Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Dab page and primary topic in move request

See Talk:Clarksville Historic District (disambiguation)#Requested move for a request to move the only article for a string off the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not both disambiguation and Papua New Guinea province

The Jimi article should not be both a disambiguation page and a Papua New Guinea province description at the same time. Someone should take the time to separate the two purposes. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

done. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

case management

please check my work

• created a new page Case management (disambiguation)
• moved old content of case management to Case management (USA health system)
• redirected case management to Case management (disambiguation)
• created a new page case management (mental health)
• added information at top of each page
• copied talk page from case management to talk page of Case management (disambiguation)

I will work on links within the next 24 hours Earlypsychosis (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You copied the content of an article to a new name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste" move, and has been undone. See Help:Moving a page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

okay. thanks. will make the changes as per Help:Moving a page. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Surname Pages & Orphan Criteria

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

---

The orphan criteria has been updated to exclude surname pages (and other set indexes). As most of these pages (example Franklin (surname)) act like disambiguation pages, most of them will not have many direct links so it was felt that there is no need to tag them as orphans. This change was discussed and implemented without objection.

JaGa, who maintains toolserver reports reporting orphan status that are used for tagging and untagging, has been asked to update his orphan reports in accordance with criteria change. He does not want to do that without input from the Disambiguation and Anthroponymy projects. His position appears to be if an article is not an orphan candidate, then it must be a DAB page. As he previously had objections to including surname pages in his DAB reports, he therefore feels he need agreement from other projects.

Everyone else who has commented so far doesn't see it that way. The opinion has been that whether surname pages are or are not DAB pages is irrelevant to whether they are or are not orphan candidates. That surname pages (and other set indexes) can simultaneously be not DAB pages and not orphans. DAB status and orphan status should be treated separately.

To bring this to a resolve, I'm posting this at the Disambiguation, Anthroponymy, and Orphanage projects. To consolidate discussion, I suggest that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation be used for all responses since JaGa's main concern seems to be about DAB classification.

Links to relevant discussions: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

If there are any objections, please let's here them. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that dab-ness is not the same as orphan-able-ness. Beyond that, though, whether or not surname pages, set indexes, or other non-disambiguation pages are orphan-able is not a disambiguation project discussion. I would suggest consolidating discussion of whether surname articles should be orphan-able in a relevant project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-objection: Thanks for establishing a consolidated discussion - as long as all the relevant projects/talkpages are alerted, I don't see that it matters where the conversation takes place. I support the view that {{surname}} pages, {{given name}} pages, and {{SIA}} Set indexes are all pages for which incoming links are rarely appropriate (one example being a link from the article on a variant form of a surname), and so should not be considered as {{orphan}}s. PamD (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also now mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Orphan#Surname_pages (the 2nd of JLT's links above). PamD (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC) ... and also at Template_talk:Orphan#.7B.7Btl.7CSurname.7D.7D_pages for good measure. PamD (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason that selecting an appropriate place for consolidating a conversation is so that the editors who are watching the appropriate page see the updates in their watchlist and the editors who are only watching other pages (such as this one) see only the pointer to the consolidated discussion, since it's not really what they're watching. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage § Surname Pages & Orphan Criteria

Despite JHunterJ opinion that this is "wasting uninterested editors' time", I do encourage Disambiguation project members to weigh in on the discussion. It is relevant as there is refusal to move forward without your project's input given. Consolidating the discussion at the Orphanage instead of here is fine, but I wanted to clarify that opinions from your group are still being sought regardless of the discussion archiving. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The "cleanup" of Purple Cow by (undiscussed) REDIRECT (to an advertisement)

I understand this is a can of worms, and as some may know, I am capable of a lot of wiggling :) ... but before getting out the can-opener, I am curious if this handling of the "cleanup" is considered "good." Proofreader77 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should have been categorised as Category:Phrases or thereabouts, rather than as a dab page? PamD (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But it could also be a perfectly respectable dab page, listing the book, the poem at Gelett_Burgess#Poetry, the mascot at List of U.S. college mascots, and the ice cream soda at Ice_cream_soda#Purple_cow. Certainly seems inappropriate to redirect to the book. PamD (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer-to-peer

