There's an interesting page here... has a 133-word opening paragraph, is tagged as a dab page, has an enormous number of links entries with a few "Ranger ([disambiguation])" in amongst them, and a discussion on whether "Rangers" should be merged into it. PamD (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"Enormous" number of links? I count less than 50 in the main (article) namespace. I thought "enormous" was hundreds of links? Or has someone cleaned it up in the last three hours (and is there a way to detect whether the number of incoming links to an article has changed a lot over the past few hours or indeed any time span)? Carcharoth (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
But is the dictionary-type info at Ranger really the "Primary Usage" of the term? Surely not, so the dab page ought to be at Ranger, to save almost everyone a second click? And in the current setup, shouldn't the link to the dab page be {{otheruses}} right at the top, not a "See also"? PamD (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have corrected the see also bit (you were right of course) but as to the primary meaning, I have a long history of seeing these differently to others so I make no further comment ... do as you, or others, think is best. Abtract (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The Don Talbot page had some useful info added, but it keeps getting trashed. There are 2 Australians with the same name, (who both know each other, incidentally), but my naive attempts to do anything are not getting anywhere. The author will not get a separate page (as yet) - but he has books that are used as references - but the 2 people are totally different - the other is more well known. In future, the author may get enough to have a separate page. I am not sure how to set up a disambig page that would suit the circumstances. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. FoolesTroupe (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Very disappointed to see this edit. Please could someone discuss the issue, either here or at Talk:Draft, or point me in the direction of a meaningful discussion somewhere, before summarily dismissing what seems to me a useful addition to Draft. Thank you. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The disappointing edit was mine. I'm sorry that you felt you were summarily dismissed. I have begun a new discussion of this issue at Talk:Draft. Please understand that I was simply editing the page to conform to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) (it had multiple problems), and was not intending to slight you or your contributions. SlackerMom (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
"Guido" and "Guido (given name)"
Guido, a Dab, & Guido (given name) were cut&past-merged without sign of discussion in May, after creation of the g.n. one in December. (Is that called a May-December marriage?) Without exhaustive investigation, the 230-ish-entry ed-hist of the Dab since September 2005 seems unremarkable. The creator of the g.n. appears to have found its entries in the history after a vandal had replaced them. In light of the lack of discussion in reversing a split that is clearly called for by the nature of Dabs and AFAI can tell is an SOP by many besides myself, i'd feel justified by simply doing the usual cleanup. But a chance to object won't hurt, and it also offers a chance for comment on my notion that the history of one of these illegitimate hybrid pages is more likely to be useful to the resulting g.n. page than to the Dab, since the terseness of Dabs keeps that task fairly clerical compared to name-origin description and a certain "human-interest" element that some (well, i) tolerate much more on name pages than on Dabs. In this case, i'm inclined to split the May-to-now edit history out, and combine it with the Dec-to-May g.n. history that is currently hidden under the Rdr. --Jerzy•t22:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I took the Dab-CU of International (disambiguation) as far as it'll go at present. It had total disregard for the Dab-related guidelines, which reflects IMO the renaming of the former Dab International to the present title, and the declaration w/o apparent discussion of International as the primary topic, with an original lead sent of
International or internationally describes interaction between nations or encompassing several nations.
and a current one of
International or internationally most often describes interaction between nations, or encompassing two or more nations, constituting a group or association having members in two or more nations, or generally reaching beyond national boundaries.
I think it should go back to being an equal-dab'n, but i don't know whether the current International should be
deleted (i don't care to be the nominator) as a jumble of refugee Dab entries (eligible for consideration as Dab entries) and disposible dict-defs,
sent to face into the corner on Talk:International (i think International (who knows?) would violate POINT) until it finishes its identity crisis with a conforming lead sentence and a scope that is actually described by the lead.
