Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 20

Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages

Dear Colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Undressed

Undressed is a dab page with only two entries. I'm planning to change it to a redirect to Undressed (TV series), which receives 50x as much traffic as Undressed (album). I would also add a hatnote to the new target, likely {{Redirect|Undressed|the music album|Undressed (album)}}. Any objections? —Zach425 talk/contribs 17:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is the potential for objection, you could mention this on Talk:Undressed instead. If the change is made, it should be to move the TV series article to the base name (with a {{for}} hatnote) -- the TV series would be the primary topic, and should be at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While I was reading the editing guidelines on WP:DAB and MOS:DAB this week I noticed some of the dap pages which are linked to from these pages aren't formatted according to the guidelines I was reading. Catalina for example is half article/half dab and Rice (disambiguation) has only one entry, Rice.

I added a list of links from these two pages to my userpage for quick reference. LittleWink (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree that Catalina is a bit of a mess as it stands now. But Rice (disambiguation) includes a number of entries other than Rice, which is the primary topic for the page. older ≠ wiser 23:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hm, apologies for mentioning Rice. I see that it's a proper dap page. I must have mixed up my notes. LittleWink (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Avram (disambiguation)

Resolved

There is a discussion for the deletion of Avram (disambiguation) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 9. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Now closed. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Input solicited

Input would be appreciated in the discussion at Talk:Glider_(sailplane)#Requested_move --Cybercobra (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack (fish)

How is that one a dab? Correct me if I'm wrong, just something seems wrong here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not wrong. It's either a list article of fishes named Jack or it should be a redirect to Jack (disambiguation) as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary topics clarification?

Say there are pages Foo, Foo (bar 1), and Foo (bar 2) and the latter two are about the same type of entity (i.e. "bar" is a disambiguator and the numbers are further sub-disambiguators). Is there such thing as there being a primary topic for "Foo (bar)" or does the term "primary topic" only apply to top-level pages like Foo? I hold the latter to be the case and therefore that neither Foo (bar 1) nor Foo (bar 2) should be located at Foo (bar), but this is not entirely clear from the disambiguation guideline. Can someone clarify what the current position on this is? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've seen things like "Foo (song)" and "Foo (Beatles song)", where the first song is considered primary over the second. But I don't know how far this is considered good practice. I think in some cases it could be (where the second topic is really obscure and the first quite well known).--Kotniski (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hm. There's a similar discussion about films, but they have a specific guideline in that case already, which doesn't make the arguments presented universally applicable. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The primary topic goes at the base name. The articles about things that would have the base name title get the base name title with a disambiguating phrase in parentheses. The disambiguation project does not specify the selection or assignment of these disambiguating phrases -- as long as each article has a unique title and is reachable from the disambiguation page or from the primary topic article's hatnotes, disambiguation is accomplished. Things like Avatar (film) can be created as redirects to Avatar (2009 film) or to Avatar (disambiguation) (as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}), or they can be left uncreated. So, no, there is no such thing (inside this project) as a primary topic for a title with a disambiguating phrase. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
But is there a rule regarding the appropriateness of e.g. moving Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar (film) when there exists (the much less well-known) Avatar (2004 film) ? (disregarding the film naming conventions in this hypothetical as if they didn't exist) --Cybercobra (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Not within the disambiguation project. The film project might (or might not) have guidelines on how those titles should be disambiguated, and whether any redirects should be created and where they should point. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Re. JHunterJ's comment "Things like Avatar (film) can be created as redirects to Avatar (2009 film) or to Avatar (disambiguation)", I thought that Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Incomplete disambiguation indicated that Avatar (film) should specifically not redirect to Avatar (2009 film); either it should redirect to a DAB page or be some kind of set-index-style article?
Also I take the same part of the guidelines to imply that the parenthetical disambiguators of pages ought to avoid partial disambiguation, although it's clearly not explicitly stated anywhere. Personally I would never create or move an article at such a title, and I would be inclined to move pages away from such titles, unless there was clear consensus in favour of that title (e.g. requested move process or a widely-canvassed discussion reaching consensus on the talk page). The question does not usually arise, as the commonly encountered issues such as names of people and titles of works do have specific naming convention guidelines that should be followed in the majority of cases.
--MegaSloth (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

8 (disambiguation)

Could others take a look at 8 (disambiguation)? The page was in a mess and I first reverted to a far better previous version then tried to improve the page from there. The editor whose changes I reverted has started re-applying his changes again, as far as I can see contrary to the disambiguation guidelines and reducing the utility of the page. I would appreciate other eyes on the page.