There's a discussion at peer-to-peer talk about moving the page to replace it with a disambiguation page. We need help with two problems. The first is figuring out whether the peer-to-peer network architecture is the primary topic of "peer-to-peer", or if readers are confusing it with peer-to-peer file sharing (p2p traffic, p2p programs); and how we might more-conclusively determine this. "I think it is the primary topic" is, I think, insufficient, but we have disagreements as to the results of the stats tool and google. The second is deciding what happens if indeed both file sharing and peer-to-peer are more or less equivalent. Some editors maintain that because file sharing already has its own name, the peer-to-peer architecture article should be placed at peer-to-peer with a clear hatnote pointing to file sharing. Others maintain that this violates convention, and leads many readers to confuse the two terms/articles. Some input at the peer-to-peer talk page would be appreciated.    M   19:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have the tools needed (stats, Google, incoming links). If the editors at Talk:Peer-to-peer cannot come to a consensus on what the primary topic is, then that is a good indication that there is no primary topic. If there is no primary topic, then the page at Peer-to-peer becomes a disambiguation page, regardless of what the current pages and hatnotes are. But looking at the discussion on the requested move, it looks like there may be consensus to retain the current primary topic at the base name. If that is done, then hatnotes can be used to direct other readers to the file-sharing article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You've oversimplified your opponents' stance; several far more substantial arguments than "because file sharing already has its own name" (which you've taken out of context) have been cited. —David Levy 20:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And although you seem to be reaching the same audience here as at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, please try to be sure you don't end up forum shopping. Dekimasuよ! 23:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Three

Big Three had become hopelessly snarled in original research, so I just deleted everything that didn't include Big 3 in the title. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly endorse your cleanup of the page - well done! bd2412 T 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible article split

The Luigi (disambiguation) page is growing very long, mainly with the addition of "people with the given name Luigi" type entries. There are only five entries out of over 100 on the page that are not given names. Should this page be split into Luigi (name) and Luigi (disambiguation)? --ponyo (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. PamD (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been WP:Bold and done it. PamD (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pam, I think that's exactly what was needed in order to facilitate navigation. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackened

Your input is requested at a move discussion here. Neelix (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute about Latina

I've made a modification to the redirect which has been reverted.

I've started a discussion about it, and I would like input; the reverting editor had suggested I use WP:RFD if in disagreement with their revert, but I thought perhaps that this project might be more appropriate. Please feel free to point me to the most appropriate place to request input, if this isn't it.

--LjL (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a template.

I think we ought to have a {{not a disambig}} template that we can put on top of a page that is tagged as a disambig page, but should not be (I was just looking at Casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which really has no business calling itself a disambiguation page). The template would look something like the typical cleanup tag, and would incorporate a category along the lines of Category:Contested disambiguation pages, which could then be reviewed by this community to determine whether the page should indeed be a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 02:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain amount of irony in having a contested or 'ambiguous dab' disambiguation template. I think the entire purpose of the project is to be as clear and consise as possible. The majority of situations are covered by WP:MOSDAB; a page is either a legitimate DAB page or it's not. Anything contested or that falls outside of the normal perameters can be discussed on the project page, or in this case, as there are only two entries, a hatnote could be used.I think the concept is legitimate, but I don't think we should muddy the waters we are trying to clear ponyo (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, my concern is not that there are only two entries, but that nothing is disambiguated. It's not like there's an album or a film or a ship called "Casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan" - there are merely two articles that cover different aspects of the same subject. I've seen a lot of this sort of thing lately, where the disambiguation page is being used as nothing more than an index of articles covering different aspects of the same topic. I'd find it easier to address such things if there was a category containing all such objections, and a template seems a good way to add that, and also alert editors that maybe they shouldn't make a disambiguation page with this coverage at all. bd2412 T 04:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So what do we do with an article like this? Is it a set index? It certainly seems useful, both to help people to find the two articles and to make it less likely that someone will create a new article at this title, unaware of the other two. It isn't a dab page, but it's a useful entity. A hatnote can't be used, as there isn't an article with this title to put it onto. PamD (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say redirect it to whichever of the two articles is more likely to be the target of a search (my guess would be the military casualties article) and put the hatnote there. bd2412 T 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to Surgeon General relating to US states

Hi. I'm currently fixing links to the Surgeon General dab page. I have an issue I'm uncertain how to handle though. Many US states have their own Surgeon General, who is a NOT the Surgeon General of the United States or the Surgeon General of one of the branches of the US military. What do others think is the best way to handle articles that link to Surgeon General but are referring to the Surgeon General of an individual state? (For example, James M. Comly

married Elizabeth Smith, the daughter of the Surgeon General of Ohio

which links to Surgeon General). I can see a few options:

• Create a redlink to "Surgeon General of Ohio". Technically correct, but it seems unlikely that that page will ever be created.
• Leave it as is, which leads people to a description of what a Surgeon General is (there is a note in the dab that many US states have their own), but violates the principle of not linking to dab pages.
• Unlink, which solves the maintenance problem but doesn't help readers that aren't sure what a Surgeon General is.
• Link to "Surgeon General of the United States" which is really misleading, because the person being talked to isn't the SG of the US.

