictly speaking NO description is necessary at all. Taken literally, the only information necessary is a list of the fully disambiguation page titles to which a term could refer. The inclusion of any description at all is a matter of editorial judgement and is likely to vary according to editor. And the usual approach to differences of opinion applies -- discuss it on the talk page. older ≠ wiser 18:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not "illusory". How much description? As the statement says, only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name. What constitutes as "only enough"? That's where the editorial judgment is needed. Indeed, for the example above, it's reasonable to say that "[t]aken literally, the only information necessary is a list of the fully disambiguation page titles to which a term could refer." That's exactly why the statement should be changed if "only enough descriptive information" is not what we want. Because the guideline isn't the Bible or a work of creative writing, people will take it literally. Every time an editor inquires about the statement, it's silly to have to say "It says X, but it actually means Y because it shouldn't be taken literally." —LOL ^T/_C 19:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused now. If including ANY description at all beyond simply listing the disambiguated title requires editorial judgement, then what is "only enough descriptive information"? As I said at the outset, I don't see the problem described by the initial question in this section. While it may be possible to improve the guidance text, I'm not convinced there is a problem beyond a difference of opinion between editors with regards to how much is enough description and I don't really see a way to be more precise without going to the extreme of not including any descriptive text. older ≠ wiser 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement itself is clear, but what it entails is not. Assuming that one can easily distinguish between a footballer and a poker player, this clearly adheres to the guideline. A problem arises when you imply (judging from the straw man) that the guideline shouldn't be "[t]aken literally", because any acceptable guideline should be taken literally. —LOL ^T/_C 22:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still confused. In matters of editorial judgement there is inherently room for different approaches. The descriptions were slightly longer than necessary before the edit you linked to and had I a reason to edit the page I likely would have made similar edits -- although if I had no other reason to edit the page, I likely would have left the descriptions as they were as they were not unhelpful and were not so long as to burden the page with extraneous text. The next edit added birth years for both persons, which in some contexts is helpful information but in this case is superfluous for purposes of disambiguation, but is generally considered acceptable for consistency. So I guess I still don't see what the problem is. This is a guideline with some inherent degree of subjectivity in the exercise of editorial judgement. If you think the guidance can be improved, then propose a change and we can discuss that. older ≠ wiser 23:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe one should take the guideline literally, and use judgment to determine what adheres to the guideline. Unless one believes it's necessary (using one's judgment) to know which team the footballer belongs to, and that the poker player is professional in order to distinguish between the two, then one should not just leave that information on the page. The guideline currently tells us to add "only enough descriptive information", not "only remove information that is unhelpful or burdens the page with extraneous text". Birth years are fine because the guideline tells us to add them plus "only enough descriptive information...". I previously suggested something along the lines of having "descriptions that help distinguish between entries but are not excessively long". —LOL ^T/_C 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This was meant to be a discussion on how the MoS is presented and not a change to the MoS. Do the current examples match the current (and I assume consensus based) wording of the MoS? Cptnono (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have suggested changing the MoS if an editor didn't state that "the guidance is meant to avoid overly long descriptions", which is clearly not consistent with the current version of the MoS. Anyway, regarding the examples given above, I highly doubt it's necessary to know which one of the John Adamses composed an opera before one can distinguish between the composer, physicist and martyr, and that's why I believe the examples do not currently match the statements in MoS. —LOL ^T/_C 20:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Piping

My edits to Charles I just got reverted on the grounds that piping isn't allowed in dab articles. Why? What's wrong with using "Charles I, King of England"? How would the latter form lead to any confusion about who is meant? What is the rationale for such a blanket policy? john k (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is in the guidelines; see WP:PIPING.--ShelfSkewed Talk 21:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Images in special cases

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Images_and_templates says we shouldn't use images except when they themselves are for the purpose of disambiguation. I think there's another class of images we could include to improve utility of disambiguation pages. It seems reasonable to me to illustrate them also when they are a word from a foreign language with an unambiguous meaning that lends itself to illustration. The image will help the reader form the association between the word and its native meaning, similar to the text we already tend to include "x means y in z," but for visual learners. See, for example Sakura (disambiguation), Himawari (disambiguation), and Mir (disambiguation). What's the consensus? -- ke4roh (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the illustrations as being helpful for disambiguation on those pages. older ≠ wiser 14:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean that it should be helpful to the actual disambiguation. It certainly helps the reader to understand the meaning of the term. Does it interfere with the disambiguation purpose of the page? If not, what's the harm? -- ke4roh (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That assumes that there is a singular meaning to the term. However, being a disambiguation page inherently implies that there are multiple meanings. By the same token, one could argue that adding any image that illustrates a meaning of a term on a disambiguation should be allowed. The guiding principle for disambiguation pages has always been to minimize extraneous clutter and help readers find the articles they were looking for. older ≠ wiser 20:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, note the proposal says, "with an unambiguous meaning." -- ke4roh (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not clear from the examples you suggest. Mir may mean peace in Russian, but it means other things as well (even in Russian). I don't see how adding a image of a peace symbol does anything to help disambiguate the terms and if it isn't helping to disambiguate, then it is little more than clutter on a disambiguation page. Turning disambiguation pages into a multi-lingual visual glossary would be a significant change. older ≠ wiser 22:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Another harm is putting a graphic on a navigation page. Graphics are typically larger than the text of a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is an interesting comparison with the wiktionary link ... how does that aid disambiguation? Abtract (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really, and should also be axed, but there's been hubbub about that in the past too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(To Ke4roh) All IMO:

• if it can benefit from a picture, it should have an article.
  • If it has an "unambiguous meaning", that article should be the primary topic.
  • If the article with the picture is at the base name, the picture doesn't need to be repeated on the dab page.
• If no article is warranted for the primary meaning that would be depicted, it doesn't need a picture.
• If no article is the primary topic for the title, there is no primary meaning that could be depicted.

--JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Given names

I'm sure we've been over this before, but I think it needs going over again. I have always edited dab pages using the standard that for given names a dab page should only include those people who are customarily known by that name alone. But this is what the guideline MOS:DABNAME actually says:

Persons who have the ambiguous term requiring disambiguation as surname or given name should not be in the same section of the disambiguation page as the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g. Elvis, Shakespeare). For short lists of such persons, new sections of Persons with the surname Xxxx and/or Persons with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list. For longer lists, create an article called Xxxx (surname), Xxxx (given name), Xxxx (name), or List of people with surname Xxxx, and link to it from the disambiguation page. If it isn't clear that the article includes a list, then consider mentioning that in the description.

So the guideline says that those who are known by the given name alone can be included in "the same section of the disambiguation page as the other links", but it also seems to allow a distinct listing of any people with that given name, even if they are not known by that name alone--even if there is, in other words, virtually no possibility of ambiguous use, searching or linking. I would like to propose that the wording of this section be changed to explicitly state that dab pages should not include indiscriminate lists (of any length) of people by given name--that given-name entries should be limited to those individuals whose article titles suggest, or whose articles state, that they are/were commonly known by that name alone. Comments? --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Having edited a fair number of name dab pages, my strong sense is that your personal approach ("only include those people who are customarily known by that name alone") is a distinctly minority approach in practice. Would you agree?

Instead, such pages generally follow the unambiguous statement in the guideline. I don't think this is a matter of interpretation. The guideline is clear IMHO. You describe the guideline as "seeming to say" what I think it clearly says. I don't see how one could read it otherwise. Or write it any more clearly.

So, rather than this being a situation where you are suggesting "explicitly stating" what the guideline says, it seems you are seeking to turn the established guideline on its head. And have it say the opposite of what it clearly says. The support that you tender for that dramatic change is that that your proposed approach is the personal standard that you have always applied ... despite the fact that your personal approach it is at odds with the guideline.

I think the guideline is fine as-is, is reflected in many, many dab pages as-is, and should be followed. I see no reason to change it. Furthermore, the suggested change to my mind would both needlessly create editor busywork (needless extra pages to both create and maintain), and also make the dab pages less useful to readers (as readers would be forced to click through to yet one more page to see what they could otherwise see comfortably on one page). So -- in short, IMHO your suggestion would needlessly add more work for editors, and more clicks for readers, and have no discernible benefit.

I do appreciate your raising the issue here, though, and hope that my having a different view won't make you hesitant to help if I come to you with a question or two regarding dab pages from time to time, as I can tell you are quite conversant in them. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, it's not the minority view, it's the consensus view -- the anthroponymy project page has a link to the background reading. Lists of name holders are list articles in the anthroponymy project. Name holders, unless known just by only the single name, are partial title matches and not ambiguous. ShelfSkewed, the exception is there for pages like Banana (disambiguation), where it might seem overkill to create a Banana (given name) for the single entry of the Japanese author. But the exception also allows for the creation of the name holder list no matter how short, if an editor is interested in splitting them. I have had to argue that point in the past, though, in the face of editors who did not want the short list moved off of the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think in the msot recent discussions it became clear that current consensus is that short lists are best not moved off the dab page - they might be duplicated if someone can create a useful article on the given name or surname itself, but it doesn't serve any useful purpose to then delete them from the dab page unless the list really is so long as to be an inconvenience there.--Kotniski (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I got out of that particular round of drama that left Freston as a dab page even though there is no ambiguity. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliburn (surname) did keep the "split" to surname, but even then the idea that somehow it is "best" to also keep the surname holders on the dab page prevailed. Seems like a created one more split name page around that time too, but I don't remember what it was. To reiterate what should be the key point: they're partial title matches unless they are actually ambiguous (that is, the topic is referred to just by only the ambiguous title). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the specific page that caused me to raise this issue: Jonathan. There is also a page for Jonathan (name), but it does not include a list of people named Jonathan, and, according to a comment on the Talk page, such a list doesn't belong there and has been removed more than once. So the disambiguation page currently includes, besides the Jonathans who are known, or could be known, as just that, the four randomly chosen Jonathans (from the dozens of possibilities) added by Epeefleche. If all Jonathans can be listed, then the list would be quite substantial and ought to be moved to the (name) page, but the (name) page doesn't want them. I have to wonder why we try to maintain lists of people by first name at all anywhere; I don't think they serve any disambiguatory or encyclopedic purpose. Hence my proposal above, which has the intention of making it clear that, unless a person is commonly known by that name alone, we do not disambiguate real people by given name--at all. Toss Banana Yoshimoto off the Banana (disambiguation) page; it's not an ambiguous use, and the allowance for it just leads to a wishy-washy guideline that permits pointless indiscriminate lists of people by given name.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The list, if it belongs anywhere, belongs on Jonathan (name) or on a new list article List of persons named Jonathan. If the consensus from the anthroponymy editors is that such a list isn't encyclopedic, then it might not belong anywhere. But consensus against including it in the anthroponymy articles does not mean that it must therefore belong on the disambiguation page -- it does not belong on the disambiguation page, because it's a bunch of partial title matches. (The background reading in anthroponymy gives links to some of those lists I nominated for deletion before the anthroponymy project was started, and before the WP:LoPbN was axed. I'd support a change in guidelines to get rid of the various lists and just leave articles about surnames and given names, but that wasn't the consensus then.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I think we have to consider above all what's most convenient for the reader. Someone knowing there's a forename "Banana" is likely to be interested in the (relatively few) famous people that have that name. Someone knowing there's a forename "Jonathan" might be similarly, but it's not practical to maintain such a list (and it would overload the disambiguation page, or even the article about the name itself), so the practical solution in that case is to use the "lookfrom" template to allow people to search the index for themselves. We don't need a one-size-fits-all solution when there are clearly vastly differing sizes involved.--Kotniski (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that seems fair enough. But I still think that the current construction of the guideline muddies the waters. So how do we rephrase the guideline to make it clear that dab pages are not generally the right place for encompassing lists of people by first name, while still allowing for the occasional exception (and making it clear what those exceptions are)? And I ask that question with genuine puzzlement, because it seems to me that while "We don't do this, except when we do" is the sensible approach, it is likely to be a continuing source of misunderstanding and/or disagreement, no matter how it is phrased.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the guideline (WP:DABNAME) already make it fairly clear? It talks about different ways to handle short and long lists. (Admittedly it doesn't address the issue of what to do about names like "John" where it would be impractical to maintain any list at all, but that would be outside the scope of this page, as we already say that long lists are moved off the disambiguation page.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have some kind of principles for the common names. I think of Alexander#People_with_the_given_name_Alexander, where I wonder if this inevitably partial (in the sense of not having really canvassed all the Alexanders and adopted an impartial criterion for which ones are going to be included) list, plus whatever future accretions may stick to it, can ever arrive at a form that agrees with any stateable principles. Wareh (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Flags

Because of the brevity of the "Images and templates" section, and based upon a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Disambiguation, I propose the addition of a subsection under "Images and templates":

=== Flags and icons ===

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)

Flags and icons should not be used on disambiguation pages, unless flags are the topic being disambiguated.

--Bejnar (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than a subsection, how about "Images, flags, icons, and templates should not be used unless they aid in selecting between articles on the particular title in question." ? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That language is not particularly clear, especially the aid in selecting between articles on the particular title in question part. I have run across several editors who place flags precisely because they feel that the visual nature of the icons assists in identification, and hence selection. --Bejnar (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Then separate sentences are needed. I'd still skip the "Flags and icons" header, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Title songs without articles

Regarding albums with articles, with title songs that don't have articles: I think we've discussed this before (although I looked for past discussions and didn't find any), but we don't seem to have a guideline for this situation. There seem to be three imperfect possibilities:

1. List the album but not the title song
2. Create a separate entry for the title song
3. Mention the title song in the album's description

As I said, all three solutions are imperfect. The first ignores the existence of the song altogether, the second creates an entry that duplicates the link to the album, and the third includes a mention of a song in the album section, where users might not be looking for it. Currently, the general practice seems to favor 1, WP:Abundance and redundancy would seem to favor 2, and my personal preference, as a compromise solution, is 3. Comments? --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with 3 or 1; I tend to 1 when I'm cleaning dabs. WP:Abundance and redundancy another article-content guideline, and shouldn't impede navigational utility on disambig pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm also okay with 1, since it's reasonable to assume that a typical user looking for "Song" by Band will know that if the song is not listed separately, then the album with the same title is the best place to go.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the policy of one navigable link per line, seems inefficient and mistaken

Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line.