Thanks, --MegaSloth (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussions with the same editor on similar issues at 9 (disambiguation) would benefit from wider participation. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to keep an eye out. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yech, the number disambiguation pages are pretty bad. There's no standard format or style to the articles at all. Even the names don't match:
Number 8 redirects to the DAB Number Eight; Number 9 redirects to 9 (number); Number 10 is itself a DAB, etc.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
This could be perfectly fine; there might be more things called "6" than "Six" but more things called "Seven" than "7", etc. Whether to combine DAB pages and where to keep them is a judgement call. Really, the precise name of a page is of secondary importance provided the correct redirects are in place. Redirects from other terms to be disambiguated depend where that term is actually disambiguated; again a judgement call, although one would expect a degree of consistency there. --MegaSloth (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Razor

I was wondering if anyone would be willing to take Razor (philosophy) under their wing. It looks like a DAB, though it's not currently flagged as such.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's a dab, it would become a redirect to Razor (disambiguation) as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. But it just looks like a stub list right now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, just checking. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Keisha disambiguation

I've noticed a number of pages relating to people named "Keisha" (see: Keisha, Keisha Buchanan, and Keisha Castle-Hughes as examples) and I was wondering, should we consider creating a disambiguate for Keisha as a whole? I mean, I like erotic dancers just as much as the next person, but given the popularity of (at the very least) three people with this name, is there enough to begin one?

Also, don't assume that because of those example, that's the only time "Keisha" is found on wikipedia. I haven't gone through enough to search for all it's uses, but I'm simply suggesting. -CamT|C 03:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but there's the possibility of creating an anthroponymy list article for name-holders of the name "Keisha". That would be Keisha (given name) unless or until it became the primary topic. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Will the Shill

This page appears to be possible OR and violates the following portions of the disambiguation MoS:

  • Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web. To note URLs that might be helpful in the future, include them on the talk page.
  • References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles.

Neither of the linked pages include the term "Will the Shill". Would someone from this project mind taking a look at it? I think it may need to be rewritten or nominated for deletion. Thank you, momoricks 00:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have given the reasons I turned this into a redirect to shill at Talk:Will the Shill. --MegaSloth (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, MegaSloth. momoricks 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bird Island

I could use some guidance with the format and layout of this dab page. It is not conducive to finding similarly named articles. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I tagged it for cleanup. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but can I get some help on layout and presentation? Should I alpha sort the subsections? What do you recommend as a logical grouping? Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything badly wrong with it. Discussions of such details should be at Talk:Bird Island. I'll look again in a more picky manner and comment there. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I didn't see any answers to my questions. I'll ask them again over on the dab talk page. Failing that, I will modify the page myself. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A change suggested to Template:Disambig

See Template_talk:Disambig#Remove_message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that the template has been changed, the contents of Help:Disambiguation are being discussed at Help talk:Disambiguation. Josh Parris 10:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages

Why is Offshore wind power a part of this project?

On the Talk page of Offshore wind power, it says that the OWP article is a part of WikiProject Disambiguation. Why? N2e (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it used to be.[1]. I removed the project tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lathe of Heaven

Could someone have a look at Lathe of Heaven? I think the primary topic is the book and we really don't need a dab page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Move Token-object reading to Psychometry

There is a proposal to move Token-object reading to Psychometry. The Psychometry page is currently a disambiguation page which is why I've brought the matter here. If interested, please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Token-object reading for continuity. - Steve3849 10:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Categorization of redirects to disambiguation pages

I've stumbled over Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects and Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages and discovered redirects can be categorized. It's raised some questions, the answers to which may lead to development of a bot.