I'd welcome any suggestions from more experienced minds about how this sort of issue should be handled. --Paddles ^T_C 08:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If a wikilink is used to red link to a page that is unlikely to be created, the wikilink should be removed. One other option would be to make it a (possibly piped) red link to State Surgeon General. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Big Four

I'd welcome any contributions to this discussion, which has implications for similar pages, e.g. Big 3. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Problematic, indeed. Also, Big Four (companies) is a collection of original research, and disambiguates virtually nothing (since only a handful of the links on that lengthy list refer to a group known as a "Big Four"). bd2412 T 23:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeking unbiased comments on a disambiguation disagreement

An edit skirmish happening at Talk:Southport#disambiguation that needs a few comments from outsiders please. 81.157.129.30 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any skirmish. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On an aligned matter, the page Southport (disambiguation) does not show up as a disambig page through the Assessment criteria. I am presuming that there is an application through the {{geodis}} template, anyone know how to make that assignation?-- billinghurst (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Gross

"Robert Gross" redirects to a page entitled "Robert E. Gross" which has become the disambiguation page. Could someone knowledgeable fix the redirect or create a "Robert Gross (disambiguation)" page? Hrdinský (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like Robert Gross (disambiguation) also redirects to Robert E. Gross so there is no point in creating a double redirect. - Dlrohrer2003 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved Robert E. Gross to Robert Gross since the page disambiguated more than just people with the middle initial. The double redirect from Robert Gross (disambiguation) was easily updated. older ≠ wiser 01:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Butt

There seems to be a nontrivial intersection between Butt, Butt (name) and Butt (Asian surname). Is it possible to clean these up in a useful way? Shreevatsa (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The intersection seems fairly trivial: Butts that should have been on the name or Asian surname lists were on the dab page (also/instead). Fixed here and here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks. There is a problem with the assignment of names to the two articles, because the articles are specifically about the English and Kashmiri surnames and it's not clear if everyone with the name belongs to one of the two articles, e.g. currently at Butt (name) are Yondani Butt (Chinese), Munir Butt (probably Kashmiri), Hans-Jörg Butt (German), Sabir Butt (Indian in Kenya?), etc. Would it better to have a single page for everyone with the Butt name (or to put them all at Butt), so that the articles about names don't serve as disambiguation pages (but might still have a short list for illustration)? Shreevatsa (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, don't put them back in to the disambiguation page. The other questions about multiple name lists would be for the articles' Talk pages or for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Because the page will get too long? Shreevatsa (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There's rarely a reason to re-combine a name or name-holder list article with a disambiguation page. The only reason to create them as a single article is that it's easier, and it works acceptably well for very short dabs & very short lists. But even very short dabs and very short lists can be correctly served by separate article & disambiguation page, so if editors have already done that work, there's no advantage to putting in more work to undo it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ceylon

I'm having a bit of a disagreement about the correct target for Ceylon with an editor who wants to change it from a redirect to Sri Lanka into a redirect to Ceylon (disambiguation). Any input at Talk:Ceylon would be appreciated. Dekimasuよ! 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Some questionable pages.

Aryan invasion theory and Koreans in the Commonwealth of Independent States. What exactly are these "disambiguating"? Also, even more problematic from my view is the numerous redirects pointing to these pages (especially the ones pointing to the latter page, which correspond to nothing on that page). bd2412 T 02:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Aryan invasion theory <shrug> Ask the editor would be my guess
2. Koreans in the Commonwealth of Independent States nothing. Looks like Trash it, and all the redirects IMNSHO.

-- billinghurst (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another odd one - Occultism and the far right. bd2412 T 03:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

EMIF

EMIF maybe not ambiguous, but the information looks copied from http://www.interfacebus.com/emif-external-memory-interface.html.

Thanks. Reverted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Virtualization

An index perhaps? All the page really does is list different applications of virtualization in computing. Happens to be one of our top targets of disambig links, too, and they are really hard to "fix" because many refer to the general topic rather than one of those specific applications. bd2412 T 01:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: cross posting this to the DPL project as well. bd2412 T 02:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

surname and dab pages

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#Interface with DAB - an interesting topic about how to manage surname, dab pages and general editing. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sort tables

Very simply, I thought using sortable tables might make using disambiguation pages easier. Here is one example: Talk:William Taylor/Test Sorting, based on William Taylor. What do you guys think of that? Perhaps with an additional parameter like Nationality, and maybe a separate column for the last name, it would be easier for the readers to sort names and get to whoever they were looking for faster? --129.67.63.37 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

On a case-by-WP:IAR-case basis, I think this could be useful on some long hndis pages. I'm not sure about a separate column for last name, since (in theory) all the entries will have the same last name, but separate columns for birth year, death year, and nation could be useful -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes - to the birth and death columns. I could do the Nationality as well, but I think the idea is clear and there is no need to waste time on an exemplary table. I agree that there's no use of creating a Last Name column, I was thinking of some combination with the Middle Name maybe, but I did not think it over very deeply. --129.67.63.37 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mao: Mao Zedong/Mao (disambiguation) redirect contention

