Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

New page needed at Boundary Road

Anybody fancy replacing the redirect with a disam page? See Special:WhatLinksHere/Boundary Road - Fayenatic (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for this starting point - that's going to help! - Fayenatic (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the road in Singapore, but hopefully someone else does. --Tesscass (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

template:otheruses4

FYI, {{otheruses4}} has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD

65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Headband (disambiguation)

Barely two links here, should the page just be deleted? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not orphaned; IMO, only orphaned (in the article space) disambiguation pages should be considered for deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Input desired on requested move

Input would be appreciated on a requested move discussion: Talk:First_Amendment#Requested_move.2C_take_2 --Cybercobra (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

174.3.123.220

FYI, 174.3.123.220 (talk · contribs) is systematically replacing {{otheruses4}} with {{about}} and disruptively informing people about not using "otheruses4" while the RfD on "otheruses4" seems to be trending to keep, and is deletion shopping it to TfD at the same time.

See the RfD for examples of where users complain about his "disruptive warnings".

70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll watch his or her talk page. Looks like most of the replacements have been reverted. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Prem Nagar

Should Prem Nagar default to the 1974 movie, or should it be the disambiguation page? See also Prem Nagar (disambiguation). --Bejnar (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no discussion at either Talk:Prem Nagar or Talk:Prem Nagar (disambiguation) about a possible primary topic. It looks like the film was the primary topic until last September. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC gives some tools that can help determine if a primary topic exists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edits, possibly by sockpuppet of previously banned user

I'm about to check out for the night. An IP 121.116.230.19 (talk · contribs) has been making lots of questionable edits relating to surnames -- often adding multiple templates and inapplicable categories to disambiguation pages (as well as to surname pages). I don't recall the name right now, but it looks a lot like a reincarnation of a previously banned user. older ≠ wiser 03:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember the incident, but I also don't remember the name. A hyphenate with a U name, but that's still pretty vague. I'll keep an eye out too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg and see also Wikipedia:SU. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Three disambig pages for Stephen/Steven/Steve White

Just found that we have disambiguation pages Stephen White, Steve White and Steven White and on people's opinion on merging the three to one (replace with redirects), and then just cluster the three spellings on the page. Any thoughts on which should be the predominant spelling? billinghurst sDrewth 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would use the pages' Talk pages to determine if merging is appropriate and which title should be the selected one if so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

DAB page move

Is it OK to move disambiguation pages via cut-and-paste? An editor has recently copied the contents of Marijuana (disambiguation) into Marijuana (formerly redirected to Cannabis (drug)) while also expanding the article listing, and while I know page moves aren't normally done this way, it has occurred to me there may not be a sufficient originality threshold for there to be a problem with the license. Thanks. --Ibn (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is OK to cut-and-paste any content, especially without attribution, and I had already undone these moves before you posted this inquiry. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Never Stop

I've created a dab page at Never stop, but all the items are proper nouns. Would it be better for the dab page to be at Never Stop with a redirect from Never stop or the other way around as I currently have it? --JD554 (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

At Never Stop. I made the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Salmon Creek (disambiguation)

I listed this page on WP:RM, so that the disambiguation page would be at Salmon Creek. Currently Salmon Creek redirects to Salmon Creek, Washington, an unincorporated town that's not spectactularly notable as a "primary topic". Also, the only two links to "Salmon Creek" are not referring to a town in Washington.

I figured I'd mention it here so that people who know disambiguation could offer an opinion. – Kacie Jane (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with your assessment. There is no primary "Salmon Creek", no place that the typical reader would presume to be the Salmon Creek when coming across the name. bd2412 T 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Washington disambiguation

Just a warning. Washington was moved to Washington (U.S. state) today based on a discussion at WP:RM. After that move, Washington was changed to redirect to Washington (disambiguation) by other editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• We don't redirect "foo" to "foo (disambiguation)", so I've made Washington the disambig and Washington (disambiguation) the redirect, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 21:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is no primary topic for Washington. Most of the disambig links generated by this move are in templates which are too easily broken, and will need to be replaced. bd2412 T 21:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Many of the templates have been fixed. Don't know how many more are left. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I really think it would have been a better practice to retarget the links before moving the disambiguation page, but what's done is done. RussBot is fixing those links that are easily identified. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion?

Hi, Not sure how to do transclusion, but here's a place I think it would be desirable: this disambiguation page for Baumann references a second disambiguation page for Peter Baumann (disambiguation). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Transclusion for more, but note that Baumann is a surname-holder list article, not a disambiguation page. I am not sure of the wider acceptability of using transclusion here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reflex camera

I think Reflex camera really shouldn't be a disambig. It merely differentiates between two kinds of the same thing. bd2412 T 19:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should become a red link. What should it be, if not a disambiguation page? It could become a redirect to List of types of reflex cameras, but I don't think the current set up is problematic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me it should just be an article. What is it about these three kinds of cameras that makes each of them a "reflex camera"? bd2412 T 01:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of a reflex finder or a "reflex mirror", I suppose. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a short article that describes the common features and points to the other three articles. It probably would not be that different than a DAB page. — JPMcGrath (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hatnoting

FYI, there's a discussion on the need for hatnoting at Talk:Full Metal Jacket. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

questionable edits

I wonder if others experienced here could review some edits such as this one replacing a dab by a redirect, this second one replacing a dab by a redirect, this third one replacing a dab by a redirect, and this one removing multiple items (books and a ship) off of Commonwealth (disambiguation) page. They all look wrong to me. I have had previous disagreements with this editor relating to disambiguation of NRHP items. I opened a new discussion item at User talk:Station1, and I reverted the 2nd and 3rd ones that relate to NRHP-listed places. Could others consider commenting, and/or addressing the other items with this editor, and perhaps review more? --doncram (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The first example (Stephen Philips) was OK but needed more work - one of the 2 items on the dab page was leading to a redirect to the correct spelling of Phillips, 2 Ls. Quite a tangled mesh of Steve/Stephen/Steven Phil(l)ips entries and dab pages, but I've done a bit of work on it. PamD (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your reversions on the 2nd and 3rd ones. The 1st and 4th look good, however. "Commonwealth" should not become a partial title match list, for instance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for helping out! --doncram (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Page for cleanup

Not sure exactly how to fix it, but Fifth Freedom seems pretty against the current DAB norms. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tagged for cleanup. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscholarship

Can someone point me to a page that discusses the thinking behind the creation of the Pseudoscholarship disambiguation page please? Anthony (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a list to me too. I've removed the dab tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but you've been reverted. Anthony (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I need a bit of clarification here. Is Pseudoscholarship a disambiguation page? Anthony (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say no. It is more a listing of various topics that can be lumped under the banner of pseudoscholarship. A proper disambiguation page would disambiguate between two things with the same name. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, in its current or recent versions it is not a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 20:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Anthony (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To-do list

Hey. Can Someboday Add Some What Do Task. Noboday Know What |To Do. Thank You.

