Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Talk page for DAB Solver?

Where do I make suggestions for DAB Solver? I can't find a talk page link on their page, and Google doesn't return anything obviously useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dabsolver leads to User talk:Dispenser/Dab solver. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

An IP adds stuff to dab pages

Special:Contributions/164.104.71.144. Some of additions are meaningful, but I'm not happy with useless ones like .LetterLetter in the first line. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

set indexes again

Looks like the subject of titles for set indexes vs disambiguation pages is up for discussion again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Questionable page moves. older ≠ wiser 16:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Trope

Has Trope been discussed here already? Could need a cleanup I think. --Trofobi (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Tag it with {{disambiguation cleanup}}? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Boldly did a cleanup, think it's  Done now. --Trofobi (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

School uniforms in the United Kingdom

Is it a set index, an IAR-ish dab page, a short but complete list, or what? Effectively a redirect from one title to the four articles covering the topic. My mind's gone blank! It's not the stub it's been tagged as, which is how I've come across it while stub-sorting, as it doesn't need expansion. It serves a purpose, but what do we call it? PamD

It's a WP:CONCEPTDAB, not a disambiguation page. If it were, every "Foo in the United Kingdom" page would become a disambiguation. The basic rule is that a list of subdivisions of a single topic does not make a disambiguation page; only a list of different topics that can be referred to by the same name. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the text at WP:CONCEPTDAB seems to demand that an article should be written. So should I just give it a relevant Category or two, and perhaps add the short-article template so it doesn't get retagged as a stub? Similar problem at Geography of Palestine. PamD 11:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cephalopyge (disambiguation)

I came across this today. I cleaned it up a little bit, but I wanted to ask, is it needed (or would hat notes be more appropriate?) and is it OK now the way it stands? Invertzoo (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As there appear to be only two uses and only one is currently official, I added a hatnote to Cephalopyge. As such a disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, though it does no harm. older ≠ wiser 18:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog

This is a prime example of a franchise character that should not be a disambiguation page. With the exception of one obscure (and non-matching) scientific use, all titles on this page are installments in various media relating to a specific character, a fast-moving anthropomorphic blue hedgehog. This should be a page on the franchise generally. There is nothing ambiguous here. bd2412 T 04:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fine with it as a disambiguation page. The article Sonic the Hedgehog (series) is the broad concept article you are looking for. I think this can be perfectly resolved by renaming to have (disambiguation) at the end and renaming the (series) one as primary topic. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion in progress: Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (series)#Requested move Ego White Tray (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

disambiguation of "wavetrain"

Recently I submitted an article on Periodic travelling wave (which was accepted). In the mathematics literature, the term "wavetrain" is synonymous with "periodic travelling wave" so I thought of submitting a redirection. But in wikipedia "wavetrain" is currently redirected to Wave packet, which is a different meaning for the term "wavetrain", often used in the physics literature (especially quantum mechanics). I therefore proposed a disambiguation page but it was declined. The referee said "I declined this because there wasn't enough context from just looking at the disambig page to know if it was necessary or not" and recommended asking about it here. The two uses of the term (periodic travelling wave and wave packet) are quite distinct -- the first is not localised in space and the second is defined by being localised in space. Therefore it seems that there should be some indication in wikipedia about these different meanings. But I am not sure how to proceed with this. Jasherratt (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

With only two articles, a disambiguation page is not necessary. A hatnote at the top of one pointing to the other is enough. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But only if we agree that the existing, physics, use is the primary topic. If neither topic was primary, then a dab page with two entries, at the base name of the topic, would be needed. PamD 08:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for these helpful comments. I am not an expert in physics but from investigations on the web it seems to me that the physics usage cannot be regarded as the primary one. For example none of the first three online dictionary sources that came up in my search make any specification that a wavetrain should have a finite extent. Here are the links: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wavetrain 2. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wave+train 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wave+train. Therefore it seems inappropriate to regard a usage that implies finite extent as the primary one. However I would not want to claim that the mathematics usage is primary because I am not at all an expert in physics. I did contact the person who wrote the wikipedia page redirecting "wavetrain" to Wave packet and he/she confirmed its usage in this area in fairly convincing style. Here is his/her response.