I think that's bad. Everyone uses Wikipedia as a first-line reference for unfamiliar names and terms. THEREFORE, often when they're on a disambiguation page, their real goal is to learn about the area associated with the unfamiliar term. The article with the information is sitting right there in the disambiguation line, yet it's not linked!!? That makes no sense to me. Some examples:

• Hear song on radio, wonder what else the unknown performer has recorded, the disambiguation page for the title has the performer, but no link.
• "News flash John Xxxx arrested", the disambiguation page for John Xxxx identifies the organization he's associated with that I want to read about, but no link.
• Teh Webz suggests I "repair my MBR", the disambiguation page for MBR says it's a disk partitioning term which is what I really want to understand, but no link.
• etc. etc.

This happens to me several times a week. It seems so obviously wrong not to link to these articles that every time it happens I add the links to the disambiguation page and move on, but apparently it's policy and my improvements are creating work for others.

Surely there's a motivation for this decision archived somewhere?
How can I get the policy changed?
Thanks!

(I end up on disambiguation pages all the time because I either use a bookmarklet to jump direct or edit Wikipedia URLs in the browser location field. Maybe that's non-standard, but it's the future. Search is for losers who haven't figured out that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The Title is the best and fastest source of information ☺ )

-- Skierpage (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed extensively and repeatedly, and the consensus has always been to retain the one-blue-link-per-line guideline. The kind of search you are talking about is what the main search bar (and the other available search functions) is for. Disambiguation pages, on the other hand, exist for users who know exactly what they are looking for and just need the correct link to get there. The function of the dab page is to provide quick and efficient navigation for those users, and the assumption is always that users are looking for what they say they are looking for and not something else. So the guidelines generally encourage clarity, simplicity and brevity, including limiting entries to a single blue link so that the best link for a particular topic stands alone. I would also point out that in nearly all the situations of the type you describe, following the provided link will take you to an article in which the related term is linked in the first sentence. This is a minimal hardship for users on treasure hunts, and the one-blue-link rule keeps dab pages clean and simple for those who are not.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Standardizing two-character disambiguation page titles

Hi all-- I recently began creating the rest of our missing disambiguation pages for two-character combinations. In the process, I found that we have over half a dozen formats on titles alone for existing disambiguation pages. I made a table here for reference. Since this might also affect similar work on three-character combinations, I feel we should come up with a standard and incorporate it into the manual of style. I made a first proposal here regarding capitalization standards that would affect about 60 disambiguation pages, but if you think this is a better place have that discussion, I can move it here. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Rule-creep and BLP

Hi. I've been in a slow dispute on the DAB page for CTB. For those not in the know, CTB is the anonymised name given by the English courts to the footballer Ryan Giggs, this equivalence has been known for several days. However, given that divulging this identity is most likely contempt of court in England and Wales, I'm pretty sure that in a non-DAB article, this assertion must be impeccably sourced (and it is, to yesterday's Sunday Herald).

I think that we must make it perfectly clear that, for "controversial" disambiguations—where the disambiguation is verifiable but would violate BLP to not include verification—that BLP overrides the manual of style. The supremacy of BLP and its constituent policies over the rest is well established, but I'm actually shocked to think that people think the MoS comes first. Surely, for these very rare circumstances, we can permit the addition of a references section. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The main issue as I see it (and I may not have articulated it very well on Sceptre's talk page) is that CTB is the an "unidentified claimant" in the action, even if we know who he is, that does not change the fact that with respect to the case papers he is unidentified and to keep the line as short as possible it is better to leave it to the article CTB v News Group Newspapers to explain all.VERTott 11:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He has been identified in reliable sources, most notably, the Sunday Herald yesterday. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I placed instructions in the comments on CTB. While Ryan Giggs (the article) refers to him as "CTB", the article should be listed on the disambiguation page. If the article is later edited to remove (with consensus) that reference, the article should not be listed on the disambiguation page (and instead the entry for that CTB could use a description-side link to CTB v News Group Newspapers). There is no such thing as a controversial disambiguation -- either a topic is ambiguous on Wikipedia (i.e., a Wikipedia article refers to the topic by the ambiguous title) or it's not. There is no pecking order between BLP and the disambiguation guidelines, because there is no conflict between BLP and the disambiguation guidelines. References are welcome and may be needed on an article that refers to a topic by an ambiguous title; references are never needed on a disambiguation page. If this doesn't clear it up, next step should be to protect CTB and use the talk page there. (The talk page there shows an unfortunate lack of activity during this edit war as it is.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles

A discussion has been initiated regarding the treatment of disambiguation pages on the "Lists of mathematics articles" pages. Please indicate your preference in the straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles. Cheers! ~~

• Just a quick reminder, this poll is scheduled to close at 02 June at 06:30 (UTC), which is about ten hours from this post; if you would like to weigh in, now is the time to do so. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Red links on dabs discussed at the village pump

You may be interested in WP:VPP#Redlinks in lists and dab pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Including definitions

Current guidelines prohibit placing definitions on disambiguation pages. This is ignored typically and many links are directed to disambiguation simply for the definition. Like the above example when most uses are not referring to music. In addition, Google is including definitions in their search results for "obvious" cases.

To resolve this problem I propose that we allow a definition as in the above mockup. It is modeled on {{Wiktionary redirect}} which uses the system message boxes. This also draws the reader's eye more than the exists sideboxes.

Since we don't want to be wasting time pointlessly copying definitions, I'll add support to Dabfix and create lists of dab pages that do not conform to using the above template, referring to a primary topic, or use a standard introduction line. — Dispenser 14:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on what the proposal is. You say we don't want to be wasting time pointlessly copying definitions and yet the mbox contains an editable copy of a definition. This seems mostly to be giving the definition a more prominent location. And where would the box be positioned? Also, just how big of a "problem" is this? Links to a disambiguation page for the definition should be fixed to link directly to wiktionary instead. I'm not sure what the benefit is of including a separately editable partial copy of the wiktionary entry on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 15:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose what I was referring to cases such as idioms where the definition would be the primary topic, if we had an article. Thus it would follow similar rules, placed at top and not exceed one line. It is also a better interface design, the side boxes are typically used to refer readers to related pages when they're finished reading. As for the wasting time, this change would enable me to write code to help further automated disambiguation page cleanup. — Dispenser 19:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So would it look like the mbox example you presented at the top? That seems a little obtrusive to me, but if no one else objects, I suppose I could live with it. I'm still not sure what you mean by help further automated disambiguation page cleanup. Do you mean being able to replace links to the dab page with links to wiktionary, or something else? And what are the boundaries? Many dab include links to wiktionary -- what will be the basis for using {{wiktionary}} over what you are proposing? (i.e., what's to prevent well-meaning editors from systematically replacing the former with the new type?) older ≠ wiser 19:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dab page table

The subject of using tables on disambiguation pages has come up before, and the consensus was that tables can be acceptable depending on the type of dab page and/or the consensus arrived at for a particular page (discussion). On the dab page Without You, another editor recently created a sortable table for the many songs with this title, and I added a few sorting refinements. What's the feeling about this type of table? My one initial impression is that the table makes the one-link-per-entry format look somewhat random, rather than the easily recognized pattern evident in a regular list. Otherwise, though, it does seem helpful, particularly in a search by performer. If this is considered an acceptable use of tables on dab pages, you can expect to see them showing up on several other pages that cover very popular song titles (see, for instance, You and I or Why; and I'm sure some of you can come up with your own examples). Thoughts?--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Before I started work on the sortable table for Without You I looked through the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages to see if there was any rule stating that tables of this sort should not be included on disambiguation pages. I could find nothing of the sort, so I went ahead and made it to improve the article. Here are a few reasons why I believe the table is better: (1) I realize it is vastly different than the traditional bulletpoints, but in a list as long as there was in "Without You" there were inconsistencies of what was and was not included within each bullet point. The table helps to standardize the list better than the bulletpoints ever did. (2) How do you sort the songs within the bulletpoints? It could be organized by artist, album, or year. The sortable table makes this a pointless debate. (3) The sortability of the table makes it easier for readers to find exactly what they're looking for. Spidey104 17:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While I see the appeal of the tables, this approach is converting the disambiguation pages into something they are not. I would suggest that instead of trying to modify the disambiguation guidelines you could use the set index articles instead. This way pages like Without You will be formatted in a way that best makes sense for the lists of songs, yet the formatting of the disambiguation pages where some entries refer to the songs of the same name and some to other concepts would not be affected at all (in such cases the disambiguation page would simply have a list to a songs set index, which may be formatted in whatever way makes sense).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 2, 2011; 18:32 (UTC)

Such pages are certainly suitable set index articles - although I am not sure what the disadvantage of them remaining dab pages is. They do everything a dab page does - just a in a more user-friendly way than the norm. Ben MacDui 20:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the disadvantage I see is that the songs lists will stand out from the rest of the dab content, which makes them harder to navigate overall—something I am sure dab purists will not be overly thrilled with. Set indices, on the other hand, can be heavily customized to suit their purpose (which in this case is to most efficiently list the songs of the same name) while making the corresponding dabs cleaner and shorter.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 2, 2011; 20:18 (UTC)

It won't make the dab much shorter -- all of the ambiguously-titled topics would still be listed, whether in tabular form or bulleted form. Even if the elements are duplicated in a list article (set index). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean the entries should be duplicated on two pages. I meant the dab would contain a link to Without You (song), which, in turn, would be a set index of songs, formatted in a way that makes most sense. The Without You dab would as a result only contain four links (plus "see also"), which is considerably shorter and makes things which are not songs a lot easier to find, too.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 2, 2011; 20:40 (UTC)

OTOH, I mean that the entries would be duplicated on two pages. We don't put extra clicks in between disambiguation readers and their sought topics just because a list article exists. All of the individual songs titled "Without You" would still be ambiguously titled and would be listed on a disambiguation page, whether or not a list article listed them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I understand what you mean correctly, that doesn't seem to be a very efficient approach at all. From what I've seen, when identical listings are included both on the dab page and on another page (be it a disambiguation subset or a set index), they tend to go out of sync sooner rather than later, which makes finding anything a royal pain in the behind. Getting to an individual song in two clicks (one from dab to a set index and another from a set index to the article) is, in my opinion, a very small price to pay, and as long as the set indices are topic-specific, drilling to a topic in two clicks is often quicker than trying to locate an entry on an overly long dab page which lists all kinds of entries. That's strictly my 2¢, of course.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 2, 2011; 20:57 (UTC)

It sacrifices editor efficiency for reader efficiency, which is the right thing to do. The way to avoid the royal pain, if it needs to be avoided, is to not create the list article. Disambiguation pages sometimes get "out of sync" with the set of Wikipedia topics with the ambiguous title (which is why they keep being edited), so the size of the pain in the behind is not actually affected by the presence of a list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if a SIA is created, I think having all the links remain available on the dab page is good for editors, too, since it keeps those links readily accessible to the editing tools many of us use to disambiguate links. Segregating those links on a separate page would make the task of fixing incoming links more onerous.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that whenever I stumble upon a disambig page which duplicates a list from a set index or a subset disambig page, the entries are always out of sync; sometimes a little, sometimes quite a bit. The approach is clearly not working on the grand scale, which surely can't be good for the readers. Plus, it is news to me that the entries are actually supposed to be duplicated as J implies—set indices on last names, for example, seldom are, and duplicating lists of place names is just as pointless. For example, would duplicating this page on this dab really be beneficial to anyone? I don't think so. I'm sure cases where such duplication makes sense exist, but from what I've seen over the years it simply adds to the maintenance backlogs and makes things more confusing for the readers. Anyway, I'm only here to throw an idea around; if it doesn't work for the songs lists, then it doesn't. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 19:00 (UTC)

I didn't imply it; I stated it outright, based on what the disambiguation guidelines state. Anthroponymy list articles don't list ambiguously-titled topics, so their lists are not duplicated on disambiguation pages (and shouldn't be). Set indexes have several problems from my perspective; lack of sync with the corresponding dab, if any, might be another, but the fix is not to gut the corresponding dabs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If last names aren't a good example, what about ships, mountains, comics, etc.? Who, for instance, would benefit from duplicating the lists of all individual ships called Amazon on Amazon (disambiguation)? Certainly not the readers. Set indices make dabs more manageable and information easier to find (even with that extra click). Many readers would rather quickly click through a short hierarchical tree (from dab to set index to individual article) than spend time trying to find an individual entry in the sea of links on one disambig page, even if those links are organized into sections. What's important is balance. I would agree that it makes little sense to link to set indices from a dab page which is only a few lines long even with duplication, but on longer dabs doing so would make things better organized and easier to find. Opposing the "gutting" of the dabs even where it makes sense seems to me to be nothing but unwarranted purism.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 20:57 (UTC)

Yes, the readers who reach Amazon (disambiguation) and can then click through to the sought page. "Many" readers are welcome to use the set index if it suits them. "Many" ≠ "Most", let alone "All" (and even "many" may not be accurate). Things that you don't want are not necessarily "unwanted". No one here has agreed with you, for instance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm seeking others to agree with me? All I did was throw an idea around (an idea which many, by your own admission, might find useful, and which many are not really aware is an option). If it doesn't work for this purpose, then it doesn't; I certainly am not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm sure Ben has seen my suggestion, and the fact he didn't go with it probably means he didn't like it—something I'm perfectly fine with—so I don't understand what it is with your insistence here. If you are trying to make a point, I just don't understand what it might be. I was done here three comments back; you just can't seem to let me go. I love you, too, but can we please close this (and perhaps let others chime in)? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 8, 2011; 15:43 (UTC)

By all means, stop "rsp"ing here if you are truly done. It's no good trying to imply that others are seeking to have the last word when you keep arguing against something you claim to be perfectly fine with. When you ask questions in your "rsp", it seems neurotic to act surprised when you get a response back. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What seems "neurotic" is to keep getting replies to questions which were meant to be rhetorical...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 8, 2011; 16:30 (UTC)

I'd move the untabled elements before the table (and drop the "Music" section, leaving only a "songs" table after the short list of other entries), for ease of location, but other than that, that page gives me no heartburn. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Classical music disambigs

I recently discussed this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Style_guidelines#Disambiguation_guidelines. In a nutshell, disambiguation pages for numbered classical works (e.g. Symphony No. 1) are completely different from other numbered works (e.g. String Quartet No. 1). Hopefully, we can come to consensus about what the new guideline should be. —ˈtɒdləˈtɒdɪ^{(Toddlertoddy)} 21:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What does DabRL mean?