Redirects to dab pages

Is is reasonable to say that any redirect appearing in either Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages or Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguations ought to redirect to a disambiguation page, and if it doesn't it should be removed from those categories? Josh Parris 12:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this seems a reasonable assumption. Though, rather than simply removing the category, perhaps they should be listed somewhere for a human to examine. older ≠ wiser 14:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unintentional redirect

Is any redirect to a disambiguation page ever unintentional? How do you tell? Josh Parris 12:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If someone moves a disambiguation page or otherwise changes a page to be a disambiguation page without cleaning up after themselves, then there might be redirects to the disambiguation page. There's no easy way that I know of, but if the redirects are not tagged as intentional, then that at least raises the possibility that they are no intentional. older ≠ wiser 14:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Pagename gets moved to Pagename (specific), Pagename (disambiguation) gets moved to Pagename, and now the redirects to Pagename are potentially unintentional?
And in the case of dab-ifying Pagename, redirects there may no longer be appropriate?
So, if Pagename has always been a dab and has never been moved, does that mean redirects must be intentional? Josh Parris 15:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
On a place a loosely organized as Wikipedia, I'm not sure you could make any such assumptions with 100% confidence. I seem to recall some editors who'd make redirects from possible misspellings or alternate spellings without ever checking whether the target was a disambiguation page or an article. older ≠ wiser 15:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm just trying to come up with exceptions to disprove the rule. My opinion on misspellings would be that they're intentional, because a misspelling of an ambiguous term is still ambiguous. Josh Parris 00:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record, we have Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Questionable redirects to disambiguation pages, which lists about 5,000 redirects to disambiguation pages which appear too narrow, too broad, or just plain wrong. I personally culled this from a larger list of about 30,000 redirects to disambiguation pages, most of which were reasonable either because they were indeed different spellings of the ambiguous term at issue, or because there were multiple subvariations of the ambiguous term (example: Genesis (album) redirects to the disambiguation page, Genesis, because a section on that page lists ten albums by that name. bd2412 T 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirects in categories

Is it reasonable to say that any redirect to a disambiguation page ought to appear in either Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages or Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguations? Or only intentional redirects? Josh Parris 12:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonable, but I'm pretty certain there are multitudes that are not categorized. There might be some benefit for editors (at least for disambiguators) and bots, but I'm not sure how much such categorization would help readers. I.e., in terms of importance, fixing such missing categorization might not rank very high in things that could be done to help Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 15:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking a couple of steps ahead, trying to help bots, which will in turn help the disambiguators, which in turn helps the readers. Josh Parris 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

After bd2412's response above, I'm thinking there ought to be a third category, Category:Uncategorized redirects to disambiguation pages or Category:Questionable redirects to disambiguation pages where redirects to disambiguation pages go if they're not in either of the two above categories - that is, they're considered questionable until they're (probably) placed in Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguations. Would it be reasonable for someone to create and populate this third category? Who would de-populate it (that is, categorize the redirects)?Josh Parris 13:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Any redirect on one of those questionable lists should be so categorized until the question is resolved (a bot should be able to do this). There are quite a few standard situations which are currently uncategorized, but which could also be categorized by a bot, such as when "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to the disambig page, "Foo"; or where "Lastname, Firstname" redirects to the disambig page "Firstname Lastname". bd2412 T 01:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pagename (disambiguation)

Is it reasonable to say that any ambiguous page "Pagename" ought to have a corresponding explict disambiguation page "Pagename (disambiguation)", regardless of whether the disambiguating text lies at "Pagename" or "Pagename (disambiguation)"?

Stated another way, if "Pagename" is a disambiguation page, "Pagename (disambiguation)" ought exist and to redirect to it. Josh Parris 12:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes. But as with the previous point, such pages might likely be meaningful to only a small subset of editors. older ≠ wiser 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
These are very important, because occasionally a link from article space is actually intended to point to a disambig page (usually in a hatnote from an article with a similar name, or in a see also section). It makes the job of cleaning up erroneous links easier if we can ignore these intentional links. Right this moment, I'm working through a list of disambiguation pages with links to other disambiguation pages, most of which are in see also sections, and which intend to refer to the other disambig page. There was a conversation about this somewhere, where we agreed that in such cases, the link in the see also section should be an unpiped link through "Foo (disambiguation)", both to clear the boards of intentional links, and to make clear to the reader that the target of the link was a disambiguation page as well. bd2412 T 01:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
"Pagename (disambiguation)" is only needed if there is a link to it. If it would be an orphan, there's no need to create the redirect. If a page links to the dab page, it should link to "Pagename (disambiguation)", even if that means that redirect has to be created. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point, but I've been working through a list of over 20,000 disambig pages which contain links to other disambig pages (Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages), and I can't tell you how many of these I've had to make! bd2412 T 02:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Should a bot run around and create all the missing Pagename (disambiguation) redirects? Josh Parris 04:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I have often thought of that but never got around to suggesting it, so it's great to see someone proposing it. Once that's done, we can get tidyup some of the hatnotes, getting rid of those like {{otherpersons2}} which generate a direct link to "foo" rather than to "foo (dismabiguation)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I second that emotion. bd2412 T 00:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
At one stage, SmackBot was doing something like that, although it got rather carried away I think and there was something of a fuss at WP:RFD. I don't know what the conclusion was, but anyone thinking to do a similar thing should check it out for possible pitfalls and to avoid wasting time on something that may not fly. --MegaSloth (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually thought we still had a bot doing this. Honestly, we ought to always have such redirects. It's not only a question of explicit links; it also improves searches and (especially) the autosuggestion function by explicitly identifying dabpages in the title. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the thing to do is to have a formal !vote process where we establish that it is indeed community consensus to have these redirects, and have the bot point to that in its edits creating them, so that no one gets the impression that it is off on a rogue mission. bd2412 T 20:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009_March_23#Black Widow (comics) (disambiguation) → Black Widow is the sort of fuss I remember. It ought to be easy enough for a bot to avoid this issue though. --MegaSloth (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there a consensus here, or ought we make it stand-alone? Josh Parris 02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pagename (disambiguation) requires Pagename

