Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

"reach consensus" is a guideline?

One of the edits I made, in the "Primary topic" section, seems related to the current discussion above, so let me see if I can get your attention on this one.

Advising "concensus of editors" is circular, because a guideline should advise HOW to resolve a disagreement when there ISN'T a consensus already. Consensus of editors is already an underlying assumption for pretty much all edits, including every other section of WP:DAB guideline.

One editor thinks something is the "primary meaning," another disagrees. How do they reach a consensus? They would look for an objective standard in WP:DAB. It doesn't help when the guideline then advises, "reach consensus." Well, yes, but on what basis?

I imagine the guideline should advise consulting authoritative publications, with helpful hints on what type of publications, what kind of Google searches, and at what point something is a "primary meaning." Of course, it has to be flexible enough to cover various kinds of cases, but suggesting some standard is the point of a guideline.

I just used the most generic language because I thought I was just correcting an oversight, but the point is that the existing language is not a guideline on HOW to resolve disagreements. Please discuss a more helpful standard, or at least leave the generic "consult authoritative publications" language. Thanks. Wikilights 07:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your idea of adding in specific ways to come to said consensus is a good one, but I think it would be very challenging to pin specifics down, especially when each case would be different. Some are obvious, and people just have to overcome personal preference, while some will require lengthy discussion and the abovementioned searches. Unless we could come up with a definite plan on how to reach a consensus in these cases, I do not think we should change it, as it would only make it more confusing.

Speaking in defense of the text that is currently there, yes, in a perfect world, no one would make edits without a consensus. However, since this is not nearly the case, it is important that when dealing with primary topics, people be reminded of this, because moreso than many other edits, it is a case when consensus is important. -- Nataly a 12:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Natalya has been doing a fine job of discussion here, but looking back, some fairly pertinent additions:

When a beginner as a first edit leaps to a major guideline that affects 70,000 pages, apparently a few important points of basic understanding might have been missed?
Wikipedia:Consensus?
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes?
Every time anybody logs in, "If you have not already, please take the time to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines."

So far, all of Wikilights (talk · contribs) edits have been here, 3 on the project, then 2 on the talk. No more edits since those 5 edits 7-9 days ago.

--William Allen Simpson 00:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:3LC

Template:3LC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:3LC.

There seems to be an opinion that this template belongs on "abbreviation pages" which are separate from disambiguation pages. Please vote. —Michael Z. 2006-02-26 00:09 Z

Generally, when the "opinion" is expressed by the fellow that designed both Disambiguation pages and Abbreviation pages some years ago, it might be better described as "well-founded statement of fact."

--William Allen Simpson 00:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not in a an open encyclopedia project. I don't see the guidelines or the consensus supporting this. —Michael Z. 2006-02-26 01:06 Z

So, since your first edit was three months ago, and you started creating the clutter of 2LC, 2CC, 3LC, 3CC, 4LC, and 4CC templates in the middle of January 2006, how is calling yourself "the fellow that designed both Disambiguation pages and Abbreviation pages some years ago" not a self-aggrandizing untruth? —Michael Z. 2006-03-03 17:25 Z

Upper- or lower-case

Re: [1] - I didn't find any evidence that the text was already in the page, in a less visible place as user:SchmuckyTheCat has said. — Insta ntnood 08:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations is the complementary article. You deleted this edit just because you follow me around. Knock it off. SchmuckyTheCat 08:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for clarifying. Please be reminded to state the source next time. You did have a record of making major changes without proposing at the corresponding talk page [2]. — Insta ntnood 15:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You're deciding to go out in flames, aren't you? SchmuckyTheCat 15:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can tell who's going out in flames. — Insta ntnood 16:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ArbCom is proposing you be banned indefinitely, so I guess everyone can tell. SchmuckyTheCat 17:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't think you uninvolved. Everyone can tell who's right and who's wrong among the involved parties. — Insta ntnood 17:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Really, where's my name on this page? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Proposed decision. SchmuckyTheCat 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine if you want to pretend you're not involved in the content dispute, and has never made any inappropriate edits, but please don't ruin this page. — Insta ntnood 18:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarify subcategories (TLAdisambig and numberdis) somewhere obvious

OK, now that I've helpfully gone and changed to "TLAdisambig" and "numberdis" in a bunch of articles, and I came here looking for some other info, I see that maybe (but not for sure), these categories aren't generally approved? Or are they? There's no note on the project page about any subcategories, but the category pages themselves just tell you how to add articles to the subcategories (not "this categ has been deprecated; don't use" or something to that effect. What's the real scoop? Or is there a real scoop? Elf | Talk 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the correct template for all disambiguation pages is {{disambig}}. User:William Allen Simpson has been pushing his own invention "abbreviation pages" for a couple of months, but using any of the other templates is contrary to the guidelines. —Michael Z. 2006-03-03 17:30 Z

Kaffir (disambiguation)

Please help to resolve a disagreement about the content of Kaffir (disambiguation) page; see also Kaffir (disambiguation). Mukadderat 09:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Those pages are one and the same. I have added a comment to the talk page. Chris the speller 16:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I meant ".. see also Talk:Kaffir (disambiguation)". Silly typical cut and paste error. Mukadderat 18:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate naming of subcategories

As you may be aware, there are several subcategories of Category:Disambiguation. This question relates only the their naming, not validity of some of those subcategories.

The naming situation is a little eratic. Three examples I'll work with:

For consistency, I propose the alternate:

Thoughts?--Commander Keane 10:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So I'll go ahead and implement it then?--Commander Keane 15:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you allowed to have colons in page names? It seems like it might screw up the namespace system. Perhaps it would be safer to use Category:Disambiguation of three-letter acronyms etc. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Other than the question of whether or not colons can be used, it looks really good - it will be nice to have similarly styled names. -- Nataly a 19:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I also like similarly styled names. How about using notation used in many other WP contexts, something like:

Elf | Talk 19:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Elf gets it right. Disambiguation of disambiguation! —Wahoofive (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I love it :) -- Nataly a 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Elf's model is great.--Commander Keane 04:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of templates for disambiguation

I have some concern that the use of the tepmplates "otherpeople", "otherpersons", "otheruses", "otherplaces", etc. as can be found at Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates cannot be used if an article title cannot contain the superfluous "(disambiguation)". Do I have to refrain from using any of the templates noted there? HJKeats 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:TM/GENERAL, and see if that restricts you too much, or offers anything new. I think that the category looks a little like the Wild West. Chris the speller 17:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it could use some taming. I just would like to point out that by making those templates available (otherpeople, otherpersons, otheruses, otherplaces, etc.) it's actually promoting their use and hence it causes people to create a disambiguation page with the superfluous "(disambiguation)" in the title, just to get the red out. To point out the dilemma I have edited some articles using the template (George Cartwright (trader), George John Bond, William G. Adams) and notice that we get red links for article. That is why I had renamed a few articles to include it such that it did go to a disambiguation page. HJKeats 18:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

For George Adams and George Cartwright, there are only 2 articles for each name, and the {{otheruses4}} will do wonders, as explained in WP:D#Top links. For William Adams, there are a number of articles, so William Adams should be a dab page, and the other articles probably need no top links (hatnotes). For example, A person who types in "William G. Adams" probably does not want the English navigator who went to Japan. The problem here is that "William Adams" should probably be moved to "William Adams (navigator)" or something like that, then the "William Adams" redirect page should be turned into a dab page, and then about 60 articles that point to "William Adams" will need to have their links fixed, if they pertain to the navigator. Your point about those templates is a good one; I have done many disambig pages and never needed most of them. There is the temptation to get wrapped up in the templates before understanding the disambiguation guidelines. Chris the speller 21:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the explanation. It would seem that there isn't a quick fix that could possibly remove the superfluous "(disambiguation)" in the article title. Unless… the templates themselves get modified to eliminate the requirement for "(disambiguation)". As I had explained to Commander Keane, it was a eureka moment for me when I discovered the {{otherpersons}} and {{otherpeople}} templates. The application of the rules for disambiguation seems a bit complicated for now, so I'll just shy away from it until I get a better grasp of the procedure. Thanks again, HJKeats 23:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How about {{dablink}}? Just insert this before the closing double curly braces: |For other people named George Bond, see George Bond. This handles any situation, but is not needed in this case. By the way, I have created a George Bond redirect page, and pointed George John Bond and George Phillips Bond to each other with hatnotes. Good luck wherever you go editing. Chris the speller 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

TV episodes

So, if I wanted to dab an episode name, what should it be? Foo (Bar episode) or Foo (Bar)? If the latter, then I assume Foo (Bar episode) and Foo (bar character) if there's an ambiguity between a character and episode name?

My preference would be Foo (Bar episode) simply because it's the most specific and episode lists have been "plagued" with pointing to wrong articles by not being specific. Cburnett 05:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good questions, wrong page. The (fairly new) guidelines are at WP:TV-NAME.

Time to archive?

This page sure is getting long. Is it time to archive? Gflores ^Talk 18:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a chance I can get my delimma resolved before the topic gets archived? Use of templates for disambiguation. Thanks, HJKeats 19:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I archived the January discussions. I believe that left all open discussions intact; if someone thinks something was archived that is still active, please copy it back to this talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 19:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention for dab pages, case sensitive

I removed this line:

For example, "Term xyz", "Term Xyz", "Term X-Y-Z", and "Term X.Y.Z." should all redirect with the template {{R to disambiguation page}} to the shortest uppercase version ("Term XYZ") page.

Because I don't believe that there is consensus (or common sense) to using upper case as the naming convention. This only makes sense for abbreviations, but most dab pages that contain abbreviations also contain words and multi-case abbreviations. Discuss. SchmuckyTheCat 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The redirect target in the example clearly has the word Term capitalized normally as a proper noun, and only the obvious abbreviation XYZ capitalized. If you think it's unclear, then I suggest you improve the wording, but this seems quite sufficient to demonstrate the principle to me. It seems like an appropriate rule, allowing the usual exceptions, since abbreviations are normally capitalized in English, and POP no longer looks like an abbreviation if you write Pop or pop. —Michael Z. 2006-03-14 00:25 Z

Most disambiguation pages aren't abbreviations or acronyms. If the only thing existing on the page is acronyms, yes, it makes sense to be in upper case (that ceases to make sense as soon as someone adds a mixed case entry though). As most dab pages contain abbreviations mixed in with real words, it doesn't make sense for them to be at upper case pages. SchmuckyTheCat 00:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see an improvement in wording, so I restored the example. Upper case is the usual place for mixed case pages. Unless there's a good reason to change all those pages, probably best to have some guidance for consistency of expectations and searching.

--William Allen Simpson 14:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nominations

TfD nomination of Template:Cvdis

Template:Cvdis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

--William Allen Simpson 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Geodis

Template:Geodis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

--William Allen Simpson 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Hndis

Template:Hndis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

--William Allen Simpson 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments invited on Ptolemy disambiguation page

I would be grateful for advice on issues concerning Ptolemy (disambiguation). I have summarised the editing history and centralised links for discussions at Talk:Ptolemy (disambiguation). If you have any advice or comments, please leave them there. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This note was also left at the WikiProject. For centralisation, discussion can continue there.--Commander Keane 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the abbreviations section

I think the Lists of abbreviations, acronyms, apocopation, and initialism section doesn't make sense and doesn't belong here. I propose that it is simply removed from this page. In particular, These should be expanded beforehand - what's that on about?--Commander Keane 08:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think with "These should be expanded beforehand" it is trying to be said that the abbreviations should be expanded to what they stand for when they are listed on the disambiguation page. Most articles already have the title expanded anyway, so that's not really needed.

