Someone has re-ordered the disambiguation page for The Firm. Should the page be in alphabetical order and/or order of notability? Either way, I would have though that Films, with the film starring Tom Cruise, listed under Films would have been listed near the top of the page. SteamboatBilly (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
"Vijay Kumar" needs a disambiguation page. There's already an article with that name, else I'd just create it. Here are a few to get you started, but a search might turn up more, depending on what part of the name needs to match.
No, the disambiguation page should not be moved there. I agree that the links to one article should be changed to a different link if a different article was intended, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The majority of the links to Betrayal are correct. I've fixed a couple which aren't, but haven't checked them all. If someone gets to the betrayal page while expecting to find a film, play, etc, they are just one well-signposted click away from the disambiguation page. PamD (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that betrayal (and double-cross which shares the page) would be better as a dictionary page and not an encyclopedia one ... it should be noted that there are no refs which indicates to me that this is simply an editor's (s') view of the definitions, and definitions are all we have here. For these reasons I would support moving the dab page to betrayal. Abtract (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the article Android (robot) will have consensus to be moved back to the base name. Many of those incoming links were "accumulated" while the robot article was at the base name, and won't need fixing if it is restored. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Discussion has closed and result is no move; the disambiguation page remains at Android. As I said before, the incoming links are a mess. Keeping the disambiguation page at Android is a good idea. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Android (robot) is still open. I figured they would be closed together, but there is logic to closing them separately, because there are 3 possible outcomes of the two move requests. I think the disambiguation page will stay at Android. The incoming links to Android have been fixed (mostly not be me, btw). Even if the robot stays at Android, having links to it go through Android (robot) is helpful for repairing future accumulations of incoming links to Android. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Would members of this Wikiproject like to have a look at the new DAB at Cowman? I'm of the opinion that most of it's not terribly useful, and have reverted it once (see the history), but I'd like other opinions. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! And I see the creator has also accused you of disruptive editing. They've now also accused me of the same, and the diffs they provide include my post above, which they regard as canvassing. But your input was exactly what I was hoping for, and it now actually looks worth saving. Andrewa (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I accept my share of credit for "it now actually looks worth saving". I put a lot of work into that disambiguation page, and into the articles listed on it too. It is nice to know that someone appreciates my work. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Good. Perhaps one day that will include accepting responsibility for wrongly accusing both of the editors who worked to save your hard work on this occasion. Keep up the hard work. Ease off on the agro. And keep your sense of humour... sometimes you need it here. See User:Andrewa/creed. Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It is not "wrongly accusing" for me to say that Andrewa and JHunterJ have been disruptive. It is for me to say what is disruptive to my work. Neither Andrewa nor JHunterJ did anything to "save" my hard work. Andrewa and JHunterJ both have been busy reverting, deleting, and otherwise undoing my contributions here, and I find their edit summaries to be nearly useless. Neither editor bothered to communicate with me first about their concerns. In contrast, Canadian Paul did this, which I thought was quite helpful. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, accusing editors of "disruptive editing" is different than claiming other editors are "disrupting your work". See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, which does not mention "your work" at all. And you are welcome for the clean up efforts I put in on the disambiguation pages, such as this one. Please also see WP:OWN. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
<- outdent
As the (baseless) charges of disruptive editing and in my case also of canvassing were both wikilinked to the relevant project pages, I'm afraid we must assume that the contributor had read them and therefore question the good faith. This sort of behavior is not of course unique, although thankfully not all that common either. They do seem intelligent and capable of good work. Whether there is any intended mischief, and whether they will mend their ways, are IMO both open questions at this stage. The ideal is of course that they come to value the project and community, abide by the community polity, and become a valued contributor, rather than one who frankly wastes a lot of other people's time as at present (and this post is of course partly for their benefit, I hope I'm not just feeding a troll).
While I feel that in some ways I should apologise for involving you in this (these accusations came later so I couldn't warn you in advance) I again thank you for your cool head, second opinion, and hard work. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Rather than re-invent the wheel, I'll ask: is there a bot to assist with link target changing, when a disambiguation page is taking over the main title?
The specific situation is CART, which was a redirect to Champ Car. It's been turned into a redirect to CART (disambiguation), which is proposed to usurp the "naked" CART title. However, at least 500 article link to CART with an intended meaning of Champ Car.