Rather than {{Db-disambig}}-ing the Dab-CU'd Dab Boulevard Records, i ProD'd it. The only substantive contributor defends it w/o changes, IMO suggesting that our current wording must be incomprehensible. Our discussion at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Proposed deletion of Boulevard Records follows:

== Proposed deletion of Boulevard Records ==

The article Boulevard Records has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Carrying out the Dab-CU that has been requested would render the Dab page subject to Speedy deletion via {{Db-disambig}}. As to such CU & Speedy, the undersigned nominator
(1) will, if {{ProD}} is removed prior to deletion, defer carrying them out until the deadline set by this ProD, and
(2) if at least two WP articles disambiguated from each other by this Dab are in existence upon arrival of the deadline, will lack cause to carry out the Speedy.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jerzy•t 05:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Whhaaa? That was you?! This feels like a classic ignoring by me of DTR! (Tho DTR seems to me to implicitly avoid including this mandated and non-griping template -- as it IMO should.) Perhaps it was a rescue attempt by you, and a mutual colleague not shown in the history deserves notification?
--Jerzy•t 05:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused here. There are two Boulevard Records labels (at least), and we mention both of them. It seems important that people know they are not the same company. Looking at the template your refer to I see that it states that a dab page that does not point to other pages is a speedy candidate. How yet another class of pages got into speedy land, is a mystery. The page disambiguates the term, if it should happen to link to articles of the name that is cool too. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

OK reading {db-diambig} more carefully, it is not applicable because the page is not [orphan]^{typo fix}ed. Rich Farmbrough, 11:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

    Thanks for taking this time.
   "Orphan" muddies the water, bcz our standard use means "page to which few or no articles link", not a collection of pointers to nowhere. In fact, "orphan" denotes an opportunity to increase an article's accessibility, and thus value, by adding links to it, not a deletable article.
   What {{Db-disambig}} is about is that WP is a 'pedia, and while WP Dabs among articles, it is dictionaries and glossaries that Dab among terms. And it's about a Dab that can't lead anyone to encyclopedic info being able only to waste user's time on pursuing false promises.
   Prima facie, (at least) two of the entries are not retainable, per DabRL. What optimism i was allowing for is that someone might have in mind existing red-lks, and existing WP info, for at least two of the entries.
--Jerzy•t 02:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

    Oh, and with only one entry left, that CSD will apply.
--Jerzy•t 02:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK let's look at this carefully:

• With the dab page:
  • Users will find a simple fact about the record label, that enables them to understand the nature of the label.
  • Users will not believe (mistakenly) that the same label released for "The Chuckles" as released for "Tapps".
  • Users will be able to create articles on any of the three record labels.
• Without it
  • Users will find no information about any of record labels.
  • Users might believe (mistakenly) that the same label released for "The Chuckles" as released for "Tapps".
  • Users who to create articles on any of the three record labels might easily include wrong or misleading information.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

And incidentally, the dab page did follow the rules under red links:

• Unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description. Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

   I think we've each made our respective approach clear. I'm posting a copy of this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) for fresh input.
--Jerzy•t 03:55, 12 August 2011

Thanks in advance for whatever can be contributed twd resolving the difference between our approaches.
--Jerzy•t 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is more a question of what we call the page and what template we slap on it then whether it should exist. You both make good points. I agree this is definitely not a dab page because it does not disambiguate between two or more articles on WP. But the worthwhile information it contains does not have to be lost. This could be a set index article. It just needs a reference and an {{SIA}} tag instead of a {{disambig}} tag. Then everyone benefits. Station1 (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  If that's the thing to do, then great. I'm not sure what then happens if one or more of the articles are created. Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC).
  

  If one article is created it just gets written under this title, being sure to mention somewhere in the article that there is another company with the same name out there so don't confuse them, and the SIA tag is removed. If two articles are created and neither is the primary topic, this then turns back into a dab page. Station1 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I see this has now been turned into a dab page for two stubs. Station1 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is correct?

This section is about the piping and redirect of the article.

Michael Posner may refer to: Michael Posner (musician) or Mike Posner (born... or Mike Posner (musician) (born...

Another one is about the proper way to describe the primary topic. Is this awkward? If it is not, is there any mistakes on this sample below?

Hitler commonly refers to Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), the dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3oWh pF0wHz (talk • contribs) 06:47, 6 July 2011

• This is the way to do it, assuming the musician is best known as "Mike":

Michael Posner or Mike Posner may refer to: Mike Posner (musician) (born...

For the Hitler thing, not that's not awkward. He's clearly the "main topic", and that's both concise enough and not too concise.

Hope that helps. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason for the redirect. It should be just: "Mike Posner (born 1988), American musician". Station1 (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Spirit vs Spirited

At Spirit (disambiguation) there are poorly explained multiple removals of

• Spirited Migration (Dark Castle album) (2009)
• Spirited Away, a 2001 Japanese animated fantasy-adventure film
• Spirited Criminal Investigative Network, 1998 American subtitled version of Bayside Shakedown, a 1997 Japanese police drama/comedy series

but not

• Spirited (TV series), a 2010 Australian TV drama series

Discussion at its talk page has not helped. A search using the WP search for both Spirit and Spirited produces a number of search results (a key element mentioned in MOSDAB), so I added them to the DAB page. I feel that the purpose of the DAB page is to guide readers to content, not prevent them from reaching it. Not sure how to characterize the conflict, or how exactly to apply what this guideline really says in this situation. Given what's included, I see no logic in the exclusions.

Given the accumulated experience here, I suppose discussion should occur here? --Lexein (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there. The discussion is all of several hours old. You might allow more time, and also review WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JHunterJ. At this point it is largely a content disagreement specific to the one page. Please discuss at Talk:Spirit (disambiguation)#Spirit vs Spirited. older ≠ wiser 12:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine. This is a formal RfC there then. It has, in extremely short order, veered out of control, against one of the core purposes of DAB, with extremely narrow non-common-sense (per the 2nd sentence of the guideline) application occurring. --Lexein (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD notice: Template:Letter-NumberCombination

Stale

 – No consensus to delete; clear consensus to remove it from DAB pages. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Letter-NumberCombination, which is used on dab pages such as A1 (disambiguation) etc. has again been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 14#Template:Letter-NumberCombination. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Placing synonyms

According to the "Order of entries" section of this guideline, synonyms belong (or is it "may belong"?) in the "See also" section of a disambiguation page. And yet, the "Specific entry types" section gives an example of how to create an entry for a synonym which seems to suggest that it belongs with the main listing. Moreover, the section on what should be put in "See also" sections makes no mention of including synonyms at all.

I'm unsure what to take from this. Should a synonym always be listed in the "See also" section or are there common exceptions? --88.104.36.157 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed with this edit. Ambiguous entries, including synonyms, go in the main list. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's much clearer. Cheers, 88.104.36.157 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing Template:Letter-NumberCombination from disambiguation pages

Per my comment at TFD, it's my intention to request at WP:BOTREQ that a bot be used to remove this template from all pages in Category:Disambiguation, per the existing MOS and disambiguation guidelines. But since I had said I would post about it here before doing so, here I am, although I assume this is the consensus sentiment since nobody has proposed amending the MOS to allow or encourage use of the template. Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do. And take {{LetterCombination}} off of dab pages too, if one bot can do both. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. older ≠ wiser 23:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Lock and load.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also agree. Tassedethe (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully support removing these templates. They serve no useful purpose. --ShelfSkewed Talk 15:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've posted the request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Removing templates from disambiguation pages. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There's some reluctance due to lack of perceived consensus here; if others reading this are in support of removing the template, it would be helpful if they expressed such. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yep. Remove them - Nabla (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the template from all pages in Category:Disambiguation. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. The request was archived without being met. If anyone wants to re-post it, they're welcome to, but my inclination is to go ahead and start working on it in AWB when I've got time, and I'd encourage others to do the same. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any of them AWBs or thingies. What's the best way to pitch in? Is there a list of afflicted pages?--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just figured that one out.--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I used AWB to clear out all the LetterCombination templates and made a start on Letter-NumberCombination. If anyone else wants to use AWB to work on this, but (like me) isn't very familiar with how to set it up to do this, here's the setup I was using:

To make the list:

• Source: What transcludes page
• What embeds: Template:Letter-NumberCombination

On the Options tab:

• Uncheck everything under "Automatic changes" (unless you want to do that stuff, too)
• Under "Find and replace", check "Enabled", click "Normal settings"
  • Under "Find", enter {{Letter-NumberComb.........*.}} and check the "Regex" and "Enabled" boxes

I think that's everything. Theoldsparkle (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have also been removing the templates, along with the category "Initialisms". I'm using the edit summary "remove non-dab template/category from disambiguation page, some cleanup"; I'll be happy to adjust it to the same one you'd like to use, for consistency. I use {{Letter-NumberCombination\|.*}}\n as the match, to remove the trailing newline, and on the "More..." tab, Categories, Remove category: Initialisms. I've finished the 0s-3s. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've switched to using your edit summary (and added the Initialisms bit). For the matching, I added \n to the end of my string, but I was using that one so that it would find both "Letter-Number Combination" and "Letter-NumberComb" without also matching the "Letter-NumberCombDisambig" template. Theoldsparkle (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I just nuked a whole pageful of them at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Letter-NumberCombination. @JHunterJ, you might want to use \n\n first, then \n - a LOT of these pages have a useless blank line between the useless template and the first line of real content. NB: It's noteworthy that zero complaints about this series of deletions have been registered here all month, and many supporting comments, ergo WP:CONSENSUS would appear to be clearly satisfied. That that this was ever in doubt; the consensus against using this on DAB pages, was already clear at the TfD, if not a consensus for entirely deleting the template (a debatable point - most of the "keep" !votes fall under WP:AADD and should not have been taken very seriously). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ding dong, the template's gone. (From dab pages.) (Which appeared to include every non-Talk page it was transcluded on.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Organising "black days of the week" by date

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Black Saturday regarding a non-MOSDAB compliant suggestion I have made for merging List of Black Saturdays into Black Saturday. Since most of the entries are differentiated primarily by date, I have suggested a date-first format, while another editor, User:JHunterJ, favours MOSDAB compliant link-first formatting (though still ordered by date). JHunterJ is on Wikiproject DAB, and I don't want to tread on any toes, but this just seems to me to be a classic case of WP:IAR. I would appreciate comment so that we can finally get consensus on how to perform the merge and do away with the ridiculous duplication in all "black days of the week" pages.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gypsy

This page has been the subject of a recent WP:ANI report; I think it just needs someone who knows what they're doing, and what the guidelines are about including dab entries, to look at it (I can't do it myself right now). Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

MOS:DABNAME — Section 3.2 Given names or surnames

Given that a WikiProject exists for the topic, and in deference to their specialized focus on it, I propose that MOS:DAB — Given names or surnames be amended to be more consistent with itself and to reflect the preferred style identified by WikiProject Anthroponymy regarding preferred phrasing; specifically, that the term people be amended to read persons, and that the preferred List of … style be identified as the preference, such that the MOS paragraph would read:

Persons who have the ambiguous term requiring disambiguation as surname or given name should not be in the same section of the disambiguation page as the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g. Elvis, Shakespeare). For short lists of such persons, new sections of Persons with the surname Xxxx and/or Persons with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list. For longer lists, create an article called Xxxx (surname), Xxxx (given name), Xxxx (name), or List of people persons with surname Xxxx, and link to it from the disambiguation page, and, where appropriate, create redirects from Xxxx (surname), Xxxx (given name), or Xxxx (name) to the created list . If it isn't clear that the article includes a list, then consider mentioning that in the description.

This will bring MOS into line with the most common existing form for such article names as well as with the WikiProject's guidelines. — Who R you? Talk 11:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I will simplify the text, but note that the anthroponymy project discussion on people/persons did not result in any clear consensus: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow up there. — Who R you? Talk 12:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that earlier in the paragraph, just above the changes here, still says "persons "; given the WikiProject Anthroponymy discussion, MOS:DAB — Given names or surnames should probably also have these other three references changed from "persons" → "people".
Thanks again for the ref to the discussion; I hadn't read the linked sites and must have misread the discussion on a quick review, cause I thought it also supported the persons POV, but apparently not.  Cheers — Who R you? Talk 04:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind using them interchangeably, since both (can) have the same meaning. But I agree if we need to be consistent, we should standardize on "people", which seems less stilted to me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Danzig is a former name of Gdansk

This is a historical mistake. I changed the sentence "Danzig is a former name of Gdansk, a city in northern Poland" to "Danzig is a German name of Gdansk, a city in northern Poland". KTTdestroyer (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

   The actual Dab being cited as an example here has begun, since '08,

Danzig is the German name (and former official appellation) of Gdańsk, a city in northern Poland.