In physics a wavetrain can be both a packet and a periodic wave of infinite extend, but most often it is modulated or of finite extend. See e.g. "light (physics)" in the Encyclopædia Brittanica: ... as a short “wave train” lasting from about 10−9 to 10−8 second ... I do not know about its use in mathematics.

I should perhaps mention that I can supply a large number of references from the mathematics literature, both recent and across the last 20-30 years, in which "wavetrain" is used to mean Periodic travelling wave. (And I would be very happy to supply some of these references if it would be helpful). My basic impression from all of this is that neither usage can really be regarded as primary.

Jasherratt (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment of set index articles

This topic was brought up a little over three years ago at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 29#Best practise for assessing set index articles?, where the consensus was to assess set index articles as list-class, not dab-class. I'm just posting here to verify that this is still the current practice, since there's some dispute over this in the page history of Talk:Liberty Highway. Thanks. – TMF (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Set index articles are list articles, not disambiguation pages, so it makes sense to assess them as lists, not dabs. WP:SETINDEX: "Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article. The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. The style of a set index article should follow the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists." -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

While in principle I agree that SIA are not dabs, the assessment criteria is a project-specific function, so if a project wants to classify a set index as a disambiguation for the purposes of that project, then I'm not sure any other project (such as this one) is in any position to overrule that determination. older ≠ wiser 11:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It would help avoid confusion, then, if they would use classifications there were not incorrect. "Nav", for instance, if they want to use one classification for disambiguation pages and set index articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Conflict on ⁕: a dab, a redirect, or red link?

See user talk: R'n'B #U+2055. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the above discussion, I have solved this problem by moving the disambiguation page to ⁕ (disambiguation) (on the off chance that someone does search for it in order to find a meaning attributed to it there), restored the redirect to Star (glyph) as the primary topic of the symbol, and dropped a hatnote on that page. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not a solution. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The U+2055 symbol doesn't even resolve on my screen. I just get a box. I'm having a hard time imagining that anyone might search using that symbol. Can you explain why there's a need for such a page? Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It is not a solution, because it is not a problem. I commented out the Red Hot Chili Peppers from the "dab", because the symbol is not mentioned there. The flower should probably likewise be removed, but even if it isn't, WP:TWODABS. The dab should be deleted, and the symbol should simply redirec to the star glyph page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC at David (disambiguation)

FYI, an RfC is being held at Talk:David (disambiguation)#RfC: Explanation of King David. StAnselm (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Linguistic frequency

Hello all, I have a question about the dab page Linguistic frequency, and I would appreciate it if some knowledgeable disambiguators could chime in. The discussion is over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Linguistic frequency. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Zakblade2000 – a thorough scrutiny of edits needed

This user is known for removal of hatnotes (mostly dab hatnotes) and maintenance templates without any substantiation: see numerous examples there, there, and throughout his contributions. A look to relatively recent contributions also reveals an incompetent edit to a dab page and creation of a bad redirect. These all demonstrate his extremely poor understanding of title-related problems in Wikipedia. Attempts to communicate proved to be futile. We can hope that, sooner or later, this will end in sanctions and the disruption will stop, but the damage already inflicted needs to be repaired. I could check his edits myself, but I have a strong bias against this user and probably somebody more neutral is more suitable to this task. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Slightly different surnames

A couple of editors think that the difference in surnames Hoffman and Hoffmann is so slight that a dab page is needed for two people sharing a given name but having the two surnames. See discussion at Talk:Roy Hoffman (writer). PamD 08:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Pygmalion issues help wanted

I am not sure if this is outside the scope of this project. I have been attempting to refine improper linking to Pygmalion (play) and Pygmalion (mythology), and I could use some assistance cleaning up {{Pygmalion}}, {{Pygmalion navbox}}, and {{My Fair Lady}} (the latter two which I have recently created). I have posted some particular issues at Talk:Pygmalion (play)#Template:Pygmalion. Please feel free to jump in and edit the templates or leave comments there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:44, 23 February 2013‎ (UTC)

borderline between dab page and name page

Is it OK for a dab page to contain information in the opening line? I'm thinking of a case like Gwriad where the original editor has removed "{{name-stub}}" because "not a stub: this is what name pages look like" (though it looks like a dab page, having only very minimal info about the name), but it starts off with "Gwriad (Latin: Guriat) is a Welsh name that may refer to:". I think it's a dab page, but that in that case I'd be inclined to trim it to "Gwriad may refer to:". Any thoughts? PamD 15:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Base-name dabs (with no primary topic) sometimes introduce the ambiguous term with a short dictionary def or derivation note; it's not mentioned in WP:MOSDAB, but is covered in WP:D#Dictionary definitions; I prefer the no-def version myself, but that's not the current consensus. (disambiguation) dabs, of course, lead with the primary topic description as the opening line. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll now give that page a {{hndis}} template: the creator (owner?) objected when it was previously given {{name-stub}}. PamD 13:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation for the seriously confused?