The rub is, how can you be sure that all of those existing links really should be changed to link to Champ Car? If that were possible, then a bot could easily do the job. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It is true there are hundreds of incoming links to CART. Unfortunately, not all of them intend Champ Car. I hope C.Fred will feel reassured to know there are software tools to speed repair of incoming links, and this number of incoming links is manageable. (I've been helping to repair far more incoming links to Avatar.) 69.3.72.249 (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Request for advice / assistance
At present, the page Pablo Garza redirects to Pablo González Garza. A new page, Pablo Garza (fighter), was recently created. I am wondering what should thus be done for the present redirect page. Should the Pable Garza redirect page remain as a redirect, or be usurped by the fighter? Disambiguation links on the top of either or both articles? If there is a usurption to occur, are admin permissions required? Am I making sense or just imagining there is a problem where none exists? Help! EdChem (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Except, wasn't Pablo González Garza's surname "González", not Garza? Only people who are ignorant of Mexican naming would refer to him as "Garza". So by that standard the redirect should go to the fighter, since the redirect is actually his name. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
So, should I put a note on each page that points to the other, and leave the redirect? Or, change the redirect to the figher? Or, should I ask for the redirect page to be deleted, move the fighter page to replace it, and then add disambiguation links at the top of each page? Sorry, but I'm still confused. EdChem (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I've boldly created a dab page at Pablo Garza. I'm not sure which of the two of them is the primary usage of this version of the name - we can't assume that Wikipedia readers are not "people who are ignorant of Mexican naming". In fact if I passed by the General's article stub-sorting I'd probably have added a "Defaultsort" to Garza, rather than Gonzalez, erroneously (being ignorant of Mexican naming). I can see two viable alternative solutions:
(a): leave the redirect pointing to the general, add a {{redirect}} hatnote to point to the fighter.
(b): rename the fighter to the base name, and add an {{about}} hatnote to point to the general.
The choice would depend on deciding that one or the other was the primary usage of the name. My solution is on the basis that neither of them is: difficult to compare two characters from such different fields as Mexican history and contemporary martial arts! PamD (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
On looking at the General, he hadn't got a "defaultsort" so was filing under P for Pablo until I fixed it a moment ago! PamD (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It is extremely unlikely that any published source would refer to the General as Pablo Garza, since this would be an elementary error; instead they will use Pablo González Garza or, more usually, Pablo González. So anyone looking for the General is more likely to come through the Pablo González dab page, where, of course, he already gets a mention. Accordingly there is no need (yet, anyway) for a dab at Pablo Garza, and the fighter should be moved there. The existing hatnotes handle any need for disambiguation perfectly (but obviously the hatnote from the General to the fighter will need to be modified if the latter is moved).
I recently have been doing some disambiguation work. I wonder if someone would be willing to have a qiuck look at what I've been doing and perhaps offer some comments / pointers on what I could be doing better. Three pages I have particularly expanded are:
I think (hope) what I am doing is generally correct and in line with other dab pages, but more experienced eyes will probably spot things I should change. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking at Michael Johnson, the most striking problem is that you've piped a lot of the entries. This goes against WP:PIPING, which specifies that with a few exceptions "piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." It should be made clear exactly which article the link will lead to. There's also one entry with two blue links and one with none. PamD (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not unlink redlinks. I think it would be more constructive to leave a redlink a redlink rather than make a redirect to some article with almost no relevant content. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Moved Sass (stylesheet language) to top - it's actually called plain "Sass", unlike most of the other entries, so has the strongest case to be on a dab page!
Removed two people with "sass" as nickname: replaced one as Sass Jordan as that's the article title; the article on the fictional Cassandra Freedman does not have a redirect from Sass Freedman so the nickname seems too minor to be worth listing here
Removed some superfluous wording at start of various sections
Removed preliminary wording and added a Wiktionary link for the common word. Other editors may differ as to whether we need a link to Rudeness from this slangy term. ("Sass" isn't mentioned in Rudeness, though there was an out of date "Sass redirects here..." hatnote which I've removed.)
But, as ever, other editors may disagree with all my changes. I look forward to seeing further edits! PamD (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
EdChem, I hope you'll also remember that the job of creating a disambig page is not finished until you have fixed all the incoming links to the ambiguous titles, as it says at WP:FIXDABLINKS. Thanks for your contributions! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks to both of you for your comments. I thought I was doing a reasonable job, so it's disappointing to discover what I was doing was actually fairly poor. Anyway, some areas where I'd appreciate clarification:
Re WP:PIPING, I understand why pointing to redirects is undesirable, but it seems to me that piping can make targets clearer. For example, at Michael Johnson, I had an entry:
which not only does not give his full name, or even show that his first name is actually Micheal, but adds in (1990s pitcher) which is redundant given the description that follows. I don't understand why my entry is considered worse than the unpiped version.