While i'm relieved to find that the change to this guideline page was announced here, if it's going to stay changed, let's not encourage the idea that this is a place to make a claim about factual errors in topic areas. Rather, we

1. make such judgments in the context of the article page, not the style one that uses the example, and
2. must (at least) specifically ask here
   1. what aspects of the old "mistaken" version justified choosing that page for the example, and
   2. whether another page would work better here as an example than the one that no longer matches the corresponding main-namespace page.

   As to the first half, i'm taking the liberty of drawing the text of the example from the real Dab; as to the second (and in light of the lack of any claim beyond "This is a historical mistake."), will someone at least sincerely say "I 'have' thot about it; isn't it obvious that it's still suitable?"
--Jerzy•t 07:08 & 08:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. If we are going to use Danzig (disambiguation) as an example here, the text we use here must be the same as what appears on Danzig (disambiguation). Any disputes about that text should be discussed on Talk:Danzig (disambiguation), not here. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find a politically uncontentious example to use instead.--Kotniski (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Pacemaker (disambiguation) or Double exposure (disambiguation) would work fairly well if we wanted to go with something else. France3470 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Style

I have a minor disagreement about the style of the lines in a disambiguation page. In the present style is shows like: * Cordial (medicine), a medicinal beverage To my opinion it is easier for readers and users of those pages when it is done slightly different: * Cordial (medicine) - a medicinal beverage.

Why is the present style as it is? What would be the disadvantages of a change in style? (except a lot of work to change it) Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

One reason is simplicity. A hyphen would not be appropriate to use in such lists. While an en-dash might also be correct for such lists, the confusion between hyphens and en-dashes is reason enough to prefer commas. older ≠ wiser 16:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Grin, I do not see a difference between hyphens and en-dashes. A bot can solve that... Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason to warrant the churn. older ≠ wiser 16:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What would be the advantage of a change in style? Why are the three bytes " - " better than the two bytes ", "? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A few more thoughts. I don't think there is much doubt that commas are the preferred style but it is interesting that the MOS does not explicitly state to use commas under MOS:DABENTRY despite all the examples featuring the use of commas. One might ask is this enough? In response to JHunterJ's question, "What would be the advantage of a change in style?", I would be interested on thoughts on the following example: Editor A creates dab page Foo (disambiguation) which uses dashes to separate items from their description. Editor B edits the page and changes the dashes to commas citing MOS:DABENTRY as the reason for the change (for the purpose of this example these are the only changes Editor B makes). Was Editor B correct to make this changes, does this greatly affect the readability of the page? Should such as changes be subject to a policy such as WP:RETAIN? I personally would make these kind of changes, as I do see a benefit in having a consistent, unified style for all dab pages, but normally only when I'm making other changes as well. France3470 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Editor B was correct to make the change (and hopefully to mark it as a minor edit). Minor edits are a valid use of editor time -- as long as the editor's personal time management skills permit it. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"personal time management"? You speak strange words. older ≠ wiser 20:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the advantages is that it makes a clear distinction between the term involved and between the description. An other advantage is that it is more handy if you have to copy the term for an article. Selecting up to a blank is, in my experience, easier then to a comma. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The comma makes the same distinction between the term involved and the description, and is the usual structure for apposition. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Break rules" section

   We have long had a "Break rules" section. (It has undergone revision since May 2005; it now reads

Application of these guidelines will generally produce useful disambiguation pages which are consistent with each other and therefore easily usable by most readers. Usefulness to the reader is their principal goal. However, for every style recommendation above, there may be pages in which a good reason exists to use another way; so ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them.

but from the start it referenced the similar-spirited Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.)
   Apparently two years later, the (always irony-labelled) Wikipedia:Break all rules was created, and IMO the difference in spirit between the two suggests that the section heading "Ignore rules" (or "Ignore all rules") would be more consistent, and lessen confusion. (The tag {{anchor|Break rules}} should be added at the time of such a change, to preserve the existing addressability of the section.)
--Jerzy•t 08:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, we should drop the break/ignore rules section from the guideline, since it is well covered on its own and doesn't benefit from repetition (even if the repetition were without difference). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

First name disambigations - deletion of

Please see my comments at Template_talk:Given_name#Too_much_disambiguation.3F. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambig pages and name pages

After getting in a minor editing dispute with Tassedethe (talk · contribs), I realized that we have a strange situation with disambiguation pages and name pages. I have some content on the name Heinrich Müller, that is, it's about the name itself and not about any particular Heinrich Müller. I learned from Tassedethe that I can't just add it to the disambig page - I have to create an article called Heinrich Müller for this content, and then a separate disambig page for the list of people with the name. This silly policy can be seen in action at Lucy and Lucy (disambiguation) as well as John Smith and John Smith (disambiguation). You'll notice that in both cases, the "article" on the name is only a stub worth of content.

In my view, this policy is absolutely ludicrous. Most users who type in something like Lucy or John Smith are looking for a particular person, not an article. And, since the articles are usually so short, I don't see any reason why we can't have the short article on the name itself followed by the list of people who have it. I'd say we only split them from each other if the article on the name is long, like more than three paragraphs or so. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is content that is encyclopedic, it should be included in the encyclopedia (i.e., articles). If there is ambiguity about the topics covered by encyclopedia articles, a disambiguation page is needed to provide navigational assistance to that readers can find the encyclopedic content they are looking for. As you noted, most people are looking for a particular person, so there's no reason to put the name article information in between them and the information about the particular person they were seeking. Here, stubbing out the article on the name Heinrich Müller is the preferred approach, so that WP:V, WP:N, etc., can be applied, references added, and so on. It's nice to know Tassedethe has already explained this, and jumping in with accusations of "silly" and "ludicrous" may not be the best approach if you're seeking to form a new consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that is what we have with Lucy - the page encyclopedically describes the name, and lists some of the most famous people by that name. To say that someone is named "Lucy" is not the same as to make an ambiguous reference to a non-personal-name usage, such as one of the albums or songs with that name. However, if someone types in Lucy or John Smith looking for a particular person, and thinks that of all the Lucy's and John Smith's in the world, the one they are looking for will be the subject of the Wikipedia title Lucy or John Smith, then they are at best detached from common sense. As for Heinrich Muller, the information you wish to add is really specific to the Gestapo officer; there are many, many names which are common enough to make it difficult to identify which holder of the name is the one being sought, and what you have presented is a case specific example of that, not meriting a separate article or inclusion in the disambig page. Note by comparison that our article on John Smith (name) indicates its intentional usage as a placeholder or everyman name, and adoption as a pseudonym. bd2412 T 16:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To calm things down and to avoid loss of sourced content I have created Heinrich Müller (name). I think the talk page notes I have left at both pages are adequate for attribution, though I've got a feeling there's a specific template I should probably have used. I'm not sure that the name really merits its own article, as opposed to a section in the article on the Gestapo man explaining the difficulty in tracking him down, as BD2412 says above, but the content is there now, and I've made a link from the dab page. PamD 16:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The template you're looking for is Template:Copied, but I think the note you left is good enough. Station1 (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Primary topic

When a page has "(disambiguation)" in its title – i.e., it is the disambiguation page for a term for which a primary topic has been identified.

While this is true in some cases it is not true in all cases. Often an article title has not been identified as the primary topic it is simply the first one that was written about and no editor has bothered to extend it with a disambiguation. Unless there is an obvious primary topic it is often not considered worth the effort -- particularly if the article is fully developed and other articles are as yet stubby.

If it is not clearly the primary topic but is the primary topic simply because it was the first article with that name to be placed under that article title, there is no reason to list it in another way from all the other articles that have the same title but are extended with a disambiguator. The current wording encourages OR, so I suggest that the sentence appending to the sentence "through its use in reliable sources"

When a page has "(disambiguation)" in its title – i.e., it is the disambiguation page for a term for which a primary topic has been identified through its use in reliable sources.

--PBS (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true in all cases. The first article written at a title is the primary topic, by virtue of being the only topic. The identification may have been tacit, accidental, or implicit, but it has occurred. But that aside, how would reliable sources be used, exactly, to identify primary topics? I am unaware of any reliable sources even addressing the issue directly, other than Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary topic does not mean the first article written about a subject on Wikipedia see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So while it is quite possible for the first topic to be placed under an article title to be the primary topic, this is by no means always the case. Without playing semantics with the term, the problem I am highlighting above arises when we have two or more topics with the same article title--otherwise there would be no need for a dab page, which is the reason the sentence I am proposing to change exists.

Occasionally a primary topic may be explicitly identified in reliable sources, but frequently it is identified the same way as any title is on Wikiepdia is: through the methods described in WP:AT which (unless it is a descriptive title) is done by and large is through a survey of usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The first article written about a subject is indeed the Primary Topic, by virtue of being the "Only Topic", until ambiguity is later introduced. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: if there is only one article, then it meets both the usage and long-term significance criteria, since it far outstrips all of the other (zero) articles. This is always the case. Understanding (not "playing") the semantics is very useful when discussion disambiguation, since it is all about semantics. When a second article is created, the first editor might boldly displace the previous primary topic and make a base-name dab or even take the base name for the new article, but either of these might be reverted and lead to a discussion to see if there's consensus for the change in primary topic. Probably by WP:TWODABS it's better to leave the first article at the base name and put a hatnote to the second article until there is consensus for the change. I don't follow your logic of primary topics being identified in reliable sources, unless you are saying that reliable sources might be used to determine whether a particular ambiguous-title topic might meet the "long-term significance" criterion (or I suppose the "usage" criterion). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to keep tabs on the discussion at WT:AT where a number of prominent editors advocate pre-disambiguation of topics based on some sort of intuition that a term might be too generic to have a specific topic as the primary topic, even if there are no titles or other topics existing in Wikipedia that are ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 16:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. I'll pass. I suppose if broader consensus decides to pursue such a foolish consistency, and we need to use titles like William Shakespeare (playwright born 1564) (in case another William Shakespeare decides to write plays) or Liberia (terrestrial nation) (in case an extraterrestrial civilization has a "Liberia" nation), so be it. The NYC subway project already pre-disambiguates their titles for no real reason. But as long as I know not to move them back to the base name (and instead create the base name redirect, meaning it's still the primary topic at least until ambiguity is introduced), it works. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The change I wish to make has nothing to do with pre-disambiguation of topics or with a case where there is only one page (hence my mention that it is not worth bickering over whether that is the primary topic or not), because the sentence I am suggesting changing is to do with the situation where there are two or more pages that could use use the same article title. JHunterJ explains what can done two dab pages etc, but it does not have to be so, the original page may stay at the original name with no analysis of what is the primary topic, simply through inertia, or because it is more trouble than its worth identifying whether or not it is the primary source, or because there is no consensus over what the primary topic is and WP:RM favours leaving pages where they are if there is no consensus for a move. The page may eventually be moved, but just because a new article is created using a dab extension does not mean that the first article is the primary topic. -- PBS (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, up until that last sentence. Everything on Wikipedia exhibits inertia; things anywhere may be wrong if it's more trouble to fix them than it's worth. Wikipedia editors, fortunately, have a high threshold for trouble, so very little actually is more trouble than it's worth. The primary topic is the topic reached by the base name, and the first article there is the primary topic until its inertia is overcome. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

PBS, you might want to take a gander at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposed clarification: No consensus for primary topic means the page becomes a disambiguation page, where something very similar was discussed at length with no real resolution (apart from deference to the inertia of status quo). older ≠ wiser 12:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Although, IMO, even with that change, the primary topic would still be inertially held by the first article there until an editor moved it and put a dab page at the base name. That proposal would have changed the criteria for going through the trouble of overcoming the inertia, but it wouldn't change the fact that the first article at a title is the primary topic for that title until it isn't (i.e., until it is no longer reached by the base name). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Forbidding piping

I'd like to take issue with the prohibition on piping in dab pages. This rule seems usually appropriate, but at times it ought to be disregarded because it produces aesthetically unappealing pages without actually increasing clarity. See, for example, the dab page Maximilian I of Bavaria. This page disambiguates between a Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria and Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria. The former was a king of Bavaria in the early nineteenth century, the latter a prince-elector in the early seventeenth century. Under the current rules, the list looks like:

• Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria
• Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria

Wouldn't it look better to have it like this:

• Maximilian I Joseph, King of Bavaria
• Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria

Or even:

• Maximilian I Joseph, King of Bavaria
• Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria

Either of these allows for a more closely parallel construction, and actually makes the distinction between the two clearer than current policy. Why should this be forbidden? Especially with monarchs, our various conflicting naming conventions mean that the disambiguation pages are often unsightly mishmashes, when some judicious use of piping would make these pages more aesthetically appealing without reducing clarity in any way. It seems like there ought to be more room for editors on individual pages to make decisions about formatting than there currently is. john k (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

How about:

• Maximilian I Joseph, King of Bavaria
• Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria

Use the redirects if they are a better fit to the disambiguation page. Redirects aren't broken and they are encouraged on disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. john k (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the prohibition on piping in dab pages. The primary function of a dab-page is to make clear what the options are when you end up on a dab-page. The clearness of the options must no be hampered by esthetical choices. A dab-page is not an article, but an page to assist users. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how the choices are not clear in the examples I provided. john k (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I too like the lack of piping. When I find the prose clumsy, I create a redirect. Josh Parris 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the issue of clarity supposed to be taken care of in the title of the article itself? bd2412 T 00:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Usually. Normally the use of redirects would only be for formatting, as the Maximilian example above. If the article title isn't clear, propose a move. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

One other thing - often disambiguation pages link to a section of an article, rather than the entire thing. In this case, you'd want to make a redirect to that section and link to the redirect. Article#section should not be used as a visible article title. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirects usually take care of this. When they don't and lack of piping results in something awful this usually means a redir is needed and, again, will take care of it. In the very rare cases it won't, WP:IAR exists for a reason, so pipe it, but expect others to try to figure a way to do it better without pipes, even if it means renaming the article, which is usually the underlying problem with this comes up. Odd outlying cases are insufficient justification to undo the general advice here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 02:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of a dab page is surely to make it easy for users to find the article they're looking for. So the clarity of the page is important. Articles about people of the same name must have different titles, so usually a title either includes some of the subject's secondary names or initials, or else has a modifier in brackets such as (astronomer). See John Smith for many examples. When such articles are listed in a dab page without piping, the result can be a lot of unhelpful clutter. If a secondary name has been added, unless the subject is known by that name (e.g. John Maynard Keynes) then listing it in the dab page doesn't help the user to find the person they want. If a modifier has been added, almost invariably it's repeated either explicity or implicitly in the information that follows, e.g. "John Smith (astronomer) (1711–1795), Lowndean Professor of Astronomy".
Rather than a dogmatic, purist prohibition of piping, the test should be "does piping make this particular entry clearer on this particular page?" If it does, then piping is valid. Solving this problem with redirect pages isn't always possible or sensible. As SMcCandlish said above, WP:IAR exists for a reason. — Stanning 11:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The secondary names or initials or modifier in brackets are not "unhelpful" clutter -- they are "helpful" information, serving to distinguish the name of the article (and its topic) from other articles that would otherwise have ambiguous titles. The secondary names or initials or modifier in brackets should be chosen with that goal in mind -- poor selection of distinguishing terms can result in unhelpful clutter, but that means the topic article should be moved to a better distinguished title. When properly-named articles are listed in a dab page without piping, the helpful information is lost. If the description is fully redundant with the distinguished title, the description should be removed, not the distinguished title. There is no purist, dogmatic prohibition of piping, but a reasoned, practical prohibition of piping. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I defer to your experience – I don't agree, but I will endeavor to comply.
But having picked it at random as an example, I do commend John Smith#Academics as an exercise for anyone who wants to test their skill at removing redundancy between modifiers and descriptions while retaining clarity – every modifier in that list is redundant, being either repeated or implied in the description! — Stanning 14:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a bit of an exaggeration. Out of six disambiguated article names, four of their descriptions repeated the disambiguating term or a form of it. (The "implied" seems to be a distinction in search of a problem.)