Mao changes from redirect to Mao Zedong to redirect to Mao (disambiguation) and back, etc. Which (and why) should it be? (Does Wikipedia:D#Primary_topic definitively make it a redirect to Mao Zedong?) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that Mao Zedong is the primary usage, so Mao should redirect to there, but the page at Mao (disambiguation) should then start off with "Mao Zedong (1893-1976) was the Chinese communist leader. ... Mao may also refer to....". (See Wikipedia:Mosdab#Linking_to_a_primary_topic - though it looks as if the "Barack" example has been overtaken by a change of pagename - and the example at Wikipedia:Mosdab#People which confirms that the rule applies to personal names.) Mao should certainly not be a redirect to Mao (disambiguation) - if there was consensus that there was no primary usage, then the dab page should be moved to Mao. If I've understood it rightly! PamD (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the MOSDAB section mentioned above, to replace the Barack example with Mozart - just in case anyone follows this up and is mystified by the lack of Barack! PamD (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks (main issue and clarification of how disambiguation page should begin). I see the recent change has been undone, but will ponder the "logics" of contention (i.e., are there perfect magic words for the talk page, etc) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And the consensus at Talk:Mao would normally determine whether or not there's a primary topic. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC indicates what to do once consensus is formed; it gives some possible considerations for those editors determining consensus, but the guideline itself never definitively determines the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus needed

Should we keep Death Note (disambiguation) hatnoted at Death Note, or can someone delete it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any other relevant links from the dab, I suggest:

• Move the "See also" links from Death Note (disambiguation) to Death Note
• Update the hatnote on Death Note to provide links to Death Note (film) and Suicide letter
• Delete Death Note (disambiguation) or make it a redirect to Death Note.

Paddles ^T_C 02:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ET

I have just removed an entry 'ét interactive' from ET for the third time - it was added by three different IP addresses in the same range, and I believe it to be linkspam. The second time I left a message on the IP's talk page, and the third time on the article's talk page. If it is added again, what will be an appropriate course of action? --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that next time you comment it out, with a note to why. Higher level controls are possible, however, reverting is the first step, and while it is advertorial, it is hardly hard core advertising.-- billinghurst (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic discussion

Is Baltic Sea the primary topic for Baltic? Discussion at Talk:Baltic#Requested move.--Kotniski (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Believe that this has been addressed, my opinion FWIW is ... I wouldn't thought so. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambig pages with only one article

What's the group's view on something like this: SXL (disambiguation). I personally feel it is not necessary or helpful to have a disambiguation page with only one WP article in it... where the other topic is not worthy of a WP article, but I've been wrong once or twice before. Thanks for your thoughts.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed unnecessary to have a dab page with one link. Such have been speedy-deleteable in the past, but {{db-disambig}} was changed to allow entries with no articles, for some reason. {{prod}} can be subst-ed, but depending on which admin eventually addresses it, it may be disqualified on the grounds that disambiguation pages aren't articles (but see Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Disambiguations and the earlier discussions linked there). If the prod is declined, that leaves us consuming the resources of a full WP:AfD for an obvious deletion. (As long as non-article dabs continue to be allowed to use the AfD process.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But I expanded this particular one into usefulness. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - much better now.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand that change either. If anyone sees a dab listing only one article and would like to have it looked at, let me know. I'll probably be willing to delete it under the normal WP:CSD#G6 even if the speedy template for dab pages has been changed. Dekimasuよ! 08:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Then please chime in on Template talk:Db-disambig -- mine was the lone voice there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well - it was the SXL one above... but it's expanded already. ありがとう！　   7   ^{talk | Δ |}   09:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu dab page

The Ubuntu pages just went through a bit of an upheaval. Ubuntu is a Bantu word meaning "humanity to others". It's also the name of a leading Linux distribution. The disambiguation page used to start off with a link to Ubuntu (philosophy), briefly explaining the meaning of the name and then listing various items using that name. However, a strict reading of MOSDAB seems to say that it's incorrect to do this. Is that a correct reading of the guide, or would it be correct to do it, since all the other terms take their name from the philosophy? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is no primary topic, then none of the ambiguous articles are "guidelined" into the intro, but should be left in the disambiguation list(s). An introductory line of "Ubuntu is a Bantu word meaning "humanity to others"." would not be counter to the guidelines if there's consensus to include it (without linking to the ambiguous articles), and is mentioned in WP:D#Dictionary definitions. (It doesn't matter that all the other terms take their name from the philosophy -- even if some of the entries didn't derive from the "original" definition, it would be OK.)-- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I read both this response and the WP:D link (which seems in direct conflict with what the MOS says, incidentally) as saying that a general definition of the word is okay, which is different than choosing one of the disambiguated topics, linking to it in the intro and defining THAT particular topic, as the page used to do. Am I correct in that interpretation, JHJ? Propaniac (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Or, it lines up with my interpretation, at least. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this different from the MOSDAB's acceptable example of linking John Adams in the introduction? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"John Adams" has a primary topic (John Adams is an article), so the dab page acknowledges that. "Ubuntu" does not have a primary topic (Ubuntu is a dab page), so all the ambiguous articles go in the list. See WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone check BJCP and make it a state of the art dab? (2 entries, very easy)