66.131.190.6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Masonic buildings

The article List of Masonic buildings is currently tagged as being under this project... This is may be a problem.

I think the root of the problem is confusion as to whether the word "Masonic" is being used as a noun or an adjective. If the article title uses the word as a noun (ie buildings that include the word "Masonic" as as part of a proper name) then the list is a dab page... but one that is overly duplicative of Masonic temple (disambiguation). If the list uses the term as an adjective (ie buildings that are in some way "Masonic") then it is not a dab page (but needs a clearer statement as to what makes a building "Masonic").

Please join the discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings#"Masonic" is it a noun or an adjective? Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, since it's not a disambiguation page either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Code

Hey. I Am Not a coder but i can help if you want. You are welcom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of us aren't coders. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#Clean up a disambiguation page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#Repair incoming links. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed in breaking an edit war

We seem to have a slow boiling edit war happening at Masonic temple (disambiguation) over the correct format and style that should be used. For example, should the list be broken up into geographic areas or not. If an experienced editor or two from this project could swing by and help us form a consensus, it would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While you are at it... another question that could use more input is what to do with all the red-links on the page (more than two thirds of the "Masonic Temples" being disambiguated on the page are red-linked... but since the buildings are all on the National Registry of Historic Places, they are presumed to be notable, and thus merely articles "yet to be written".) One idea for formatting is to separate the current articles from the "yet to be written" articles, by moving the red-links to the bottom of the list... but one editor strongly dislikes this idea. Again, what we need is someone who knows dab page style guidelines well enough to break the deadlock between a small group of editors. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, frankly i believe i am one who knows dab page style guidelines well enough, but Blueboar is not accepting that i do. I agree at this point that it would be helpful to get other views. Also, I have opened a 2nd Requested Move request, to move the dab page to the proper name, "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)" for this disambiguation page about places named "Masonic Temple". There are no places named "Masonic temple" listed, or anywhere, as that is not a proper noun term. Others' views welcomed on this too. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care whether this gets spelled with a capital or lower case T (although I will point out that the primary article on Masonic temple uses lower case). Also, Doncram is in error in naming me as the one not accepting his dab page style... while, yes, I have expressed a preference for a different style, I am not the one he is edit warring with ... his edit war is with another editor. This growing lack of good faith towards me is exactly why I want to call in outside view points. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The primary topic of "Masonic temple" uses lower case. "Masonic temple" is not ambiguous. There is no primary topic of "Masonic Templte". "Masonic Temple" is ambiguous. The disambiguation page should be named Masonic Temple. I made some small tweaks to the page. I find the interspersed red and blue links to be an eyesore, but that is the current consensus approach for lengthy geo dabs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we have hit the problem right there... this isn't just a geo dab. This is similar to [[Palace {disabiguation)]] where the primary article is on the thing (a palace), and subsequent articles are on places (the Palace). The difference is that since "palace" is a one word title, we don't get into the MOS issue of capitalizing after the first word in the title. I am still looking to find an example of a dab page for a term that is the name for both a thing and a specific place and contains more than one word. Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference between this and Palace is that Wikipedia can't distinguish between "Palace" and "palace". Since Wikipedia can distinguish between Masonic temple and Masonic Temple, those two titles can have different primary topics, or one can have a primary topic while the other doesn't. And it's a geo dab regardless -- it disambiguates different geographical topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But it also disambiguates a thing and those places. Blueboar (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It would use {{disambig|geo}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... found a two word example that may be a good comparison... see Galactic empire (disambiguation)... first comes the general article on what a Galactic empire is... then the various uses of "Galactic Empire" as a proper name. Blueboar (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And it should also be moved over its redirect Galactic Empire, since that is the ambiguous capitalization. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand your reasoning... surely a dab page should contain all references to the term being disambiguated... regardless of capitalization... so that readers can differentiate between topics with the same term, and see if there is an article on the topic they are looking for. Isn't that what dab pages are for? Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The phrases "term being disambiguated" and "regardless of capitalization" are not identical. In some cases, differences in capitalization result in two disambiguation pages; in others, the ambiguous lists for the two terms (distinctive by capitalization) are combined on one disambiguation page. In the cases of "Galactic (E|e)mpire" and "Masonic (T|t)emple", the lowercase version is unambiguous (the article at Galactic empire (or Masonic temple) is the only topic for that term), while the uppercase version is ambiguous and has no primary topic (which is why Galactic Empire and Masonic Temple reach the disambiguating lists). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... WP:DAB says: The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Jupiter (disambiguation). So... I guess this comes down to whether Masonic temple should be seen as the primary article or not. I definitely think it should be, because all of the buildings that are named "Masonic Temple" were given that name because they are (or, at one time, were) a Masonic temple. I just don't see how the dab page can be a complete navigation aid without referring to the Masonic temple article. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is off the point of whether Wikipedia can distinguish between capitalization variances (it can), but: Being the original name that other topics were named after is not one of the criteria for primary topic determination. Jupiter is a good example of this -- the planet was named after the mythological figure, but the mythological figure is not the primary topic. And the dab page that should be at Masonic Temple (and is currently the target of that redirect) should definitely refer to Masonic temple; that's also not a point of contention. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

With Jupiter (planet) and Jupiter (god) however, we have two completely different concepts, one named in honor of the other. The connection is indirect. With Masonic temple and Masonic Temple on the other hand, we are not really talking about two different concepts. The only reason these buildings are all named "Masonic Temple" is because they all are or were "Masonic temples"... the Masonic temple article discribes what the the buildings are (or in some cases were). The point is... The name directly reflects the function. There is a direct connection between the article on the concept and the articles on the individual buildings. That is why I think Masonic temple should be considered the primary article. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're using the word "primary" in a common English sense, rather than in the Wikipedia-jargon meaning of wp:PRIMARYUSAGE. Sure, the general / generic article now at Masonic temple is more general and/or "primary" in some sense. However, it is not primaryusage in the sense described/explained/defined as:

Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics 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. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or redirect to a different disambiguation page, if more than one term is combined on one page).