The closest thing to an opening line for the Dab was the use of {{Primary|International}} to get
It's a problem, agreed. Perhaps it would be better to have a lead sentence "See International for discussion of the adjective "International" and its usage"? In a WP:IAR way it might work. Or "The article International discusses ... " (or is that too self-referential?). I see why you've got "International is usage", but I don't like it! And both those would work better if they were referring readers to a International (usage) page as in your 2nd suggestion. There's a stub at Overseas which has some similarities (I spotted it while stub-sorting but gave up on it) - in our local uni the "Adviser to Overseas Students" is now the "International Students Office", so there are connections in usage. PamD (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at cleaning up the dab page. I don't see any particular problem with the current set-up, but no objection to people's trying to make it better (as long as "better" means better for the reader, and not more in strict conformance with the letter of the rules - which can't make exact provision for every atypical situation like this one).--Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone give me a hand here? Not trying to be mean or anything here but I can't tell whether the opposing editor is being disruptive or just plain ignorant. Help? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. In assessing the article Dava (comics), I noticed that there was no primary Dava article. I don't know that the comic book character is necessarily the most notable thing named "Dava", so I created a disambiguation page for it. The majority of "Dava" articles are for people who have "Dava" as their given name, so I put those in a separate section. I tried to follow the MoS for dab pages, but if someone wants to take a look at it and adjust it as necessary, that probably would be a good idea. Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I added a placeholder for the Scots town; there were several inbound links to the dab page that wanted to link to it. Haven't found a good bluelink for that entry yet. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I've found it frustrating that when you type an element symbol in Wikipedia, you then have to search through a long disambiguation page in order to find the sometimes arbitrarily placed link to the element. To solve this frustration, I propose Template:See-element. Tell me what you think. Could something like this be placed at the right of every disambiguation of a element symbol?
Nice idea, if it's quite a bit smaller (no bigger than the Wiktionary box, I suggest) - but I wonder if it would open the floodgates to a lot of other specialist areas claiming that their usage for a single letter or two-letter abbreviation is special enough to merit a similar treatment. Can't think of parallels offhand, but just offer this thought for consideration. Maybe the Wikipedian consensus would agree that chemical element symbols are a set of usages which are unusually universal, significant, etc - but perhaps some people would argue the same for US states abbreviations, or internet domains, etc. As it happens, S (disambiguation) has a Wiktionary link where the first meaning given is Sulphur. (OK, I think it said Sulfur!). PamD (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a nice looking box but I completely disagree with its use on a dab page. Everyone who types in a term that ends on a dab page has to search through a (maybe) long disambiguation page to find the article they seek. Our job is to make that search as easy as possible for everyone by ensuring that articles are not "arbitrarily placed" but are ordered sensibly and according to the manual of style... adding a box specifically to help one group of readers will only clutter the page and make it harder for all the others; it will also, as mentioned earlier, "open the floodgates". There is nothing special about readers seeking elements (and I speak as someone studying a science). I just went to the BR page and found Bromine with one click on "5 Other uses" - where else could it be? Clealy that page has been well sectioned. The options were: 1 Places, 2 Business and organizations, 3 Computing, 4 Music and media, 5 Other uses, 6 See also, 7 Notes. Often elements will be in a scince or science and technology section which would make it even easier to find. Let's spend our efforts making dab pages better by simpifying them, giving them useful sections and where possible standardising the style ... rather than adding more clutter Abtract (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Abtract. From my experience, these types of templates are discouraged on dabs. They should be ok for name pages and set index articles though. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Me, too. Most people would already know the element name and if they know only the symbol, most would find it via Elements. (John User:Jwytalk) 06:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand. I suppose the next best thing would be to keep a standardisation as to where the chemical elements are kept on disambig. pages. Having it in "other uses" one time, and then "Science", and then "Technology" in another instance... well, it gets confusing. I suppose that is what Project Disambiguation is here for, so you probably already have some standard you're trying to put out there. Thank you for the consideration, anyway! Sir Stig (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Dab pages have to make compromises - not everyone will be looking for chemical elements by name. Those few (?) people that would be looking for their 3rd or 4th element this way might be better served if the element article pages made clear the existence of List of elements by symbol - specialized for just that kind of navigation. (John User:Jwytalk) 15:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Abtract and Sesshomaru, any such template would be counterproductive. Would it help to install redirects for each element that are in the form Pb (element) = Lead, Sb (element) = Antimony ? --Bejnar (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Asking here is likely to have a bias towards having the disambiguation page at the simple name. If you're looking for editors knowledgeable about why the lingerie brand might qualify as the primary topic, they're more likely to be found on that article's talk page than here. But in any case, either the disambiguation page or the lingerie brand article should be named Ultimo, rather than have Ultimo redirect to either of those. older ≠ wiser18:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't look like the article has much activity. If I had asked there it probably would've taken forever to get a response. Regardless, let's see what anyone else has to say. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what others here might think, the proper forum for discussing a page move is on the talk page of one of the affected titles, with a courtesy mention on other affected pages, including WP:RM. If you think it's likely that a move might result, there is little point to having to rehash a discussion carried out in the wrong forum. Or, if you wanted to be bold, you could just change the target of the redirect to the disambiguation page and then list the page on WP:Malplaced disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Sicilian people
The Sicilian people disambiguation page does not fit the usual parameters. Possibly it can be best understood as a place-holder until an article is written (if ever). Nonetheless, it does seem functional as well over 30 pages currently link there. Perhaps that could be fixed by changing all of those links to Sicily or Sicily#Demographics, but I have noticed that the list of links pointing there grows rather than shrinks, so there is a tendency for editors to assume that it is a viable direct link. Is the current situation a problem or a solution? --Bejnar (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Do not distort my comment. You're trying to make the redirect page as a "hoax redirect" with your disruptive tagging to the page and other very "unique activities".--Caspian blue22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue has both engineered a novel tactic and a wiki-neologism to describe it -- a "hoax redirect." I avoid conjecture as to the purpose of this novel gambit, but the available data support an arguable claim that a problem exists. This problem deserves closer scrutiny. This dispute would appear to involve a non-standard issues.