Thanks.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I returned BJCP to a redirect to its previous target and added a hatnote to that page directing users to the journal article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Theta function (disambiguation)

I recently created Theta function (disambiguation) because the hatnote at Theta function isn't enough to cover the 10 (and counting!) uses of the term. I asked for advice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Theta function since I have technical concerns, but there are issues with the disambiguation itself as well. I thought some from this project might want to join in the discussion.

Here's a list of possibly-related pages for comparison:

• Theta function
• Theta (disambiguation)
• Psi function
• Psi

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WP Mills

At WP:MILLS we have a few disambiguation pages. Some of which you will be aware of, some you won't. They can be found at Category:Disambig-Class Mills articles. Mjroots (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you intending them as set-index articles (with references, red links with no blue links, etc.) or disambiguation pages (no references, no red link without a blue link, etc.)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic?

Is there really a primary topic for EA (disambiguation)? Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:EA (disambiguation)#Requested move 2.

--NSH001 (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've chimed in there, and added a pointer to the conversation from Talk:Electronic Arts, but to answer the question for a project point of view: yes, there is a primary topic the way Wikipedia is currently set up: EA redirects to Electronic Arts. A request to change it failed in February. There's no particular reason to expect that dab project members (more than other Wikipedia editors) will have any particular knowledge of the "meaning-space" for "EA". You're going about the proposal to change the current primary topic in the right place (although a pointer from the current primary topic should have been made too), but IMO the project doesn't need to be alerted to these proposals. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Molely cow

User:Chrisrus and I have a disagreement about what should go in Mole (disambiguation). He or she insists on including Golden mole and Marsupial mole. I've pointed out in vain that these are already linked in the main Mole article, where a reader would naturally go first. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As things currently stand, I must agree with Chrisrus. The Mole article and Mole (disambiguation) page both specify that Mole is about members of the family Talpidae; neither the Golden mole nor the Marsupial mole belong to Talpidae. If anything, I would say the dab page should also include the Mole-rat. Also, it might be helpful to add an additional hatnote to the Mole article, such as {{Distinguish|Golden mole|Marsupial mole|Mole-rat}}. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 08:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I like your idea about the note, I'd say go ahead with it. The idea about the Mole-rat was tried, but it turned out that there is a large catagory of animals called "mole-something"; mole cricket, mole crab, and so on, you can see the list on the mole disambig talk page. After a while, it became clear that, based on the same rules of English syntax that lets us immediately know that chocolate milk is a kind of milk and milk chocolate is a kind of chocolate, "mole-rats" are obviously a type of "rat" (where "rat" means "rodent"), not a type of mole. So these animals are not being called or thought of as actual "moles" anymore than mole men are. (You might want to disambiguate the mole-rats from the true rats, though.)

Marsupial moles and Golden moles, on the other hand, are actually being called moles by English-speakers. In fact, they ARE moles, if what you mean by "mole" is the dictionary definition "small cylindrical mammel with velvety fur and forward facing fossorial claws and small or vestigial eyes, etc, etc" with no requirement that they be related. The only reason that Goldens aren't the "true moles" and the Talpidae moles aren't the "non-moles" lies in the fact that the English langauge and biological taxonomy come from the northern hemisphere. If you are Australian or South African, the "mole" you see outside your home is not going to be in the article mole because the "mouldywarp" of old English belonged to the Talpidae, and your southern "mole" does not. Such a person might need some help finding the one that he or she wants.