There is, as JHunterJ points out, only one usage of "Masonic temple" in Wikipedia, there are not multiple usages of which one is primaryusage. Also, there are multiple usages of "Masonic Temple", of which none are primaryusage. Blueboar, both i and JHunterJ are agreeing that the link to Masonic temple can stay in the dab.

I agree with JHunterJ that the dab page should show capitalized "Masonic Temple", as all the entries needing disambiguation are capitalized like that. However I think that Masonic Temple (disambiguation) is a better name for the dab page than Masonic Temple, because of the existence of the Masonic temple article. It seems bad to have two articles seemingly of the same name, differing only by capitalization, as editors and readers could easily refer to the wrong one, or assume that the existence of one means the other does not exist. It seems clearer in this case to use "(disambiguation)" in the dab page title to clarify that it is indeed a dab page. --doncram (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

But see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. If "Base Name" redirects to "Base Name (disambiguation)", then we fix the malplaced disambiguation by moving "Base Name (disambiguation)" to "Base Name". The disambiguating phrase "(disambiguation)" is not needed to distinguish the title from an ambiguous title at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

But that is just a guideline/policy/whatever page which does not describe any example like this. Its example is a hypothetical one word name. Whatever we decide, based on other principles that make sense here, should be used to refine the relevant guideline/policy pages, none of which address this case. This case is more general than just the Masonic temple situation; it also applies to others such as Octagon house / Octagon House (disambiguation) and Galactic empire / Galactic empire (disambiguation). We don't need to be slaves to a guideline that does not consider the complication in these examples. --doncram (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all just whatever. WP:IAR might come into play, if there's some problem with applying the whatevers. But there's no problem with their application here. If Masonic temple remains where it is and if Masonic temple (disambiguation) is moved to Masonic Temple, then all readers will continue to reach the same pages on the same searches they reached them with yesterday. Only the titling will be in line with the guidelines. The {{disambig}} block on a disambiguation page clarifies that it is indeed a disambiguation page; the presence or absence of (disambiguation) in the title does not. Not being anarchists is not the same as being slaves to the guidelines; there is no particular complication in these examples. Indeed, they're quite straightforward. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been answering the questions so much here that apparently I've given the impression that the views above are mine alone. I think they're the way the disambiguation guidelines are written. Could some other dab members pipe up? -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the dab page in question, so may not be unbiased, but, yes, I generally agree with JHunterJ regarding the above interpretation of the guidelines. On WP, "Article Title" is not the same as "Article title". One or both or neither can be a primary topic (or an 'only' topic, as in the case of "Masonic temple"). Of course, they can be easily confused, so each should refer to the other somehow, either in a hatnote if an artcle, or in an entry if a dab page. The one point where I disagree, however, is that "interspersed red and blue links ... is the current consensus approach for lengthy geo dabs". They are indeed an eyesore, but more than that they make quick navigation to actual articles more difficult. The MOS:DAB guideline suggests entries that point to meaningful information about the topic within part of a broader article should come last within each section of a dab page. It's unusual to have dab pages that look like this one, and at least 3 editors agree the redlinks should be removed or placed at the end of their section. Station1 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If that consensus has changed, I would welcome putting the blue-links before the red-links before the no-links again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

a suggestion

I have a suggestion on how to resolve this issue... suppose we slightly rewrote the current "Masonic temple" article, so that it focused on the usage of the term "Masonic Temple" as a common proper name for specific type of building (we could include the definition language that is currently the bulk of the article to explain why these buildings are named as such)... that would make the article mostly about the name "Masonic Temple", but satisfy the editors at the Freemsonry Project since it would explain what a Masonic temple is. This change of focus could be used as a justification for using a capital "T" in the second word of the title... and thus allowing us to move the resulting article to Masonic Temple. That new article would then clearly be the primary article for the dab page... which would mean that the dab page would be Masonic Temple (disambiguation)... The titles with the lower case t would all be redirected to the same title with a Capital T (ie Masonic temple would be redirected to Masonic Temple and Masonic temple (disambiguation) would redirect to Masonic Temple (disambiguation).) Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's consensus for moving Masonic temple to Masonic Temple at Talk:Masonic temple and Talk:Masonic Temple, that's also a viable solution. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am already not particularly happy with the Masonic temple article, which has just one stated source, "Masonry for Dummies" or something like that which sounds rather non-impressive. It is also based upon personal knowledge of Blueboar, i believe, which is already not proper, is not a proper source. Adding additional personal knowledge-based stuff in order to influence the disambiguation page naming, seems to be skewing a Wikipedia article inappropriately. The purpose of a wikipedia article should be to describe the topic to readers. I am not understanding, exactly, what Blueboar is now proposing. But anyhow, at this point i would not believe an assertion that "Masonic Temple" is the "common proper term" for any Freemasonry building, which is plainly not true. Many Freemasonry associated buildings are called lodges, or otherwise are named differently, that is easy to document: see List of Masonic buildings. Blueboar has already strongly asserted, in one or more of the associated discussions, that "Masonic temple" is the correct title (and not Masonic Temple) for the current topic of the Masonic temple article. So, I am not seeing this suggestion as likely to work. --doncram (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current Masonic temple article is far from perfect. It's a stub, and still needs a lot of work (that would be true even if we move it to Masonic Temple). Perhaps I misspoke in saying that "Masonic Temple" is the "common proper term" for a building in which Masons meet... I meant to say that it is the "most commonly used" proper term for a building in which Masons meet (there are other terms, but they are less common)... but these are wording issues that can be ironed out at the article. Is there a more substantive policy reason why you dislike the suggestion? Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a citeable, reliable source for your new assertion that Masonic Temple is the most commonly used proper term for a building in which Masons meet"? Offhand, i believe the assertion is a bit vague and not literally true, so i don't expect you will have a source for that. Note, (any place named "Masonic Temple of Smithtown" is not named "Masonic Temple", literally, nor is any place with "The" or "of" or "Lodge" or any other word included in its name. This is cumulatively frustrating. You and i are not spending any time actually developing valid, sourced, mainspace material. --doncram (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure I can come up with several sources... just give me a few days to hit the library. I am not in a rush to fix this. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about sources and citations should be relocated to the page Talk pages, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think I need to go and work on improving the base article (along the lines I have suggested)... What I would request is that we leave the current dab page and the various redirects in place for the moment, and revisit the issue in a week or so. Is that acceptable, or is there a need to rush? Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's rushing, but I'm curious what the downside is to putting things in one of the correct arrangements now and then putting them in a different correct arrangement after the improvements are done, if a different arrangement is needed then. I'll volunteer to do the lifting if the duplication of effort is a concern. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Only a precaution... Doncram seems doubtful that I will be able to re-write the current Masonic temple to a point where it could (and should) be moved to Masonic Temple. I think I can, but... if he is correct, and I can't, then we may end up resolving the issue of titles some other way (such as going with your suggestion to move the dab page back to Masonic Temple). I simply want to avoid having to repeatedly moving these articles around multiple times. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD Pseudoscholarship