History
FIRST, an article about Yonsei, a descriptive term for fourth-generation emigrants/immigrants of Japanese descent in Latin America, North America and elsewhere in the world, attracted Caspian blue's attention. This non-stub article was arbitrarily moved and re-named without discussion or opportunity for comment and consensus discussion:
20:37, 6 November 2008 Caspian blue moved Yonsei to Yonsei (Japanese term): Making a dab page. This is NOT a well-known PRIMARY topic in English unlike "nisei" and "sansei" found in dictionaries and web search.)
This user's limited grasp of English usage renders this conclusory argument suspect; but further research was required in order to respond effectively to this casually disruptive edit. I did invest research time in order to rebut Caspian blue's demonstrably insupportable claim. However, it is relevant to note that the a priori version of this article included fully developed bibliographic reference citations and in-line citations. Also, it may be relevant that more than one active editor was in the process of adding to the Yonsei text. The moved article was arbitrarily re-named Yonsei (Japanese term). A new disambiguation page -- Yonsei -- was created and populated with spurious links. What might have been nothing more than a misunderstanding is hard to dismiss in the context of the otherwise inexplicable post hoc links:
Look up Yonsei in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Yonsei Basketball Association, association for Japanese-American Youth Basketball
SECOND, the presumptively necessary disambiguation was edited to eliminate specious links:
01:47, 8 November 2008 Kusunose attempted a disambiguation page cleanup: rm {{wiktionary|Yonsei}}, entry does not exist; rm entry about Korean honorific, a dic def; rm piping; rm entires with no links; single blue link per line)
06:05, 10 Novemer 2008 DA19 created (redirect from Yonsei (Japanese term): while the origins of Nikkei is Japanese, the North American and Latin American descendants of Japanese immigrants are the primary users of what is a Nikkei term.)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth -— that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
Proposed solution
PROPOSAL #1: The article about emigrants/immigrants of Japanese descent should be named Yonsei in the same simple manner as its corollary articles -- Issei (1st generation emigrants/immgirants), Nisei (2nd generation emigrants/immigrants) and Sansei (3rd generation emigrants/immigrants). The original name should be restored as the simplest and best solution to unnecessary problems which flow from a series of unhelpful article moves.
The article's name needs be the subject of reasoned discussion; and a consensus decision needs to be reached in due course.
Bluntly, Caspian blue deliberately trod in a rough-shod fashion over consensus-building niceties -- seesecond paragraph. I take grim notice of the mention of "rants" attributable to me. This is an inadvertent admission that Talk:Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) was ignored; and instead, Caspian blue selected a more confrontational attack.
My response: By all means, do read anything and everything I've written, and what seem especially relevant are the prose Caspian blue characterizes as "rants." In the context my "rants" create, the disambiguation is seen as nothing but a contrived gambit, unsupported by research or reference citations.
Questions to be answered
The difficult issues to be addressed are these:
1. What, if anything, could have been done differently at any step of the edit histories which precede this posting?
2. What is the best way to sort this out now?
3. What, if anything, can be done to avert or mitigate similarly needless conflicts in the future.
This is a serious situation which calls for a thoughtful approach.