I would support removing the section, especially since it causes lots of confusion regarding whether disambiguation pages of abbreviations should be disambiguation pages (which they should). Taking it out should make it clear that they are. -- Nataly a 12:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it referred to the article text, where an editor should put "bombs are made from trinitrotoluene (TNT)" and then refer to TNT throughout the article, so the expansion precedes the initialism in the article. This way the astute reader does not need the "abbreviation" page, and the abbreviation page, by showing what links to it, can then be used to let editors find and fix articles where initialisms were not "expanded beforehand". This permits the "abbreviation" page to be encyclopedic (for browsing and wandering), not for navigating to the next article. I have seen William Allen Simpson assert that they are encyclopedic, and not disambig pages. I can go either way, but the first step is to firmly decide whether lists of abbreviation expansions are encyclopedic or navigational. If encyclopedic, they should not be dealt with by this guideline, and if navigational, this guideline should handle them about the same as other dab pages. But either way, that section should be taken out. Chris the speller 16:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was my understanding also. My own view is that they (the lists of abbreviations) are more like dab pages than not -- that is, *most* links made directly to the page are mistaken -- links should go to whatever the abbreviation expands to, and if there is no article, then either to a redlink for the expansion or to the nearest article that provides enough context to explain the abbreviation). older ≠ wiser 17:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section. On the other issue, the encyclopedic assertion for abbreviation pages seems to violate Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think abbreviation pages are purely for navigation, and thus are disambiguation pages.--Commander Keane 23:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And I reverted. It doesn't cause any confusion, because it clearly says "Such pages facilitate navigation and replace disambiguation pages." Abbreviation pages are not disambiguation pages.

--William Allen Simpson 23:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It sure causes confusion for me. This guideline says "disambiguations are paths leading to different topics". That sounds like navigation. To me, navigation is finding out how to get to your destination from where you are. If abbreviation pages are encyclopedic, and made for noodling around in, how do they facilitate navigation? Browsing and wandering are the activities of someone who has no destination. And if abbreviation pages are not for disambiguating, why does "Wikipedia:Disambiguation" delve into this? If abbreviation pages are not disambiguation pages, why don't these guidelines just say "Lists of abbreviations, acronyms, apocopation, and initialisms: Pages of common two- and three-character abbreviations appear similar to disambiguation pages, but they are not disambiguation pages. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations for details"? I think I know why, because that guideline is in the Disambiguation category. Figure that one out. Our terminology is killing us. Chris the speller 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it had been clarified that abbreviation pages are disambiguation pages, simply disambiguating abbreviations instead of actual words. -- Nataly a 20:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Abbreviation expansion has just had it's header changed from proposed guideline to guideline.--Commander Keane 00:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I was surprised by it, but then noticed that no other policy or guideline links to it. It was a result of skillful and extensive effort, but essentially by one person working in a vacuum, observed only by people who hang around the village pump. I really enjoyed the slap at people who put great effort into fixing disambig pages, for not having day jobs! Chris the speller 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the status of the deprecated templates still listed (albeit as deprecated) there? -- Nataly a 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Get consensus here if there's anything worth ading. Rich Farmbrough 22:00 22 April 2006 (UTC).

"Standard" for language/ethniciity?

Hello. I'm finding that some of the "new" pages showing up on Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_maintenance are a result of new dab pages being created to deal with language and ethnicity e.g. Hmong being moved to Hmong people then Hmong becoming a disambiguation page with 2 entries: Hmong people and Hmong language. None of the existing links to Hmong are updated, of course. This particular move has the comment "moved Hmong to Hmong people: Standard disambiguation formula for ethnicity/language" but I can't seem find this "standard", or even a discussion about it. Can someone tell me where it's located? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 12:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus of one

Mr William Allen Simpson is trying to sneak in a new policy instituting "abbreviation expansion" pages. Please express your opinion for or against the idea at Wikipedia talk:Abbreviation expansion. —Michael Z. 2006-04-02 04:36 Z

Question: Interlanguage disambiguation pages

This disambiguation information page does not address my question: When inserting interwiki links (mostly between English and German) I don't know whether I should enter the translated German word for the English disambiguation page, or the identical German word, if there is both. Often there is a German disambiguation page for both the translated and identical English word.

Example: "Air" has an English disambiguation page (Air (disambiguation)), as there is also a German dab page with this title (de:Air). But the German word for air is Luft. There's also a disambiguation page for Luft (de:Luft (Begriffsklärung)). So, when entering the German interwiki link for Air (disambiguation), should I add de:Air or de:Luft (Begriffsklärung) or both? GilliamJF 13:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki links for disambiguation pages are kind of odd ducks. The ambiguity is going to be different from language to language, and in many cases won't exist at all. Remembering that disambiguation pages are for navigation—getting to the page you meant to go to in the first place—rather than exploration, I think it almost doesn't matter, and in fact an argument could be made that disambiguation pages shouldn't have interwiki links at all, since someone isn't going to type "Air" into the en search box expecting to get a page on the de encyclopedia. --TreyHarris 15:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the "Air" example. Let me choose a better example to illustrate my dillema: The last name of Zimmerman has an English disambiguation page, and there's also a German interwiki page called Zimmermann. Zimmerman (or Carpenter) is the Anglicized version of the German last name, which (you guessed it) has a disambiguation page on both English and German. There is a good possibility that someone looking up Zimmermann (or Zimmerman) would expect to see a German interwiki link on the English page for a German last name. Should the interwiki be the identical last name on the German, or the translated version, or both? GilliamJF 06:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no absolute rule. Link to the page you think is most likely to be relevant, the one that comes closest to having equivalent content (give or take how big it is). - Jmabel | Talk 03:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Is anybody doing it right?

I was working on the dab page for "Harold Davis", and tried doing it right the whole way, per this guideline, amd ended up with 3 articles, each with hatnotes linking back to "Harold Davis (disambiguation)", which is a redirect page (with the "R to disambiguation page" template) that takes the reader to "Harold Davis", the actual dab page. Just about the time I felt good about this happy little family of 5 pages, I found two disturbing things:

One was that I am now supposed to add the "Harold Davis (disambiguation)" page to "Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages", so that it will not appear to be orphaned. Who is buying this line? I just put 3 hatnotes in the 3 articles, each linking to the (disambiguation) page, so I don't see it being orphaned very soon. And a count of additions showed that only 9 pages have been added to "Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages" in the last month. I bet there were hundreds of these pages were created in that month, and a whole lot of editors are not bothering to add them to the list, or simply don't know. It's not a lot of fun adding a link to these huge pages, and in alphabetical order, no less.

The second shock was looking at "Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages" and finding less than 12 dozen pages there, several of which I have recently added. Most editors have missed one or more steps: not adding disambig hatnotes to the articles; not creating a (disambiguation) page redirecting to the actual dab page; not using the "R to disambiguation page" template.

Here are 4 pertinent sentences from this guideline:

When there are several articles, include a link to a disambiguation page.
Pages that deliberately link to generic topic pages should use an unambiguous "(disambiguation)" page instead, to assist in distinguishing accidental links. In turn, the "(disambiguation)" page will redirect to the generic topic page.
In most cases, the generic term or phrase should be the title of the actual disambiguation page.
There is rarely a need for links directly to disambiguation pages—except from any primary topic. In most cases, links should point to the article that deals with the specific meaning intended.

I disagree with the last one, and in fact the first one disagrees with the last one. I used to think that any reader with good sense who finds "Armando Schulmklopfer (pedicurist)" by mistake would know to then go to "Armando Schulmklopfer" to find the dab page that links to the cryptologist and other people with that name, but another editor has convinced me that probably all articles that are linked to from a dab page should have hatnotes that link back to the (disambiguation) page. A new reader might not know. And would a reader want to type in "Armando Schulmklopfer" and hit the Go button? "Harold Davis" illustrates a problem that can happen when a reader searches using Google. "Harold Davis novel" finds one author, while "Harold Davis novels" finds the other. Without a disambig hatnote, how would the reader know about the other author? So I think each article should have a hatnote, as the first guideline sentence above specifies. I think we should add "in each article" to the end of that sentence.

Does this guideline ask too much of the editors that create dab pages? Should the guideline be made clearer, with step-by-step instructions and examples? Should I try to fix up the thousands of (disambiguation) pages that are missing, or that lack the "R to disambiguation page" template? Chris the speller 04:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding to lists: I don't think a human should ever have to add a page manually to one of these lists - it's too hard and a waste of time. I thought, if anything, these lists would be created from information extracted from a database dump.

Orphaning: not even sure why that matters, as long is it's in the dab category all will be well. Articles shouldn't be orphaned, but dab pages aren't articles.

The hatnotes: I'm not sure hatnotes back to the dab page is a good idea (indeed I remove them when I come across them). If someone picks the wrong option form a dab page they can use the back button on their browser. Having hatnotes on every page seems to be an attempt to second guess Google, or provide extra navigation. Should Feces have a hatnote leading back to Pooh (disambiguation)? Perhaps names are a special case, but even then, isn't a link to List of people by name better?--Commander Keane 08:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you're the one I'm often cursing when I land on the wrong page and can't find the disambiguation. :-) Readers enter incorrectly disambiguated pages via other routes than the disambiguation page—Google, the Go box to primary topic, and incorrect links. While I agree that Feces shouldn't have a hatnote to Pooh (disambiguation), articles that have articles with nearly the same name should have a hatnote back to the disambiguation page. It is a seasoned Wikipedian indeed who, upon typing a link and discovering it doesn't go where they intend it, will try typing a "(disambiguation)" even if there's no link to a disambiguation page. Why don't you nominate {{otheruses}} and {{otheruses2}} for deletion so we can hash out whether they should be used or not? :-) --TreyHarris 16:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Commander, I was with you right up to that last part. Yes, I think names are a special case, but falling back on LoPbN? You just said we should not have to add pages manually to lists, and LoBbN is very sparse, nearly useless. Even if the reader knew about LoPbN, and most do not, asking them to drill down 3 or 4 levels is a bit much, when one click on a hatnote would help them. I'm not trying to second-guess Google, just showing that a reader using Google to find an author might find "H. L. Davis" when they wanted "Harold A. Davis", and it seems a pity not to give them a clue that there is another similarly-named novelist. I was deleting hatnotes when another editor admonished and enlightened me. Putting a hatnote linking back to the dab page seems to be a good way to AVOID second-guessing how a reader might get to that page inadvertently. BTW, I more often use {{otheruses4}} for people names, as I don't think "For other uses" strikes the right tone when speaking of people. "H. L. Davis" shows a typical use. Chris the speller 16:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to fear me as the bane of your existence TreyHarris, I will try to avoid removing any more of the bonus hatnotes now that I know some people put them in, and I only removed a few anyhow (and never actively sought them out).
Otheruses templates: The purpose of {{otheruses}} and {{otheruses2}} etc is for essential navigation to disambiguation pages, for example as seen at Alchemy. Any other use of the the templates is strictly off-label, such as the bonus linking seen at the top of all pages leading from Harold Davis.
LoPbN: Ignore what I said about LoPbN, that's another issue (I think LoPbN is the solution for messes like Brown (disambiguation), but that's another story)
I haven't been convinced that these extra hatnotes are beneficial. Disambiguation is all about essential navigation. The extra hatnotes appear to be adding an extra level of navigational assistance/hindrance (extra maintenance, and little benefit, since we are hoping that their search failed and they have arrived at the wrong page). Perhaps names are a special case - I might be able accept that (although it's not disambiguation - it a higher class of navigation in my eyes). Anything you can bring up (like what this seasoned Wikipedian said etc) to sway my opinion would be appreciated. --Commander Keane 18:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm partial to a combination of hatnote usage - use when they are necessary, but if they're not, leave them out.