Editors with an interest in disambiguation may be interested in this discussion. Anthony (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a disambiguation page. None of the links disambiguate the term. bd2412 T 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the !votes in the AfD are to make it a dab page though. Which I've disagreed with. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that, thanks. Commented accordingly. bd2412 T 20:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

List of oldest companies

I couldn't see where else to post this. I tagged List of oldest companies for checking by WildBot, and it found an incredible number of company name links that need fixing. --Geniac (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. It's not a dab (and doesn't claim to be). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of language

The page Abuse of language was created as a translation of fr:Abus de langage. The French page is a list of commonly criticized "improper" language uses, such as loan words from English, or ambiguous phrases. The English version included two usages that, presumably, editors found similarly improper, but cited no sources.

I redirected the page to Linguistic purism, but noted that this was not a satisfactory solution, since the term is not mentioned there. Also, unknown to me, "abuse of language" has a special usage in mathematics related to abuse of notation.

Another user changed the page to a DAB with links to Linguistic purism, Abuse of notation, and Misnomer. This is better than my solution, but still feels a bit unsatisfactory. Any help members of this WikiProject could offer would be appreciated. Perhaps if the format of the current DAB were cleaned up it would feel more satisfactory to me? I really don't know. Cnilep (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a shot. I'm not sure how good a dab page it will ever be, though. The mathematical version is the only one that seems indisputably "title-able" with the name. If some additional material could be added to the other articles, about "abuse of language", that might help. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot to edit intentional disambig links in hatnotes?

In response to persistent nagging a polite request by User:BD2412, :-) I have put together a proposal for a bot to edit links to disambiguation pages appearing in hatnote templates, with the goal of directing intentional disambiguation links to a DABPAGE (disambiguation) redirect rather than directly to DABPAGE where possible. The specific proposal is at User:R'n'B/Hatnote bot spec. I request comments on (a) whether this bot would be desirable, (b) any specific aspect of the proposed operations, and (c) whether the bot should create (disambiguation) redirects where they do not already exist. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think creation of (disambiguation) redirects where they are needed and do not already exist would be useful. And I think the bot will be desirable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can the dablink be piped, so that instead of changing "DABPAGE" to "DABPAGE (disambiguation)" in the hatnote, it changes "DABPAGE" to "[[DABPAGE (disambiguation)|DABPAGE]]"? That way the appearance of the hatnote is not changed. Station1 (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is possible, if desired. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue for changing the appearance of the dab link. If it's an intentional dab link, I think the (disambiguation) should be visible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Propaniac (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My thought was that if the hatnote says "For other uses, see DABPAGE" and the reader clicking on it actually lands on DABPAGE, the principle of least surprise would argue for piping. The fact that they are landing there via a redirect would be for the benefit of editors only, not readers, and by using a pipe the bot's change would be invisible to readers, rather than visibly changing thousands of pages, possibly with unintended consequences in the way the hatnote reads, and at the least unnecessarily lengthening them. Station1 (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the "(disambiguation)" should definitely be visible in the link. Readers should be alerted to the fact that they are being taken to a disambiguation page, and consistently led to understand the function of these pages, and the fact that an intentional link to a disambiguation page "foo" should always be piped through "foo (disambiguation)". bd2412 T 15:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, this job was approved and began to operate yesterday, but has been suspended due to multiple objections raised on my talk page. Interested users may wish to participate in discussion of these objections (but please, not on my talk page; take it to a project page). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Hatnote_redirects_to_disambiguation_pages.

Stade de France

Can someone examine the issue around adding a hatnote to Stade de France? I've tried to add one, and was reverted, so as to not go on without some outside opinion, I'm leaving a note here. I've left a discussion section at Talk:Stade de France. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Restored (and edited). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you comment on the talk page? Thanks. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Seems to have consensus now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

feedback requested on NRHP dab pages

I've been busy recently creating disambiguation pages that cover places listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The system of lists of NRHP places is exceptional in wikipedia because of its size (covering links to 84,517 individual article topics) and its redlinks (it has only about 27,000 articles). I've requested and received feedback here previously; thanks to editors who helped! Feedback is requested on the following two examples: Morey House (at least as of this current version) and Petty House (as of this current version). These ones might raise issues not specifically addressed in wp:MOSDAB:

• the first one is currently all red-link items (each with a supporting bluelink per MOS:DABRL)
• the first one has just two places named exactly "Morey House" and several others likely to be called Morey House sometimes but with article title somewhat different
• the second one has just one place named exactly "Petty House" and several others likely to be called Petty House sometimes but with article title somewhat different
• the ordering of both dabs, which consist of just U.S.-located entries currently, is by geography: by state then city or town
• the ordering is explained explicitly in the dabs by statement "in the United States (by state then city)" or similar.

I'll ask also at wt:NRHP for editors there to comment. An important factor for some NRHP editors is that setting up disambiguation pages should not necessitate creating minimal stub articles. In a 2008 request for feedback titled What is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation? and/or other discussions, i accepted an obligation to create at least one bluelink if not two, to justify the dab to disambiguation-focussed editors who kept insisting that "disambiguation is for articles" (as opposed to valid article topics, which include red-links). However, my creating minimal stub NRHP articles to comply with that has really bothered some NRHP editors, who want higher standards for new NRHP articles. And i was told recently that the DE - German wikipedia allows dab pages of all redlinks. To me, it seems best now to allow pages of all red-links on the EN -English wikipedia too. Morey House is an example. Comments welcome. --doncram (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current system is actually working better than the all redlink system you propose. If a user searches for a term and finds a dab page with all redlinks, he has come to a dead end.... and there should be no dead ends on Wikipedia. I'm fine with allowing some redlinks on a dab page, but an entire dab page of only redlinks is a little much IMO. As in Morey House, I'm fine with the redlinks if there is a supporting bluelink.