A few recent Reader Feedback comments on the page Thomas Jefferson have led me to suspect that some users are going to that page looking for information about Thomas Edison. (One feedback specifically asked for information about the light bulb; another one says "Edison Schmedison more pictures"; a third complains "Doesn't tell about inventions! I really don't trust this at all for my child who is doing a report on this man".) These two people named "Thomas" should not be easily confused with one another, so a disambiguation hatnote would be absurd. However, I have to assume that the people who posted this feedback are only the "tip of the iceberg", and that there are many more readers who are similarly confused. As the user population grows, Wikipedia may need to provide disambiguation for the seriously confused reader...

Has anyone addressed the problem of redirecting people who are less clueful than we have traditionally assumed a user to be? Any ideas on how to address this? --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's needed, {{distinguish}} (aka {{confused}}). If the consensus at the page is that that hatnote is not needed, then nothing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I used {{two other uses}} to expand the existing hatnote on the article (mostly so people could "try the new hatnote on for size") and started a talk page discussion to see what other people think. --Orlady (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There might be room for a new "other use X and distinguish Y" template too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson was an inventor, tho. The swivel chair, dumbwaiter, multiple signature pen. And such should be mentioned. 20:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCS check (talk • contribs)

Borderline between dab page and name page II

From some edits on articles related to some surnames of West African origin, it seems this issue may be quite frequent. Specifically that many pages for listing/disambiguating holders of a particular surname (per use of {{disambig|surname}}) may logically be the place to also have a brief discussion of the origin, meaning, and variant forms of a surname (per use of {{surname}}). I encountered this issue when linking surnames on the page on Gbara, which then was bot-flagged with {{dablinks}}. Might it make sense to expect that an article with a list of surname holders would also serve at the same time as a description of the surname, until such time as the description reaches a length meriting a separate article? IOW, the "borderline between dab page and name page" being a recognized stage or terminal point for many surname articles?--A12n (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Holders of a particular surname are not disambiguated; they are simply listed. As partial title matches, they don't require disambiguation. {{surname}} pages are logically the place to add a discussion (however brief) of the origin, meaning, and variant forms of a surname; {{disambig}} with a surname parameter is not the logical place for it. If the brief discussion is created in the article space, the surname-holder list should properly be moved to the anthroponymy article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

2nd order disambiguation by birth date - RFC

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.

---

RFC WITHDRAWN - THIS IS A REQUEST BY DISCUSSION INITIATOR FOR AN ADMIN TO CLOSE DISCUSSION My intent is now to raise an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) focussing on whether there should be a conversation about a consistent use of birth date.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles about people with the same name who are notable for activities in the same subject are often given article titles that are disambiguated by birth date. However, currently there is no statement in any relevant guide or policy on the correct nomenclature for such disambiguation. This has led to a wide variety of formats. The most common format disagreements are comma vs. no comma (e.g., Dave Jones (footballer born 1932) and Tony Mitchell (basketball, born 1989)) and born vs. b. (e.g., Billy Taylor (ice hockey b. 1919)). Is there a chance we could 1.) come to an agreement on which is correct, 2.) state consensus in a policy or guide, and 3.) send a bot around to clean everything up? Reminder the disagreement is about the following formats:

1. Name (subject born YYYY)
2. Name (subject, born YYYY)
3. Name (subject b. YYYY)
4. Name (subject, b. YYYY)
5. Name (YYYY–YYYY) (late addendum)

I have notified WP:VPP, WP:TITLE, WP:NCP and WP:DAB as well as added a notice at Template:Centralized discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