Re Sass Jordan, I recognise that it is the article's title, but Sass is not her given name - it is Sarah. This seems to me to be another case where piping as Sarah "Sass" Jordan is both more accurate and more informative. Why is this bad?
As for Cassandra Freedman the lack of a redirect from Sass Freedman could simply be an oversight. If it is the character's nickname, surely it is plausible that people might search for it. If anything, it seems to me to argue for the creation of the redirect and inclusion on the dab page.
Re WP:FIXDABLINKS, thanks for the reminder - I looked at what links to Pantoja and frankly wondered if I had put the page at the wrong place... I appear to have removed a lot of redlinks in creating the page with the name I did. I did not realise I would be expected to try and change the incoming links to proper targets, but it does make sense. I presume I only change the ones I can clearly identify?
Re Spanish naming customs, I understand that the maternal name is not the surname and searching for it follows from ignorance of naming customs, but isn't the point to help with navigation? I don't see the harm in having entries where a search is plausible, even if it is "incorrect" as a surname. Help!
Re fixing incoming links to Pantoja, I don't understand what is happening. Pantoja was a redlink when I started, I did not move an existing page. Yet, it has many incoming links, according to "what links here"... But, when I go to one of these (like El Toboso) and search for "Pantoja", I find only one occurrence, and it is a redlink pointing to Pantoja, Spain... so why is it on the "what links here" list for Pantoja? I am really confused, and fear I'm creating more problems than I'm solving :( EdChem (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
On the point about naming customs, there's no clear right or wrong answer; if you think it's plausible that someone might incorrectly search by this name, then it's reasonable to include that name on the disambig page.
On the incoming links, I think Pantoja was referenced in a template, which I edited earlier; it takes time (sometimes over 24 hours) for these changes to reflect in "What links here".
More generally, don't worry about being perfect. Anything that helps improve the encyclopedia is a welcome contribution, and the job is never finished! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Links to dab pages
I had a look at "What links to Michael Johnson" (should ideally be empty except for a few redirects and perhaps links from Mike Johnson and Michael Johnston), and found a lot of links. I see that you've added the link {{otherpeople|Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson}} to pages such as Michael D. Johnson and Mike Johnson (bassist). I'm afraid that's against policy, as the argument is that no-one will reach that page if they've typed Michael Johnson, so readers don't need to be directed from there to the dab page. So unfortunately you've been wasting your time adding these hatnotes which will probably be deleted by other editors, and which are actually unhelpful in the job of looking for "links to disambiguation pages" and sorting out those which should be disambiguated. Sorry, but we all learn WP bit by bit. Good luck. PamD (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, spotted another complication: those links, even if they should have been on those pages, should have been {{otherpeople|Michael Johnson}}, which makes a link through the Michael Johnson (disambiguation) redirect. That way, again, the links don't show up in "What links here" directly, and it's easier to keep track of unintended links to the dab page. It also makes it clearer to the user that it's a disambiguation page they'll be getting to, even if it's not got "(disambiguation)" in its title when they get there. PamD (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, ignore incoming links from talk and user pages. The article 2009 in poetry links to a table of contents, which gives the title of a poem by this Michael Johnson; searching for the poem on Wikipedia I found a redlink for the poet (writer). I added the redlink to the disambiguation page. If tactics like this don't turn up anything, simply tag the incoming link with {{dn}} and leave it for someone else to solve. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This page replaces a redirect to Monastery which over-wrote a redirect to Religion. It's got a dab-like function, or is perhaps more of a dictionary definition. I came across it in stub-sorting, but it feels like some sort of narrative dab page. Other disambiguationists might like to have a look! PamD (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
If you are attempting to determine the primary target for Pig, I believe you are asking the wrong question in the wrong place. The question should be more direct: is the ordinary pig article the primary topic of "Pig"? and it should be asked at Talk:Pig (with perhaps a request here for participation). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The current poll regarding an issue related to this article is now closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as a new section of the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page. Last issue: Do most users who search for "pig(s)" probably want the domestic pig?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No, they are two differnt questions. The question of whether to move domestic pig to pigs is a different question. There are other possible solutions; many of them have been suggested. We have to determine the answer to this question and then determine the next step. That was the problem last time. I am not trying to determine the primary target for pig; that is a complicated question that could be solved as you suggest, directing them to the disambiguation page, or other suggestions. We have to determine exactly what we do/don't have disagreement about. Chrisrus (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a problem: the orchestra's article is at its French name, which its website, even the English language pages, uses. Redirects from any imaginable alternative name are a Good Thing - any mixture of accents and capitals is a harmless addition. Ah, looking again, perhaps the problem is that the editor doesn't understand how to create redirects so is moving existing redirects to create them! Will leave them a note. PamD (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
A suggestion at the Village pump(s), has led to this idea, which is currently in the initial drafting/pondering stage.