Hi, The piece of this argument that appears to be within the scope of the disambiguation project is this: Is there a primary topic which should take the title [[Yonsei]], or should that be the dab page? Relevant evidence in such debates usually includes some sort of analysis to show that the vast majority of Wiki traffic goes to one particular page, or failing that, to show that the vast majority of published uses of the term relate to one particular usage. If you can, and care to, it would be helpful to bring that sort of analysis here, succinctly. Otherwise, this will appear to be an argument between two users that has spilled into other places, and will likely receive little attention. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that Taemyr's analysis of the disputed issues and contending points-of-view at Talk:Yonsei#Primary Topic is generally congruent with the comment posted above by AndrewHowse, e.g., "Which page that should be at Yonsei is governed by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC." This approach is appealing. I need more time to figure out how to articulate my misgivings or to dismiss them as unhelpful.
A crucial step forward seems potentially acceptable to all participants in the discussion threads -- that the disambiguation page will be renamed without objection as Yonsei (disambiguation), similar to Harvard (disambiguation) and Yale (disambiguation) ... which now reveals a distilled locus of dispute, i.e.,
Whether a Japanese word will be permitted to be given prominence and precedence over a Korean word. In other words, the dispute becomes about whether Yonsei has to be a redirect to Yonsei University because it is more important than a Japanese emigrant group.
I think this formulation of the problem goes to what has always been Caspian blue's unspoken objectives.
I have misgivings about the concepts of "precedence" and "more important" in this context; and any sentence construction which incorporates these terms becomes a loaded question.
Hold on. The dab page only goes at Yonsei (disambiguation) if there is a primary topic at Yonsei. Making that move presupposes that a primary topic exists, and that in turn implies agreement on what that primary topic is. As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, lack of agreement on that is often good evidence that no primary topic exists. So I don't think you should move the dab page without explicit agreement on the primary topic. -- AndrewHowse (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
AndrewHowse -- Thank you for your initial comment and for your further feedback. This is just going to have to proceed slowly as I catch up with the relevant ramifications. I'm struggling to find a strategy which will help me parse these matters more discretely. As an experiment,
I typed in "Freiburg" in the search box, it led to the town Freiburg im Breisgau and to a disambiguation box ... but I had to look a bit harder to find the University of Freiburg.
This approach proved unavailing, but at least it illustrates an attempt to grapple with this problem from a perspective I'm reluctant to espouse. --Tenmei (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
___________________
The following addition to this thread has been copied from moved to Talk:Yonsei because here, the discussion becomes accessible to a potentially larger number of contributors and a potentially helpful array of perspectives: however, Caspian blue demurs, and no reason needs to be given for that demurral.
Extended content
Tenmei, keep it simple and remind no personal attacks
Tenmei (talk·contribs), or Ooperhoofd, this is so typical and repeated tedious (of course, disruptive) behaviors of yours. Did you ever expect that people would sit and read through your lengthy insistence here? Replace your rambling with succinct "DIFFs" and reduce (I too well know of your nature, so just "reduce the personal attack") as Theresa knott (you directly quoted her "bullshit" comment made in August yesterday, so) and many many admins advised(warned) to you. Like Waseda, Yale, Harvard redirect their article, Yonsei University would deserve to have the redirect page but I made the page to go back to this "DAB page. I don't see why the unfamiliar "Japanese term" should have its position here. At best, "Yonsei generation" would be an alternative. Besides, you're very hasty before the AFD even would close. Be calm and "think" reasonable and behave less disruptive, Don't pull my legs here again with your inflammatory and provocative languages. Better have communication skills, less make drama. Looking through the snobbish fallacy list does not make you logical. Good luck with your WP:CANVASSing. P.S I know you've been lurking my contribution and following me as always, but what has to do with the unproceed MED? Be logical.:P--Caspian blue00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In short, if a meaning of Yonsei can be considered as being far more common than any other then that meaning should be selected as the primary topic.
I have not seen any argument that the term Yonsei in English is more often used about fourth generation Japanese immigrants than it is about a Korean university or medical journal. In the absence of such arguments WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is fairly clear that no primary topic should be selected.
Google scholar, and for that matter Google books, should not be considered as good indications in this case since we should expect a bias towards academia in those venues. A more compelling case is Google News;
"Yonsei" redirects here. For fourth-generation Americans of Japanese descent, see Japanese American.
On November 6th, as a result of my edit, the Yonsei University hatnote became the following:
For fourth-generation emigrants of Japanese descent, see Yonsei.
At that time, I did not perceive this as a controversial edit. My focus was on the extent to which Yonsei and its corollaries -- Issei, Nisei, Sansei and Nikkei, were being re-focused to encompass a broader, wider multi-national cohort beyond Japanese-American yonsei, including
At that point, my primary focus was in re-examining the extent to which Wikipedia articles about the Nikkei might be better served by melding or marrying the slightly divergent perspectives in:
In the context of the thread above, these are devalued considerations, irrelevant factors. Whatever is going on here has devolved into a game about something else entirely ... and without putting too fine a point on it, there's something gravely amiss.