We talked about this a while ago, but I believe you misunderstood me, Doncram. Pertaining to the supporting bluelink articles that have been deemed necessary to justify the dab page, I suggested that expanding them a little more than you are currently expanding them would result in much less trouble. (Forgive me if I put words into your mouth or interpret your words incorrectly but) Your main gripe was that this would take a lot of time, and basically you didn't find it necessary to create an entire article to support the dab page. You placed more importance on the dab structure than the articles themselves. What I and other members of WP:NRHP are saying is that the dab pages, while still crucially important to WP:NRHP and consequently the entire structure of Wikipedia, are not as important as the actual articles.

My suggestion to you would be to slow down the creation of these dab pages and their minimal stub articles. Focus more on actual article creation/expansion. Yes, this will mean that the dab structure will take (MUCH) longer to finish, but there will be (MUCH) more actual useful information in the encyclopedia. Instead of trying to create several dab pages at a time, why not focus on one per week? Pick an article (or two or three) on that dab page and expand it as far as you can.. Don't just put an infobox and a sentence saying it's on the NRHP; actually talk about the listing.

You seem to be under the impression that as long as we can get all these dab pages and all these articles created - no matter how miniscule they are - we have accomplished something. The fact is that this accomplishes nothing. Yes, we have a lot of blue links, but if no one comes along and does anything to them, we've done nothing but waste our time. You base your work on the assumption that someone will come along and expand the stubs that you create. Our argument is that though it is possible that someone can come along behind you, it is highly improbable. No one really cares about all these obscure locations except us.. that's why we're here. We talk about these locations because no one else has the will to do so. If we don't expand the articles, no one will. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, D. You're not bothered by the NRHP list-system providing multiple links to the same place? If the dabbing is not done, when someone creates a Morey House article about the place in Belton, Texas, the NRHP list-article in Indiana will show an incorrect link to there, misleading readers and editors. And there is likely to be additional drama when an Indiana editor wants to move the Texas one to a fully disambiguated name, because the Texas editors will have built up some ownership over the Morey House name. There are many NRHP names which are used by 3 or 4 different places, in different states, which haven't been properly set up (I and others have already dealt with all cases having 5 or more NRHP places). It seems fairly important to fix the NRHP list-system now. It is broken, and it can be fixed by one concentrated effort to create the missing dab pages. To be followed by one concentrated effort to "solve" the resulting dablinks in the NRHP list-articles (using dab-solver tool). --doncram (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the root of the problem and is unique to NRHP. I think Doncram should continue doing exactly as he is doing. Eventually all 84,000 NRHP sites will have articles and this foundation is necessary to get us to that point. HornColumbia (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Doncram, your comment about " justify the dab to disambiguation-focussed editors who kept insisting that "disambiguation is for articles" (as opposed to valid article topics, which include red-links)" shows your bias, not ours. Wikipedia consensus is that disambiguation pages are necessary to facilitate navigation between ambiguous Wikipedia articles -- that's their reason for existence. You, as an NRHP-focussed editor, appear to want to use them for more than that, but there is no consensus for it. You can make a red-link-heavy List of places named Morey House if you like, but it's not a disambiguation page, and it's possible that it may not meet the list notability threshold. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely not wanting to create a list-article about places coincidentally named the same. It is a disambiguation page among wikipedia topics. Note, there is a steady pace of creation of the NRHP articles. It's likely that there will be articles about all of them in a year or two, and it saves edits and drama if the proper disambiguation is set up now. --doncram (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm happy with the way you've done it, i.e., including an appropriate blue link for each entry. Your request above to "allow pages of all red-links on the EN -English wikipedia too" would get away from that and not be disambiguation pages of Wikipedia topics. It does not save edits and drama to create the disambiguation page before the ambiguous articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, you mean that you don't want a general change in policy and/or practice to allow dab pages of items that are primarily red-links, but having the Morey House disambiguation page or any other one composed of NRHP red-links (each with properly formed supporting bluelinks) is okay? That would be fine by me. Or, in your view is the Petty House dab okay because it does have one primary bluelink, while the Morey House is not okay? And it would be okay when 1 or 2 NRHP articles are stubbed? --doncram (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No change in policy either way. Any entry that has a properly formed supporting blue link is OK in a dab page, NRHP or not. Morey House is fine -- it's not an "all red-links" dab, because each entry has a blue link. That's OK on NRHP dabs and on non-NRHP dabs. So, if you're not proposing to make a dab of red links without blue links, you and I continue to be in agreement. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great! --doncram (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) To go for a bit more: there have been disambiguation-focussed editors (meaning no disparagement by the term) who have been bothered by the geographic ordering of these dab pages, or by there being what I call "combo dabs". Please consider:

• Anthony House (to which Anthony Farm redirects)
• Smith Farm (to which Smith Farmhouse redirects), and which includes two places named exactly Smith Farmhouse,
• Smith House, which has a host of related dabs in its "See also" section

To me, it seems helpful to readers for the geographically-organized Smith House page to include all examples of George W. Smith House, James Smith House, Jesse N. Smith House, etc., to serve readers who try looking up "Smith House" first. And there are smaller dab pages at George W. Smith House, etc. serving readers who look up more precise terms. Having these pages organized geographically, with U.S. entries by state then town, puts like places together. For example in the Anthony House one it puts the two places in Swansea, Massachusetts together. And geographic order there happens not to separate the two New York places relating to Susan B. Anthony. It would help to have consensus clear, by revision of wp:MOSDAB, that geographic ordering of places is good. Currently MOSDAB doesn't prohibit geographic ordering, it allows other sensible orders, but its section on ordering seems to promote a more complicated order. I think it needs to be stated explicitly that geographic order is okay, because editors do keep arriving and changing the order of these places dab pages, citing MOSDAB. And maybe MOSDAB needs to explicitly state that "combo dabs" are okay, too. --doncram (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The Smith House page does not currently comply with dab practice for supporting bluelinks. There's a bot request outstanding which may help fix up all of its supporting bluelinks. Also note, for the most part i have been putting "Name House", "Name Homestead", "Name Farm", "Name Farmstead", "Alfred Name House", "Bradford Name House", all together on one dab page at "Name House". Note that the focus of NRHP listing of a farm-related property is usually the house and/or the barns. All of those could easily be referred to as "Name House". Splitting the Smith ones between Smith House vs. Smith Farm without overlap of entries is an exception, because there are so many of the Smith farm ones, and the Smith House dab page is so long already that I just don't feel like inserting mentions of all the farm ones on it, too (though i wouldn't object if someone else wanted to). --doncram (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that each disambiguation page needs to have a blue-link to the primary topic, not to a red-link+blue-link entry, as these are. I apologize for having come into the discussion with Doncram without knowing about this message thread first.