Synopsis: A potential style change for disambiguated titles. For example:
Benchmark (surveying)
Please see WP:VPR/Styling disambiguated titles where a draft page has been set up, with various options for style (size and/or color changes), and to list potential problems and potential implementation methods.
I've copied across the discussion from the village pumps, to the talkpage there. Please help analyze and consider this idea further. Find us more examples to ponder upon. Once firmer conclusions have been reached there, we can potentially bring it to a more formal RfC, back at the VP or elsewhere. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:Suggestions for name disambiguation was a project set up by Quadell, using a bot to identify all pages needing disambiguation. The ones which showed people who needed to be added to a dab, or that a new dab was needed, were done fairly quickly, but the smaller style issues were mainly left. As Quadell is no longer very active, does anyone else know how to set one up? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Should this dab page be created or not? I can see why maybe it shouldn't, then again I can see why maybe it should.
The redlink does have multiple links from other articles, and all the blue links are to articles that describe a use of the name Wonder Wheel and provide some relevant information about it.
I'd let it be created. The album has incoming links, the software is a whole section of the article, it could usefully also include a See Also to Wonder Wheels. Why not?PamD (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks fine to me too: all the entries belong and the layout is good, and it will help anyone typing Wonder Wheel into the search box looking for something other than the fairground ride.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds22:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. I've added two more Wonder Wheels listings and linked to this discussion from the resubmission, I think it will be accepted this time. 86.147.206.66 (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hatnote question (Summer Girls)
There is an article Summer Girls for the song by LFO. There is also a (better) song of the same name by Ralph McTell which is not covered anywhere on Wikipedia. Assuming I'm not going to write that article now, is it appropriate to mention it in a hatnote with a link to the author? If so, what should it look like?
The arrangement of "Summer Girl" is only slightly related to the arrangement of "Summer Girls". Since they are all titled works, the plural and singular don't seem to me to be ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Since it's not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, it doesn't (yet) need to be disambiguated on Wikipedia. If the article doesn't exist, the song should be mentioned on the article for the album it's on. If that article doesn't exist (and you also aren't going to create it just now), the song could be mentioned on the McTell article (optimally with a citation). Whichever article mentions the song could then be linked from the hatnote {{for|the song by Ralph McTell|[[<article title>]]}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This page used to contain a rather long list of entries for the various versions of The X Factor (TV series), each country's version and any season articles if they existed, but someone came along and said there were too many links and the link to The X Factor (TV series) was sufficient because it contains all the links anyway. Is this correct? To me it seems not, I think all the links should be there. Just wanted to check, thanks. (This is how it was before.) AnemoneProjectors11:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure about that. It might be better to just link to the original version, and a second link to that primary list of subsequent franchise shows. Like this diff. Much reduced maintenance and redundancy issues (including issues of whether to list items that don't match the title exactly, and what order to list items in (translated or original language, by alphabet or chronology, etc)). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that would reduce maintenance and redundancy. I disagree that that is a good thing here though. The reader looking for one of the ambiguous articles doesn't benefit from that maintenance efficiency -- here the redundancy is a good redundancy, placing a slight burden on the project in exchange for reader utility, which is the trade off for all the project burdens. Disambiguation pages should disambiguate all ambiguous articles for their title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
They are not ambiguous, that's the point. A reader looking for a particular article on any one country's version of X-Factor is not going to be confused by the current format, they just have the inconvenience of one extra click. A reader looking for one of the non TV show meanings on the other hand, is going to be inconvenienced when presented with a dab page which previously looked for all intents and purposes, like a list of X-Factor editions, and not a dab page differentiating actual, properly unrelated and properly ambiguous uses of the term 'X-Factor'. When I arrived at that page it took me a good few minutes to even realise that it actually was a dab page, and not just a list of X-Factor edition articles. If there is a pressing need for this sort of redundancy of listing by having the exact same list in two places, then we should do it with a sub-list in the way that long lists of surnames/places are often sub-paged out of their 'parent' dab page, such as how the dab page Rooney is not dominated by just a long list of surnames. If there is some specific aspect of DAB that prevents this (I've not seen it specifically barred), then I say we should invoke WP:IAR, because stuffing dab pages with 95% closely related entries is not the best way to do provide quick and easy navigation for the people looking for the other 5%. I would also suggest that without active monitoring of the main list and dab page, it will easily become less than optimally useful for people looking for X-Factor editions too (and having it like that only encourages really novice editors to treat the dab list like a list article and add all sorts of notes and refs to it also, as they don't know it's a dab page, and don't realise there is a comprehensive list article elsewhere). MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Another possible solution is the compromise that was reached on the dab page Big Brother: The main list includes only the entry for the article for the franchise, with a note directing users to the See also section for a list of the international versions.--ShelfSkewedTalk19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