Times when they seem useful:

When you only have two articles and no disambiguation page, a hatnote is important on the page without the parenthetical identifier, such as with PACU and Pacu (fish)
From a primary article to a disambiguation page (otheruses and such)

Times when they don't seem useful:

On any page that has a parenthetical identifier. It's unlikely that anyone will come across a page of the like (such as Field (heraldry)) without either going from the disambiguation page, or going from a page linking to it. I can't see anyone linking to Field (heraldry) by mistake, so the likelyhood of someone mistakenly ending up there is very unlikely. Hence why a hatnote would not be needed.

However, it's likely that I'm doing this all wrong! So this discussion is good. :) -- Nataly a 18:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Field (heraldry) probably needs no hatnote, even if a reader found it via a Google search; it's either going to look like what the reader wanted, or it's not, and the reader won't dive into the article to see if there's a hatnote, he or she will just do a different Google search. But the Harold Davis novelists are different, and I think people names need some special instructions in WP:D; there are already some differences for people in MoS:DP. Chris the speller 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I've seen enough bots and AWB scripts do crazy things with automated disambiguation that I wouldn't at all be surprised if someone landed at Field (heraldry) when they should have gone to Field (agriculture). But point taken. Okay, so I think I'm hearing these items of agreement:

Hatnotes should be used on the main page Title when there is a disambiguation page at Title (disambiguation).
In titles containing ordinary words plus a parenthetical disambiguator (for example, Field (heraldry)), a hatnote should usually not be given to a disambiguation page (but see below).
However, if there is no disambiguation page, there should be hatnotes on each article pointing to the other articles with the same pre-parenthetical title.

Are we all in agreement on these? I think Chris is right in regards to names, because people tend to pick whatever facet of the person occurs to them in picking a parenthetical disambiguator, and it's not at all uncommon that you find two or more people with the same ambiguous name where one of them has been given an ambiguous disambiguator too!

But I don't think this problem is limited to names. I'm thinking about disambiguators like (company), (science), and so on—it's entirely possible that the title will still be ambiguous. So what do you think? Hatnotes to the main disambiguation page, or hatnotes to the other (or others, hopefully not too many more than one!) still-ambiguous page(s)? --TreyHarris 22:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all three! You have eloquently put what I tried to say. :) -- Nataly a 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all three, but the second does not always apply well to articles about people. Here's a point to consider (a made up example): Bobby Schulmklopfer (cricketer) should have a hatnote back to the disambig page, which might be Bob, Bobby, Robert or Roberto Schulmklopfer. Any of us would see the parenthetical qualifier and assume that there IS a dab page, but could not be sure WHERE it is. Chris the speller 01:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

True. Can we make a special cases section for people names? -- Nataly a 11:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Related proposal

It looks like Wikipedia:Hatnotes is proposing changes to these guidelines. -- Beland 16:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this here. I would recommend that any users involved in the discussion above express their opinions at Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes, so that opinions of many disambiguators can be considered. -- Nataly a 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Otheruses4

Template:Otheruses4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

I have notice Links to pages that haven’t been written yet on disambiguation pages. I have also seen people take those links to pages not yet written and change it to an external link to the main Sight on that topic. I think it is ok to have a Red link because it will encourage people to write the article, however I think I remember somewhere there should not be external links on a disambiguation page.

Could we make a section in this page clarifying what to do when you come across an external link or an unwritten article on a disambiguation page? I don’t want to undo the edit I am thinking of until I know what the policy is.--E-Bod 03:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Look on MoS:DP and its talk page: "External links should rarely, if ever, be given entries in disambiguation pages. Including them as comments or on a talk page is a way to mention URLs that might be helpful in the future." There is also a section named "Redlinks". Chris the speller 04:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I was thinking about that artile but i just disn't remember where on WP it was.--E-Bod 20:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Michigan highways

Can some of the disambiguation people weigh in here on the best disambiguation for a highway in the U.S. state of Michigan named M-X (where X is a number)? Thanks. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 11:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

When to not disambiguate?

Is there a policy regarding whether or not there should be a disambig page if the whole page only has one link that isn't red? It seems to me that the purpose of disambig is to disambiguate between articles that exist.

Anyway, the article I'm asking about is EPF. Should there be a disambig page there? On top of that, does anyone actually use EPF to mean ex post facto? Jesuschex 03:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of three(/two/one/four/five) letter acronym pages! Some people (not me) think these pages are "special". Anyways, nothing links there Special:Whatlinkshere/EPF so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Ewlyahoocom 07:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahab needs disambiguation

I'm new at this, so I'm not exactly sure how to do this...

I think there a need for a disambiguation page for "Ahab" which could refer to:

a King of Israel
prophet
Ahab, from X-Men comics
Captain Ahab, from the novel Moby Dick
Captain Ahab, Band

and others.

At the bottom of the entry for (1) already has a start for alternative meanings and (4) is a disambiguation page for "Captain Ahab".

Clemwang 18:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahab&diff=53187791&oldid=53185775

Ahab (disambiguation)

/wangi 19:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

List of comics characters sharing the same name

We've got a few comic characters where the character (comics) page is a further disambig page, for example, Ares (comics), Thor (comics), Hercules (comics), Dennis the Menace and Sandman (comics). I would like to create some form of category to place them in, perhaps Category:List of comics characters sharing the same name?

I think the answer is much more simple than this - put them onto the disambiguation page that they belong on! There is no need for a separate disambiguation page just for the comics-related entries, that is why there is Longer lists section at the Manual of Style for Disambiguation Pages. Thor (comics) and Hercules (comics) are separate cases, because they are not truly disambiguation pages, but Ares (comics) and Sandman (comics) should definitly be put back into Ares (disambiguation) and Sandman. In fact, Sandman already contains all the information from Sandman (comics). My goodness! What a mess of disambiguation pages. :) Appropriate cleanup tags have been added, which I will likely take care of. -- Nataly a 23:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hold up! The reason they are needed is that people do link to these pages when wikilinking, they will thus otherwise get created and these issues need to be looked at before action is taken. What sort of thing are you suggesting? Hiding Talk 11:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that for almost all of the links to these pages, they could/should be corrected to link to a specific comic book character, rather than the page that lists all the different characters. The title "Sandman (comics)", for example, seems to be linked to when referring to any reference of "The Sandman", when it really should be specified which Sandman is being referred to. (Don't worry, I haven't made any changes yet! I was just throwing my general impression out there). -- Nataly a 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So what would the page at Sandman (comics) become? A redirect to the disambig page? Sorry if I came across a bit stressed, your enthusiasm scared me. I'm not used to seeing it in the corners I inhabit. Hiding Talk 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I was just overwhelmed with the disambiguation. :) That's exactly what I was thinking, making it a redirect to Sandman. Does that seem appropriate? -- Nataly a 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sound brilliant. I'll add it to my to do list. The position is that if they simply act as a disambig page, then redirect them to the redirect page, but if they act as a summary page, like Thor (comics) and Hercules (comics), that's fine and they can be kept? Hiding Talk 13:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Let me know if you'd like any help (I'll try to be less enthusiastic ;) ). -- Nataly a 16:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh god, don't lose that enthusiasm on my account. I should be alright, but if you turn one up feel free to have a go. Hiding Talk 18:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Are dab pages for readers or editors?

The disambiguation guidelines say: Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that closely relate to various meanings of a particular term (some of which might logically utilize said term in a titular fashion). This makes clear that dab pages are there to help the reader find a page. But there is no mention of the fact that editors also use dab pages to find the correct article to link to (either while writing an article, or when [as part of the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project] cleaning up after someone who linked to a dab page without checking).

The point I want to raise here is that dab pages that are written for readers are not as comprehensive as the ones that would be written to help an editor disambiguate. What do I mean by this? Well, for an editor to dab correctly, the editor might need a full list of the meanings of the word (and wiktionary often doesn't help here), plus possibly also the articles containing the word as part of the title. This is because the original editor at the page pointing to the dab page might have typed iris diaphragm instead of iris diaphragm, or something similar. Hence the "part of a title" bit is helpful for editors correcting dabs.

Given this, is there a case for relaxing the guidelines slightly? Carcharoth 17:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You can put these extra tips on the talk page. For example Talk:Italian. Editors read the talk pages, readers don't - this seems like a good idea. --Commander Keane 17:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh the irony! :-) Did you see that someone added in Italian cuisine the edit after your one that tidied up the dab page? But seriously, thanks for the tip, I will consider doing this in future. Carcharoth 20:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Using that example of Italian, would I be right that the dab entries should be ones where you would say it in normal speech, eg. "I am Italian", "I am learning Italian", "I like eating Italian", but the chess example fails this test, as only a chess player would say "I played the Italian last night"? Carcharoth 20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Compare that to pages like Dental or Alternative, which simply include every article whose title includes those words -- most of which are never, ever referred to as simply a "dental" or "alternative". Ewlyahoocom 20:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems like those pages would be candidates to be cleaned up...? -- Nataly a 21:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically they do not include every article... For that have a look at articles starting with "alternative" and articles starting with "dental"... :-) But seriously, it is sometimes unclear where to draw the line, and I find AllPages listings like that to be very helpful. It is just a pity that they cannot be referred to in article namespace (it is self-referential). On the other hand, we could put links to listings like this on the disambiguation page's talk page. I wonder if there is a way to get a list of all articles containing a word, ie. not just starting with a word? Browsing the list generated by a search for the term, such as here for "dental", is the closest I can get. That yields Yamahachi_Dental for example. I just think that tips like this should be advertised more widely so that editors are more likely to link to the correct pages in the first place, rather than leaving it to the dab squad to clean up. In any case, something like this could be added to a collection of tips for those cleaning up dab pages. Carcharoth 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What might be an idea, is having a template to put at the top of talk pages for dab pages. The template would give useful instructions, and would have links to the Prefix index and to What links here, and to a Wikipedia search for the term, all using a "PAGE NAME" template. Would this be a good idea? Carcharoth 22:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-referencing shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle, so long as the self-reference is identified as such. Links to Special:Allpages can be wrapped within the {{Selfref}} template. For example, This makes it relatively simple for responsible re-users of Wikipedia content to remove the self-reference. older ≠ wiser 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I wonder if such a link could become useful on disambiguation pages? The main topics appropriate for the page would be covered in-depth, but then there is still the link to everything else with a similar title (true there would be some overlap). Feasable? Or maybe only on pages where it is an issue? I'm just brainsrotming. -- Nataly a 11:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to note the http://www.wikiwax.com search site is an invaluable tool when sprucing up dab pages -- it finds all uses of a word within a title, not just at the beginning. Of course it turns up lots (perhaps a majority) of things that shouldn't be included on a dab, but it often finds important links that have been overlooked too. It would be great if something like this could be integrated into Wikipedia, or a WP toolbar or something... — Catherine\^talk 01:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested change to guideline

I want to propose a wording change to part of the disambiguation guidelines:

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Dictionary_definitions

The current entry reads: "Dictionary definitions don't belong here. However, there are templates for linking to Wiktionary. (See Wikipedia:How to link to Wikimedia projects#Wiktionary.)"

Following the Village Pump discussion here, I would like to propose the following wording change (add bit in italics): "Dictionary definitions don't belong here. However, there are templates for linking to Wiktionary. (See Wikipedia:How to link to Wikimedia projects#Wiktionary.) If the dictionary definition does not exist on Wiktionary, it should be added to Wiktionary or labelled for transwikking, not just removed."