I just edited two of those entries so that they no longer do; the other two seemed fine as they are.--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Forbidding piping 2

After the example that John K showed in the previous section, I'd like to show you another one that I'd like some opinions on:

Recently I added an entry to the disambiguation page RSA. My addition was:

* Santa Rosa Airport, La Pampa, Argentina (by IATA code)

A user then changed my line into the following, saying that piping is forbidden in disamb. pages:

* Santa Rosa Airport (Argentina), La Pampa, Argentina (by IATA code)

In my opinion, his was not a good choice, because you're saying Argentina twice. It doesn't look alright to say "(Argentina) Argentina". I pointed it out to him, and his next suggestion was:

* Santa Rosa Airport (Argentina), IATA code

In my opinion, this is also not good, because there is more than one place called Santa Rosa in Argentina, and that's why I added the province in the first place.

Then I suggested:

* Santa Rosa Airport (Argentina), in La Pampa province (by IATA code)

But I still think the original is much better. Any opinions?

I don't want to waste time over such a minor issue, but if you think the first version was acceptable, then it means that piping shouldn't automatically be corrected.

Thanks, Azylber (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The province isn't needed to help a reader who reached RSA intending the airport find it -- if a reader is looking for the airport by searching on the code "RSA",

• Santa Rosa Airport (Argentina)'s IATA code.

would get them there. (That's my typical rendering of code-holders.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. The province needs to be there. Otherwise it's kind of like saying Portland Airport, USA - there are two large cities called Portland in the USA, and when shouldn't have ambiguous description on a disambiguation page. I think Azylber's last suggestion is best. The (Argentina) has to be there so users instantly know what article they're going to. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  No, it isn't like saying "Portland Airport, USA". It's more like saying "PDX? You mean Portland International Airport?" or "RSA? You mean Santa Rosa Airport?". If there's a problem with the qualifier, the qualifier should be changed by moving the article. If the description is insufficient to give the proper navigational aid to the reader (I think it's sufficient, but if not):

  • Santa Rosa Airport (Argentina), an airport in La Pampa province, Argentina

  would work. (Since the reader searching by IATA code already knows it's an IATA code.) Remember, dabs are for reader navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

While I agree it isn't critical, but because the reason for the inclusion of that airport on the page is not obvious without mention of the IATA code, that would argue for inclusion. And I think it also worth being clear about where an ambiguously named airport is located. While the primary purpose of disambiguation pages is navigation, there is little reason to make entries unnecessarily obscure for casual browsing. older ≠ wiser 14:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ship pages

There is conflicting information between MOS:DABENTRY#Individual_entries vs. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Index_pages as it pertains to the style, number of links, layout for the page, etc. This official MOS page needs to acknowledge the differences and/or bless them so that inadvertent edit wars are not started. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's because set index pages (incl. ship indexes) are not disambiguation pages. Where a title is ambiguous only within a set, the consensus is to omit the disambiguation page and allow readers to use the set index article (which might be at the base name or at a name like "List of ..."). If there is additional ambiguity beyond the set, then both might exist, and either (or neither) might be at the base name, and if the set index is not at the base name, it typically uses the "List of ..." titling. If a disambiguation page exists, it should link to all of the ambiguous articles, to avoid having readers looking for one of the topics to read both the dab page and the SIA before reaching the sought article -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not obvious which page is which. There is no banner saying "this is a dab page" or "this is an index page". If different MOS rules apply to them, maybe there should be an Wikipedia:Editnotice to assist editors in improving each one without running afoul of previous consensus. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And yes, some dab pages do include (disambiguation) in the title to assist with that, but as seen in Category:All article disambiguation pages many do not. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually there are noticeable differences. USS Omaha has {{Shipindex}}, which displays a different message and icon than a disambiguation page which uses {{disambig}} or a variant. Also, if you edit USS Omaha, the usual disambiguation edit notice is not displayed. older ≠ wiser 17:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You can call it an index page all you want, but the fact is that it is disambiguating between multiple things with the same name. So it's still a disambig page, just a different kind. We might want to make a note of this on the MOS page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that it's listing multiple instances of the same type of thing, so it's a set index page. A disambiguation page (formatted like a disambiguation page) could also have been used, but the ship (and hurricane, and "black days" and probably some others) projects or editors have favored other formatting. Where the set index page happens to include all of the topics that could be ambiguous with the title, we've allowed that a separate disambiguation page isn't required. But set indexes still aren't disambiguation pages, but rather list articles (We have noted that on the MOS page. in the WP:MOSDAB#Set index articles section), and so subject to the usual applications of notability, verifiability, etc. If any individual one gets deleted because it's not encyclopedic, we'd create the properly formatted dab page to replace it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I see a distinction without a difference. In the USS Omaha case shown above, the only thing the items have in common is the name. That means it's disambiguation. A list would include items that don't have the same name (such as a list of American WW2 battleships). Either way, the original comment that the difference needs to be acknowledged on this page is valid. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is in the tagging; formatting; possible inclusion of references, entries without articles, templates, infoboxes, images, etc.; and applicability of article content guidelines and policies. In the USS Omaha case above, the other thing they have in common is that they are all ships. If there were a film titled USS Omaha, the ship index would be insufficient (without a hatnote). Either way, the acknowledgement that they are different was already on this page. I'm in favor of further emphasizing the difference by move the SIA info off of this page (and WP:D) entirely, and putting it on Wikipedia:Set index articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think removing mention of them here will help with the confusion. They are confusing and always have been and likely always will be. They unquestionably do function similarly to disambiguation pages, but have exempted themselves from the rigorous application of WP:MOSDAB guidelines. older ≠ wiser 17:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

People

The section MOS:DAB#People demonstrates a bad way to create a list. The dab extension is to a large part arbitrary and depending on what is chosen may move names from one end of a list to another. In the example given John Adams (martyr) could have been given the dab extension John Adams (Catholic priest) or John Adams (Roman Catholic martyr). Similarly sorting a list of names by a little used middle names or initials does not help because if one knows the middle name there should already exist a redirect to the appropriate article.

An alternative method is to sort the names in chronological order as a person looking for a specific individual usually has some notion of when they flourished. So I think it would help if the list was [also?] displayed chronologically:

John Adams (1735–1826) was the second President of the United States. John Adams may also refer to: John Adams (martyr) (died 1586), Catholic priest and martyr under Elizabeth I of England John Adams (physicist) (1920–1984), Director General of CERN and particle accelerator designer John Adams (composer) (born 1947), American composer who came to prominence with his opera Nixon in China

The use of sections for individuals also has its problems. While it works for individuals who are prominent in only one field, what happens if they are prominent in more than one? For example if an individual was both a soldier and a politician, does one list them twice or arbitrarily place then in only one section?

-- PBS (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this a problem on a particular dab page? It works well enough for most dab pages (as does chrono- or reverse chrono- sorting, both of which I've also resorted too). -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have resorted to chronological ordering then you know what I mean. I am not suggesting removing the current example but adding an alternative to it so that new editors realise there is more than one way to order these lists. -- PBS (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Order of entries already says "Within each group within a section, and within each non-subdivided section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This might mean in decreasing order of likelihood as user's target, alphabetically, chronologically, or geographically, not to the exclusion of other methods." . -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

For very common names (William Smith as an example), I find sectioning by occupation as most helpful. Within that section, you can go chronologically, with the caveat that closely related people should be listed together. For example, there are two early Mormon leaders named William Smith, so they should be listed next to each other so a person looking for a Mormon leader named William Smith can see that there's two of them.

If a person falls into two categories, list it twice. If the William Smith page had different listings for actors and musicians, for example, Will Smith would belong in both sections. A person not knowing who he is that saw Will Smith in a musical context would go to the music section, while someone who saw him in a film context would looking under Actors. Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bono are also people who would warrant double-listing on long disambig pages. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion has me wondering whether we should find some way to make disambig pages sortable, so that they can be searched alphabetically, chronologically, by occupation or field, etc. bd2412 T 19:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  People have suggested using tables, but they come with their own set of problems. Anyway, the more pressing problem with this is that most disambigs lack year information. This is despite Dabfix being able to automatically add them.

  In other news, Dab solver users now see years automatically added to entries. They can then sort them in a few ways. — Dispenser 17:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Using redirects

I've consistently used redirects where they are a match (or closer match) for the ambiguous title than the target article's actual title. It's been pointed out to me on Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (disambiguation)#Move? that this is a broader exception to the guideline to avoid redirects than the exceptions listed here. I'd like to simplify the exception to say basically that: if an article has a redirect that matches the ambiguous title better than the article's title, use it (and include the examples already here). I can't think of any reason not to, but if you can, please let me know. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In general, I link to the actual title of the article, per WP:ASTONISH. I think it's usually best to let the reader know exactly what article they'll wind up at on the other end of a click; they already know what topic they're looking for. Exceptions may include redirects that include an anchor to a named section of a larger article, especially redirects with possibilities, that substantially discusses the topic. A consideration is whether the redirect is basically another possible title for the entire article (and therefore noted as such in bold in the lede), a title for a substantial section of a broader article, or something that just points to a list article or an article that mentions the topic almost in passing. Songs, as an example, are often just a line or two in another article; in those cases I link the album or artist. The current guidelines seem about right to me. Station1 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A redirect is generally most appropriate if linking to a section in a wider article, so you don't have to include the number sign in your link. Otherwise, link to the actual article name, so readers know where they're going. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WP:ASTONISH, and if the redirect differs from the destination title sufficiently, I've usually written the entry as "[[Redirect title]] or actual title, description" for synonyms or "[[Redirect title]], description including the actual title" for non-synonyms. This, IMO, is the best mix of navigation (the reader has reached the redirect page so is looking for something like the redirect title) and non-astonishment (the reader is "prepped" for the actual landing page). Songs, in that example, are often redirects with possibilities. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Dates for people who are still living but whose birthdate is unknown

What should one do when listing a still-living person whose year of birth is unknown? Is fl. appropriate for living people? Would (?–present) be better? Sometimes it's possible to clarify a person's period of prominence by specifying the period in which they held a particular position, but just as often there's nothing of relevance to use. – hysteria18 (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Typically, I've seen that dates are omitted for such living persons when listed on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 19:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Although this may not be a solution that is practical to use on a massive scale, I find that with a bit of research, I can usually at least narrow date of birth down to a decade or a similar start point. I think it is fine to say John Doe (1950s-present) or (c. 1955/56-present). bd2412 T 19:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, that is also a reasonable approach, although I'm assuming that you are also updating the article with that information. The disambiguation page shouldn't include details that aren't supported by the article. older ≠ wiser 22:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is absolutely correct. bd2412 T 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen Fred Foo (born 1952) is normally used on lists for living persons. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

More realistic examples for WP:DABMENTION

There are at present two examples for WP:DABMENTION:

Tail may also refer to: The empennage of an aircraft The luminous matter anti-sunwards from a comet

I suggest that these are unhelpful. The first example is a case of MOS:DABSY above, "Synonyms". The second is complicated as there is a separate article Comet tail which ought, or ought not, to be linked from the "Tail" dab page.

I suggest that we replace this example box by:

Maggie Anderson may also refer to: An actress in Corpus Callosum (2007 film) A character in Brigadoon

to illustrate the statement "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included." (which seems to be generally interpreted more inclusively than I had thought - see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#How_far_do_we_go_in_including_unlinked_entries.3F). These are real life examples from a recent discussion, but having scrutinised the guidelines above I've reformatted them as the guidelines seem to go against the repetition of the name in the "Maggie Anders, an actress in ..." etc style. What do other editors think? PamD 07:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That looks good, Pam. Boleyn (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Maggie Anderson may also refer to: Maggie Anderson, actress in Corpus Callosum (2007 film) Maggie Anderson, a character in Brigadoon

I've reformatted them to retain the usual repetition, and to drop the "a" before the description of a person (the reasons for which are beyond me, but are the current consensus). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change - abolish bold section headings

I propose a change to this section - Disambiguation pages should never use bold section headings, and instead should always use ==Headings== regardless of the length of the page. Reasons:

• Headings automatically display and populate a table of contents. Even on a short page where the contents isn't necessary, it's not harmful either
• Short pages often become long pages over time, requiring an editor to go thru and change all the bolds to real headings
• The manual of style already says to put See Also as a heading no matter what, so why not have all other sections match this?