By the way, these facts and others (see Shrew-mole, for example) make me think that a user that searches for "mole" shouldn't be sent directly to mole (animal), but sent directly to the disambiguation page. I can see why it was done that way, but those who made that decision, I believe, weren't fully aware of the fact that "mole (animal)" is in itself extremely complicated and ambiguous, and could even get more so. (It could turn out, for example, that taxonomists might expel animals from the Talpidae, maybe the new world moles, which might have evolved separately from different shrews than the old world moles, for all we know.) Actually, maybe the general consensus might someday come around to my thoughts on the matter, that "mole" is just an old proto-Germanic word for an animal with a certain gestalt of features and not a technical, zoological taxonomy-concept after all. Like Mistletoe, for example. Then the golden and marsupial moles could go into the general article on "moles" even though they don't belong to the Talpidae. Oh, well, the point is, do we want the meaning of “mole” which is most in need of disambiguation itself to be first? Mole (animal) itself needs a disambiguation page! Sending the user immediately to somewhere else would have the added bonus of nullifying Clarityfriend’s objection, too. Chrisrus (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there are 10 genera of non-Talpidae moles (23 species), whereas there are 17 genera of Talpidae moles (43 species). This seems like decent grounds for treating Talpidae as the main subject of Mole, especially since both Golden moles and Marsupial moles are so commonly known by their qualifiers (which, thankfully, has allowed use to partly avoid resorting to layperson-confusing terms like "true mole" or "false mole", as is commonly the case with other taxa, like the Pinniped seals). -Silence (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether the Talpidae moles should be the main subject of mole (animal) is not in dispute. What I'm asking is simply that this editor stop removing the goldens and marsupials from the disambiguation page "mole" even though users also get linked there from the end of the article mole (animal) as well.

My suggestion that users who search for "m-o-l-e" be sent to the disambig or somewhere else, like maybe "mole" the skin blemish or "mole" the chemical number, or "mole" the sauce instead of to the article about the true moles, is just a thought, might be a good idea, maybe not.

My wish that, one day, Goldens and Marsupials be incorporated into the concept mole, a la mistletoe, is just a quixotic pipe dream of mine - it's never going to happen. Trust me, I really fought for the non-taxological definition, and I lost. Wikipedian concensous is a reflection of the scientific community's, and they have decided that only the Talpidae moles are real moles, the other two kinds are false moles. I'm sorry I brought it up if it's going to distract from the problem of this editor removing them from the disamiguation page. Chrisrus (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, clearly Golden mole and Marsupial mole should be directly linked from Mole (disambiguation). I don't agree that we need to move Mole (disambiguation) to Mole, however (nor am I convinced that we need a 'Mole (animal)'). All the other uses seem at least slightly less common than this one. I think the point you raise is an interesting one, and one without an obvious answer (unlike the golden/marsupial inclusion issue) which is the only reason I responded to it, not to distract from your original point. -Silence (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Thank you very much. :) Chrisrus (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Suzhou

Does anyone know what's going on with Suzhou? It's been moved to Suzhow, Jiangsu, and all of the redirects that should naturally go with that page are pointed at Su-Chow, a dab that has only one blue link. I don't know what the standard transliteration would be for these pages, but it's clear that they need to be fixed. I'm guessing that the page should either be moved back as the primary topic, or moved to Suzhou, Jiangsu... but it would be great if someone who knows better than me could fix things up there. Dekimasuよ! 10:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject China would have a better idea what to do with this? I've posted a request on their talk page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Huckleberry Finn

I just made the novel the primary topic of Huckleberry Finn (disambiguation). I am now wondering if we should merge the entire dab page into the novel article as a "derived works" section (plus a hatnote to the character page). Thoughts? (John User:Jwy talk) 00:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I like things as they stand - it seems that there are enough adapted works to make the dab page a useful tool as opposed to integrating the content into the main novel article. Two thumbs up on your recent changes here. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 03:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. JHunterJ deserves some credit for cleaning it up as well. Now that I think of it, with the book as the primary, those that would scan through "the original" to find their adaptation will do so, those that are more impatient or more focussed in their search will go to the dab page. I'm fine with the way it is now, too... (John User:Jwy talk) 05:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Should Northover be a dab page

Can someone advise on whether Northover should really be a dab page? The article mentions 2 different places with the name - neither of which have an article & I'm not sure what to do with it?— Rod ^talk 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are no articles to disambiguate, it shouldn't be a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for State of Oregon?

There is a discussion underway here in which some users suggest that a disambiguation page be created for this title; of course, if that is the consensus, it would imply that a disambig page would be required for every national and subnational political entity on the face of the Earth. Editors are encouraged to add their opinions.  :=) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 07:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that pointer, Russ. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Giuseppe Nirta

Are the (born 19XX) the way we want the pages here disambiguated? It seems nonstandard, but I can't think of any other way to disambiguate them. ÷seresin 04:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think its fine. If you CAN think of a clear distinguishing word, it might be better, but the birthdate is clear and can be useful to help the user narrow down their search. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>If middle initials/names are unavailable (unknown or not used), and nationality and occupation are the same, then birth year is the next option. I've seen that disambiguator used with some regularity for older English footballers: no middle name known, same nationality and occupation, so disambiguation is done by year of birth.--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jail (a.k.a. gaol, prison)

There have been conflicting discussions regarding the naming and content of Jail, Gaol, and Prison, recently brought to the surface by a RfD discussion for Gaol. The article currently at Jail is U.S.-centric, although jail (a.k.a., gaol) means Prison in an international context. In light of the previous discussions and the international disparity in terms, I've modified the Jail (disambiguation) page. Is the new format acceptable?