MOS:DABRL is a style guide for the DAB pages themselves. That style guide does not transfer legitimacy to the WP:D guideline. In other words, by virtue of disfavoring most of those combinations, but allowing some, the argument has been made that this justifies their inclusion as disambiguation pages. I disagree. Disambiguation pages are always discussed as "pages", as per WP:DPAGES. In fact, this assumption of a currently existing page is so implicit, that even style guides have to have special assumptions carved out for the few cases in which redlinks are appropriate, hence WP:DABRL. The present-tense use of "pages", as opposed to "possible pages" or "notable topics" or a similar euphamism, only underlies the basic logic of a disambiguation page: that disambiguation pages are purely to find another article, and not a place to have substantive content. Allowing red-link only pages massively blurs this line, creating hanging-pointers to content that does not exist. It only makes me more confident of this position when I hear that we're only dealing with roughly 80,000 sites from this project alone. That is a hugefloodgate to open on a page-category that's been singularly focused on one task: efficient navigation for readers to an article, not to a redlink. Shadowjams (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what you are saying. To others, Shadowjams and I are here now as Shadowjams noticed several new dab pages i had created and PRODed them for deletion, then i directed attention to here. I have gone on a campaign to finish out the disambiguation needed for NRHP article topics, and have been generating a lot of new dab pages, including many with all primary links being red-links (but each with supporting blue-links). (There are also some dab pages i have tagged for cleanup, but those are not in question.)

In terms of numbers, i ran a program that estimates there are about 3,200 titles of NRHPs that are ambiguous. These will require somewhat fewer than that number of disambiguation pages to address, as many are covered now in "combo" dab pages. E.g. combining multiple instances of "First National Bank" and "First National Bank Building" in one dab page rather than two, with redirect from the other ambiguous title. There are currently about 2,500 NRHP-related disambiguation pages. I've been checking/completing through, and have done A,B,C,D,E,I,J,K, most of F, most of S. Of the remaining dabs to create, many will not raise concern for Shadowjams, as often there is at least one primary link being a bluelink already, it turns out. --doncram (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, I'm not objecting to DAB pages that have at least one primary link to an existing article. While red-link dominated dab pages may be problematic, for the limited purposes of the NRHP entries, I don't see that as a problem, so long as they have at least one primary article that exists. In fact, I could see a general exception to NRHP for even the pages I'm complaining about generally, but I would also worry that doing so would open the floodgates to other projects asking for the same consideration. For instance, I would worry about (and not support) the creation of thousands of dab pages for every State representative, or geographical name service entry, or every taxonomical species article that's uncreated (but might be presumptively notable).

If I can clarify my statement above otherwise, I'd be happy to. Shadowjams (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From your statement above, I think you believe that there is hairsplitting going on, about what is stated in wp:Disambiguation vs. wp:MOSDAB vs. elsewhere. That is not where i am coming from at all. I am considering what makes sense in the disambiguation pages that exist and/or are needed in the encyclopedia, such as Florence Hotel, one of the dabs i recently created. That is a two-item dab page, currently consisting of two primary red-links (with supporting blue-links). What links to the dab are two NRHP list-articles, one covering places in Kentucky and one in Montana. Who knew there were 2 places named exactly that, which are NRHP-listed and wikipedia notable? Certainly neither the NRHP editors in Montana, nor the NRHP editors in Kentucky, one of whom would eventually get around to creating an article at the incorrect, non-disambiguated name, and then proceed to link to it from Kentucky or Montana town articles and other local articles. When the Kentucky one is created, say, then Montana list-article will show a bluelink that actually points to the Kentucky place article, tricking readers and editors who will believe that a Montana place is covered in the article. I presume neither place is wp:PRIMARYUSAGE, so the article created would be at the incorrect title. Leading to need, later, for a wp:RM discussion and perhaps contentious debate as ownership may have built up. And when the Kentucky article is moved to a more specific name, that will leave multiple links from Kentucky articles to the dab page which will have to be corrected.

There are a few hundred remaining topics in the NRHP list-article system (which covers 85,000 NRHP places, for which about 25,000 articles have been created) where multiple NRHP county list-articles point to the same, non-disambiguated topic. These need to be fixed. The efficient, sensible way to fix them is to go through and create all the missing dab pages, all at once, right now, which I am doing. Then follow that by a cleanup pass through all the NRHP list-articles, using the dab-solver tool, to re-point their links to specific items covered in the dab pages.

I am trying to do what makes sense in practical terms. If the wp:Disambiguation and/or the wp:MOSDAB pages state something else, they oughta be changed to conform with what makes sense. But in fact I don't think either prohibits proceeding as I am doing. Wp:Disambiguation states "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic [emphasis added], making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." wp:MOSDAB's MOS:DABRL section specifically allows topics that are primarily red-links having supporting blue-links. There's no prohibition against having a dab page like Florence Hotel consisting of all items like that. I am also told that in the German wikipedia, dab pages of all primary red-links are explicitly allowed. I think there is no problem here requiring any special decision. The only problem, which I hope is temporary, is that one or a few editors aren't really comfortable. I am willing to talk it out here, more, to address that. But the bigger problem, likely to cause much more future headaches and conflict if not addressed, is the several hundred non-disambiguated article titles in the NRHP list-article system. I've been working to fix that for about a year now. I've created many dab pages and endured disputes over the necessary moves, and people complaining that the dablinks then need to be fixed. I am pretty sick of it, and of dealing with all the problems in dribs and drabs. I am determined to fix it all, and head off more hassles later, by creating all the missing dab pages now. --doncram (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't render pages unreadable as you did with this edit. Use a talk page or a sandbox if you want to work on code. One of our readers would not know what to make of the Sutton House page right now and that is not right. MRSC (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Case in point. Until a few days ago, Sutton House was used by the London place of that name. There are 2 United States places listed by exactly that name in the NRHP, and 9 others listed as "Thomas Sutton House" or other variations (which are probably referred to as "Sutton House" locally). Two of the other ones happen to have articles already, consistent with about 20% of the NRHP articles having been started. The Sutton House dab page is needed, and i think it is better to create it sooner rather than later. In this case, the London page had existed since 2006 already, and more than 100 articles linked to it (many via a navbox). I moved the London one to Sutton House, London, throwing a bunch of links out of kilter. From MSRC's recent edits, I take it that MSRC is a London-focussed editor, and as such probably does not like to have the disruption.