If a page named Pagename (disambiguation) exists, and Pagename doesn't, what ought to be done? Josh Parris 12:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

At the least, these should be brought to the attention of the editors who work with malplaced disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 15:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
And, since Pagename doesn't exist, any dab member (or any editor) can make the appropriate move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
For reference, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New dab, checkme?

I just wrote Factorial (disambiguation) to simplify the hatnote at Factorial. (I was surprised to find so many uses!) Could someone look this over? I'm not sure how I should organize it, and I'm not sure how to split the main meanings from the See also/'... can also mean' sections.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put my comments for discussion on Talk:Factorial (disambiguation). --MegaSloth (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mocha (disambiguation)

Mocha (disambiguation) is... well... not a disambiguation page. Would someone look at this and decide what should be done? I'm not sure if a DAB page is needed, and if one is it should presumably take the place of the current article.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've moved this to Mocha (singer) to preserve the edit/attribution history, and restored the original redirect to the dab page. I wouldn't be surprised if the singer gets nominated for deletion, but at least she should be kept out of the way of the dab page. Thanks for the heads-up. --NSH001 (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
note: this could have been an IP editor using a dab page to get round the restriction on creating new articles. Next time, consider just reverting and pointing the IP editor to WP:AFC. --NSH001 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tool in beta testing

User:WildBot/red to blue lists new pages mentioned on disambiguation pages. This might be a redlink going from red to blue, or it might be a new meaning inserted. If doing maintenance from the list, feel free to delete entries as they're verified. Feedback appreciated. Josh Parris 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-automating with Mechanical Turk

I was wondering: has anyone ever tried making disambiguations by outsourcing it to Amazon Mechanical Turk? Having done a few HITs myself, and a lot of disambiguating, it seems to me that disambiguating is easy and fast enough that one could get many takers for a 1¢ task in which one does 10 or 20 disambiguations.

At that price, one could knock out most of the disambigs at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links for 10 or 20$. (The largest are ~150, or 15¢ without double-checking; the top 100 would then be <15$.) --Gwern (contribs) 18:53 5 February 2010 (GMT)

Who's on the hook for the $20? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
For $20, anyone could be on the hook. Heck, I wouldn't mind paying it myself. --Gwern (contribs) 20:01 5 February 2010 (GMT)
I'm not familiar with the Turk process, but I would think that identifying who was going to pay would be central to their business model. And not anyone could be on the hook for the $20 -- I wouldn't like to be, for instance, even though it's a small amount and I am active in the disambiguation project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought the turk got shut down? The only problem I see is one of quality control - well that and I myself are unwilling to pay the faceless horde to fix the 'pedia. I have a fantasy that one day I will develop a computer program that does most of it for us. Josh Parris 14:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
No, the Turk is alive and well. Error checking can be done by repeating disambiguations - if 2 Turkers disagree about the right disambiguation, it gets booted up to whomever is running it, or it could be best 2 out of 3. And even if you use some of the fancy Bayesian statistical methods to truly automate disambiguation, you need some way to check them or do the remaining hard bits. --Gwern (contribs) 14:29 6 February 2010 (GMT)

Positive definiteness

Your comments are requested on a discussion about whether or not a particular page is a disambiguation page or a stub here. Neelix (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispenser's new tool