Frankly, I think Jail should be moved back to Jail (American) and Jail (disambiguation) should be moved back to Jail. But given the history, I thought I'd see what other members of this project think. Thanks. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 07:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If the primary topic article for "jail" is the article on the U.S.-style detention, then the current arrangement (including having gaol redirect to prison) is correct. But as long as there is a primary topic, the dab page should reflect it. If a move request shows consensus for no primary topic and results in the move of the dab page to the base name, then the dab formatting would be changed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln

There's a discussion at Talk:Lincoln#Attempts at a consensus over the lead to a disambiguation page. The edit war at the article has been between editors who want "Lincoln may refer to:" and editors who want a longer lead that singles out two of the entries for special attention. Please participate in the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to discuss dab deletion at RfD

FYI, there has beena policy change proposed at the Village pump that dab pages should be exempted from WP:PROD, and that their deletion should instead be moved under the purview of WP:RfD. This seems like a reasonable proposal, but the discussion would certainly benefit from the input of this project's members. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 00:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

New how-to page

I've created a new How-to page, Wikipedia:Disambiguation do's and don'ts, which may be helpful to cite in edit summaries and user talk messages. I've summarized what I think are the most important details of the style guide in a short, colorful form, which I suspect is more likely than the style guide to be read in full by the casual editor. This may be worth highlighting on the project page, if there is a consensus to do so. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 16:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

V. nice summary; it will be a useful link to give to new users. Tassedethe (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Template (star) wars

I've been having some trouble for a while with Template:NBC Universal, where an IP editor suspected of being a banned user continually adds ambiguous links to Sci Fi Channel (he also adds logos and bad entries to the dab page). This is despite the fact that all of the links shown on the dab page are already found on the template. It's gotten to the point where the template is semi-protected and the IP was blocked for a couple of weeks, but a (cough) fairly new user has appeared to readd an ambiguous link to the template. I'd appreciate opinions on whether or not the ambiguous links are appropriate; I'd rather not run afoul of the spirit of the 3RR. Dekimasuよ! 11:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions go where?

I'm not at all clear from your project page if there is a place where new disam pages can be requested - it doesn't seem to be the bot page. For example Woodall needs one. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You can do it. Just check out WP:MOSDAB to make sure it's following the manual of style. Feel free to come back or to my talk if you have questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Woodall needs a dab, but I've added a two-pronged hatnote. PamD (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you wanted to, there are plenty of articles from which to create a Woodall (surname) page. And once you created that, then you could move the hamlet article and make Woodall a dab page. If you wanted to... <resisting some form of smiley>--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I can do it, but I'm not going to. There are people, places, Woodall numbers & all sorts, so it seems to me a full page is needed. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to Woodall, South Yorkshire, and turned Woodall into a dab page. People, unless their name is just "Woodall" without any surname/given name, don't technically go into the page. However, as ShelfSkewed suggested, you can have a Woodall (surname) entry. --Tesscass (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to redirects on disambigs

I have seen this done a lot and thought it was okay to do, so I was wondering, is this not allowed or something? Like would it be okay to list the character Detective Frank Harris (the name redirects to the discussion about him on Cool World) on the Frank Harris (disambiguation)? Certainly in cases like this it is standard to list the real human beings first, which is why when I added him I listed him last. Real people or subjects with articles should take precidence, but since a redirect is also a blue link and it helps people find information, wouldn't it also be helpful? I have read the WP pages about disambiguation and haven't come across anything referencing this positively or negatively so I am not sure.