ADDENDUM added upon realizing another method of second order disambiguation with examples such as John Drake (1826–1895), John Drake (1872–1964), Robert Williams (1767–1847) and Robert Williams (1811–1890)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please state 1. Which format you support, 2. Whether you feel it should be explain at either WP:DAB, WP:NATURAL or elsewhere, 3. Whether this should be corrected by a bot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• This RFC should really be at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). The Disambiguation project really has little say as to HOW to disambiguate articles covered by specific naming conventions. If additional guidance about how to further disambiguate subjects is needed, it should be added to the relevant naming convention. That said, I dislike using birth year as a disambiguator in general and should only be a last resort. When it is unavoidable, I'd prefer #2. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Choice 1 would be my preference. It does seem like Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) should be involved in any discussion of this issue. In the guideline at WP:NCPDAB, it doesn't say how to use dates of birth as disambiguators, but it uses many examples of choice 1, one example of choice 3 as a redirect and I didn't see any use of choices 2 or 4. WP:NATURAL and WP:NCPDAB seem like likely appropriate places to put the rule. Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Choice 2, with Choice 1 as a strong second. Page titles aren't so long that we need to abbreviate a single four-letter word. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• None of the above. I would not disambiguate someone by their date of birth in the first place... I would find that to be very unhelpful when trying to find an article on someone. Instead, I would disambiguate by the era in which they played their sport (ie John Doe (1920s era ice hockey player) vs John Doe (1990s era ice hockey player)... or I would disambiguate by the teams they played for (ie Joe Smith (NY Yankees baseball player) vs Joe Smith (LA Dodgers baseball player))... or any of a dozen other ways to disambiguate besides their birth date. That said... All of the above - in the event that date of birth is chosen as a way to disambiguate (for some strange reason)... I see no reason why all articles would have to do it the same way. There is no need to make a single uniform "rule" about how to format a disambiguation. Give people the flexibility to format the disambiguation in a way that makes sense to them. All of the above formats are "correct" as long as they help clarify which person is the subject of which article... there is no need to "enforce" any single format or have a bot go around automatically changing things. Different articles can have different titles. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The reason birth year is prefered over team or era a player played is that a player may be notable for playing with several different teams or notable for playing over several decades.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• None of the above. Wrong project for this discussion, as Bkonrad already pointed out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Why are people suggesting we set the policy on how to disambiguate on a page that no one goes to. This is the page where the vast majority of disambiguation policy discussions occur. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is the general guide to disambiguating pages and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) is a particular policy for people names. The problem is no one ever holds discussions there. There have been fewer than 10 discussions on that page in a year. This page has had ten discussions in the last month. It is hard to get consensus on pages that no one goes to. This page is used (and thus watched) by a lot of people. I generally avoid holding discussions on pages that no one uses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, if you read the project page, or WP:DAB or WP:MOSDAB, there is relatively little direct guidance about what form of disambiguation to use; that is the domain of the various naming conventions. The project's primary concerns are 1) when disambiguation is needed; 2) how to facilitate readers finding articles that have ambiguous titles (i.e., through hatnotes or with a separate disambiguation page); 3) how to structure the disambiguation page; and 4) how to link to disambiguation pages. I suppose primary topics fit in there someplace, as they consume an inordinate amount of discussion, but they are likely a subtopic of 2. older ≠ wiser 02:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • In agreement with what Bkonrad wrote: The disambiguation guidelines recognize the need for qualifiers and then deal with how to navigate readers from the ambiguous title to the qualified title. The article title guidelines and content projects specify (or decide not to specify) which qualifiers to select for given topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • What project is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) under? Isn't it under this project if any?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • No, it's not a Disambiguation Project page. A quick glance at the bottom of that page shows "WikiProject Biography". -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Should we close this discussion and open a new RFC at that page with a clearer discription of the issue or move all of this discussion there?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, this discussion should be closed at least. The rest as needed or appropriate for the project members (which aren't me). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Whatever you want - First, this should be avoided. Otherwise, it's not very common, so we don't need the instruction creep. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It is a little more common than you think. The disagreement is much more extensive than you think. Name any five very common first and last name combination dab pages and you will see some. On some pages you might even see something like this: Dave Jones (footballer born 1932), Dave Jones (footballer born 1956), David Jones (footballer born 1914), David Jones (footballer born 1940), David Jones (footballer born 1955), David Jones (footballer born 1964), David Jones (footballer born 1984).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Here is more:
      • Tom Smith (cricketer born 1985), Tom Smith (cricketer born 1987), Tom Smith (footballer born 1876), Tom Smith (footballer born 1877), Tom Smith (footballer born 1900), Tom Smith (footballer born 1909), Tom Smith (footballer born 1973), Tom Smith (rugby union player born 1893), Tom Smith (rugby union player born 1971), Tom Smith (rugby union player born 1985).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)
        • Billy Taylor (ice hockey b. 1919), Billy Taylor (ice hockey b. 1942), Bill Taylor (footballer born 1869), Bill Taylor (footballer born 1886)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
          • So, have there been any disputes? Any edit warring? Is our mix of formats causing confusion for editors or readers? Without any of this, there is no reason to introduce more instructions of limited value, which provides minimal benefits but clutters up our guideline pages. Also, in nearly all cases, a disambiguator other than year of birth should be used. Nationality is much better, and for sports figure, their best known team might work. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
            • This RFC was suggested at Talk:Mike David Peluso where the discussion is headed toward moving the page to Mike Peluso (ice hockey b. 1965), which to me seems contrary to many of the examples above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose!. An instruction of this kind will encourage people to add second order disambiguation, which is rarely needed and should be avoided if at all possible. No one has given an example of two people with the same name and birth year. As EWT points out, you can usually come up with a better disambiguator than birth year. I don't see this as a solution to a real world problem. Kauffner (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The discussion is not about people with the same name and birth year. You are misreading the discussion. It is about people with the same name who are notable for the same subject. See examples three comments above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I am opposed to any instruction likely to be construed as legitimizing second order disambiguation. The examples you gave show that editors are already doing way too much of it. Kauffner (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• 2 or 4, are acceptable. My personal preferance being 2. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Don't really care. If one of these four formats had been significantly more prevalent, I would have favoured a push for uniformity but since it's all pretty chaotic I think the cost of imposing uniformity (in terms of time spent on actual edits, time spent on discussions, frustrations for editors who for some reason believe that this is clearly not the right format) are far greater than the potential benefits. On this page alone, there is already bickering about where this debate should take place and suggestions that an outcome to this debate would be bad in itself. Pichpich (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to close an RFC. I have requested closure at WT:RFC, WP:AN and above. Once it is closed, I will open an RFC at the page people say they want to talk at and simply ask should we pursue uniformity.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• None of the above. Disambiguation should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, since each article has a different title and a different context. The goal should be natural and accurate titles, rather than neatly serried rows of bracketed suffixes; writing rules that encourage the latter is not helpful. bobrayner (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2013 (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.

RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambigutate

The RFC above has been refined and relocated at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#RFC-birth_date_format_conformity_when_used_to_disambiguate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wallander (disambiguation)

Please see the requested move at Talk:Wallander (disambiguation)#Requested move. –anemoneprojectors– 14:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Battlefield and Felon

How do these not redirect to Battle and Felony? LCS check (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Because Battlefield and Felon are disambiguation lists wheras Battle and Felony are articles about the respective concepts. Roger (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Pages linked to them are for Battle and Felony, by far the most prominent topics for either search term. LCS check (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The guy's got a point - I'd say that these are rather obvious primary topics for these words, and putting the disambigs at Battlefield (disambiguation) and Felon (disambiguation) makes a lot of sense. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Kind of surprised actually that Battlefield isn't an article itself. LCS check (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There's always Talk:Battlefield and Talk:Felon, and a bold move or WP:RM to move the dabs to "Battlefield (disambiguation)" and "Felon (disambiguation)" to make room for base-name articles or redirects to primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't move pages. LCS check (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What would a full non-dab article on Battlefield be about? We can give a simple definition of the term (such as the one already give at the dab page: "A battlefield refers to the location of a battle.")... but then what? Blueboar (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I can think of a few other things that would go in such an article. I believe that there are some legal constraints on what can constitute a "battlefield", and the Geneva Conventions in particular are directed towards the treatment of soldiers and civilians in the battlefield. There is also the historic tendency to commemorate specific battlefields. However, this could all be included in Battle also, as I see no way to separate the battle from the battlefield for legal or commemorative purposes. bd2412 T 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly go ahead and move Felon; Whitlow and Mastitis are very different terms (with no indication how commonly used the nickname is), and the legal usage, which would also be the overwhelming historical meaning, gets a solid majority of all page hits, and Google returns. No opinion on Battlefield, but I may research that more later. bd2412 T 02:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Another one: Barbershop. Seems this should point to Barber, they being who run such a shop. LCS check (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If I say barbershop, I am talking about the style of music 100% of the time. Ryan Vesey 18:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you distinguish Barber shop and Barbershop? LCS check (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be more open to see Barber shop point directly to Barber. Ryan Vesey 18:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how that makes sense (it being the only spaced one), I went ahead with it. LCS check (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Council is an odd one as well. Seems this should be an article, no? Like Legislature? LCS check (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Made it so. Now then, sexual contact is a redirect to sexuality. Seems to me it's a field all its own, no? LCS check (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Council and Talk:Sexual contact would be appropriate forums to determine the answers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Posted a like comment at Talk:Gallantry, but I wonder, who will see it? LCS check (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Neural network needs attention