What do people think?

If this is acceptable, there would be a need to link to something explaining how to transwiki stuff. Does anyone know of a suitable set of guidelines?

Please also see the related proposal here. Thanks.Carcharoth 13:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with your addition, but I'd like to also modify the rather inflexible dictum "Dictionary definitions don't belong here" -- I think this is profoundly unhelpful. There are many cases where a brief definition is quite helpful (and may be all that is needed in cases where there isn't specific article -- or where there may be several articles on specialized uses, but nothing on the more general meaning). I think it is stupid to remove a very brief general definition and replace it with a link to Wiktionary where the entry in many cases is either missing altogether or is even less helpful than the brief definition that was removed. I completely agree that disambiguation pages should NOT become dictionary entries trying to cover all possible nuances and other aspects of dictionary entries. But I think we do readers a disservice by forcing them to go to Wiktionary (which is often inadequate) when a brief general definition is enough for them either understand the gist of the term or to determine whether they want to pursue the meaning further. older ≠ wiser 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's a way that we can encourage people to create articles (even stubs) for dictionary definitions that are still encyclopedic? That way, the important definitions can still be included, and they can have an actual article. The problem with including dictionary definitions without articles on a disambiguation page is that the disambiguation page will then be linked to, which isn't really idea. -- Nataly a 17:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think encouraging dictdef stubs is the way to go. The problem you mention could be addressed in part by Carcharoth's suggestion above -- i.e., links to the disambiguation page where the intended target is clearly not an existing article but definitional in nature would be linked to Wiktionary instead of the disambiguation page (or the misplaced link could simply be removed--though a better long-term solution might be if there were an easier way to get to Wiktionary definitions by simply right-clicking on a word in an article or something similar). And the proposal would encourage taking responsibility for ensuring that appropriate definitions exist in Wiktionary. See, the thing is, no matter how rigorously we patrol the links to disambiguation pages, there will always be more links created. Besides that, there will be always be casual browsers, and although the primary purpose of disambiguation pages is not to facilitate casual browsing, I don't see how providing brief (and I emphasize brief again) definitions will detract from that primary purpose. older ≠ wiser 21:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't like the idea of linking to disambiguation pages just for that definition (probably rollover from too much work at WP:DPL :) ), but if it were standardized in an appropriate way, and the emphasis on brief made very clear, it could possibly work. -- Nataly a 05:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

But I agree with you that pages should not link to disambiguation pages only for a definition -- those links would either be removed or changed to Wiktionary links. But we cannot completely control how people get to disambiguation pages. Consider this hypothetical: a reader comes across a term "foo" (doesn't even have to be in an article--I know many people for whom Wikipedia has become the first reference source that they consult for their offline work). But Foo is a disambiguation page and only contains links to a few specialized articles--not a word about the general meaning. Perhaps there's a link to Wiktionary, and it may or may not have anything. I'd consider this a failure of Wikipedia for the person trying to understand the general sense of what "foo" is.

IMO, I think such brief definitions (or perhaps better, contextualizations) would only really be needed in those cases where there are multiple articles about specialized uses of a term but no article about the general meaning. Providing some contextualization would make it clear that the list of specialized terms is not exhaustive and that if you are looking for more information about the general meaning you might want to check Wiktionary (or some other dictionary). older ≠ wiser 11:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If I understand, there would be short dictionary definitions were appropriate, but they would be for the purpose of understanding once someone got to the page, not to be linked to regularly? Providing I understand correctly, that sounds pretty good. -- Nataly a 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguating phrases and names - proposed change

The guideline currently reads: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)."

I suggest that the aforementioned paragraph be deleted as it does not reflect the reality on disambiguation pages in that there are numerous pages that disambiguate articles that only share part of a title. For instance Aaronovitch disambigs Ben Aaronovitch and David Aaronovitch (this is only one of countless disambig pages that disambig based on a family name), Ace (disambiguation) includes numerous articles that have other additional words in the title, Democracy (disambiguation) disambiguates a number of phrases that include the word democracy. Love & Hope 14:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The guidline is not meant to prohibit any links that only include the word in question. Rather, it is meant to deter the adding of unneccesary links that may just have the word in the name. If an article is likely to be confused with the term being disambiguated, it is generally appropriate to appear on the page. You are correct that reality does not necessarily reflect this; Ace (disambiguation) has certainly gone a bit overboard, and should in fact be merged with ACE (which I'm about to bring up below), as well as cleaned up. -- Nataly a 18:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ace (disambiguation) and ACE

Per the page naming conventions at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Ace (disambiguation) and ACE should be merged. Before that happens, though, it seems that it might be good to clean them up a bit, as they are both very long disambiguation pages. As addressed above, Ace (disambiguation) contains a very, very large number of links, many of which may not be necessary to be on the page. It definitly needs some trimming down. Any opinions on the best way to go about this, since it's a bit more complicated than the norm? -- Nataly a 18:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Primary topic links

I know this has been discussed before, but I'm confused by why the page contains the following guidance:

Ensure that the "(disambiguation)" page links back to an unambiguous page name. The unambiguous page name should redirect to the primary topic page. This assists future editors (and automated processes).

For example, the primary topic Rome links to Rome (disambiguation), where there is a link back via Rome, Italy (rather than directly to Rome).

This really seems counterintuitive, and if there is some rationale for doing this, it really should be explained, rather than simply postulated as if a decree from on high. What is the point of having Rome (disambiguation) link to Rome, Italy instead of Rome? I know there had at one time been some attempt to describe a "Disambiguated Primary Topic" (DPT), which if I understand correctly was supposed to make it easier to identify mistaken links to Rome that were actually meant for some other topic. At least I think that is the rationale for why the text above was added to the guideline. The way it was supposed to work, IIRC, was that intentional links to a primary topic like Rome were supposed to go through the redirect at Rome, Italy. Under this theory, it was supposed to be easier to monitor for mistaken links to the primary topic.

But this does not at all reflect actual practice. If you look at What links here for these pages, there are over 9000 links to Rome, while there are about 300 to Rome, Italy. Is there some other reason for the disambiguation page to link to a redirect instead of to the primary topic? If not, can we get rid of these statements (that I've always found a little confusing, but really didn't pay much attention to). If there is some good reason for keeping this instruction, can we add some explanation to clarify this? older ≠ wiser 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I could see it being used along the same lines as the "no piping" guideline, but it does seem to make a lot more sense to link to the redirect in that case. I don't see any reason why not. -- Nataly a 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad. — Jun. 14, '06 [22:14] <freak|talk>

No problem, Anyone else care to comment on this? If there are no objections within a week, I will remove the text quoted above from the guideline. older ≠ wiser 22:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to link to the redirect rather than to the primary topic. If we have a disambiguation page, that means that the name is ambiguous, i.e. several entities have legitimate claims to use the name. It doesn't really help anyone if we link, on a disambiguation page, to the ambiguous name. --Smack (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really help anyone if we link, on a disambiguation page, to the ambiguous name. But by the same logic, it doesn't really help anyone to link to a redirect to a topic instead of directly. What is the benefit or harm either way? The real detriment in my mind is that this guidance is not only rather confusing, but is also, in my very unscientific estimation, rather widely ignored. Guidelines are supposed to reflect actual practice. Or in those cases where guidelines are prescribing a practice that is not generally recognized, IMO there should be a very strong argument in favor of making the change. I don't see that there is a very good argument here. older ≠ wiser 23:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"List of highways numbered X"

I've been working on the disambiguations like Route 1 (which has redirects from Highway 1, State Road 1, etc) recently, and I realized that they might work better at titles like list of highways numbered 1. Can someone coment on whether this would be a good idea? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to keep them at the shorter titles. Farm to Market roads would, in fact, be routes, but I wouldn't consider them highways. I think it would be more meaningful to think of these as disambiguation pages rather than lists. Note that we don't have a List of people named Dylan, we just have Dylan, a disambiguation page, even though some people link to it accidentally, but they usually mean Bob Dylan. — Apr. 24, '06 [20:16] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Can I have some more input on this, please? --SPUI (T - C) 15:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I agree with you. This whole collection of pages needs a makeover. My thoughts:

I suppose that Farm to Market Roads are technically "highways", even if they are, in reality, narrow, spindling death traps teeming with blind curves and stray cattle.
Likewise, then, any route maintained at the state level or higher, would surely be considered a "highway numbered X", whether it is dubbed "State Route X" or "State Road X" or whatever.
However, this would, I assume, exclude things like "County Road X" and "Xth Street/Avenue".
But, if these are moved to "List of highways numbered X", are they still considered disambiguation pages? In practice, they function as such, and will continue to do so, as all the common road naming conventions, sans geographical identifier, will redirect to these lists, as explained by SPUI. {{Roaddis}} currently populates Category:Disambiguation (I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but it can easily be changed with one edit), and I even went so far as to modify User:Lupin/popups.js so it gives disambiguating functionality to pages containing this footer template.
Furthermore, regardless of whether Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title is or is not a subcategory of Category:Disambiguation, it should probably be changed to Category:Lists of highways sharing the same number, Category:Lists of similarly numbered highways, or somesuch. Making this change, as well as moving the list pages, would explicitly:
1. Exclude numbered non-highways (e.g. County Road X, Xth Avenue, X Mile Road) from each list page.
2. Exclude disambiguation pages for non-numerical highway names, (e.g. Western Freeway) from the category.

If nobody is bothered by any of this (or reading any of this), let's go ahead and do this some time soon. — Jun. 14, '06 [14:20] <freak|talk>

Without taking a position on the merits of the idea at this point, I predict that most or all pages thus moved will eventually end up listed on AfD as listcruft. —phh (^t/_c) 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Any disambiguation page could be; please be constructive. --SPUI (T - C) 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PHenry, are you saying, then, that the titles of the pages carry that much weight with regards to the value of the product as a whole? — Jun. 14, '06 [21:36] <freak|talk>

Keeping them tagged with a {{disambig}} would probably help to keep them off AfD. (The tags would serve as proof that the lists serve a useful purpose.) -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for it, definitely. Just to clarify, Freakofnurture, though, I would include numbered county routes. Roads that happen to be named with a number, though, should not be included. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two types of numbered county routes - those that are signed with shields (typically only the main roads in the county) and all rural roads maintained by the county (often signed with standard street signs). I'd possibly include the former, as locals may call them simply Route X, but not the latter. --SPUI (T - C) 21:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the county roads in anybody else's neck of the woods, but the ones around here are built to lower standards (and perhaps in some cases, narrower) than the slab of cement in front of my garage, and not "highways" by any stretch of the imagination. — Jun. 14, '06 [22:12] <freak|talk>

County Route G4 (California), County Route 549 (New Jersey) - different states do stuff differently. --SPUI (T - C) 22:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I seriously need to buy a camera, then. — Jun. 14, '06 [23:10] <freak|talk>

Seriously though, does anybody care to weigh in on the *gasp* actual naming issue? — Jun. 14, '06 [22:15] <freak|talk>

I, like SPUI, would include county routes signed with shields, but not the rural roads merely maintained by the county.