The reason I think this is useful is that there are also many 'List of characters in' pages where characters have their own subsections and linking to these names (which subsequently direct to those sections) will help people find information about people with those names. Having an entire article to yourself is grounds for more prominently listing a name on a disambig, but are these the only people who may be listed on it? This seems awkward since in some cases (mainly with fictional characters) you have cases where there is flipflopping between the char having an entire article about them to them being moved to a list, so it seems to save work and be more helpful to navigation to list the name on the page regardless. I thought it would be good if more experienced editors could clarify their thoughts on this and whether or not policy reflects on the issue. If I'm missing something that's cool, but if not then would be be possible to clarify this issue in the description? Tyciol (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in such cases you can certainly list the character on the disambiguation page. This is covered at WP:MOSDAB.--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Where redirecting may be appropriate suggests that redirects be used "to link to a specific section of an article only if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic", or "when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article." That is not the case here. Detective Frank Harris is not another name for Cool World, nor is there a section in that article titled "Detective Frank Harris". When the term is just mentioned in the article, it is suggested that piping be used instead, thus: *Detective Frank Harris, a fictional character in the film ''[[Cool World#Plot|Cool World]]'' In fairness, there are some editors who find this restriction on the use of redirects too restrictive and who would have no problem with the Detective Frank Harris redirect. I think a relevant criterion might be, Is it likely that the topic Detective Frank Harris is sufficiently notable that it could possibly support a future separate article? If so, use the redirect; if not, not. But that's just my opinion. --ShelfSkewed Talk 16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely with ShelfSkewed. older ≠ wiser 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• While it's not exactly the case, he's one of the leads in the film and listed prominently in the character section. The reason he doesn't have his section is probably because like most movies, the character biographies and descriptions have been incorporated into the plot description. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to excise them. I see your point though, it does make sense to link directly to Cool World. While there were additional developments beyond the movie (video game, comic) it seems that what's happened to date hasn't been notable enough and there hasn't been any recent work with him. Tyciol (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Maupin

Just calling your attention to this page. Seems to me there's all kinds of WP:MOSDAB violations going on here. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagged it with {{disambig-cleanup}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

... and bagged. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Colic

Shouldn't Colic be a dab? --67.100.204.226 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It used to be, but it's been article-stubified since then, while keeping a list of types pointing to other articles. It could be stripped back down to a dab page, if there's consensus to do so. You might suggest it at Talk:Colic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

James Caan

Someone recently unilaterally moved James Caan to James Caan (actor) and turned James Caan into a dab page. The move is being disputed. Please comment here: Talk: James Caan (actor)#Requested Move --Tesscass (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Previous move reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rule for redirects from character names to disambig pages

We have a lot of redirects from the name of a character to the disambig page for the media in which the character occurs. For example, Alexander Conklin redirects to The Bourne Identity; Blade (Street Fighter character) (and several alternative forms) redirects to Street Fighter: The Movie; E.K. Hornbeck redirects to Inherit the Wind. These raise our disambig load, and so, pursuant to the discussion of this problem at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Redirects from character names to media names, I propose the following rule to deal with these redirects:

Character names should redirect to a "list of characters" page for the media in question if one exists, and otherwise should redirect to the page for the earliest media produced in which the character was substantially developed.

Please opine. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please opine here or there? It looks like you've pointed there to here, so I'm going to opine here. Yes, I think the only redirects that should target disambiguation pages are various alternate spellings and misspellings of the ambiguous title, {{R to disambiguation page}} "(disambiguation)" redirects, and {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} redirects. But I wouldn't specify earliest, but rather most likely. So, for instance, a character in The Princess Bride would redirect to the film, not the novel. (I don't know why the film isn't at the base name -- it probably should be, like The Godfather is.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Here, thanks. One of the proposals in the initial discussion was to point it to the page with the best discussion of the character, but on Wikipedia that can change very quickly (and the "best discussion" can always be copied over to the earlier work). "Most likely" is subject to dispute, and can change over time as well, as print versions regain popularity or new film versions are made. The earliest version of a work, however, usually has links to all later versions. bd2412 T 05:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "most likely" can change and can be hard to pin down. But it's still better for the reader than "earliest" in those cases where "earliest" isn't the "most likely", especially in those cases where the "earliest" version of a work (a) doesn't have an article yet (b) has only a stub or (c) otherwise doesn't link to all later versions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Another extreme case: would characters in Hamlet (if they didn't have articles of their own) redirect to Hamlet or Ur-Hamlet? Maybe a wording like "most likely, defaulting to earliest if there is no consensus for another choice"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Propaniac (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then I can go along with that. As long as we're not redirecting characters to disambig pages, it's an improvement! bd2412 T 18:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to get a broader response than this, or is this enough for us to be agreed on this as a rule? bd2412 T 23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead ball

I think this should not be a disambig. All the meanings set forth on the page are examples of roughly the same phenomenon in different sports. bd2412 T 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the page slightly to be more in line with WP:MOSDAB. I think this could go one of two ways:

• Leave the dab page as-is with the pages it links to in place
• Convert the dab page to an article that covers the phenomenon across all sports and delete the pages for the individual sports

—Zach425 ^talk/contribs 19:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to support the latter. The "articles" to which this is linked are very short, some of them one-liners, and have no real potential for growth. bd2412 T 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just one minor adjustment if the latter is implemented: Don't delete the other pages--redirect them.--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, redirects make sense (section redirects, even). bd2412 T 21:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've put merge notices on the existing articles, in case anyone involved wants to stir up a rationale for keeping any of them individually. bd2412 T 04:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. bd2412 T 00:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)