As on Talk:Neural network at the end it is already a disambig page begging to become one. If that happens, the other two parts may get cleaned up better - they also need serious help. Maybe someone here just wants to make a disambig.... Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh Boy! Neural network (disambiguation) also exists. I guess you guys really need to figure this out per policy... History2007 (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks more like a broad concept article describing the commonalities between artificial and biological neurons. The Neural network#History of the neural network analogy section wouldn't fit better either of the bio nor AI articles. Maybe some of its content should be pushed to Artificial neural network, but the rest is fine as is. Diego (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if you guys think so let it be. But I am very unhappy with the both articles. Very confusing, and largely incorrect. One can not "discuss architecture" in a common mode for biological and artificial nets. The two pages are just hopeless in my view... But I am not going to push the issue, having clearly expressed my unhappiness now on the relevant talk pages. History2007 (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Which was the correct place. The "you guys per policy" figuring would be to use those talk pages to decide whether (a) the current Neural network is good (unrelated to the disambiguation pages), (b) Neural network should be a broad concept article, or (c) Neural network is worthless as a broad concept article and the existing disambiguation page should be moved to the base name. Any of (a) (b) or (c) are per the disambiguation guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping some of you guys would make decisions there and get the separation logic straight so I would spend spend some effort cleaning up the content. But I guess not. Unless the structure changes, there is no point in my trying to fix the content, so for my part it is a walk decision... History2007 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless the content changes, no structure changes are needed for disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revision of disambiguation terms at WP:NCCOMICS

Would anyone have anything to add at this discussion? -Rob Sinden (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Creating a collapsible hatnote shell-template?

Hi there. I just randomly encountered the article Playing card and I was somewhat shocked by the amount of hatnotes it uses. Of course, they are all relevant since it has so many valid redirects but the amount of hatnotes also means that on lower resolutions and mobile devices users will have to scroll quite a bit to actually read the article which can't be the intention. So I wondered why there is no collapsible template that could be used when too many hatnotes are needed (like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is used for talk pages where too many WikiProjects would have to be listed). I decided to ask here, since it falls into this project's scope. If I am really the first to think about this, could someone maybe make one? Regards SoWhy 21:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. thats one of the worst I've ever seen. Why not redirect the cards to the articles associated - no need for every card to redirect to that article (e.g. if I type "two of diamonds" not clear why it would bring me to that article). I'd say work on the redirects first and trim that bad boy down. ugh. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• (after edit-conflict) Oppose: the point of hatnotes is that they should be visible, to help readers to find what they want. Yes, Playing card is a mess, but it's a very unusual mess and Hard cases make bad law. Maybe someone could create a slightly IAR-ish sort of dab page for all specific playing cards, and a hatnote on the lines of "Many individual playing cards (eg "Two of diamonds") redirect here. For other uses of these names see Other uses of playing-card names." Would need a decision about cases like King of clubs, which does not redirect to Playing card and which has its own King of clubs (disambiguation). PamD 22:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• I agree the current state of Playing card is really bad. I've suggested something similar in the past. Something like a collapsed box with display text like "If X [brief description of the page] is not what you are looking for, look here", with a show contents link. older ≠ wiser 22:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• I made the page at Playing card (disambiguation). I'll fix the hatnote now. Also, none of those specific card names should redirect there, but instead they should all redirect to Standard 52-card deck. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've redirected all of them now, except for a couple that had their own articles or led to disambig pages. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of shipindex template on disambiguation pages