As for the naming issue, as I said, I'm all for List of highways numbered X -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would include county routes in lists of numbered routes provided they are not rural unmaintained roads but major thruways. For instance your example from New Jersey at "549" could be included if there are infact other routes numbered 549. Don't know about the california example however since they don't actually have a number but a letter number combo. Does anyone know if that is confined to only california? If so then it's probably unique and doesn't need any disambig. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also as for the naming issue, I think they are better served as disabmig pages at the original "Route X" designation. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you this, the List of highways numbered 202 pages isn't only U.S. Route 202, however when you try to find other Route 202's(like California, for instance), you'll only wind up on US 202. How can I fix this? (DanTD 13:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

First name disambiguation

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#First name disambiguation. `'mikka (t) 00:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation "deprecated"?

Have I seriously been out of the loop, or is User talk:Jdforrester#"a great many find them an ugly intrusion" incorrect? --SPUI (T - C) 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where this "strong" deprecation of parentheses has happened, given that the style pages are loaded with recommendations to use them. FreplySpang 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any form of "weak" deprecation, even. — Jun. 19, '06 [16:57] <freak|talk>

It is true that where appropriate natural language disambiguation is to be preferred over artificial forms (like either parenthetical or comma-separated or unusual circumlocutions). However, IMO, it is extremely inaccurate to say that parenthetical disambiguation has been deprecated. older ≠ wiser 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bkonrad. There are cases when where parenthetical disambiguation is not the preferred method. However, I think Jdforrester is grossly exaggerating to say that they are strongly deprecated. There are still a great many cases when parenthetical disambiguation is the best method. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Should links be the page title?

On a disambiguation page, should the links be what the page title is? I don't know what it's called when you make a link that SAYS one thing and goes to a different page, but should that be used? I did that in Let's Go, but I'm not sure if I should have ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuschex (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping suggests Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed (for example, Moment (physics)). In many cases, this may be all the user needs to distinguish the article.. Besides the piped links, ideally each line in a disambiguation page should only have one blue link. Disambiguation pages are primarily intended to help a reader find the intended article as quickly as possible, with extra information and tangential links kept to a minimum. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

new disambiguation subcategories

In case you don't have Category:Disambiguation on your watchlist, there's some discussion at Category talk:Disambiguation#Secondary disambiguations of some new subcategories which may be of interest (or concern). older ≠ wiser 22:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Other uses" of what?

Currently, all our "other uses" templates read

For other uses, see . . .

Now, I think this is fairly nonsensical. Other uses of what? If I see "For other uses" on Honey, without further qualifications, I'm going to assume it means "for other uses of honey" (the substance), not "for other uses of honey" (the word). At various times some of the templates said different things, such as "for other uses of the term", which I think is much clearer: for other uses of the term honey, or other uses of the term shotgun, or whatever.

However, many people have objected to this. User:Netoholic, User:Michael Hardy, User:Cantus, and User:Brian0918 have inserted such language into {{otheruses}}, and been reverted by User:Bkonrad, User:SimonP, User:Naive cynic, User:Ed g2s, User:Mikkalai, User:24.224.153.40, and User:Docu; I added it to {{otheruses4}}, and User:Freakofnurture lately changed it to the older wording. It was discussed several times on Template talk:Otheruses, but the latest one was several months ago, and it wasn't particularly extensive.

So, there would be a number of ways to rephrase it. One is "For other uses of the term", which I personally favor, but some seem to dislike it. User:Netoholic and User:Khoikhoi both said something to the effect of, "The previous wording is best because that template may be used on articles, like names or places, that can't properly be described as a 'term'" (Netoholic's words). I think this misses the point: disambig templates refer to other uses of the page's title, which is always a term. However, since the entire point of this exercise is to make a header whose meaning is intuitively obvious, the fact that a lot of people seem to object to that wording is good reason to avoid it.

Anyway, start with the basics: who here in some way dislikes the "for other uses, see . . ." wording? The goal, presumably, is for the template's meaning to be as readily understandable as possible, while keeping aesthetic concerns in mind. I think that this template is probably confusing to people not used to it (i.e., not us), and I have no aesthetic issue with adding some words, so I don't like the current wording. What does everyone else think? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. "For other uses of this term" is far more clear. Also, if the objection about using it on templates, etc. is valid, those much less common uses can have their own template. The vast majority of uses is on articles, and the purpose of Wikipedia is the encyclopedia articles. —Centrx→talk • 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, fully agree. In fact I would say opposition to is probably a more minor example of an increasing trend I have noticed (even among experienced editors) towards the idea that Wikipedia is a dictionary (i.e.: for giving senses of terms not explanations of concepts).

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 13:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the context (the word "(disambiguation)", and the proximity to the opening paragraph) it is highly unlikely that anyone would misunderstand "For other uses of Honey" to mean the wrong thing. If it is judged to be a real risk on a certain article, then a custom message can be used, but there's no need to change the default template. ed g2s • talk 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

While there's not going to be a risk of genuine confusion, some readers may be momentarily disoriented before they get used to it. Do you actively object to an alternative wording, or just think it's unnecessary? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Weakly disagree. Even if the part "of the term" is not explicitly included, I don't have any trouble implicitly understand "for other uses" as "for other uses of the term". I don't really buy the honey argument, because I would not think of Honey (disambiguation) as something used for describing the other uses of honey. In all, that makes the part "of the term" redundant. --KPbIC 03:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you as far as not personally being confused. However, we do have people who have claimed they have been confused. Perhaps that's reason enough. Powers 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"For other meanings of the term" would be a better phrase IMO and AFAIK it is the intention. The word "other uses" is way too general: among the "uses" of the term "Honey" may well be tattooing it on tits. `'mikka (t) 18:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see much of a problem with the phrasing "For other uses, see X (disambiguation)." While I still think brevity is preferable, I don't really feel all that strongly about it any more and no longer object to rephrasing it as "For other uses of the term, see X (disambiguation)." I think a large part of my previous objections were, at least in part, a reaction to the rather irritating and condescending manner of some of the proponents. older ≠ wiser 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"otheruses" templates should be abolished

No matter how you phrase an "otheruses" template, there are some articles in which it will look ridiculous, and therefore the editor chooses among many different "otheruses" templates. But if there are so many, there shouldn't be such templates at all; there should just be a style manual with examples of ways to phrase disambiguation notices in various different circumstances, using, e.g. the "dablink" template. Most "otheruses" templates refuse to let the editor choose between a capital and a lower-case initial letter, and I find that obnoxious. I do remember that one of the many "otheruses" templates actually produced results that looked like something an intelligent person could write, but it couldn't be universally used (I don't remember now which one it was). Michael Hardy 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

People appear to disagree with you on the issue of capitalizing articles' names (although have you brought it up somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style?). There's no need to insult them. And a lack of standardization just looks unprofessional, with every article having a different look. And finally, a template like {{otheruses4}} works for the overwhelming majority of articles — I'd welcome counterexamples. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Simetrical. {{Otheruses4}} is probably the best and most generally useful. {{For}} is good too. There was a big debate about deleting the former in favor of the latter earlier this year, and thankfully it failed. -- Slowmover 20:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I never proposed lack of standardization; quite the contrary, I proposed a style manual for such disambiguation links. What makes you think I ever proposed a lack of standardization? Michael Hardy 18:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates are extremely useful for standardization, and should not be discarded. They can have enough variety to fit almost all articles; the remainder might qualify for {{dablink}}, sure, but the vast majority can use some combination of parameters sent to {{otheruses4}} or perhaps {{two other uses}}. Case should be dictated only if there's agreement that it should be (I don't think it's a good idea; consider eBay), but that's largely irrelevant to the question of whether to use templates at all. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

For page naming conventions, WP:D states the following:

When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used.

However, Titan rocket is actually a redirect to Titan (rocket family), and according to the page history was never located at any other name. (The redirect was created December 20, 2003.)

My question is simple... When there is a more complete name that is equally clear, should that be used?

If so, why does the example used not follow this convention? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This item is not clear at all. If "another word" were "equally clear", this guideline would mean both that it should be "Cheque" replaced with "Check" and that "Check" should be replaced with "Cheque". —Centrx→talk • 05:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It means "another word" that is "equally clear" and doesn't have a name conflict. That's why Check could be replaced with Cheque, because the latter doesn't have any other meanings while the former does. Powers 12:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what the statement is trying to say. My issue isn't with the "another word" part (Check vs. Cheque); it's with "more complete names." Why isn't Titan (rocket family) moved to Titan rocket as the guideline suggests? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I believe it is because "rocket family" is more accurate than simply "rocket." Titan is not simply a single rocket, but rather a family of rockets. So, while having the redirect there makes sense, the main article should be located at the more accurate title. Hope this helps. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but then shouldn't it be at Titan rocket family instead (without the parentheses)? Let me try again to rephrase my question...

Basically the way I'm reading that line, it's trying give examples when parentheses should not be used for disambiguation. For example, when there is another word that is equally clear (and doesn't have a name conflict), that should be the title of the article: Cheque instead of Check (financial instrument) or something like that.

It also seems to be indicating that when there is a more complete name that is equally clear, that should be used instead of parentheses: Titan rocket instead of Titan (rocket); or Titan rocket family instead of Titan (rocket family).

So why is it Titan (rocket family) instead? Is the naming of that article an error, or is use of this convention discouraged? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think the difference might be in how you want to present the subject in prose. If you wanted the opening sentence to read, "The Titan rocket family were U.S. expendable rockets..." then you would use the form that you are suggesting. However, the authors there seem to have chosen, "Titan was a family of U.S. expendable rockets..." which would indicate the parenthetical disambiguation. I think the point is probably not to overthink it, use what makes sense, and recognize that there are probably two or three forms that are technically correct. If you can avoid parenthesis it might be best, but in general its not a very big deal and shouldn't be done at the expense of well-flowing prose. After all, how many normal readers of Wikipedia know what the real title of an article is and what the redirect is? All they care is that you can type in Titan rocket or United States of America and get to what they were looking for. :oP EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I suspect that the phrase "Titan rocket family" is not very commonly used. It is descriptive of how that group of rockets are related, but chances are the most familiar nomenclature is 1) simply "Titan" followed by "Titan rocket" followed by the specific type of Titan rocket. Google shows only 115 hits for the exact phrase "Titan rocket family" -wikipedia By comparison, "Titan rocket" -wikipedia has 28,500. Using Titan rocket -wikipedia, which only matches pages containing both words Titan and rocket returns 2,340,000 hits. The most familiar name for the rockets would probably be simply "Titan", but that is clearly ambiguous. What is perhaps the second best choice, "Titan rocket" is also ambiguous because the term describes several different related rockets. The parenthetical form allows the most familiar term as the base (thus enabling use of the pipe trick). While some editors might see the guidance as deprecting parenthetical disambiguation, I think that is only applicable when there is a clear, unambiguous and accurate natural language alternative. older ≠ wiser 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

~~Okay, I get what everyone's saying. But then I suppose the next step is to choose a different example to use in the guideline? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)~~

All right, thanks for the response. I understand what everyone's saying, and that's basically what I assumed had happened with the Titan article. That being said, I think we need to rework the section I cited at the beginning of this discussion, if for no other reason than to make the example valid.

My proposed rephrase is:

If there is an alternate name that is unambiguous and equally accurate (such as Example), that should be used.

It may be oversimplifying it, so let's hear some other suggestions. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 01:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It has to be "more" accurate or "more exclusively" accurate. —Centrx→talk • 06:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Should country names have precedence over anything else?