MSRC objects fairly enough to what was the state of the Sutton House article, which i had developed only partway. I left a cleanup tag in place for me to get back to, and i have since cleaned it up somewhat. I don't think readers are unduly confused, and I will clean it up the rest of the way soon enough. I and other NRHP editors have been using the NRHP disambiguation cleanup tag for about a year, and i have been regularly cleaning up and emptying the category. --doncram (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break

I'll try to sum up both sides of the debate, and I'd invite Doncram to correct me if I misstate or omit anything.

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) project has been creating disambiguation pages preemptively to head off conflicts that might arise in the future with those page targets. The discussion is regarding those pages that have no blue-links to a primary article (they do have blue-links to their respective NRHP list pages). These could be called "hanging" or "target-less" disambiguation pages. Some have objected to these creations, referring to some of the WP:D and WP:MOSDAB guidelines. At its core is a question over what criteria is required to create a disambiguation page.

Points of agreement:

• NRHP pages that share the same name, and exist, should have a disambiguation page, unless one is a WP:PRIMARY TARGET, in which case normal procedure applies
• NRHP dab pages created should have at least one blue link per line, as per WP:MOSDAB
• There is no concern over the notability of the target articles, if they are created in the future

Reasons for supporting preemptive creation:

• Orderly page creation heads off disputes between NRHP page creators
• Without preemptive page creation, moves and disambiguation page creation will have to occur after the fact, creating link repair tasks
• NRHP page creation is proceeding at a sustained pace, and disputes of that type are inevitable
• NHRP pages will be created, and these pages will not remain hanging indefinitely

Reasons for opposing preemptive creation:

• Disambiguation pages are meant to aide navigation to a target article, pages without a target article are not proper because they give readers the impression that the page exists
• WP:MOSDAB allows for red-links on disambiguation pages as an exception to the general rule that every entry must have a link
• The blue-link requirement ensures disambiguation pages are notable; changing policy would allow disambiguation pages to be created for lists of topics alone, without the corresponding benefit of an article

I've tried to be fair to both sides and will adjust it if I've missed things. Shadowjams (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy to comment. I am not sure about "preemptive", as if that is a loaded term. I'd maybe call it pro-active, in a good way. :) About points of agreement, yes to all, except note there is still need for a disambiguation page, if there are multiple places of a given name, even if one is primaryusage. Just then the dab page is at "Name (disambiguation)".

About reasons for supporting, yes, except it also heads off disputes between other editors in England for many notable places often having same name as U.S. places, and many other editors for non-NRHP-listed places, too. Another reason is that a disambiguation page, even having all primary redlinks (with supporting bluelinks), provides readers with the information that they want: that a place that they are looking for indeed exists, that it is spelled a certain way and hence they don't need to keep trying different spellings or otherwise looking for an article that does not exist, and that it is deemed wikipedia-notable and they could proceed to upload a photo and start an article for it. Really, that is immediately the most important reason to start these disambiguation pages, to serve readers immediately. And, it serves editors fixing up all the NRHP list-articles and all the other non-NRHP articles everywhere that have links to any of these places, so that those articles can be refined to link to proper article names. And fixing all those articles further serves readers.

About reasons for opposing, I don't see how having a disambiguation page gives readers the impression that a page exists for a given place. In fact the dab page is the efficient way to communicate to readers that a given page does not exist, as it shows as a red-link. I don't really understand the other 2 reasons myself. :) --doncram (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I struck the pre-emptive language and added the "in other cases normal procedure applies" statement. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way i have been continuing through the creation of needed NRHP disambiguation pages, and occasionally encountering PROD deletions from other editors. I've generally removed the PRODs and referred editors to this discussion here.

Also, another strong reason for creating the disambiguation pages, is to avoid erroneous information in the wikipedia. Without the dab pages in place, there are usually 2 or more NRHP list-article pages covering different states/counties that have red-links pointing to the same article name. When any wikipedian creates an article about one local place at that name, that renders all the other NRHP list-articles erroneous. Creating the dab pages now avoids that. It is much better for a list-article to have a mildly inconvenient link to a dab page, which can easily be corrected by dab solver tool anyhow, than it is for the mainspace articles to have entirely erroneous links to unrelated articles. --doncram (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

further issues

To update you all, i finished the "one concentrated effort to create the missing dab pages", which brought the total of NRHP dab pages up to 3,000. There will be a few additions to the count as new NRHP places get listed by the National Register, and as some already-existing dab pages get found. But this is basically it, ending discussion i trust on whether the disambiguation pages should be created or not. They have been. Also, I followed up by efforts to "solve" the resulting dablinks in the NRHP list-articles (using dab-solver tool) and other NRHP editors helped. Any remaining dablinks will get noticed and fixed in the regular course of updating the NRHP list-articles. So this issue, if it was one, is done.

It also seems to be consensus that dab pages having all entries being primary red-links is okay, as long as those items are legitimate wikipedia article topics and they include properly formatted supporting blue-links. There are now perhaps a few hundred such dab pages, and I think they are fine. Shadowjams was representing a possibly opposing view above, but seemed to relax, and from a comment or two elsewhere I believe Shadowjams fully accepted this. Please speak up, anyone, if you believe this is not the consensus!

An issue that remains open is that the MOSDAB section on ordering of entries currently outlaws the simple ordering by geography that is applied in most of the NRHP dab pages. A more complex ordering is given as the only acceptable ordering presented. The simple geographic ordering for many of the NRHP/places dab pages was accepted by consensus of editors in many previous discussions focussed on specific examples. No objection to geo ordering has been posed in this discussion section here. I think this means that MOSDAB is clearly wrong on this point, and does not actually reflect the consensus of Wikipedia editors. I have tried to update MOSDAB accordingly, but there is at least some opposition there. Attention by other editors to the discussion at wt:MOSDAB#Order of entries allowing geographic order explicitly would be appreciated. --doncram (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Carpenter Schools

Two articles Carpenter School No. 1 and Carpenter School No. 2 were combined into one by a long term editor into Carpenter Schools. The separate articles had different NRHP reference numbers and location cor-ord numbers but are located in the same town. The reason given by the editor was that the link provided did not show the NRHP name or refence numbers.

The editotr was not aware of the recent changes and move to a new database at NRHP. Because of ongoing changes at NRHP the reference numbers may be in one or the other databases, but not both. Apparently they are moving small sections at a time because of compatibility issues.

Personally, I do not care if it is one or two articles. However the new combined article no longer shows different NRHP reference numbers and location cor-ord numbers. And the NRHP info box does not allow showing on multiple entries. I have asked that editor how this can be fixed. He has already stated he does not like dealing with NRHP articles. And another editor changed the info box for another stress. See: discussion here.