Please see question I raised at Template talk:Shipindex#Use of template on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 15:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Categorization of a split article now a list of unambiguous titles

Please see Talk:Districts and dependencies of Mauritius#Category. Apparently this had once been an article since moved and then asymmetrically split into two articles. The remaining pointer is currently uncategorized. One editor thinks it should be a disambiguation page, even though neither of the pages listed are literally ambiguous with the title. For myself, I don't see any problem to leave this list in an article category, but perhaps there is a better way to categorize this? Please comment at the article talk page. older ≠ wiser 16:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Poppy Meadow

This might seem like a silly thing to think of, but I wondered if the article about this fictional character might benefit from a hatnote, something along the lines of:

Poppy meadow may also refer to a meadow of poppies

I started a discussion at Talk:Poppy Meadow#Disambiguation, but thought the editors here might have better insight. –anemoneprojectors– 13:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your input - the answer was no. –anemoneprojectors– 14:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Move

I was surprised to see a PROD for this, as an article about an album, on our useful list of deletion discussions etc. I looked into it. Aaaaargh!

There's been a long-standing dab page at Move. It's move-protected since 2008.

Some bright spark over-wrote it in Nov 2012 to create an article about an album, which has just been PRODded.

A new dab page was created at Move (disambiguation) (hitherto a redirect) on 18 Dec 2012. It's only got a handful of entries, lacks most of what was in the previous dab page.

There was a "requested move" of Move (disambiguation) back to "Move" in Jan 2013, but as the page didn't have the project banner we weren't alerted, and it was squashed.

We need to revert Move to the 8 Nov 2012 version, but copy the current contents to Move (Yoshida Brothers album). If it weren't for the move protection I'd have moved the article, then copy-and-pasted (because there's no copyvio problem on dab pages) the dab page contents back to the base title. Move (disambiguation) needs to become a redirect again (with any of its contents added if they aren't already included). Could anyone suggest how we move on... or is there an admin out there who could move the page and rescue the old dab content for us? PamD 10:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose the following solution, but it requires sysop privileges:

• Delete “Move”;
• Move “Move (disambiguation)” to “Move”;
• Restore all revisions before ill-fated one of December 2012, effectively making a selective history merger.

I do not care about the fate of edits which attributed a grossly undue weight to a (non-notable) album and circumvented the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines. The album may be copied, userfied or abandoned at sysop’s discretion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I mostly did what Incnis Mrsi described above and also moved the edits for the album to Move (Yoshida Brothers album) and left an explanation at Talk:Move (Yoshida Brothers album).

I did not move “Move (disambiguation)” to “Move” as that page was at best a mistaken partial recreation and all the content was already at the older version of the disambiguation page which I restored. I only changed Move (disambiguation) to redirect to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, BKonrad, looks good - and I've updated the dab page Move re the album. And left a note on the guilty editor's page pointing out how destroying the existing dab page was disruptive editing. PamD 12:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I am glad to see a competent sysop who uses the tools with even more clue than I could expect. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Turner disambiguation page

Apologies if this comment is in the wrong place. The Turner disambiguation page does not refer to the artist J. M. W. Turner, commonly known by his surname only. Ralot (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I see J. M. W. Turner alphabetically on the Turner set index article. Do you think it should be on the Turner (disambiguation) page too? I didn't see anything in the article on J. M. W. Turner that indicated that his surname was used as a mononym rather than a surname. Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest he should be more accessible - perhaps a hatnote on the name page at Turner, and also a mention on the dab page. As with other major artists(Rembrandt etc), he is often referred to as plain "Turner", and it is inappropriate to expect a reader to plough through that long page to find him as J. M. W. Turner. PamD 18:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:AFCH

I'm adding some more new features to the WP:AFC helper script. Now my question: should uncategorized disambiguation pages tagged with {{uncat}}? mabdul 09:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Uncategorized disambiguation pages should not exist. If a page is uncategorized, how do you determine that it is a disambiguation page? If a page contains the {{disambiguation}} template or any of the other related templates, the page will be categorized. older ≠ wiser 14:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, great. Then I won't add the uncat template when it is classified as disambig (and will add the disambig template). mabdul 11:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Need help creating a dab title