I think they should in Wikipedia. No country should be moved to a DAB just because there exists somewhere a local geographical / legal entity with the same name, especially if the country is a member of the UN, a supranational body of law, which includes the membership of pretty much all countries ("law monopolists") in the world. So this would mean that Georgia (country) should not be on equal footing with Georgia (U.S. state). Intangible 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles on an extremely wide range of topics. Primary topic usage should be limited to cases where there is widespread agreement that one sense of a term is the predominant usage over all others. In cases where two or more senses of a term are commonly used, then primary topic disambiguation is not appropriate. older ≠ wiser 16:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (with Bkonrad). Primary topics should only exist when it is clear what the primary topic is. -- Nataly a 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Given how inflamed passions have become over the subject of Georgia, would it not be reasonable to set a quantitative policy for determining what is clearly a primary topic? There are evidently still sore feelings about the latest annual restatement of the obvious on the Georgia page, and I think if there were a fixed policy, there might be greater acceptance that this is simply how things are done.

I would propose a formula like this: search for the term on google.com, search.com, and search.yahoo.com. From the first ten search results from each, add up the number that refer to the meaning proposed as a primary topic page for the subject in question, or that use the term in the same context; call it S. (Obviously, S should be between 0 and 30.) If S < 12, the meaning in question may not ever be the primary topic page (and must be moved aside if already so), and a proposal to revisit the issue should require a supermajority of 80% of Wikipedians to pass (to discourage search-engine rigging). If S > 26, the meaning, if not already so, should be made the primary topic page following a standard consensus vote (60%?). Otherwise, the status quo should be kept.

Too wonky? Bad thresholds? I'm not sure WWW presence is the best measure, so maybe hit count for the articles in Wikipedia would be good too, or a Google search with a site:en.wikipedia.org restriction. Note for Georgia (U.S. State), S=25 (but even if it were just a little higher, the vote would almost certainly fail), so the result would be the status quo. For Georgia (Country), S=5, so the matter would finally be put to rest. --dreish~talk 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thought for a situation that is getting out of hand, but I really feel like if we need to go to the trouble of checking search statistics, then there isn't a clear primary topic, and then no primary topic is appopriate. -- Nataly a 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. If the choice of which article should be primary is at all in question, it's a clear case for a disambiguation page. The choice should be obvious, or not at all. See also Talk:Syracuse for another place this is getting out of hand. Powers 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's amazing. Clearly some people do not understand the purpose of an encyclopedia, and will not understand the guidelines for disambiguation as long as those guidelines are fuzzy enough to allow their nationalistic fervor to drown them out. However, AdamBiswanger1 on that page brought up a potentially troubling situation that ought to be avoided if a numeric standard is to be adopted: Franz Ferdinand, while perhaps deserving disambiguation given how many people come to Wikipedia as a pop culture reference, should not be a page about the band with a see-also link to the historic figure. Including the site:en.wikipedia.org search, and requiring that the move also pass a vote, should help prevent that. --dreish~talk 14:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting example. Another interesting one is Ypsilanti, where the city in Michigan has trumped not only the man it was named after, but all of his rather famous (at least famous in Southeastern Europe) family. - Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation request

Hi, I dont know how to do a disambiguation page, but the Defence Analytical Services Agency is best known as "DASA", however this page has been taken. Could someone please sort out a disambiguation for this please? Thankyou! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebigalan39 (talk • contribs) .

(Note: comment moved from top of page.) Powers 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Add pointer to Special:Prefixindex/...?

If I search for 'Prime' hoping to find a pointer to 'Prime Minister', I'm out of luck. There are some pointers to other pages starting with Prime, but not to all of them. If I do a similar search on the Danish wikipedia (search for 'Prim'), I will get a pointer to the Danish version of Special:Prefixindex/PAGENAME. This way, it is easy way to look for all pages that start with the ambiguous term.

Is there any reason to not do the same thing on the English Wikipedia (other than the fact that the template is protected)? Dash 12:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the archives, this suggestion has cropped up a few times before (maybe also at WP:MOSDAB). There is the problem with what Prefixindex does with page titles containing "(disambiguation)".--Commander Keane 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic bias in global city names/redirects

This issue is related to diambiguation. Please share your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Nationalistic bias in global city names/redirects Tinlinkin 10:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Some disagreement over what to list / what not to list on this dab page. Input welcome: Talk:AFD. Thanks/wangi 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation for nonexistent (nonqualifying) topics

Is there a preferred format to indicate that an entry's title may also refer to another topic when the second topic would not itself qualify for an article? Specifically, I've authored an article about a late 19th century/early 20th century author and mycologist. His name is shared by a late 19th century religious author who has very little chance of having his own article, but who often shows up in searches by author name for books of the period, so I'd like to have some way to avoid the potential for confusion. Serpent's Choice 09:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest writing a short stub about the guy currently with no article, which shouldn't be too hard, since you already know about him a bit. Do you think he has little chance of having his own article because he is not notable? It seems that if he shows up in searches that much, it would probably be okay. Once you have the stub, then you can either place disambiguation links on the two pages, or create a disambiguation page for them. -- Nataly a 12:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Heading levels were screwed up under "What not to include"

...so I corrected it. I apologize if that was out of process, but it looked like an obvious structural error. Please revert my change if I'm wrong. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing policy pages is fine — otherwise they'd be protected. Of course, if your edits are substantive, they'd better reflect consensus, but make superficial edits as you like. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Potential Misspellings

Should potential misspellings be disambiguated? For an example, see the recent disambiguation links added to IMVU (version link) and I.N.V.U. (version link). --TJJFV 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be total mess. It will open the door to various wild things, such as having "For a kitchenware, see Pan" on top of the "Pen" article. The only exception IMO is that a misspelling is a widespread misunderstanding (not just ignorance or typo) and reported as such. `'mikka (t) 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- A good place for misspellings is the "See also" spelling of disambiguation pages. If the misspelling is ridiculously common, or the two are easily confusable, perhaps a top link is appropriate, but only if is is really necessary. -- Nataly a 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that 'verifiable widespread misunderstanding' should be a necessary condition --TJJFV 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Main article dab links

I'm a little confused on how disambiguation links should be posted at the top of main articles. For instance, the article Wizard (fantasy) has a link to the disambiguation page: Wizard. Is that correct, or should the link actually be to the unambiguously titled Wizard (disambiguation) which then redirects to Wizard? Thanks! Dreadlocke ^☥ 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wizard (fantasy) actually needs no disambiguation links (I've gone ahead and removed them). Since the page is located with the parenthetical identifier (fantasy), the only way someone will arrive at that page is either from the link at Wizard, or directly from another article that linked to Wizard (fantasy). Either way, there is no way that the person could have arrived at the article mistakenly; therefore, no disambiguaiton links are needed. -- Nataly a 22:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Natalya! That's an even better solution! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss major changes to the guidelines first

It seems lately that quite a number of users have reworded/reorganized/dono massive copyedits on Wikipedia:Disambiguation. While being bold is always encouraged, since this is a guideline, it is a really good idea to discuss any major changes here first. Fixing a spelling or small grammar mistake is not a major change, but altering what the guidelines say/how they are organized is. There is a reason things are laid out as they are; not to say that it is the best way, but it is a way that was agreed upon. If you have a suggestion for an improvement, by all means post it here, for improvements are awesome, but as the notice on the top of the page says, please make sure it reflects consensus first. -- Nataly a 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Natalya. However, I did just revert JohnLai who had just reverted Centrx's recent revision of the page. For the most part, I think Centrx restored much of the content to a state it was in before a couple of weeks ago during which some fairly extensive changes and additions were made. I found most of the newer changes to be a significant decrease in the quality of the page. But, I won't revert again on this, but I think that is the best candidate for a version to use as a starting point to discuss additional revisions. older ≠ wiser 16:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that many of Centrx's changes were very useful. I was just making a blanket statement, since it seems like there's been a lot of editing of it recently. -- Nataly a 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Centrx's edits have been re-reverted. I agree with Bkonrad that those edits really helped people understand disambiguation, and would like to change it back. Would those who disagree please speak up as to why? Thanks! -- Nataly a 00:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

All signs point to User:JohnLai, who reverted, being a sockpuppet of User:Wai Wai. Regardless, there is no consensus for the changes he made. —Centrx→talk • 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For other uses...

Is there recommended guidelines about how to arrange the italicized "For other uses..." section at the top of the page? Personally I try to put them at the top, isolated from the main content. But I've seen others edit a page so that the infobox starts in line with the "For other uses..." lines. The later, to me, looks sloppy and cluttered. So if possible I'd like to find if there is a consensus arrangement. I couldn't locate anything in the style guide.

As an example, see Sirius which has oscillated back and forth a couple of times. Xena has the other stuff in line with the infobox, which looks ugly IMO.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

One way is to precede the notice with a colon, which is invisible but causes indentation, and to put the notice in italics, and leave a blank line below it, thereby starting a new paragraph with the opening line of the article. I dislike saying "For other uses", because if the article is about honey it can be construed as "For other uses of honey", and if it's about slaves, it can get construed as "For other uses of slaves", etc. I usually write something like this:

For other senses of this word, see [[blah (disambiguation)]].

(Don't forget the period at the end of the sentence—that's a frequent omission in dab notices.)

I usually use the "dablink" template, thus:

{{dablink|For other senses of this word see [[blah (disambiguation)]].}}

This automatically indents and italicizes, so that you see this:

For other senses of this word, see blah (disambiguation).

Using the dablink template makes it easy to see which pages have such notices by going to template:dablink and clicking on "what links here". I hate the various "otheruses" and "alternateuses" templates because they're Procrustean beds and effectively encourage thoughtless editing. Michael Hardy 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael - I think you're missing the question which I believe is should the dablink be separated, by itself, at the top of the article, or "inline", effectively as part of the introductory text. See, for example this version vs. another version of the Sirius article.

I think the clear winner is separated, by itself, at the top, but there is apparently some disagreement about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I actually meant the vertical alignment of the disambiguation note with respect to the article body. Having the note clearly separated from the main article makes the purpose clearer, at least to me. — RJH (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sirius has a rather long dab link (that probably could be changed... but I'll leave it for now), so I can see where having the dablink at the very top makes more sense. I'm partial to having the infobox and the dablink line up (it looks cleaner to me), but I see the reasoning that by having the dablink at the top, it separates it out a little more. Therefore, I have no real opinion... :) As far as I'm aware, there aren't any specific guidelines on this topic. -- Nataly a 03:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What you call the Sirius dab link has undergone at least 3-4 revisions. At one point it was actually several separate lines and located below the top of the infobox. That pushed the start of the article text down about a paragraph or so, and I didn't care for the aesthetics. I tried to consolidate the dab link into as brief a paragraph as I could while keeping the meaning clear. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable content on disambiguation pages?