Dab solver is a new tool which allows for fast disambiguation of multiple links similar to wikicleaner and the ease of reading Wikipedia itself. Currently, it is in beta because some Features aren't implemented (see the to-do list after the show/hide) and I still have to come up with a new name (any help is appreciated) and parts need to be rewritten. Again any feedback is appreciated. — Dispenser 09:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks very nice. Any chance of getting it to work with secure.wikimedia.org for those of us that use secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/xx rather than xx.wikipedia.org?
CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Which parts? The "Show change"/"Show preview" button (POST address), the API requests, the mini article browser, or the in page editing feature? The framework isn't designed for any of it, but hopefully it similar enough that back here as a gadget. — Dispenser 21:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The form POST URI. When you click "show preview", I'd like it to be able to go to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=PAGENAME&action=submit rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PAGENAME&action=submit. Maybe there could be a checkbox?
It would be useful for the thousands of users of Secure Wiki, since otherwise the changes to the page are lost when you move across servers. (I'm an admin, and admins are asked to use the secure server... though I don't know how many do.)
But regardless, I'm impressed with the tool. It's very easy to use and pretty powerful. Oh, one more request: can we have a direct link from the 'search for pages to fix' page to a 'fix this page with this tool' page, rather than just a link to the article?
CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added the form rewrite script, its stored in a cookie and can be set via Preferences. However, it will not rewrite any of the links since it'll likely disrupt scripting too much. About adding links to Dablinks, I'm not very fond of horizontal integration when its just me doing it. — Dispenser 00:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That's great, now I can use it. I really like the common fixes (well, except for [[Upper|upper case]] → [[upper|upper case]]); they really clean up the articles. Thanks for the tool! CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My Name Is (disambiguation)

Maybe an expert at disambiguation pages could have a look at this? It seems uncoventional, only one of the articles is actually called "My Name Is". Markfury3000 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the dab tag and prodded it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
True, it's not a disambig page, but it could still exist as an index of media beginning with "My name is". bd2412 T 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
But I think then that list article would be AfDed and deleted as a partial title match list, like
before it. Better to use All pages with titles beginning with My Name Is for that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion over at Template talk:Dmbox#Surname pages should be considered by bots as disambig pages that needs more input from you guys. It is about how to handle interwiki links between set index articles on enwp and disambig pages on other Wikipedias. And about if the {{surname}} template is a set index box or disambig box.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Add template to talk page?

Instead of redirecting to the talk page for Cannabis drug strains, shouldn't the talk page for Cannabis strains have a template for WikiProject Disambiguation? --Another Believer (Talk) 05:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. Corrected. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

World domination

Please intervene into "World domination" page: a group of people decided to invent their own rules for this disambig page. See page revert war. - Altenmann >t 23:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Biblical law

Only one article on this page actually contains the phrase "Biblical law" in the title; all are just different aspects or interpretations of Biblical law. I do not think this should be a disambig page at all. bd2412 T 04:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the dab tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

user:174.3.99.176

FYI, 174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs) seems to be getting into editing disputes on the usage of {{for2}} that this editor insists on removing. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

user: 174.3.98.236 & user: 174.3.99.176 & user:100110100

FYU, 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) has been going around replacing one hatnote template with another, and nominating hatnote templates for deletion at TfD for the last few weeks.

Atleast some of his/her replacements seem to be controversial (see their talk page)... so I don't know how to construe this behaviour, since it's atleast odd, in my view.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

At TfD someone has mentioned that this user's IP address has rolled over, and is now 174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs).
70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
On the talk page of 174.3.98.236, it indicates this may be 100110100 (a previously indefinitely blocked user) ; considering that two more hatnote templates have come up for deletion under this username, it seems like a strong possibility. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

TfD

BTW:

The recently deleted dab hatnote templates appear to be {{about3}} and {{otheruses1}} .
The current dab hatnote templates still under active discussion for TfD are {{for2}} and {{distinguish2}}

70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


Two templates have just come up for deletion, {{otheruses2}} and {{otheruses3}}.
70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Page title in chinese

I'd like to point out the page 南山; I don't know if it's policy to have disambig pages of this format. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an agreement on this, see WP:CJKV 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Birth and Birth (disambiguation)

