Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 29

Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Primary topic of Wolves

Does anyone else think that the primary topic of Wolves should be the same as that of Wolf? I have been going through the incoming links, and 99% of them so far refer to this animal. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. older ≠ wiser 01:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. bd2412 T 01:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I'd think the dab page would be a better target, especially as the current target "Gray wolf" is an unfamiliar term to many readers ((a): just plain "wolf" to most people and (b) US-specific spelling). Given the many sports teams etc known as "Wolves", I think it would be better for the plural form to refer to the dab page. The dab page also needs work, as it is not formatted in the "there is a primary usage" style. And the sports teams need to be divided, either by country or by sport... not sure which would be more helpful to readers, but something is needed. PamD 07:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I've split the sports teams of Wolf (disambiguation) by country, on the basis that a reader looking for something about a team they know only as "Wolves" is probably more likely to know the country than the sport (and because 2 of the entries are for college mascots which span multiple sports). Have tweaked the lead section, but not sure whether the "animals" section is OK or needs more work from biologically-oriented disambiguators! PamD 08:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The primary topic for "wolves" is wolf. I do not see the confusion to which Pam alludes. The Grey wolf article is clearly marked: "Wolf" redirects here. For other uses of "wolf" and "wolves", see Wolf (disambiguation). --Bejnar (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I clarified the hatnote, which was previously a nonstandard one without that first sentence. PamD 07:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I would add that sports teams named "Wolves" are ultimately named for the animal. When disambiguating other ambiguous animal names such as Pumas and Panthers, I have encountered countless high school with such animal mascots, for which we will never have an individual article, and for which the only appropriate target is the page on the animal with that name. Wolves should no more point to a disambiguation page than should Lions or Tigers or Bears. bd2412 T 04:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, Wolverhampton Wanderers may be "ultimately named for the animal" but it's a pretty distant derivation, and in the UK is possible the primary usage for the word (no, I'm not a football fan, but see edit history of Wolves). But I've edited the dab page so it's less difficult to find the team a reader is looking for. PamD 07:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Any use derived from "Wolverhampton" is far from the primary use of "wolves", and in particular far from the use intended by the vast majority of sports teams so named. In any case, Wolverhampton is named for either Wulfrun or Wulfhere, both derived from Wulf, a name basically indicating that its bearer has wolf-like qualities. bd2412 T 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to push my minority feeling that "Wolves" might be best pointed to the dab page - and I've made tweakings here and there which leave the situation better than it was at the start. I was pointing out that there was another viewpoint, not least in response to the unnecessarily aggressive edit note "(completely unnecessary (and stupid))" with which the redirect was re-pointed to Gray wolf. PamD 16:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Pam (and I'm not a football fan either) - if this were a UK-only site Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. would almost certainly be the primary topic for the plural form (the animal would be very unlikely, given that it's been extinct in GB for centuries). So pointing to the dab page for the plural form doesn't look unreasonable. Also agree on the matter of aggressive tone. --NSH001 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that UK residents know what wolves are, and would be unsurprised to see the animal as the subject of the article at that title. I would expect no different of a treatment if there were a UK city with a team called the Kangaroos, the Jackals, or the Leopards, even though none of those species has ever populated the UK. bd2412 T 17:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure they know about the animal, but they'd be looking for the football club, not the animal (in the latter case, they'd use the singular form). --NSH001 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look for the article "Wolf", you wouldn't write "Wolves", but if you are looking for one of the many teams called "Wolves", you write "Wolves". When "Bulls" is a dab-page, and not a redirect to Bull, I can't understand why we could do the same regarding "Wolves"Mentoz86 (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That suggestion makes sense. Would also help reduce the size of the present dab page, which is getting too large. --NSH001 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Bulls is a disambiguation page because it is a relic of the time when Bull was a disambiguation page, and a perpetual generator of links intended to refer to the animal. There is absolutely no reason why Bulls (or Wolves) should not be held to the same standard as Bears, Dogs, Foxes, Ostriches, Giraffes, Hyenas, Sloths, Cheetahs and Gerbils. All of these are susceptible to other meanings, but our convention has generally been that the animal is the primary meaning of the singular and plural name of an animal. bd2412 T 20:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree completely with BD2412. Creating an artificial distinction between plural/singular forms of disambiguation pages is rarely a good idea. older ≠ wiser 21:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The only convention that matters is that we help our readers to find what they're looking for. I took a look at the list of incoming links to Wolves, and it does seem that, as indicated by Russ at the top of this thread, about 10% are linking to the wrong page (mostly, they should be linking to the football club). So we have a trade-off here: if we create a new dab page at Wolves, we will end up with editors adding new links to the dab page, when they intend to link to the animal (as happens currently with Bulls). Very irritating for people like me who go around cleaning up links to dab pages. On the other hand, a significant number of people entering "Wolves" in the search box will be looking for the football club, or maybe one of the other sports clubs with that nickname. Not enough to justify making the football club the primary topic, but enough to worry about. I'd guess that the vast majority entering "Wolves" in the search box would be looking for one of the sports clubs, since if they were looking for the animal, they'd enter "Wolf". So it makes sense to have a separate dab page for Wolves. The problem of incoming links isn't as bad as it seems, either: we have efficient systems in place to recognise and clean up such links, and with the new DPL bot,new links being added will become less of a problem. Having a new dab page at Wolves would also help spot the incorrect links to the animal, which currently go unrecognised - something we can't easily do at the moment. It might even make the job of cleaning up links a little easier, as we disambiguators would be presented with a shorter and more relevant list of choices in each case. --NSH001 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not against conventions, but this I feel is against commonsense. Noone would write "Dogs" when they are looking for "Dog", and hence there are no need for a redirect. Atleast not if dogs also means something else, like the case is with Wolves and Bulls (and Bears). Mentoz86 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
What makes you think no one would write "dogs" when looking for "dog"? I think it happens all the time. First take a look at What links here for those redirects. How many are intending something other than the animal? Then, take a look at the traffic statistics for the various pages and redirects. Unless the disambiguation page is receiving a disproportionate volume of traffic, it is reasonable to assume the disambiguation is appropriately placed. older ≠ wiser 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We once discussed splitting the disambiguation page along these lines. It turned out to be a can of worms.Chrisrus (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Article needs attention