Am I correct in assuming that the only things which really belong on disambiguation pages are links to wikipedia (or possibly other wikimedia) articles? I have seen external links, dictionary definitions, and links to articles which don't actually exist. Am I correct in simply removing all these? Including redlinked articles? --Xyzzyplugh 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation of the various rules is basically Yes, but then sometimes it seems that a short definition of a word is a nice introductory sentence for the list that follows. As for redlinks, I think if the entry is notable and deserves an article, it's very likely that some associated topic has an article, and then a blue link to that article should be inserted along with the entry, and then I think it's okay to keep the redlink, pending creation of an expected article on the subject. There are counter-arguments for keeping a solo redlink, such as when putting a red link in a disambig page helps a user immediately who is looking for a subject with no wiki article as yet. In that case, the red link serves a purpose, but it only makes sense if the subject is notable enough for someone to be looking for it, and thus notable enough to eventually receive an article, and it's unlikely you can't think of something in the description that already has a wiki article to link to (eg, let's say there was no article on the book Jaws, then you could redlink the title, but the description could say "a novel by Peter Benchley", and "Peter Benchley" could be bluelinked). However, I think it's important to keep the number of blue links to one per entry. There are some users who spend quite a bit of time on disambig pages, and you could also ask them directly. Try User talk:CatherineMunro or User talk:Natalya. -- Slowmover 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've occasionally added a "See also" section to a disambiguation page, for such things as alternate spellings of a name. (The viewer might not have entered the spelling of the name correctly, for example.) — RJH (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Slowmover has covered it pretty well. Unless there is an article about them, dictionary definitions should not be there, as we can link to Wiktionary instead. There should definitly not be external links. Redlinks are fine as long as it seems possible that an article could at some point be written on the subject. Slowmover is correct in saying that it's good to be able to have a blue link in some section of the description of the red link (and yes, there should only be one). As was also mentioned, a See also section can be useful, when appropriate. For complete information on the topic, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), which covers what should and shouldn't be on disambiguation pages, and how it should be layed out. -- Nataly a 15:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

disabig pages where all but one entry only exist in other languages

Vum was forerly a redirect to Victoria University of Manchester. Someone changed it into a disambig but didn't provide an english article for the other entry only a red link here and a link to nl. Should this be reverted and should we add something to the policy to make this clear? Plugwash 23:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears appropriate to be changed back. We could add something into the policy, but it doesn't seem like a very common occurance, so it might not be necessary. -- Nataly a 00:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation of an abbreviation

The page "ELO" used to be a disambiguation page [3], however, AmbigDexter claims that these are false entries and has redirected "ELO" to the Electric Light Orchestra page. While I agree that ELO is probably most commonly used to refer to the band, I think that some of the other entries on the previous disambig page (Elo rating system and Electronic Literature Organization) can claim as much use of "ELO" as can Electric Light Orchestra. Should "ELO" be a disambiguation page, or do those other entries not count? -albrozdude 20:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly the Elo DAB page should be retained. As a chess player I can confirm that 'Elo' is a standard search term. Directing to the band would cause annoyance, make navigation harder and reduce the usefulness of the encyclopaedia. Elo is also used in world football. There is no reason to give overwhelming precedence to the band. Disambiguation guidelines should be applied with common sense and with regard to the benefit to the Project. Wikilawyering wastes valuable time and does not help the Project. BlueValour 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation page should certainly exist. If Electric Light Orchestra is agreed upon as the primary topic (though it does not seem to make much sense for that to happen), it could function similiarly as to how ETA and ETA (disambiguation) do. However, it seems like it would be more appropriate to have the disambiguation page at ELO. -- Nataly a 04:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Camera (disambiguation)

Could I ask someone to look in on camera. There is an entry about in camera there that I would be inclined just to remove. I am quite certain that it is factually incorrect (camera in this sense is Latin, not archaic English, and it is not quite correctly defined), and I could go on, but I already have, at Talk:Camera (disambiguation)#private council. But clearly there are not enough people looking at that page to get a consensus to remove it. Could someone please drop by? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Next time I suggest you be bold. Camera is Latin, not English, meaning simply "chamber". In camera therefore simply means "in a chamber", as opposed to in court. Any dictionary with etymologies, such as dictionary.com, can tell you this. In fact, so can the in camera article. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much exactly what I said on the talk page when I came at this the first time, but since I'd been reverted once, I figured it was better to bring in a third party than to play "he says, she says". - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosley Disambiguation request

Could someone whip up a disambiguation for Bosley? There are 3 ppl and one town associated with it, and i think there should be a disambiguation.

Since the main Bosley is a place, and all the other Bosleys are people, I've added a link to List of people by name: Bos, instead. CarolGray 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll

As the state route naming conventions poll is in many respects a debate about how to do disambiguation, it belatedly occurs to me I should mention it here. (Part 1 is almost concluded, but this is bound to rumble on when by-state specifics are discussed next. Alai 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of date examples

The article Titan rocket now redirects to Titan (rocket family), which sort of ruins the point of citing it. Similarly, seal (mammal) now redirects to Pinniped, inflation (economics) now redirects to Inflation, and so on. False examples somewhat undermine the authority of the guideline. Deco 08:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

dl usage

The use of <dl> in these templates seems incorrect. It looks like it's being used just for the indentation it usually has by default. This is not a good reason to use dl. :p ¦ Reisio 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? Which templates are you refering to? I'm not aware that any of the dab templates use dl. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

topic (disambiguation)

As I understand it, a topic page might potentially qualify as a Primary Topic page, upon which a topic (disambiguation) page might be listed, at the top, as in See: topic (disambiguation). Is there a process by which the community might agree that such a page be agreeably defined?

My motivation is there are some terms in common use, much like the Time page which benefit from the expository style which would be appropriate for a Primary Topic page, but not a Disambiguation page, such as Time (disambiguation), which adheres to the standards of the WikiProject. --Ancheta Wis 04:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you wrote, and I'll guess I'm not alone in that. That might be why no one has responded in a week. Could you try saying this a different way? - Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Combined otheruses templates

I felt that there exist a lot of otheruses templease that have minor differences. My new template {{otheruse}} (could be moved to better spot if necissary) could obsolete {{otheruses}}, {{otheruses1}}, {{this}}, {{otheruses2}}, {{otheruses4}}, {{two other uses}}, {{for}}, {{for1}} and {{for2}}. _→AzaToth 20:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What are the differences? —Centrx→talk • 15:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That was the question I asked my self, why so many different templates for the same thing, only some parameters where different. _→AzaToth 17:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made a simple test case, using the examples on the {{otheruses template}} page, see Template:Otheruse/testcase _→AzaToth 18:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Where have all the nice tridents gone to?

This really looks damn "empty" now. For example: Frank Beard. (<-the golfer) [ ] This article is about the golfer. For .... I could swear that the [ ] part still contained a trident symbol not long ago. Which weirdo has removed it? -andy 80.129.105.81 13:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's only in pages that use {{Disambig}}. —Centrx→talk • 18:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! So what about doing *ALL* disambiguations with the trident and not doing one the one way, the other a different way? I see no point in having umpteen types of disambiguation styles. Example Plant. Looks as if there's something missing without the trident symbol. So should we now fix 100,000 articles or what? No, that must be standardized. -andy 80.129.122.8 05:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For the notes that are on articles that point a user to a disambiguation pages, they are supposed to be non-intrusive; the vast majority of readers want to read that article not go somewhere else. In the past, there was not a trident on any of them. —Centrx→talk • 06:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambig forks

Recently, the page Slade (surname) has been split of from the page Slade (disambiguation), thereby making it one click further away from the reader. It contains no extra info (and shouild not do so either, Wikipedia is not a site for the explanation of names). I could understand this split if the disambig page had been very long, but in this case, I see no use for it (a subsection would do the trick just fine). Is there any guideline or discussion on this kind of forks of disambig pages? I would personally merge the Slade (surname) page back to the original disambig page, but would like some extra input first. Fram 11:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been ongoing discussion of this sort of thing at Manual of Style, especially under the sections Hndis needs its own Manual and See also. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: it looks like most people there thought it better to have separate surname disambig pages, although I still fail to see the benefit (except for very long disambig pages). I'll leave it as it is now, but I'll continue making unified disambig pages for most terms I come across if needed. Fram 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Placement of templates

I replaced disambiguation text at Jericho (TV series) with a template ({{Otheruses4}}) placed at the very top of the article, but this was quickly put further down in the article, seemingly because the template at the top creates unneeded whitespace. From what I can see placing the template at the top makes sense, for several reasons given at Wikipedia:Hatnotes, but that page seems to be only kept for historical interest. Therefore I would like to know if there are any guidelines on where to put DAB templates. The reasons stated at Hatnotes, about not mixing meta text with article content, seem to make sense to me, but should they be followed after the discontinuation of the project? Incidentally, I feel that the "unneeded whitespace" is good as it results in all actual article text starting at the same height.) – Dagnabit 15:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You could also type it in rather than use the template if the only complaint is the whitespace. —Centrx→talk • 02:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

America

The example given for redirects to disambiguation pages is America (disambiguation), which is just a redirect back to America, the real disambig page. Is this a mistake or am I missing something? We've had this discussion at Use of the word American, when someone changed the direct link to America to a link to America (disambiguation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an example that helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. The theory is that links to a disambiguation page should, in general, be disambiguated. Many editors routinely examine "What links here" for disambiguation pages to fix any links (especially so for pages that are frequently mislinked--such as America). Deliberately linking to the form of the page with "(disambiguation)" indicates that the link does not need to be "fixed". older ≠ wiser 22:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Different from/different than

I believe in the United States "different than" is quite commonly used, but in British English "different than" is incorrect (according to Ernest Gowers The Complete Plain Words). Because of American and British English differences#Different prepositions in certain contexts, I think we should use "different from". CarolGray 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If it were reworded to say "different from" or "different than", I'd agree. But the "rule" or guidline for preferring "different from" doesn't apply to "a different x than y". The "than" there is a different function word. -- JHunterJ 17:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded it to avoid the issue, but I can't help wondering it you're applying a different standard from I am... :-) -- JHunterJ 18:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Okay, I concede. CarolGray 13:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:UNDAB

There is a new proposal at Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation. Please can a few people comment on it. Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Quality assessment

Is there any rating system for disambiguation pages? I have noticed that biographies have quality scales. Do disambiguation pages have such scales. If so, I am wondering how Breaking (disambiguation) rates? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC).

I'm not aware of a rating system, other than the {{disambig-cleanup}} template. Looks like Breaking could use it; looks like a lot of cruft has become attached to it... -- JHunterJ 18:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Plurals

Okay. Hey. Forgive me if this comment is misplaced. Name's Ace. I've read and followed an apparent policy that plurals need to either link to the singular article title, or a disambiguation page. Now, on the other hand, this may not be policy and just an "unwritten rule". If the latter case is in effect, as it seems to be, I'd like to recommend this policy be made official, citeable and applied throughout the encyclopedia. The mean issue comes back to disambiguation, not naming conventions or redirects. "Pixies" was once the title of the article now known as "Pixies (band)". The users, to put it mildly, are/were uneducated and/or unrealistic in matters of disambiguation. Similar case at what is now "Eels (band)" and several other " (band)" articles, actually. Users had/have the misguided belief that listing an article at a title for the plural of a common word or phrase is okay. Anyway, that's actually kind of moot. The big issue is plurals. "Eels", the word, can refer to the species,—and other varieties thereof—the band and many other uses. Thus, the redirect goes to the disambiguation page, not any of the articles. I first saw this method being implimented to with the redirect "heroes". It was redirected from hero, to Hero (disambiguation) so that readers could find Heroes (TV series) with more ease. No objections, to my knowledge, with the heroes edit and many objections due to...well...ignorance, with the eels disambiguation. Now, however, I have come across a problem. The redirect Pixies is being fought over. Fans of Pixies (band) believe that article to be the most notible use. They've even neglected to remove a move petition after an anministrator—also a fan and a bit of a jerk—moved the article to the current title. (It was at The Pixies for a time.) Anyway, the redirect of [[[Pixies]] could obviously refer to both Pixie and Pixies (band). And, let's face it, only the band, and, by fanatical devotion to them, some of the users, say simply "Pixies". They're arguably better known as the Pixies, like Joker (comics) as "The Joker. Also moot, however. The issue is, basically, this: I need a ruling. I cannot act per an unofficial practice. So...ahem...Help! :( ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of this is how we deal with "The" in titles; unless "The Pixies" is clear usage, as "The Joker" is, we should avoid it, because editors and readers will expect us to follow our usual rules. However, this page is a guideline, by its nature unofficial; take fanboy disruptive editing to an admin. JCScaliger 14:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, here or elsewhere, but what is the convention regarding plurals and "The title"? ENeville 02:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of a disambiguation guideline for them, just the WP:NAME guidelines for article titles. Sometimes it makes sense to have separate dabs for plurals and singulars (for instance, when the singular is a 3CC and the plural is a 4CC), and sometimes for "title" and "The title", but sometimes (especially if both lists are short and don't warrant different footers) they can/should be lumped together. If lumped, the dab title should be singular and without the "The", I think. If separate, each dab should link to the other as a "See also". -- JHunterJ 02:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Some links to dab pages are warranted

Consider a link to Boer Wars, like this one, taken out by a bot. If you want to link to both of them, this is the natual way to do it. An artificial construct like [[First Boer War|Boer]] [[Second Boer War|War]] seems unhelpful to the reader, and is not always possible. Comments? JCScaliger 14:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it should be a (short) article about the Boer Wars, with blurbs about each pointing to the main article, and should not be a disambig at all. -- JHunterJ 11:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple disambiguation?