I am trying to prep an article topic for creation (either now or in the immediate future) by adding a red link, but I'm not certain as to the best dab title. The article would be about "Michael's restaurant", sometimes formally referred to as "Michael's Restaurant", but more commonly just as "Michael's". It has two locations, one in California and another in New York. Michael's currently redirects to a business with a link to Michaels (disambiguation) as a hatnote. Thanks for any help you can provide. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of restaurants named Michael's unfortunately. But if there aren't any other articles about restaurants, and this one you think will likely be the only one for a while (and it the most notable), then Michael's (restaurant) should do. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The natural disambiguation Michael's Restaurant would be preferred, I think. WP:PRECISION: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's what I originally did. However, I was reverted and I brought the discussion here. Since I've already changed all occurrences of the link,[1] to the one Obiwankenobi recommended, what is the next step? I'm getting tired of going around and around with this. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Leave the links until the article is stubbed, and then update them? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Make the article at either title, getting the article up is much more important than bickering over style. Whichever you choose, make the other one a redirect to the first. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate

I have closed my own discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate. Please feel free to take any action necessary to modify the closure of my own discussion to make it appear more Kosher.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Jōmyō-ji

The page Jōmyō-ji currently contains one blue link and one red link. I can find no page on Wikipedia that mentions the red link (Jōmyō-ji (Kyoto)), nor can I find reliable sources to suggest the temple is notable. Please see Talk:Jōmyō-ji#Jōmyō-ji (Kyoto). Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

River Lake

While I have probably one or twice a week added entries to disambiguation pages, the River Lake page is the first such page I have created. I looked at another page and the guidelines to see how this should be done. Not difficult when you see how someone else crafted a page. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine. I had a minor tidy. Widefox; talk 22:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional disambiguation required for Angel (TV series)

As Angel (1960 TV series) also exists, I was under the impression that disambiguation should be made in full for both TV series, i.e. no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should exist for partially disambiguated titles. Therefore, I have proposed a move to Angel (1999 TV series), at Talk:Angel (TV series)#Requested move which I would have considered unambiguous. However, maybe I'm mistaken in my assumption, as another editor is pointing me to a similar discussion at Talk:Lost (TV series)#Requested move. Your considered opinion is welcome. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no settled guidance on this. Some editors support the position that once a title is determined to require disambiguation, there should be no further consideration of primary topic for the disambiguating phrase. Other editors support the position that some titles are so much more common uses of a particular type, that there can be a primary topic for a title with a disambiguating phrase. Discussion continues in various venues. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we not be looking for more clarity in the guidelines for this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Consistency in the naming conventions and/or project guidelines would need to be discussed in a broader forum. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What would be an appropriate forum in which to initiate such a discussion? Neelix (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles or Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. —me_and 18:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I have started the discussion here. Neelix (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Frisco vs. San Francisco

To what degree should a dab page include discussion of the controversiality of a term? Should it simply point to the article and, possibly, a section therein or should a discussion appear in the the dab page proper? Also see Talk:Frisco. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

To what degree should a dab page include discussion of X? To no degree at all. Ambiguous-on-Wikipedia topics get listed, topics that aren't ambiguous-on-Wikipedia don't, and the contents of the linked articles determine whether that ambiguity exists on Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Very long name disambig page

Please discuss at Talk:Abdur Rahman Ego White Tray (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not actually a disambiguation page at all, just a page about a name with a list of people with the name. But in any case, I'm not sure there's any logical or user-friendly basis for splitting the list. older ≠ wiser 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I did ask several Wikiprojects to comment on this, so I'd prefer comments at the linked talk page. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Keller

Could someone else please look at this dab? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Scott Johnson

Another editor misunderstanding MOS:DABMENTION at Talk:Scott Johnson. Help appreciated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Adele

What does anyone think about the fact that Adele the singer is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over Adele (given name) or Adele (disambiguation)? At the last move request there was an overwhelming support for this (so it seems it would be fruitless to start another one), but I can't help thinking that there is a fan element involved here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on your description, it sounds like the consensus for the primary topic. If the fans are using Wikipedia to find information about the singer more than the Wikipedia readership is using Wikipedia to find information about the other topics ambiguous with "Adele", then it's the right arrangement. Fan usage does not count for less than other usage; pop culture topics can still be primary topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)