There is not now an easy consensus on this matter. In my view, this disambiguation dispute would have been better positioned here on this page where it could garner the views of likely interested contributors; however, Caspian blue demurs. --Tenmei (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been patrolling through Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Maintenance and stumbled across the page Wesleyan. Now some people have gone and done a pretty job on the page, however, it is moving the page away from how I envisage a disambig page, and getting more to an article and/or list page, or some combination of all three. Others opinion and views would be appreciated. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Editors who may be concentrating on forcing all disambiguation pages into an authorized conformity may forget as they delve into excruciating minutiae, discarding information that does not "fit" (see Procrustes), that Wikipedia is a readers' guide. Deleting useful guidance runs counter to the project's basis directive. It's well to keep that in mind when struggling to fit recalcitrant facts into orthodox straitjackets--Wetman 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I try to remind myself of that often. I try to remain faithful to "it makes it easier to use wikipedia" than to "The Guidelines." I don't always succeed. Thanks for the reminder. (John User:Jwytalk) 06:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The page Papal oath says that a papal oath is a papal oath (an oath taken by a pope) - we don't need an encyclopedia to tell us that. It then mentions the only text that is in fact referred to as "the Papal Oath", an oath supposed to have been taken by Popes for centuries, the alleged "Papal Oath" that Wikipedia calls Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholic). Of the other three "papal oaths" listed, the first is a profession of faith, not an oath, the second is indeed an oath of fealty to an emperor, and the third was never taken by any recognized pope, and so cannot be called a papal oath. No source outside Wikipedia calls any of these three a "papal oath". The page should become, I think, a redirect page to the only article that does treat of what is actually called a papal oath. Lima (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Dealing with dab pages that reference other dab pages
That's informative to the reader, so that's ok. Alternatively, you can link to the redirect Stepping (disambiguation), which provides the same information. I've removed the link to WP:DAB, though. I'm not sure if the "one link per line" officially applies to "see also"s, but it makes sense there as well, and besides, the term disambiguation is already explained elsewhere on the page. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I think links via redirects (Stepping (disambiguation) etc) are preferable - they then don't show up as "links to dab pages" or "dab pages with links", but the redirects make it clear that these are conscious links to dab pages. PamD (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to stir things up a bit: I think it best to beef up the song article first, have marked it a stub and tweaked the Jazz Wikiproject to take a look. I've also put a pointer to the dab page talk discussion on the song's talk page. I think the article could be considerably longer. (John User:Jwytalk) 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I need some help with this. I believe there needs to be a disambiguation for "St. John the Divine," but I'm a little confused about how to set this up. There's are articles for John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos. All three are saints. Then we have multiple churches of the same name, including Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York, which is what brought me to this problem. The Cathedral was just repaired from fire damage, and I simply searched for "St. John the Divine," looking to get the Cathedral, but there is no link from John of Patmos to the Cathedral's page. There are already two disambiguation links at the top of that page, so my understanding per Wikipedia:Disambiguation is that a third disambig link necessitates an entire page. But where to put it? "John of Patmos"? "John the Divine" (currently redirects to John of Patmos)? St. John the Divine (currently redirects to John of Patmos)? Help! --Wolf530 (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, in the mean time I'd created the dab page and had assumed (on grounds of my ignorance) that perhaps both the long-established redirects I found were right - but on the basis of majority vote (I didn't find your 3rd and 4th!) I'll change things a bit now. PamD (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a larger group. If someone enters "John the Divine", no need to make them wade through all the Sts. John when there only a handful of likely candidates. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Just looking for an opinion on A1 it appears to be a dab page and an article! it explanations of the term and lots of external links to non-article A1s (some just have A1 (or A-One) in their name). Doesnt look right but I thought I would ask the project. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so - it's one of a group of well-crafted pages on similar topics, and there would be nothing at all to gain by trying to strip it down to be a dab page, just so that a group of separate pages for the different creations of the baronetcy could be created (assuming that's what you had in mind). PamD (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Lists on disambig pages
Ok you'll probably have been asked this before but i thought i should ask anyway. I was wondering, how should items in lists be included in disambiguation pages? I initially thought that it would be [[Name of list page#article name|article name]], but this was reverted under WP:PIPING. What should it read as? Thanks, SteelersFanUK06ReplyOnMine!19:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
If you've got a widget that's an example of thingies, then on the widget disambiguation page, Widget, a [[List of thingies|thingy]] is fine. Pipe links in the description are fine, and linking in the description when there is no (full) article for the entry itself is fine. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Why the project box on talk pages?