Another editor and I are having a difference of opinion over the way to write toplinks, due to an ambiguity in these guidelines.

The problem revolves around the Muse article which describes "greek goddesses", however in addition to this, there is the well known band Muse (band). Further to this, there are a total of 19 links on the Muse (disambiguation) page (5 of which are redlinks).

I would argue that the guidelines suggest that only the dab link should go on the top of the page; specifically "Where there are several articles to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to a separate disambiguation page." (my bolding).

The other editor would argue that the band is notable enough that the band link should appear at the top in addition to the dab link. This is justified because the guidelines do not explicitly prohibit this, and why else would there exist a template for it.

I would counter this by saying that first it is implied that only the dab link should appear, and second that we would open a whole can of worms if we allow some disambiguation in articles as there would be a lot of argument about what is notable, and that it defeats the object of dab pages, as it could cause article pages to be cluttered.

In any case, I would appreciate input on clarifying this, and have the following two proposals to resolve this:-

Proposal 1 Change the wording to "Where there are several articles to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to a separate disambiguation page. Do not add any other disambiguation links."

Proposal 2 Change the wording to "Where there are several articles to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to a separate disambiguation page. If there are several notable uses, additionally, provide links to the notable articles.

Discuss. Guinness 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of either guideline. In some cases (such as a revert-war over where a basename should point), two usages might both overshadow all others (the ship and the James Cameron film Titanic is the one I interacted with most recently). I don't think the band Muse reaches this same overshadowing. So I'd use each resolution you propose, one for Titanic and the other for Muse. -- JHunterJ 22:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Which demonstrates my point about arguing about what is and isn't notable nicely, hence I favour proposal 1 to remove the potential for such arguments. Guinness 22:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm the other editor involved and I have to say that while I don't agree with Proposal 1, I don't necessarily support the wording in Proposal 2 to allow adding several links to other articles. In the case of Cold fusion, which I brought up in the preceding discussion, a link is also provided to ColdFusion at the top. What if a new article about a third (less common) use of "cold fusion" were created and established a need for a Cold fusion (disambiguation) page. Would -- or should -- this mandate removal of the ColdFusion link from the Cold fusion article, even though it is extremely notable? I would say certainly not - the italic text should provide a path to both ColdFusion (since it's very possible the user was looking for that topic) and a link to Cold fusion (disambiguation) for other uses. If done with the template ({{Two other uses}}), it looks consistent and provides additional help to the reader without really taking anything away from the article. Allowing a disambiguation link such as this is a good thing. Whether Muse is notable enough for a case like this is a different discussion. -- Renesis (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as the case of exactly 2 other uses, I think it's borderline, and a 2 entry dab page might be overkill in such a case. However, in this case, there are 18 other uses. What would we do if there were let's say 7 Muses as notable as ColdFusion. We could end up with a nasty mess. As for the exact wording of proposal 2, I'm not entirely happy with it myself, but provided it as a counter-example to proposal 1. I'd be more than happy for someone to proffer a better way of putting it (in fact, I was hoping to provoke this by this discussion), although again, I think it is difficult to define exactly what should or shouldn't be included in a way which would prevent disagreements, and risk cluttering toplinks with alternate uses. (Actually, if the consensus were to go with Proposal 2 or similiar, I might argue that Muse (band) are notable enough, however it is moot because I really think that having the dab link alone is the way to go) Guinness 00:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If situations like this arise, they should certainly not be written into the disambiguation guidelines (or, as was said, a can of worms would be opened). If there is such a disagreement about what dab links to include at the top of the page, that seems like a fine indicator that perhaps there is no primary topic, and the disambiguation page should be located at the article name itself. -- Nataly a 16:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Valley

This page has one part where comprehensively describes an area of New York. Can someone sort this out? Also, can they fix any other problems on this disambig page? I just think this would be generally useful for anyone visiting that page. Simply south 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Primary Topic

So, I've always understood the idea of a "primary topic" in the following light. There are many things called London, so the term is theoretically ambiguous, and would need disambiguation. However, because the capital of the United Kingdom is by such a wide margin the most prominent usage of the term "London," the article on the city in England can be located at London without any difficulty, because it is the primary topic.

Now, this all works in the absence of any specific naming conventions for the topic at hand. Sometimes a naming convention can be agreed on whereby a primary topic does have a disambiguated title, for whatever reason.

One instance of this has always been U.S. cities. For whatever reason, a naming convention was agreed to whereby U.S. cities always go at "City, State" regardless of ambiguity or primary topic status. Recently, over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), I and some other people have been trying to change this convention so as to move articles like Los Angeles, California to Los Angeles, and so forth.

I have been unsurprised to discover that there is opposition to this. Lots of people seem to feel that all the U.S. city articles need to be consistent with each other. This is an argument which I disagree with, but which I understand. What I don't understand is the number of people who seem to feel that we can't have the articles on Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or Los Angeles, California at Philadelphia and Los Angeles, because "Philadelphia" and "Los Angeles" are both ambiguous terms.

It seems to me that circumstances like these are exactly what the whole idea of "primary topic" is meant to address. I have repeatedly pointed people to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic when they make this argument, and in spite of the fact that Rome, another city, is the example, they never seem to grasp the concept. What's going on? Am I crazy? Are they crazy? Some of them seem to object to the idea of "primary topic", but others simply don't seem to understand. Is the idea this complicated? john k 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No John, you're quite right, AFAICT. The thing is, there have been editors (none very recently) who have essentially argued that there should not be any primary topics -- that is, whenever there is any need for disambiguation, the disamiguation page should go at the main title. Such proposals fortunately never gained much traction, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have not entirely gone away. older ≠ wiser 01:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fancy meeting you here. If you look over the city naming page talk page, you'll see that various people who oppose any move seem to be saying this, without quite coming right out and saying it. I think Agne has pretty much openly advocated this, and Will Beback has implied support for it. It's incredibly frustrating, because they're doing it in a way that suggests that there isn't a page which says that Rome is a primary topic, and gets to be at Rome. john k 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point, John k. Thanks for giving me an "aha!" moment. What you say makes perfect sense to us, but it may be because we have had a lot of exposure to disambiguation pages, and understand what you are describing very easily. For those who many not be as familiar with disambiguation pages, they may be misinterpreting it by their own fault, even when you give them good references. -- Nataly a 16:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Colonia

Speaking of primary topics: could someone more experienced than I with the standards on disambiguation have a look at this change to Colonia? Seems to me that it heads the wrong way, in that the literal origin of the term gets lost in the shuffle. - Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also have move the dictionary-like definition down (treating it like a synonym according to WP:MOSDAB, with a wiktionarypar link at the top to handle it (if wiktionary has an entry for it). And the examples of the definition, assuming the linked articles don't themselves mention "colonia", should be deleted -- possibly even the dictionary definition itself, since the linked term there doesn't mention colonia either. The disambiguation pages needn't have information on the etymology of terms, IMO, because WP's not a dictionary. I don't understand why colonias is a separate article, though, and the colonia page has other problems (pipe links, multiple links). -- JHunterJ 11:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

... and possibly separate the informational text to its own article. But the disambiguation page, the hypothetical page on the historical Roman bit, and the Colonias article need to be arranged appropriately; one of those should be the base name, and the others should be Colonia (disambiguation), Colonia (Roman), and Colonia (Mexico) (?), as needed. -- JHunterJ 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a dictionary definition, because it's got historical context, and gives examples. That's what an encyclopedia article is. I've reverted. john k 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is not an encyclopedia article. I've separated. -- JHunterJ 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, I typed up a whole thing with some suggestions, but I just was that JHunter already took care of what I was going to suggest. :) The best way to take care of it, since it has historical information, is to create an article about it, which was done (Colonia (Roman)). Awesome! I might suggested a different parenthetical identifier, though. Perhaps Colonia (Roman outpost)? -- Nataly a 16:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular love for the shorter parenthetical, but I will observe that the interwiki links appear to be close: Colonia (Rom) in German, Colonia romana in Italian, Colonia (Romeinse term) in Dutch, Kolonia (starożytny Rzym) in Polish -- likely that last one is closer to Roman outpost. But I see that I've used an adjective descriptor, which is guided against. Roman colonia or Colonia (antiquity) would be other options. Colonia (Roman outpost) works too, if perhaps not simple enough. -- JHunterJ 17:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lift

Since Lift is cited as a model disambiguation page, it would be helpful for editors here to put it in their watchlist and keep it squeaky clean. There are currently two entries with no blue links, which seem like obvious problems. Maybe there are other problems. As an editor who is new to fixing disambiguation pages, it would be helpful to know I was looking at an example that is a good model. JonHarder 18:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've provided a bluelink for Lift (band). "Lifted" needs more work, since it seems to be both a ~~band~~ album and the name of a film. I don't have any more time now, but I'll be back tomorrow CarolGray 20:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed Lifted and LIFTED, but decided on reflection they don't belong on the Lift dab page - to my mind they aren't easily confused with Lift. CarolGray 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Following JonHarder's comments, I thought I'd check the other examples used on the project page, and I discovered that

Cold Fusion no longer uses {{For}}, it has been changed to {{otheruses4}}
Zürich no longer uses {{otheruses2}}, it now uses {{otherusesof}}
Defense industry is not a disambiguation page.

I can put the first two back the way they were, but should I? Changing the articles back to match the project page feels a bit like the tail wagging the dog. Perhaps we should find other examples? And perhaps label them somehow so editors know not to change them? Or should we avoid "real" examples altogether? CarolGray 14:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for quick following up on this. Examples of current practice are helpful to me when I'm editing in a new area. Sometimes seeing how something should look is more powerful than reading a description. JonHarder 14:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguation?

Wikipedia:Disambiguation used to say,

""Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page."

This seemed eminently sensible to me, and avoided foolish consistency, the hobgoblin of little minds. When was this removed from the article, and why? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have disappeared with this edit made by Stevertigo on 19:53, September 16, 2006 (UTC). I don't see that there was any discussion on the talk page. Full disclosure, I later removed a large part of Stevertigo's revision because it seemed a major change to address a personal hobbyhorse. But I hadn't noticed the earlier removal of the statement you mention. older ≠ wiser 21:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object to the restoration of this passage? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone ahead and been bold and restored it. If anyone objects, they can revert and discuss. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(As an aside, before Stevertigo removed that passage, WP:D had contained this text or a passage like it since this edit by Eloquence (talk · contribs) on December 31, 2003.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That has always been a good standby to describe what should and shouldn't appear on disambiguation pages; thanks for noticing, and replacing it. -- Nataly a 02:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)