Could the project please take a look at Birth and Birth (disambiguation)? From what I can tell, it looks like we have two dab pages on the subject. We really only need one. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The primary topic appears to be a list article. I cleaned up the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've never seen a list used as a primary topic before, hence my confusion. Do you think birth should bring the reader to a list? Doesn't make sense to me. I believe most readers are looking for childbirth, and that's where the primary topic should reside. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I could see that as a requested move (of the list to a new title so that "birth" can point to the proposed primary topic). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wesleyan

This was once a DAB page and is still tagged as such, but it looks like it was split to Wesleyan University (disambiguation) in Nov 2009, and this remainder has since evolved into an article. Either the DAB tag needs to be removed from Wesleyan, or it needs to be reworked back into a DAB format. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the dab tag. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tag redirects for which "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to "Foo", a disambiguation page

User:R'n'B stands ready to have his famous bot drop an {{R to disambiguation page}} tag on all redirects for which "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to "Foo", a disambiguation page. It seems intuitive to me that such pages should have some kind of identifying/categorizing tag. Does anyone agree or disagree? bd2412 T 01:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding the tag, but note that this will have the side effect of making a move of the dab to the (disambiguation) title require an admin, if it didn't already. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Understood, but we deal with that all the time with malplaced disambig pages. If there are no objections, then, either R'n'B will pick this up or I'll get to it this weekend. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Capella

A search for Capella takes the reader to a dab page. But isn't Capella (star) the primary topic of importance? Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no mention of its possible primacy on Talk:Capella or Talk:Capella (star). Also, primary topic is primary topic of readership, not primary topic of importance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
So, you're saying you want me to use the article talk page first? When most readers search for "capella", they expect to be taken to the page on the star. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't. I think the dab page should stay where it is. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, please indulge me. What are you (or the average reader) looking for when you type "Capella" into the search box? Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought of the university first and had no idea its a star until I saw this discussion. Where I'm from, it is also the name of a local grocery store. --Tesscass (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm saying use the talk page first. Disambiguation project members don't know what should be the primary topic of any given phrase. Since you asked for anecdotes, in my case, I would have no expectation of any of the "capella" entries being primary, except possibly "a cappella" as a redirect from misspelling. People watching the pages in question will usually be more knowledgeable about at least some of the entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
In that case, will someone please help modify the {{DisambigProject}} template, and add a flag that allows an editor like myself to add "activetalk=yes" or something similar, so that current dab page discussions will show up on the project page, either in a category queue template listing or in some way that allows active project participants to review talk page proposals and discussions without starting separate threads here? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Sphinx

If you search for Sphinx, you get what you might expect. If you search for The Sphinx, however, it sends you to The Sphinx (volcano), a pretty obscure mountain that looks a bit like the Sphinx. As you know, The Sphinx, like the Mona Lisa or The Pieta, nearly always takes the definate article, so people looking for the Egyptian Sphinx by searching for The Sphinx, which they are highly likely to do, are being mis-directed. So here I am looking for your comments or suggestions. Chrisrus (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My inclination would be to move The Sphinx, such as to The Sphinx (British Columbia), then redirect The Sphinx to Sphinx.--Tesscass (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Why create a new disambiguator when there's the (volcano) one already? Volcano is probably a better description. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, volcano works fine. The only reason I suggested (British Columbia) is because a lot of mountain disambiguators are locations. --Tesscass (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

China trade improperly/incorrectly moved to Trade of China

A new account just made this move, and to me it's clearly a second-language speaker who made the change; the point of the page is the English idiom "China trade"; "Trade of China" is an awkward irrelevant construction, partly because it's not anything someone would search for. Please see Talk:Trade of China and if an admin is reading this would you please oblige and undo the move; this needed discussion, not single-handed "correction" by a newbie....Skookum1 (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

An admin is not needed to revert the move (because no further edits have been made; any editor can move a page over a redirect to the page if there is only one edit in the redirect's history). But I've moved it now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Create Pagename (disambiguation) as a redirect to every Pagename which is a dab page

This is a followup to a discussion in January 2010, which is now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 20#Pagename_.28disambiguation.29, in which it was proposed to ask a bot to create Pagename (disambiguation) as a redirect to every Pagename which is a dab page

There has been plenty of discussion of this in the past, and as far as I can see there has always been a consensus to do it ... but no action has been taken.