E.g. [2]. The pages can be found anyway via categories anyway, and creating talk pages without useful content is wasting bandwidth, server usage, and the time of people checking the talk page and it's edits. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-22t21:06z
Ditto - If I go to edit something on a dab page and see that the talk page exists, I click on the tab in case there's some relevant discussion, and find I've wasted my time because the page has been created just to contain this template for which I can see no use either. Seriously, could someone please explain why it's thought to be helpful? PamD (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the disambig project banner is rather pointless, IMO. I seem to recall it came up in discussion a while back. As I recall, someone proposed making the banner and adding it. Many of the same questions of value were raised then, but no one raised any strong objections and thus a banner was born. Now, because it exists, it is considered by some proper to add to the talk pages as for other projects. I recently added the {{WikiProject Michigan}} banner with class=disambig to a number of disambig pages for Michigan placenames and as I did so I also added the disambig project banner, but I wouldn't miss it at all. older ≠ wiser13:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The template was also considered for deletion, twice, and survived resoundingly: here and here. BTW, a set of redirects from other versions has been recently nominated for deletion here. older ≠ wiser13:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
But the argument about clicking a talk page only to find project banner(s) applies equally to articles. There are many article talk pages with no discussion, only project banners. One solution would be to have a separate tab for projects, banners and other metadata and keep the talk page purely for discussion. --Jameboy (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I would probably never heard of this project, although I am quite interested in disambiguation pages, if it had not been for the banner that someone added to one of the disambiguation pages that were (and are) on my watch list. I am glad that this project exists, and I do think that thrashing (or threshing) out issues here will be a net benefit for the Wikipedia as a whole. If all that the banners do is call like-interested individuals to this project, isn't it worth an occasional click or two? --Bejnar (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A quick look suggests (to me at least) that there's enough material for a separate dab page for Mangel, even if much of it is connected with one particular Australian soap-opera! Physchim62(talk)01:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have a disambiguation page for Paul McDermott? While there are two people with that name who have articles, only one of them (Paul McDermott (comedian)) goes by that name professionally - the other goes by Paul Mac and is identified as such throughout his article. Both have a dab at the top of their pages, surely that's enough to do away with any confusion. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
In that situation, it's usually seen as unnecessary but harmless. One refinement might be to move the dab page to name (disambiguation) and use the name page for the comedian. However there's also a footballer of the same name, whom I've just added to the dab. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is about political regimes, yet it contains disambiguation information. I think the "Science" section should be split into a separate article (if it is notable) and a new page Regime (disambiguation) should be created. --George100 (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Returned the base name to the primary topic and removed the dab entries that did not have any WP articles to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Need some help in gaining consensus. Details are on Talk:Hastings, but in summary, the town in Sussex England (close to the site of the famous battle) is the primary subject, but it's unclear whether it's primary enough. It certainly is if article visits are anything to go by, and also with whatlinkshere (though there are considerable numbers of misdirected links intended for other article pages). Google gives a murkier superiority - a rough estimate of 3.0 million ghits for Hastings, East Sussex, 2.1 million for Hastings, New Zealand, and 2.0 million for Hastings, Michigan. Is it worth mocing the article to Hastings, East Sussex and moving the dab pagee to Hastings? Grutness...wha?23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I visited this category looking for information about abandoned clothing, and all I found were articles about a band. What kind of dab header would work here? Is there an appropriate template? At one extreme, I would expect a category redirect to Category:Waste, but I'll leave the final decision to the good folks in this project, who will probably not want to rename the category. I couldn't find the right template, so I just added {{for|Rubbish, trash, garbage, or junk|Category:Waste}}. Is there a better way? Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the page Garbage you will find the term disambiguated - I will see if it needs improving in the next few minutes. We here tend to specialise in dab pages not categories so that page may be the best we can offer. Abtract (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard that before. Disambiguation applies to all names used for files, articles and categories. FWIW, I often browse by category, so only disambiguating articles doesn't help here. Remember, article browsing is not the only way to find things. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Dab pages are not intended for browsing, they are to assist with finding the sought-after article out of a group of similarly named articles. Abtract (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Read what I wrote above. I often browse by category, and categories are subject to the same disambiguation requirements as any other article. Nobody browses by a dab page, as it wouldn't make sense. Viriditas (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