Comments? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think bold group headings are more beneficial in short lists (section headings space the page out more, even if slightly, and tables of contents increase the page size in bytes, even if slightly), and I do not see a benefit in restricting the choice in the style guidelines. As pages grow, they may need to be reformatted no matter what. The "requirement" for an editor to go through and change on the group headings (no less "real") to section headings is not onerous. Any editor who encounters such a page and does not wish to do so themselves is welcome to drop me a note on my talk page and I will be happy to do the light lifting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Category for shortcut redirect pages?

I'm adding a shortcut link in Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, and noticed from looking at other links that the pages created to handle the redirects are placed in two different categories. Wondering if there is guidance on which one to use for a particular shortcut.

• Template:Redirect to other namespace, which populates Category:Cross-namespace redirects, or
• Template:R from shortcut, which populates Category:Redirects from shortcuts

There are a lot of MOS: links in each category. —Wbm1058 (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the MOS: prefix. Shortcuts from the WP: prefix are easier to answer: they should all be in "R from shortcut". I don't know how to answer for MOS: prefixed shortcuts. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

MOS:MOS uses both "R to other namespace" and "R from shortcut", which seems fair enough. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Linking to Wiktionary section

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Linking to Wiktionary section appears to be in error. I wanted to have someone else look over my thought before I made the edit.

The page says:

• {{Wiktionary}} – {{wiktionary|WORD|WORD2|...|WORD5}} – up to five optional parameters; useful for linking dictionary entries with multiple capitalizations (star, Star, and STAR).
• {{Wiktionary pipe}} – {{wiktionary pipe|WORD|optional display name}} – without parameters, defaults to using the current page's name.

I believe it should be: (added text bold, deleted text struck out)

• {{Wiktionary}} – {{wiktionary|WORD|WORD2|...|WORD5}} – up to five optional parameters; useful for linking dictionary entries with multiple capitalizations (star, Star, and STAR) – without parameters, defaults to using the current page's name without capitalization.
• {{Wiktionary pipe}} – {{wiktionary pipe|WORD|optional display name}} – without parameters, defaults to using the current page's name.

If I'm understanding this right, I'll make the change, but I wanted to get feedback here first. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The parameterless default behavior is true of both templates, although given the second template's name you are right that the statement is more applicable for the first. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Change made. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed expansion on initialisms and acronyms

I've noticed that quite frequently there are disambiguation pages for initialisms or acronyms that content a bunch of links to topics that could be referred to with that abbreviation, but generally are not (i.e. GameStop was, at one point, on the page GS, although there is nothing on the GameStop page that would suggest it being referred to as "GS"). Should we mention something on here about making sure that all acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations that are linked in the disambiguation page are mentioned on their respective page (for example, the initialism "BSA" appears in the article Boy Scouts of America, and therefore is suitable for inclusion on the disambiguation page BSA)? EW_ikist^Talk 21:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:DABMENTION should probably be strengthened to indicate that the other-page mention is needed, not just optional, for dab inclusion, for acronyms and not-acronyms. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of a new sub-topic following "Items appearing within other articles" called "Acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations?" Something along the lines of this:

Acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations

Many pages serve primarily to disambiguate short letter combinations that can represent various acronyms and initialisms. When considering articles to include in the list, it is important that each individual entry is referred to its respective abbreviation within its article. For example:

BSA may refer to: (correct) Boy Scouts of America (incorrect) The British Soap Awards

The second entry is incorrect because the article that it refers to, the British Soap Awards, does not mention that it is abbreviated "BSA," and therefore is unlikely to be searched for by that letter combination. The Boy Scouts of America page, however, notes that the organization is abbreviated "BSA," and would thus be a likely candidate for someone searching that initialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC)

I think the correct/incorrect example is a good idea. I'm not sure it needs to be acronym-specific -- the topic needs to be referred to as the ambiguous title in the linked article whether or not it's an acronym. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

good example and explanation Azylber (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Template needed

This is a long, formidable "guideline." It should include a simple template for basic diambig. pages. Kdammers (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Jim Carrey/James Carrey example

I was reading WP:DABREDIR and I like the first rule, where you may link to something, even if it were a redirect, if it were worthy of becoming an article of its own in the future. However, why the second rule would be good wasn't immediately obvious. Quoth the manual:

• Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section. For example:

James Cary may refer to: (correct) James Carrey or Jim Carrey (born 1962), Canadian actor ([[James Carrey]] or Jim Carrey (born 1962), Canadian actor) (incorrect) James Carrey or Jim Carrey (born 1962), Canadian actor (James Carrey or [[Jim Carrey]] (born 1962), Canadian actor)

• The above example of a redirect is only appropriate because James Carrey is indicated as a name in the lead section of the Jim Carrey article. If it were not, then the second example could have been used instead.

How do we benefit from this rule? What's incorrect about the second example and what's correct about the first example? It seems like it should link directly to Jim Carrey, since that's the name he is known by. James Carrey, maybe would redirect to what I want, if I were lucky, but it's not immediately obvious if Jim Carrey is the primary topic for "James Carrey." Maybe there's another individual more suited for the "James Carrey" article name. So I don't see how the editor or the reader would gain something by being circuitous like that, even if it's slightly so. As the user, if Jim Carrey was linked in a dab page (as in the "incorrect" example), I don't see what the problem would be. Thoughts?

If the benefit of this rule is equally unclear to others, it should be removed. --JBrown23 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The reader reaching the page is looking for someone named "James" (for whatever reason). If "Jim Carrey" is a possible target for their search, it's easier for the reader to parse the list if it's in a consistent format: link (red or blue), optional alias, description (that includes a blue link if the link is red). How to we lose benefit from this rule? If the benefit of removing it is equally unclear to others, it should be kept. -- 23:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. As I stated, I found three issues with the rule:

1. I didn't know what the reasoning was behind the rule
2. The article doesn't explain the reasoning behind the rule
3. I disagree with the rule

You've provided me with your reasoning. Hypothetically, if we were to keep this rule, then we can start the rule with "For the purpose of positioning a link first, ..." Even if we removed this rule, the following style preferences are already set:

• List the colliding term first (the term that needs disambiguation).
• It's preferrable to show the actual article title as the link.
• A link can exist anywhere for each entry (cf. "The Scream" example).

Therefore, one would naturally derive that the current "incorrect" example exemplifies the preferrable style, while the current "correct" example adds an extra level of depth that we could do without. Your sig is broken BTW. --JBrown23 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

One blue link should suffice

The guideline currently states "A disambiguation page should not be made up completely of red links or have only one blue link on the entire page, because the basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." I propose we remove or alter "or have only one blue link on the entire page" from that sentence. If we do have an article covering a term, then we should allow for a means of pointing out to the reader that there exist other separate topics closely linked to that term for which we do not yet have articles. To add to my argument, I would like to point out that finding two blue links sufficient as opposed to one is an arbitrary delimiter. __meco (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are navigational tools that exist because Wikipedia has a technical limitation that prevents multiple articles from occupying the same title. If there is no coverage of a topic on Wikipedia, there is no navigation aid to render. The difference between one article (can exist at one title) and two articles (cannot exist at one title) is not arbitrary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Still, in the interest of developing the project, the limit between one and two seems arbitrary and significantly different from where none exist. __meco (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

But it still isn't. In the interest of developing the project, correct WP:REDLINKs can be added to the article space, and then correct dab entries with the red link and a blue link to the article with the red link should be added. If there's no appropriate article to add the red link to, adding it to the dab page isn't in the interest of the project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Scattered red links in articles is difficult to collate the way a dab page does. In fact, it's pretty much impossible if the titles of the red links have been disambiguated, i.e. John Paulson (painter). __meco (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, which is why the dab page can collate the red links that are scattered in articles. Once the red links are in articles. If you've got a red link you want to add to a dab page, add it to an article and then add it to the dab page with a link to the article. There's no hardship or loss of encyclopedia development. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read the opinions of both JHunterJ and meco. If I understand correctly, meco's point is that putting the red link in the dab page encourages people who see it to write the missing article, and JHunterJ's point is that it's ok to add that red link entry, as long as you also add the redlink in an article that would link to the missing article if it existed and then include links to both the missing article and the existing article in the dab page entry. So I don't see a conflict here. Meco: if you want to do what's best for the project, it's ok to add an entry with a red link to a dab page, as long as you also include the same red link in an existing article that would link to the missing one if it existed, and you also link to this existing article in the same dab page entry. Azylber (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

The section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Images and templates refers to an image at Congo (disambiguation). There's no longer an image there. Either Congo (disambiguation) needs to be changed back, or we should use a different example here. Any suggestions? SchreiberBike (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I restored the image with a hidden comment regarding it's use as example here. older ≠ wiser 21:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of {{USS}} and similar templates on disambiguation pages

The following is copied from Talk:Defiant:

Editor ShelfSkewed recently reverted an edit that used the {{USS}} template to format the link to USS Defiant (YT-804) with this edit summary:
untemplate entry--not useful on dab pages as it "hides" the link from some editing tools

Editor ShelfSkewed, can you please elaborate? The disambiguation MOS specifically alludes to the use of this kind of template to properly format ship names. There is no mention of link "hiding" (not really sure what you mean by that) in the MOS, nor in the template's documentation. Can you elaborate and provide supporting documentation showing how the template isn't useful on disambiguation pages?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The templates are a convenience to ensure proper formatting, but they are not obligatory and they should be used subst'ed to create an actual link. The reason for this, as I intended to explain (obviously too briefly; my apologies) in my edit summary, is that entries that remain templated are not accessible to some editing tools used by editors who disambiguate links to dab pages. The tool I use, for example, is Popups. When I encounter an ambiguous link, Popups accesses the dab page and offers me a choice of the links listed there. But the tool can't interpret an entry in a template, so that choice is unavailable. I understand that these templates are quite useful in articles, both for their convenience and to insure a uniform and correct display. But they have the potential to be counterproductive when used unsubst'ed on dab pages, and if someone (in this case, me) is willing to take the time to create a direct link, properly formatted, there is no reason, I think, to insist on the template.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This editor believes that the use of templates, like {{USS}}, in disambiguation pages is allowed and serves a legitimate purpose.

• MOSDAB §Where piping may be appropriate specifically identifies a document (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Tools) that lists {{USS}} and similar templates that can be used to properly format page links on disambiguation pages.
• MOSDAB §Where piping may be appropriate does not require editors to subst: such templates when they are used on disambiguation pages.
• Shortcut templates like {{USS}} are an aid to editors that make the typing easier, the edit window less cluttered and therefore easier to read, and assure that the resulting format is correctly rendered for readers.
• The limitations of a particular tool or tools (in this case Popups) should not dictate how all other editors conduct the creation and maintenance of disambiguation pages.

I will post I have posted notice of this topic on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If we (at SHIPS) are getting in the way of what gnomes do, then that means we have to do the gnome work ourselves. Are we getting in the way? Can "popups" and other tools be fixed? If not, are SHIPS people willing to take responsibility for doing the work? I don't know. I'll keep an eye on the conversation. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I also de-template any {{USS}} et al. templates I find on disambiguation pages. The templates are available for properly formatting the links if the editors don't know how to do it themselves. If a gnome comes along later at gets the formatting right without the template (but substing it or otherwise), no problem. I do not mind editors using the templates on dabs, but I don't mind me removing them either. I would not ask any editor to stop using the template to add entries to a dab, but I don't see the need or legitimate use of introducing the template to an untemplated entry that is already properly formatted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've inserted a line break between Editor Dank and Editor JHunterJ for readability.

Just for clarity, I was the editor who placed the USS Defiant (YT-804) entry into the Defiant disambiguation page. I used the {{USS}} template.

If I understand you correctly, you are ok with editors using template but if you find templates in a dab you will untemplate the entry. That sounds to me like you really aren't ok with other editors using templates. Have I got this right?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Any editor who wants to add an entry to the dab page can:

• Add it without any formatting. A subsequent editor might later
  • Format it with a ship template. A subsequent editor might then later
    • Replace the ship template with the entry formatted with wiki markup
  • Format it with wiki markup
• Add it with the ship template. A subsequent editor might then
  • Replace the ship template with the entry formatted with wiki markup
• Add it with wiki markup formatting.

I'm really OK with other editors using templates to add entries to dabs, or to format unformatted (or incorrectly formatted) dab entries. Once the entry is properly formatted with wiki markup, however, there's no benefit to replacing it with the ship template. Are you not OK with other editors not using the templates? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me too much if editors wish to use what you call wiki markup in lieu of a template that accomplishes the same thing. I do find that in the edit window, templates are easier to read than equivalent wiki markup; also easier to maintain because there are fewer elements. Consequently, when I find untemplated ship names anywhere, I template them.

I get the sense from reading your posts that you believe that wiki markup is the preferred method for creating links to ship articles even though the output of a template can be the same (the template markup will always render correctly while the wiki markup may not—the template also inserts   between the elements so the whole name stays together). I guess I don't understand why anyone would want to go to the extra trouble of typing everything twice:

[[USS Defiant (YT-804)|USS ''Defiant'' (YT-804)]] vs.