That's even worse imho. Something's very wrong in the universe when a See Also section is bigger than the notional 'main' content. Just wow. MickMacNee (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't use {{Main}} links. Also, people with surnames are anthroponymy lists, not ambiguous, and set index articles aren't disambiguation pages. Blunt has been updated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand your points, but we're still pointing to a different page, for all surname-items that would otherwise be incorporated into the Blunt disambig page. As we currently do at Wilhelm (which will eventually be split off into a separate anthroponymy page).
I suppose I'm suggesting that The X Factor (TV series) could be thought of as "set index similar", and that this might provide a healthy solution.
The alternative, is to go back to something like this diff, and discuss whether items like "Le Facteur X" and "Sekret Uspekha", and even "The X Factor (UK series 3)", belong in that page or not. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Surnames are given special treatment, MOS:DABNAME, yes. Set indexes are welcome; disambiguation pages still need to disambiguate ambiguous articles even when set indexes exists. If the set index is at the base name and if all the ambiguous entries are in the set, then a disambiguation page isn't needed, but otherwise, there's no reason to remove ambiguous articles from a disambiguation page even if they are redundant with a set index. I agree that unambiguous items like "Le Facteur X" should not be disambiguated, although they might be in the set index. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that all items still have to be on a dab page, if a set index exists? That seems rather counter-intuitive to the purpose of a set index, and WP:SETINDEX seems to specifically allow what people are suggesting here, using a set index list for these television edition articles, and linking that in a one line entry from the dab page: "Sometimes there will be a disambiguation page and a set index article for the same term. If the disambiguation page carries the name of the term (as with Signal Mountain), then the set index article should be named "List of XXXs named YYY" (as in List of peaks named Signal Mountain". That suggests to me that there should be a set index article named something like List of television shows named X-Factor, and that would go in the See Also section of the dab page (I would prefer it go further up, but that's what it suggests). Alternatively, and I would not be averse to this, it also says that if the WP:PRIMARY topic of X-Factor could be argued to mean 'List of television shows named X-Factor', then the set index can go at X-Factor and the other entries can got at X-Factor (disambiguation), duly hatnoted. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I figure that disambiguation pages should disambiguate ambiguous Wikipedia articles, and everything else follows from that. This looks like another case for moving the set index info over to the list project where it belongs. If editors and readers are happy with a set index link, then everyone's happy. If an editor or reader wants to explicitly include any given ambiguous Wikipedia topic on the appropriate Wikipedia disambiguation page, though, that should also be fine and make everyone happy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, and I don't think it matters where SETINDEX is located in that regard, what matters is what it says, and the logic behind it. And the logic to me supports not duplicating material in a dab page when you also have a set index. And to do so would add a third place duplicating this material, which editors have to actively monitor. I would frankly rather have a sub-optimal super-long dab page than spread this over three places. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
What's the third place? I see the disambiguation page (which I'm interested in), the set index article (which I'm not), and ??? I do not want to have to complicate the maintenance of the disambiguation page by introducing a dependency on the set index article -- the SIA can be used/linked as needed, but ambiguous articles can still be disambiguated on the disambiguation page, regardless of what articles they are also included in. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The X Factor (TV series). The fact that you personally are interested in dab pages but not set indexes is really not relevant as to whether (the Royal) we, or our guidance, recommends we need one, or the other, or both, to best serve readers in this case, and the consensus is definitely leaning here to a set index linked from the dab page, because of what a set index actually is, and because of the sheer pointlessness of having both a set index and a full dab page which ignores the existence of the set index. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Since set index articles are not disambiguation pages, the point stands: the content of disambiguation pages shouldn't have a dependency on the content of set index articles. The fact that I personally can be part of the disambiguation project but not part of the list project points that up. The disambiguation guidelines do not support removing ambiguous articles from the disambiguation page. If the set index article is linked as well, that's fine. Having both isn't pointless; the reader looking for an ambiguous article can find it on the disambiguation page; the reader looking for the article about the set or list can find it too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I see third place. I agree there is some bad redundancy: we don't appear to need a set index article separate from The X Factor (TV series), which serves the purpose of the set index article. A disambiguation page is still needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Simple set indexes are acceptable for use as dab pages in any sensible, non-dogmatic, non-wiki-turf reading of the above discussion. Common sense will overide any such objections all the time frankly, it's a core principle of the pedia. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
If you've reached the name-calling stage, I suppose this sub-thread is done. If that was just a temporary glitch, yes, a base-name set index that includes all ambiguous terms can obviate the need for a disambiguation page. If a disambiguation page is needed, though, any ambiguous article can be added to it in any sensible, non-dogmatic, non-wiki-turf reading of the disambiguation guidelines. Common sense should be applied before legitimate entries are removed because of misplaced worries of maintenance or redundancy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I simply disagree, based funnily enough on a common sense reading of the guidelines and this discussion, but I think we've long since gone past the stage of assuming that makes any difference whatsoever. Where I called you names I have no clue, but yes, I would very much like to stop pretending this is a worthwhile sub-thread anymore. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
eg. Mud Lake does not include all the entries in the set index lists that it links to.
Set indexes, and name pages
The concept of "Set indexes" essentially exists to allow for additional information or links, that disambig styleguidelines do not permit. Eg HMS Victory (disambiguation)
Name pages are usually short disambig-similar lists, but some can develop into prose-filled articles. Two examples: William (name) leaves all the specific examples of people back at William (disambiguation). In contrast, David (name) lists all the specific examples, but there is also a partial duplication at David (disambiguation).
The guidelines and precedent are unclear, and under constant flux. Possibly they should all be clarified, or possibly commonsense and case-by-case discussion will continue to work.
There are no ambiguous entries on anthroponymy list articles, only partial title matches. In the cases where the person is commonly known by the single-word surname or given name, they do indeed appear on both the list article and the disambiguation page. Why? Because they are ambiguous with the disambiguated title. We do not automatically copy over all the content from a set index article to a disambiguation page, but if an editor finds it useful to do so, we also do not prohibit their inclusion nor do we remove ambiguous topics from disambiguation pages. Conclusion: I still believe that any ambiguous topic introduced to a disambiguation page should remain on the disambiguation page. It's simplest if we keep the first goal of disamiguating ambiguous Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Good points. Fwiw, I completely agree that either state (duplicated or separated) is valid, and that neither state is recommended nor prohibited. It boils down to a subjective decision of what will best assist the hypothetical readers. And editwarring is harmful. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
lol ask a simple question.... so basically the conclusion is that either way is fine but since it was changed it's probably better to leave it that way. That's all I needed to know! :-) (I hadn't heard of index lists before though) AnemoneProjectors22:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe that's "Either way is fine but once an editor includes ambiguous topics on the disambiguation page, it's better to leave them on it" (so, not the current version). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a discuission going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics about whether to delete Semi-infinite or turn it into a (proper) disambiguation page. The present article is not marked as a dab but describes and links to three different concepts of semi-infinite.
Regulator is in need of help. I removed a duplicate entry but the entry isn't in MOS:DAB format and should probably be broken into categories. It was very difficult for me to locate what I was looking for here -- eventually I saw it just wasn't there, but it would have been easier if it was in the standard style.
No, I would not merge the disambiguation page into the Qaradağlı page (although both villages can and should also be listed there). No opinion on which should be primary -- Talk:Qaradağlı, Tartar can be used for that, if needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
British Open
There is a discussion at Talk:British Open about whether to redirect or disambiguate the term. The discussion hinges on whether we should redirect to what is by far the most popular topic, or disambiguate because the popular topic isn't accessed that often using the redirected term. The two sides of the argument seem to interpret the guidelines in different ways, and to be honest I'm not sure if I'm interpreting them correctly. Could someone pop along and give us a third opinion please, it would be much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