So now I propose to make the following request at Wikipedia:Bot requests:

Task
For every disambiguation page "pagename" whose title does not end in "(disambiguation)", and where "pagename (disambiguation)" does not already exist, please create "pagename (disambiguation)" with the content "#REDIRECT [[pagename]] {{R to disambiguation page)}"
Reason
Per WP:INTDABLINK, a link to a disambiguation page should point to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect – for example, link to the redirect "America (disambiguation)" rather than the target page at "America".
However, many disambiguation pages exist at Pagename without a corresponding redirect from Pagename (disambiguation). This greatly increases the workload of those who monitor Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and set out to clean up the links. For example a hatnote which points to Pagename may be generated by {{otherpersons2}}, and can be fixed by changing the template to {{otherpersons}} ... but this produces a redlink unless Pagename (disambiguation) already exists.
If a bot generates the Pagename (disambiguation) as a redirect, then it becomes a simple task to fix any such links without having to create a new page.

Any comments? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I made this comment in the earlier discussion: the (disambiguation) redirect is needed if and only if there are intentional links to the disambiguation page at the base name. Creating an orphan (disambiguation) redirect is unnecessary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
In some cases it will be unnecessary, but in all cases it will do no harm ... and if it allows rapid and semi-automated fixing of some links to disambiguation pages, it will bring positive benefits. So why not just do it?
Maybe, however, it would best to start with the 20,000+ pages in Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages, and get a bot to ensure that Pagename (disambiguation) exists in all those cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
One downside would be that if a page later needs to be disambiguated, now there has to be a housekeeping speedy deletion to allow for the page, move. That increases the risk of copy-paste moves too, which are a major pain to fix.
I'm not saying that's a reason to oppose, but it is something to consider. Shadowjams (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That's probably another good reason to start with the Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages, where we already know that that Pagename (disambiguation) is needed.
However, I'm not so sure that the situation you describe arises that often. The circumstances would be where Pagename exists as a dab page and needs to be moved to Pagename (disambiguation) because an editor believes that one of the items is the primary topic. In those circumstances, a WP:RM discussion is often advisable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It could also occur if neither page were a primary topic. The problem is Pagename (disambiguation) in the way. This has come up in some of the NRHP articles discussed above, which is what made think of this. Shadowjams (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by that. If there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page belongs at Pagename, and Pagename (disambiguation) is not in the way of anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
About the NRHP disambiguation, offhand i don't see how this would hurt. While going through all the possible topics for NRHP disambiguation pages now, i am adding "see also" links between some of them (like from "Hopkins House" to "Hopkins Farm" separate dab pages). Hence i am creating a lot of these links (like from "Hopkins Farm (disambiguation)" to "Hopkins Farm"), myself. It could reduce my work by a little if those are already set up. In the review process, i also come across many cases where there's an article where a disambiguation page should be (like "Golden Hill Historic District" being used by one place, when in fact there are two or more places of that name in different states). I just move those (as inthis move of Golden Hill HD today). The proposal would neither hurt nor help in those cases. I may be missing something, but I don't see the problem for NRHP cases with this proposal. --doncram (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The potential harm is possible spinning wheels as other editors go through the motions of nominating and discussion the deletion of the orphan dabs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Where would such deletions be covered? There are some guidelines or essays on acceptable vs. non-acceptable reasons for deletion that would get updated, after one or two AFDs, I would expect. If these are useful to have, i would think the wheel-spinning would be limited.
But, is there another consideration, from the fact that an edit has occured at the dab page name. I am not clear on the mechanics, but does that interfere sooner with moves back and forth between page names, so that administrative intervention is needed sooner if a page move is needed? I am not really for or against, just trying to understand implications. --doncram (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopewell disambiguation

Please see Talk:Hopewell. This is a place-oriented dab page, or really a system of multiple dab pages, that could/should all be consolidated and simplified IMO. There are a few NRHP ones mixed in, but it is mostly towns/villages named Hopewell and townships named Hopewell Township. --doncram (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Dogs of War

This page has grown and no longer meets the WP:DABNOT standards. I hesitate to remove the project's banner without consultation here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have split the new stub article information that was added to the disambiguation page off to The dogs of war (phrase) and cleaned up the disambiguation page to meet the guidelines. If the phrase is the primary topic, WP:RM can be used to move the disambiguation page to the (disambiguation) title and the base name can redirect to the phrase article (which would probably simultaneously be moved to The dogs of war). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. It is the primary topic—all the others refer back to it—and I'll get round to initiating a page move discussion in due course. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Note that primary topic is not the one that "all others refer back to". Primary topic (if any) is the one the is most used/expected by the Wikipedia readership when they link to, search on, or click through to the title "The Dogs of War". See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
In that case I'll leave it: the primary topic in that sense could well be the novel or the movie. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional input needed at Johnson