{{USS|Defiant|YT-804}}

I certainly don't want editors to assert that templates are improper. That is contrary to MOSDAB §Where piping may be appropriate. If there is suitable justification for always using untemplated wiki markup in dab pages, that justification should be defined and MOSDAB amended accordingly. Until such time, templates are permissible and should not be molested.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't typically type things twice when I use the manual formatting; I copy-and-paste. I certainly don't want editors to assert that templates are preferred on dabs, since Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Images and templates says to avoid them, while the piping section says that they can be used to get the formatting right. The properly formatted untemplated entries are permissible, preferred, and should not be molested. Untemplated formatting needn't always be used -- if one doesn't know how to do the wiki markup, or if one doesn't want to -- but when an editor does use the untemplated version, it should not be changed to the templated version on dabs. So please stop templating the untemplated ship names on dab pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So that's a problem with the MOSdab, isn't it? On the one hand §Where piping may be appropriate permits template use whereas on the other hand §Images and templates discourages template use. Originally that section was simply titled Images. Editor Dekimasu added the templates terminology on 21 July 2009 with this edit summary: same principle seems to apply to templates—this vague wording suggests that Editor Dekimasu wasn't quite sure about the change. MOSdab talk Archive 38 covers the period October 2008 – August 2009. The change that Editor Dekimasu made is not discussed there, nor has it been challenged. The section was changed by Editor JHunterJ on 10 March 2011 to add commentary about flag icons.

Because tracing the history of §Images and templates piqued my curiosity, I chased down the history of MOSDAB §Where piping may be appropriate with regard to templates:

• 27 September 2010: Editor 28bytes adds text about Dab title templates; starts a discussion on the talk page.
• 27 September 2010: Editor ShelfSkewed reverts
• 29 September 2010: Editor ShelfSkewed self reverts
• 23 October 2011: Editor LittleWink adds reference to ship name templates
• 23 October 2011: Editor NapoliRoma adds bullet formatting
• 24 October 2011: Editor LittleWink changes ship name template link
• 24 October 2011: Editor JHunterJ changes ship name template link
• 24 October 2011: Editor JHunterJ changes bulleted list order

The discussion started by Editor 28bytes resulted in changes to the templates and to their documentation. The changes were made to satisfy the concerns of Editors Auntof6 and ShelfSkewed with regard to the editing tools that they use—the same concern that Editor ShelfSkewed raised to start this discussion. I note that Editor 28bytes's discussion did not result in changes to MOSdab. As an aside, the editors who dislike dab page template use because their editing tool can't interpret templates, apparently haven't raised the issue with the tool developers—the issue may have been raised, but I can find no evidence that Editors ShelfSkewed and Auntof6 have done so.

Your assertion that editors will use templates because they don't know how to create a link using wikilink markup is weak. I venture to suggest that essentially all WP editors learn how to do standard wikilink markup long before they learn about, much less learn to use, templates.

I can see a few of things that ought to be done: resolve the contradictory ok-to-use-templates / not-ok-to-use-templates problem between §Piping and §Images and templates; carefully consider refactoring MOSdab so that other contradictory guidelines are harmonized; as part of a refactoring, create a document of supporting rational so that in future, readers may know why each guideline is the way it is (talk pages are insufficient because they are not concise statements of purpose or of fact); Editor ShelfSkewed should raise the editing tool issue with the tool's developer and report back.

Yeah, I copy / paste too (though that's still more work than a template).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that I asserted that editors will use anything is weak. I said they can, and I believe that is accurate. I have clarified the not-really-contradictory sections -- they did not contradict unless you further restrict them so that the formatting templates cannot be subst'ed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can. Will. May. What does it matter? You didn't use any of these words (here and here). Why choose that relatively minor point from my post to dispute.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Because you're choosing to wikilawyer over what I said rather than work with the consensus. Why choose to attack my correct assertions as weak in the first place? And what kind of weak assertion is showing where I didn't use words in other places after your attack on my assertion here. (Normally we use diff links rather than inserting anchor templates into other users' talk page comments.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

<ec>I'm still puzzled by the insistence that the template always be used in preference to direct linking. As I said in my original comment, the templates are a convenience, but they are not mandatory. The purpose of the templates, as I see it, is to make uniform formatting easier, but as long as the goal of proper formatting is achieved, why not prefer direct linking on dab pages to ensure that the actual link is always available? I'm not swayed by the "less cluttered edit window" argument. In general, dab pages already have a more straightforward edit-window presentation than most articles; a few extra characters is not significant, in my opinion. If direct linking makes it easier to disambiguate links to dab pages, and is completely invisible to users, why insist on the template if another editor is willing to do the extra work?--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess I don't spend enough time on talk pages. What is <ec>?

Just so we're clear here, I have never "insist[ed] that the template always be used in preference to direct linking". I will, however, insist on my right to use a permitted format. If template use is ever disallowed, I'll comply. Yes, templates are a convenience; yes, templates are not mandatory; yes, templates make uniform formatting easier. Why not prefer direct linking? Because templates are convenient, because templates get the formatting right, because templates are easier to type, to read; all of which I've said before (and so have you—except for that last bit about reading).

It appears that your need for Wikilink markup is driven wholly by the limitations of your editing tool. A handicapped tool is not sufficient cause to impose restrictions on all other editors who don't use the tool—that sounds like tyranny of the minority over the majority, eh? Fix the tool, or by consensus, disallow templates in dab pages by properly amending MOSdab.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

ec = edit conflict. Now that we've had this conversation, if you continue to insist on your supposed "right" to replace properly-formatted entries with entries that use a template instead, based on some over-broad reading of a permission to use the template in order to format the entry, that may then be viewed as needlessly disruptive. Just so we're clear here. There is no convenience in taking a properly-formatted entry and replacing it with a template that yields exactly the same formatting. If needed, I'll be happy to put that explanation in the guidelines, but the guidelines I've already linked already indicate a preference against templates in general on dabs, and the section you've linked about using templates for formatting an entry has no application on its use on an entry that is already formatted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're stuck on one line that I wrote and are ignoring or misreading everything else I've written. I am not insisting on a right to replace wikilink markup with templates—I don't think that I ever have. I want to be able to use templates as permitted by MOSdab without later being told that I was wrong to do so.

For my part in this conversation, I've gotten beyond all of that as is reflected in my previous post in our conversation. I have pointed out changes that were made to MOSdab without consensus or discussion; I have pointed out discussions that could or should have resulted in amendments to MOSdab; I have suggested how MOSdab can be improved. All of this you have ignored.

Yes, I do know that since my last post you have made changes to MOSdab §Where piping may be appropriate and §Images and templates. These are mostly cosmetic and don't answer the why questions regarding the prohibition of transcluded templates.

And now our "conversation" has devolved to the point of threats. No one was twisting your arm to participate. I am disappointed but can see no reason to continue a conversation with you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

<ec>The <ec> signifies an edit conflict; another editor posted a comment while I was writing mine, so I had to re-post (and as you can see, it just happened again).

No one is trying to stop you from using the templates, if that's the way you prefer to enter the ship names, in articles, disambiguation pages, or anywhere else. I'm not on a crusade against templates in general or the ship templates in particular. As I said, I fully understand and accept their usefulness in articles. What I don't understand is why it bothers you so much when another editor comes along and says, "This is sometimes a hindrance on dab pages, so I'm going to expand it to regular code." I'm not trying to place any restrictions on anyone. I'm not trying to stop you from adding an entry to a dab page in the way you prefer to do it, and I'm not accusing you of poor editing practices or disruptive behavior. So I don't understand why you object to another editor making a small change that preserves the entry display exactly as you intended it to be displayed but makes things a bit easier for others? I'm trying to understand, but I just don't get why this is such a thorn in your side.--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've given quite a bit of thought to your core question. I think the answer is: I bothers me to read a guieline that says I may use a formatting template and then to be told by an editor that I was wrong to do so. Even though you were polite when you did tell me, you did still tell me that I was wrong. It is this realization that has lead me to elsewhere in this topic suggest changes to MOSdab.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The intention of creating {{USS}} (and others) was only to save the amount of typing required. Ship names are supposed to be in italics therefore without the template you have to type: [[USS Defiant (YT-804)|USS ''Defiant'' (YT-804)]]. The template only requires: {{USS|Defiant|YT-804}} for the same results therefore serving its intended purpose. It does not matter how an editor goes about italicizing ship names; only that ship names should be in italics. As long as the result is the same it does not matter how it's done; just that it is done. Brad (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

By "disambiguation pages" do you mean shipindex pages, or other disambigation pages? The use of the various templates as a means of saving typing is fine, but IMHO, they should only be in full on shipindex pages. Where a shipindex page houses a number of ships with the same name, then a link to that ship name from a dab page using the shortcut template is fine. See Rhenania, which has a link to SS Rhenania, where four ships are identified that carried the name Rhenania. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, shipindex pages aren't dabs. For instance, when I find ship templates on ship index articles, I don't "molest" them. But there is usually no need (and often a detriment) to linking from a dab page to a shipindex. The shipindex might be listed on the dab page along with the links to the individual ship articles, but there's no benefit to sending a reader who is seeking one of the ships from the dab through a shipindex before getting to the ship -- if the ship is ambiguous with the title disambiguated by a dab page, it should be listed on the dab page, even if that's redundant with the shipindex, since that better serves the reader. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Trappist, I don't understand why you are going on and on about this. You say you were misled by the guidelines; fine, that's our fault, not yours, and JHJ has now clarified the guidelines (in a way that I completely agree with) to avoid any future misunderstandings. Your honor is intact and we all thank you for pointing out the problem. As for your issue with the substance of the guidelines, is it really that big a deal to type {{subst:USS|Foobar|NCC-1701}} instead of {{USS|Foobar|NCC-1701}} when editing a disambiguation page? The result seen by the reader is exactly the same in either case, and if I'm not mistaken, delivering information to readers should be our primary concern. Now, I note you also argued that you find it easier to read templates in the edit window than the formatted text. Personally, I disagree; although {{USS}} is perhaps one of the lesser offenders, I generally find it disconcerting when I want to edit a particular line of text and I look in the edit window and can't find that text where I expect it because someone used a formatting template instead. But that's an issue of personal preference and not something we need to base style guidelines around either way. Finally, it is highly unlikely that the "correct" or preferred way of formatting ship names is ever going to change, so that keeping the template un-subst'ed has no particular value for future maintenance (unlike, say, an infobox template where if the preferred styling changes we want all infoboxes to update to the new style for consistency). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No one else seems to understand either. I've spent a lot of words not talking about what you and others seem to think that I have been talking about. My longest post was not about my opinion regarding the use of formatting templates—yes, I mentioned that, but it is a small part of the post. Rather, the post was about what I see as problems with MOSdab and what I thought might be done to correct them. Yeah, this topic started out as a template vs. no template discussion but I left that behind to address the MOSdab problems.

As you've noted, Editor JHunterJ has made some adjustments to the document. He has, in my opinion, simply put a plaster on the wound. There has never been an explanation or justification for the template restrictions. The "templates is discouraged" language was added without discussion, without challenge, without consensus. Even the editor who added it didn't seem convinced that it should be added—if one can read that into his vaguely worded edit summary.

Much work is needed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I just converted a redirect page, Newport News, to a disambiguation page. One entry points to Newport News, Virginia and the other to a USS Newport News ship list. I tried subst'ing a {{USS}} template:

• {{subst:USS|Newport News}}, any of several US Navy ships

which produced this:

• {{ship|USS|Newport News|{{#if:|{{{2}}}}}|{{#if:|{{{3}}}}}}}, any of several US Navy ships (which see)

Subst'ing apparently doesn't work; well, it does, {{ship}} was subst'ed for {{USS}}. The link works and the reader can't see the result of the subst, so no harm done. But this isn't quite the result expected by those who have argued for always subst'ing permitted formatting templates, is it?

It seems that the requirement to subst permitted formatting templates {§§Where piping may be appropriate) should be properly reconsidered.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you might have accidentally done mis-typed something, but I just used {{code|{{subst:USS|Newport News}} at User:Bkonrad/Sandbox2 to produce just what one would expect. older ≠ wiser 03:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks correct from the readers point of view, but look at it in the edit window:

{{ship|USS|Newport News|{{#if:|{{{2}}}}}|{{#if:|{{{3}}}}}}} (code formatting and nowiki tags added)

You got the same result that I got so we both typed the subst correctly or be both got it wrong. I'd like to think that we both typed it correctly.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see now. This would seem to be a defect in Template:USS. Should be mentioned at that talk page. There might be a relatively easy fix. older ≠ wiser 11:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it took a while because {{USS}} transcludes {{Ship}} which was decidedly unfriendly to substitution, but I think I've now fixed both of them so that the result of {{subst:USS|Newport News}} is now [[USS Newport News|USS ''Newport News'']]. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed @ User:Bkonrad/Sandbox2. Actual result is [[USS Newport News|USS ''Newport News'']] with the non-breaking space.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding MOS:DABENTRY's edits

I'm seeing an issue with MOS:DABENTRY regarding a good example of how there should not be more than one link to a WikiPedia article per entry. Here's the thing with the example that is on this page: this example also includes/included piping ("Dark Star" (song)). Piping is not addressed until later in the article; as far as the reader would have to assume at that point, by seeing this example with "Dark Star" (song), piping is allowed in all disambiguation articles. This example needs to have no piping to meet what has been stated in the article until that point. This article is supposed to be a guideline for correctly creating and writing disambiguation pages, and piping being in that example goes against this. For this example, the link should appear as Dark Star (song). Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. However, an example in a guideline should never be improperly formatted unless it is marked as wrong one way or another. I took the liberty of restoring the example links and of rearranging the content of that particular section. Now reference to link formatting is mentioned before the example containing piped links.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of correct formatting. The guideline shouldn't be written as a lesson plan, with examples only covering the part above it. The examples should be accurate throughout. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Prince Caspian

Are their any guidelines on how to name fictional characters who's names match the works they appear in. There is an ongoing discussion at Caspian X, Prince Caspian is the name of a book, and the proposed new page would be called Prince Caspian (character), any advice would be welcome GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Abram and Abram (disambiguation)

Abram redirects as a alternative spelling to Abraham, whereas Abram (disambiguation) contains links to actual Abrams, what is the correct procedure for cases like this, surely the Abram should be a disambiguation page with a note on the alternative spelling? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The correct procedure doesn't change: "Abram" should lead to the primary topic for the title "Abram". It is not surely a disambiguation page, and the current arrangement is correct if the topic at Abraham is the primary topic for the title "Abram". Many, many ambiguous titles redirect to an alternative version as the primary topic, leaving one or more disambiguation pages with links to actual "title"s. The two questions: what topic is best for this title? and what title is best for this topic? are largely independent. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

TOC right

I just slightly strengthened the wording "may" -> "should" per my opinion at User talk:Krenakarore Widefox; talk 07:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am reverting the change as I think "may" is more appropriate than should in this case, particularly given the conversation over at Wikipedia talk:Article titles where it is clear that some dialects of English take "should" to be an imperative close to "must" rather than "ought". Given the ambiguity in the word "should" I think you need to build a case on this talk page and see if there is a general consensus for change rather than jumping from a user's talk page straight into changing the MOS. I personally do not think that the wording is an improvement, but maybe the consensus on this page will go against me. -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As per my edit summary "may -> should - as TOC right always seems to improve whitespace / speed of DAB, and goes hand-in-hand with the section header "should" above it" ...