Based on the discussions above, a DAB page should have been made for Carpenter School (disambiguation) but then I could see people adding partial named "Carpenter" named schools there. This would be similar to the problem with Carpenter (disambiguation) in which partial "Carpenter" names were removed. This created a duplication and resolving the issue with the editor by creating a list page called List of Carpenter related articles.

Would someone be so kind to review and fix if needed Carpenter Schools that Carpenter School No. 1 and Carpenter School No. 2 was combined? Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I was the editor that gave the article the combined infobox.. Carpenter School #2 isn't on the NRHP, but it is listed as a Mississippi Landmark. School #1 is a contributing property to Upriver Residential District in Natchez, MS (I have the NRHP document for Upriver) and also an MS Landmark. The reason I used {{Infobox Historic Site}} instead of {{Infobox NRHP}} is because Historic Site allows you to add multiple designations and non-NRHP designations. Using the NRHP infobox without a valid refnum (as was the case in both of the infoboxes you added), puts an error category (Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup) on the page, and Historic Site doesn't. To fix the coords issue (if it's still determined to be an issue), you can use the "free" fields described on Template:Infobox Historic Site/doc. designation1_free1name could be set to Coordinates, and designation1_free1value could be set to a {{coord}} template. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And I was the editor who combined the two articles into one. My reasons didn't have anything to do with NRHP status -- it was because the two articles were 95% identical and there seemed to be very little to say about one school but not the other. And then when I discovered the NRHP issue, I was initially reluctant to use infoboxes, but then I decided to go ahead and put them in, and using a separate infobox for each school looked fine to me. But as I told Jrcrin001, I don't particularly like to involve myself with NRHP articles because I know you all have your own ideas and rules and philosophies and I'd prefer to just let you do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with disambiguation, rather than get involved in some huge discussion about stuff I don't care about. My goal was to get rid of the massively duplicated text on the two articles by combining them, and beyond that I'm not going to argue with NRHP wonks. Propaniac (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the NRHP wonks often don't agree. I'd be inclined to defer to the most local one of them, which here would be Dudemanfellabra i think, about whether to have separate articles or a combo article. It doesn't really matter.

But hey, there's still room / need for a Carpenter Schools disambiguation page, to cover the 2 schools in Natchez and others such as a Carpenter High School in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan and a Carpenter High School, in Carpenter, Wyoming, (both notable as high schools) and others that have yet to be discovered. I think the "Carpenter Schools" page about the 2 in Natchez is possibly misnamed. It should perhaps be moved to a more specific name, like "Carpenter Schools (Natchez, Mississippi)". But then there is no place named "Carpenter Schools" exactly. Should it be "Schools donated by the Carpenter family in Natchez, Mississippi"? Or "An article about two of the three schools donated by the Carpenter family in Natchez, Mississippi"? But then the article's main section is about the family, so perhaps it should be "Carpenter Family of Natchez and two schools they donated"?  :)

Seriously, it seems perhaps cleaner to have a short article on each of the schools, with mention and link to the other, with both covered in a disambiguation page. Or perhaps the Carpenter School No. 1 should be covered just in a section within an article about the historic district it belongs to, apparently the Upriver Residential District, which currently is a red-link but should be created as an article, is a higher priority in fact. The article about the 2 together seems a bit lower priority, and cobbled together. I thot it was perhaps created by Dudemanfellabra expressly to prevent a disambiguation page from being created. Anyhow, combo articles are sometimes helpful, sometimes not. I commented on some other stuff specific to the Natchez article at its Talk page. --doncram (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a disambigution guideline/policy question here, which applies to other cases too. Assuming the 2 schools in Natchez are kept in one combo article, how should a disambiguation page refer to them, along with other items. Should they each be listed, as in:

Carpenter School may refer to:

• Carpenter School No. 1, in Natchez, Mississippi, one of two Carpenter Schools
• Carpenter School No. 2, in Natchez, Mississippi, second of two Carpenter Schools
• Carpenter School (City1, State1)
• Carpenter School (City2, State2)

or, MUST their two rows be combined, as in:

Carpenter School may refer to:

• Carpenter Schools, Natchez, Mississippi
• Carpenter School (City1, State1)
• Carpenter School (City2, State2)

It seems more natural to me to list the items in separate rows, and thereby to itemize out all the possible items that a reader might be looking for. It is just happenstance that the two are actually covered in one combo article currently. If the combo article is split, it should not change the basic appearance of the disambiguation page; only the links from each row should be updated to point to then-separate articles. I ask because this question applies to another case, really. --doncram (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Shelby House

By a Requested Move proposal at what was, i think, "Talk:Shelby House (Botkins, Ohio)", an editor indirectly proposed deletion of "Shelby House" disambiguation, with argument that all the other NRHP-listed Shelby Houses (including variants like "Firstname Shelby House" and "Shelby-Othername House") were not valid disambiguation page entries. The requested move was closed with the Botkins, Ohio one being moved to "Shelby House" as if it is wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for the term, and disambiguation was moved to "Shelby House (disambiguation)".

I reopened a new requested move to reverse that and restore the disambiguation page to "Shelby House". Please consider commenting at Talk:Shelby House#Requested move 2. --doncram (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That concluded with the disambiguation page being moved back to Shelby House. The closed discussion remains at Talk:Shelby House (Botkins, Ohio)#Requested move 2. This case was like that of Petty House, about which i asked for comments above. It seems settled well enough, I hope, that a dab page at "Lastname House" can be supported as pretty obviously appropriate, even when there is only one currently known notable place of exactly that name, but others of format "Firstname Lastname House" or "Lastname-Othername House" which can be presumed also known as "Lastname House". This seems best to me as providing stable dab pages, ready to receive new additions of non-U.S. houses and actors or other persons actually named "Shelby House" or whatever.

Other points about identifying places with town, state and also county, state, or whether something shorter is desirable, is under further discussion. Various requirements seem to force that for NRHP-listed items that do not have articles, so a supporting bluelink pointing to a NRHP county list-article is needed to defend the primary redlink (i.e., meet disambiguation editors' requirements) for those ones. Then, for NRHP-listed or other items that do have articles, is it desirable or undesirable to show county info, too, is perhaps the main point being discussed there, at Talk:Shelby House#city and county names identifying places. Practice that i have implemented in lots of dab pages having NRHP entries is to show county info, which i think is helpful generally and especially if the other identifier for town/village/hamlet is itself obscure. --doncram (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)