CelticWonder has spuriously accused me of conflict of interest here. Other input requested. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion which may be of interest

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Routes.2FHighways Gnevin (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent bold edits to $1

This DAB page pointed to several uses of $1 as currency (dollar, peso, and a few others) as well as a computer science term. It was recently marked for deletion (in the page itself, not on the talk page) and then 4 hours later changed to a redirect page. Maybe it shouldn't be a DAB page -- but it certainly shouldn't be a redirect to Dollar. I'm not quite sure what to do -- don't think I should just revert back to the status quo ante -- so I'd appreciate some input from DAB folks here. Thanks! YBG (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We could add another {{redirect}} hatnote to Dollar pointing up Parameter (computer science). It appears that only the computer science term is not covered by the "Dollar" article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DFW and DFW (disambiguation)

I tried moving what's on DFW to DFW (disambiguation), but couldn't do it. I think this makes sense because DFW is commonly know as the airport code for Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. We can have a seperated disambiguation page for what else the initials "DFW" are known for. This has already been done for ORD, which is Chicago-O'Hare International Airport, so why not DFW? Elephant200 (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The criteria are outlined at WP:PT. Traffic statistics for Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport show it had 5469 hits in February. David Foster Wallace had 42834. Google puts the airport at the top of its list search results. They both have about 200 inbound links. However, the article David Foster Wallace gives no reason why anyone would be using his initials to locate his article, so should the dab link for David Foster Wallace be there at all?. William Avery (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably WP:RM should be used to verify there is consensus for a move from DFW to DFW (disambiguation). Incidentally, what was done with "ORD" doesn't really help determine whether there's a primary topic for "DFW". There are other airports with the IATA codes like "DAY" and "JFK", but I can pretty much guarantee they aren't the primary topics for those initials. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

These need to be fixed, I was looking at Batman (disambiguation) and it doesn't list ANY articles related to the Caped Crusader. Then I realised there was a second (misnamed) page at List of Batman related topics, which isn't what it claims to be because it only has links to articles named "Batman". I would attempt to fix this myself, but I don't know how. 90.219.50.171 (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The very first link on Batman (disambiguation) is to the Caped Crusader! Physchim62 (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, although I meant related articles such as Batman (1989 film) or Batman (comic strip). It doesn't make any sense that someone searching for articles called "Batman" (relating to the comic character) will be provided with Division of Batman, an electoral district in Victoria, or Batman Province in Turkey, but no articles relating to the character (apart from the unambiguated one). List of Batman related topics appears to be an attempt to remove all the comic related articles from the page. Compare this with Superman (disambiguation), which is how Batman (disambiguation) should be. 90.219.50.171 (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I added in some of the other articles that are ambiguous with "Batman" to the disambiguation page. Some set-indexing gone haywire, I think. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that looks much better. I was hoping you'd reply to my original post since I've noticed you fix up a lot of dab pages. 90.219.50.171 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, it did look better, but someone's gone and reverted your work, which is a shame. 90.219.50.171 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Community property

Please see Talk:Community property (a disambiguation page) for a discussion of whether there is a primary topic for this term; and if so, whether it is Community property (marriage) or Public property. TJRC (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeannette Lee

A fine mess. Please see Talk:Jeannette Lee (disambiguation) for comments. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page. Tassedethe (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

110.54.140.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I reverted this edit to restore a redirect and was going to leave the IP a message about my reversion when I noticed this edit. Now, my dilemma is that not only am I not sure about how to engage the IP, but I don't know how to fix the "Still" dab page. I've already inadvertantly zapped one article and I'd rather not zap two without some guidance and/or advice. If I've handled this badly, be gentle...it was unintentional. Thanks Tiderolls 06:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved the band article to Still (band) and restored Still (album) to be a redirect to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I've followed your lead and re-created Benjamin Abalos, Jr. (zapped when I restored the redirect). I don't know if I've excised all the copyvio problems, but I did my best. Tiderolls 16:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Peace Scouts

Would someone mind having a look at this dab? I tried to correct overlinking, invalid entries and piping but keep being reverted with no real reason given; I've tried marking it for cu and this keeps being taken off. I'd welcome another opinion, as I don't want to go beyond 3rr. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)