If I may park the semantics debate of "should" for a second. As I detailed in my reasoning, the TOC appears on longer lists, where "should" is used. To match this, using "should" is required, so it is clear that on long lists TOC right is highly preferred rather than optional. So pulling back to the central point, I don't know examples where omitting TOC right (i.e. leaving or TOC (left)) is better or doesn't impede DAB, and consider TOC right significantly improves speed/readability (on lists of any length). Anyone else? Coming back to the "should" semantics issue, that is a widespead (and cultural) issue that is important, but secondary to being logically consistent. Widefox; talk 12:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of TOC has always been entirely optional. I don't think it can be made obligatory based on what amounts to aesthetic preference. Is there usability research to support claim that omitting toc right impedes readers in finding the desired topic or conversely that using toc right enhances usability? FWIW, I personally prefer using toc right, but I don't see any basis for making its use obligatory. older ≠ wiser 13:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I find the TOC superfluous on DAB pages, in fact for a while I was adding the no toc special word to articles thinking we shouldn't have them - till someone pointed out the current guidance. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with "should". It is optional, and if someone opts to TOCright a dab, that shouldn't be reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT you have just used should in two different ways in one sentences! -- PBS (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely superfluous. But, if disambiguation pages are going to have a table of contents, putting it on the right gets it out of the way. With today's wider monitors I suspect that most readers focus left and miss the table of contents, I know I do. I have to intentionally look over to it (and to the wiktionary template which I'd rather see at the bottom of the page as part of §See also—but that's another topic).

Frankly, having a table of contents for a disambiguation page that is a couple or three screens long doesn't make sense. Better, I think would be to sort the individual sections in alphabetic order (except §See also which is always the last section—and no section called Other). Because section titles are in larger, darker font, they are visually distinct from the item lists so scanning them is just as easy as scanning a table of contents and the reader's eyes stay on the left side of the display.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"With today's wider monitors" you are forgetting about mobile devices. -- PBS (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I did. Just another reason not to clutter up a disambiguation page—it has to be displayed on today's smaller monitors.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there's discussion about whether the TOC is useful at all, I just want to point out that one relevant issue may be blind readers using screen-reading software. My understanding is that the TOC can be of use to them, even when it's superfluous for most or all sighted readers. (This is also why the TOC should never be placed at the very top of the page, especially when there is a primary topic, because the software would go through the TOC before the primary topic or any other text following the TOC.) Personally, I like TOCright and I don't see a problem with saying it "should" be used on longer pages. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I forgot about that. I wonder how a reader would handle a right floating TOC however GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to the point - I agree with JHunterJ that if TOC right has been added, it should not be removed. See for yourself...this has come up because TOC right was removed from Mojave - compare removed [4] and replaced [5]. (This being an example DAB mentioned in MOSDAB). As for TOC or no TOC, I definitely don't ever use the TOC myself, despite adding it to all longer list DABs - that's not the point - it is to prevent/remove it from being placed automatically on the left (my preferences being set to add automatically). Widefox; talk 18:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The table of contents is set to appear on the left side of the page for some good reason. Why "should" it be any different as for the DAB pages ? Use of TOC has always been entirely optional. I don't think it can be made obligatory based on what amounts to aesthetic preference. Per Bkonrad... older means wiser. Krenakarore ^TK 21:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the dab pages aren't articles, and their sections aren't paragraphs of prose (like in articles) but bullets, and dab pages are optimized for navigating the reader to their sought article, which the TOC often hinders more than helps. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

To be or not to be, that is the question (yet, it remains) Krenakarore ^TK 05:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Krenakarore - DABs are not articles, hence a separate MOS. Please give your reasoning for stating the left default is good, as MOSDAB does not mention it. Using "should" is consistent with the lede of MOSDAB - giving disambiguation pages a consistent look and by avoiding distracting information - twofold - consistent TOC right and no TOC left lengthening the page. Bkonrad has a fundamental point - are there any usability studies? As the TOC gets in the way, I think of it somewhat similar to google hits, which are more distracting - adverts above or to the right? For me, right is better. Widefox; talk 15:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Non sequitur. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My dear friend Widefox, honorable Admin JHunterJ, I have already. I can't say anything better than what was said by Bkonrad. Please understand, I can not go against such a strong statement from his part. Besides, my preference as for TOC left here is totally irrelevant. Another sensible thing said here was that by Theoldsparkle who approached the topic from the right point of view. I disagree with if TOC right has been added, it should not be removed for the same reason that once it was set left, it should not be removed either. So then again we've come to the starting point.

Frankly, the story that DAB pages are not articles, does not convince either. Really, I believe you can scroll down to what you want with or without a TOC. Next time, begin this conversation under the title "Removal of headings from DAB pages" ! My regards to you all, Krenakarore ^TK 20:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• comment - the TOC is automatically shown after 3 (or 4 depending on which thing you read) headings by default. Widefox; talk 11:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

From looking at the comments above, is there a consensus:

• 1. to not remove TOC right if added? (the original issue here)? something like "If the TOC has been floated to the right using TOC right, then it should not be removed"?
• 2. would that be helped by...wording stronger than "may", but less than "should": say something like "preferable", "recommend", etc...? Widefox; talk 23:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I just cleaned up Panorama (disambiguation), replacing the removed TOC right. Widefox; talk 11:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What disambiguation is and what BRD is not

Re this re-revert: WP:BRD-NOT: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And the edit war continues with this. As to "where?", see the introductory text at WP:D. For others new to this, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Broadsword and Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation). ZarlanTheGreen, take this opportunity to learn how Wikipedia is already working without demanding that it stop until you are satisfied or that everyone but you discuss first, and instead if there are topics you believe are ambiguous with "broadsword", add that information to the topic article(s) and I will add links to the articles to the disambiguation page myself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You can also look there: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User ZarlanTheGreen --Trofobi (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...where the only comment so far has been that "It's far from clear what administrator intervention is required." and "While Zarlan does not seem to have conducted himself impeccably, I see no ongoing problem here". Both of which I would agree with (including the bit about me not being impeccable, but then I've said as much myself). Why do you link to it here? Please note that the syntax errors were dismissed as a non-problem, for the same reasons that I dismissed them. Just because you think that you are being attacked, doesn't make it true.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD-NOT: "Note:"BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow." (and you have clearly gone against that policy. I did revert again, but only because of breach of policy ...though now that I think about it, that may have been against the policy too...) Also WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source."

I will admit that I may (though probably not, as I'll explain) have used BRD inappropriately, but I would point out that it says that it's "not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes", and I'd say that I didn't revert for only that reason. As for what my reasons are... well I've already stated them to an extent, though not here. If I am wrong on that (and that would, in that case, mainly be due to how I've seen BRD used), I would point to WP:IGNORANCE and WP:GOODFAITH. I would point to Wikipedia:BRD#Cases_for_use however: "When other methods have failed, when cooperation has broken down, when it is not clear that a talk page request for discussion will generate any significant response, or when no editor is willing to make changes that might be perceived as controversial, BRD should be considered as an approach to achieving consensus." with examples such as "Two factions are engaged in an edit war" and BRD being especially successfully if: "people haven't really thought things through yet." (and how could you, if the reason hasn't been shown) and "people are only discussing policy, and are not applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus (see above under "haven't thought things through")" (so far discussion hasn't happened. You have just bulldozed you edit through, regardless of the circumstances, and I insist on discussion which you refuse). Also is says: "In short: boldly negotiating where no-one has negotiated before."

Thus I cannot see how I am in any way wrong, in invoking BRD here. I tried other methods, and you have repeatedly refused to engage in discussion or give any explanations.

Even should I be wrong in invoking BRD, this would only indicate that my reverts were inappropriate. My tags, however, where completely in order and their removal was clearly wrong. It is an addition to the page and showing why it would be good, or showing that it is (as JHunterJ claims) merely stating what is already accepted guideline is something that needs to be done (again: WP:BURDEN).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You are warring here against multiple editors. Stop, and build consensus. Building consensus does not involve demanding that everything else stop until your questions are answered to your satisfaction; you are expected to assume good faith in the other editors as well, and to learn civilly when encountering parts of Wikipedia you are unfamiliar with, and some of that learning will be simply reading existing pages to figure out where you're wrong. Note that this edit includes the insult "like a kindergartener [sic]". We do not need citations on Wikipedia-space pages -- citations are for articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't use edit summaries as a forum. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You are the one that has to stop and build consensus! (or have you forgotten your WP:BURDEN of evidence?)

You say building consensus does not involve demanding that everything else stop until my questions are answered? Actually you are completely wrong in saying that. Building consensus does involve stopping things until it is discussed and one cannot discuss unless questions are answered and edits explained, now can you? For more information (or confirmation) please see Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion and Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_in_talk_pages. Especially the part where it says "and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.", which indicates that you shouldn't edit the relevant parts while the discussion goes on, until it is approved of in the talk page. I.e. one cannot make edits to the relevant parts until it is discussed. This essentially means that things do, indeed, stop until the questions are answered. As to the insult: Yes there was an insult and I was wrong in denying that. You are right and I thank you for pointing that out.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You may not have realized that the reverts and summaries of Bkonrad and France3470 are evidence of that existing consensus that Wikipedia disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia topics as determined by their coverage on Wikipedia articles. WP:D says so, although not as straightforwardly as the newer addition here. So, no, I haven't forgotten the burden of evidence. Things have been discussed, but you are not happy with the result -- we are not obligated to stop until you're happy. And your tone and approach do not encourage editors to spend the time it would take to make you happy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Pro --Trofobi (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a few editors agree with you, doesn't make your view the consensus one. That's not how consensus works. Wikipedia:Consensus: "This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms.". I.e. Even if not all editors have to agree on the decision or conclusion, you still have to address all legitimate concerns.

Also Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus: "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others." I.e. two or three editors on your side is hardly enough, anyway. There needs to be more thorough discussion and more editors involved ...at least unless you can demonstrate that this actually is an already accepted guideline, that you are merely clarifying. (do so and I will back down on this issue, as I've said before)

...and again: WP:BURDEN.

As to your claim that WP:D says so: Where? (and why haven't you said so before?)

As to your claim that it has been discussed... Again, it is not that I am unsatisfied with your explanations or answers, but rather that you do not give any. You have answered on the issue of the organization of topics on the Broadsword DAB page, but you have not answered the question of why the topic linked, must mention the dis-ambiguous use in its own article, other than to refer to MOS:DABMENTION (which deals with a completely separate issue) and, now, talking about WP:D without pointing out where in WP:D (which is like saying that a person is in Africa, but not explain where or even in which country they are. Sure I could still find the person, but it is unreasonable to require I do so with such lacking information).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I will stay out of it, and you may convince Trofobi, Bkonrad, France3470, and the rest of the disambiguation project of the wisdom of your approach, and make the appropriate changes to the guidelines and the disambiguation pages. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:D is easy to find, at WP:DABRELATED, and pretty straightforward: "Do not include articles unless the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article."--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You are quite wrong indeed ...in that it isn't easy to find. It's in the section named "Related subjects, abbreviations, initials and acronyms", which doesn't make one think of the related issue. Also, I should not be required to look through that, rather long, page either way. As to it being a guideline, you are completely correct! Is is, indeed, a long-standing and accepted guideline. Thank you ShelfSkewed, for pointing that out and thus enlightening me! The fact that the information corrects a misconception of mine, makes it all the better. I can now, thankfully, put that bit of business to rest.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we stop with the edit warring please. If the page keeps getting edited I'm going to request full protection until it stops. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone motivate the rule: “no other links for a meaning”

I have just noticed the rule – in bold type! – that an entry should link only to the candidate (or most helpful) article. Since that is not obviously best, perhaps someone who knows could add motivation, possibly as a link to a discussion. And if there is a discussion, does it not belong here?

While it is clear that it should be unambiguous which link yields the article, I am surprised at the rule as I reckon I would sometimes appreciate other links. In the example given:

not "Dark Star" (song), a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead

I might have looked for “Dark Star” because I had forgotten who it was by, and want to take the direct route to the band; I don’t see why I should be deprived of the chance, and don’t believe that more links seriously risk confusing others. If being at the start of the line is not enough, there are several ways of making the links to the candidate articles stand out: ee.g. bolding them, quoting them, separating them from the explanation with an em dash:

"Dark Star" (song), a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead or: “Dark Star (song)”, a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead or (my preference): "Dark Star" (song) — a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead

— or even using tables. --PJTraill (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, and therefore link to the best article for each topic that might have had the ambiguous title. That they might also be useful to readers as a memory aid for a forgotten band name is a bonus, and those readers can still click through the best article for the part they were able to remember. There is nothing "obviously not best" about the current guidance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP didn't say it was "obviously not best", they said it was "not obviously best", which clearly has a different meaning. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Struck that part. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)