I looked at Timestamp and it seems to have some type of multiple personality problem - it may think it is a dab, but is not, etc. It has a dab marker on the talk page, but then it is not written as a dab. And it is not well written either. I am not sure what to do about it. Timestamping is a key topic in computing and that aspect is missing in the page, but that is a separate issue. I could clean up the computing aspects, if you guys figure out how to dab it right, so it can mesh with Timestamping (computing) at some point. There is also Timestamp-based concurrency control as a special case, it needs help, a I said there, but one thing at a time. First the dab issue needs to be resolved. History2007 (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move at UNF (disambiguation)

Hello all, there is a requested move over at Talk:UNF (disambiguation) which I have started. I thought it would probably not be seen by many people, so I am listing it here for more input. If anyone can comment I would be very grateful. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Azure

An editor has recently moved Azure to Azure (heraldry), without repairing the links. As a result, there are some 400 links to the new disambiguation page, most of which should point to the heraldry article. This is complicated by two issues: (1) the large number of links to repair is more than I can manage by hand, so someone with a bot could really help. (2) There is also a separate article Azure (color) about the HSV color wheel tertiary color, and this article should not be confused with the (heraldry) article that covers the topic in livery, flags, and coats of arms, even though heraldic azure is termed a "colour" in the system of tinctures. The (color) article has primarily focussed on web color designations, and has thrown in some trivia lists about animals with "Azure" in their common name. Can someone here with a bot and some sense of heraldic knowledge provide help? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The speedy closure of the move request seems inappropriate - only 2 editors beyond the proposer had commented, and the closer had been the proposer of an earlier failed move request. PamD 09:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Apologies: I misread this - the closer had closed a previous RM, not proposed it! 23:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
...and despite a previous failed move proposal, and with fewer that 24 hours of discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
There's a more general point here: If editor A requests a move, and admin B closes the discussion and makes the move, whose responsibility is it to clear up the incoming links which used to point to an exact article (previously recognised as primary usage) and now point to the dab page which has been put at that title? It happens repeatedly, of course, but it's not clear whether both A and B can just walk away having left 400 links pointing to a dab page! PamD 09:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Not the happy answer, of course, but it's clear that both A and B can just walk away with dab links. A and B are volunteers, like the rest of us. Rather than fixing the links, though, members of "the rest of us" can instead revert the move, or ask for it to be reverted, if that improves the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: As it turned out, the incoming links were a mixed mess. So (imho) having them target the dab page was the best solution on the short term. - jc37 01:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Not that I've seen, it wasn't. The vast majority of the incoming links were correctly pointed at the primary article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the last few incoming links - including creating a new stub at Azure (design magazine) to accommodate one link to the dab page and one which was previously headed for the very different Azure (magazine)! Just sat down at the laptop for a little while... and so it goes. PamD 09:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Christianity

A December 2011 AfD for the article Conservative Christianity closed with the admin noting, "Consensus is: Keep as a DAB page." Another editor then replaced the content with a bulleted list of Christian denominations or movements, but subsequently another editor tagged the page as {{dabconcept}}. This is all above my pay grade, but I wonder if contributors to this project might be able to think of an elegant solution to the problem.

From the page history, there appears to significant disagreement about what the page should be, including disagreement about what the AfD consensus was. Maybe this will all need a broader discussion, perhaps at MfD or AfD. Cnilep (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If all the terms on the page are merely forms of Christianity that are "conservative", then it is not truly ambiguous, but is instead a broad concept needing an article to delineate how and why Christianity might be described as "conservative". Compare a truly ambiguous topic such as Mercury, for which the meanings could be as diverse as a planet, a god, an element, a singer, a brand of car, or a record label. Even if some singer put out an album titled "Conservative Christianity", the primary meaning of the phrase would still be the range of forms of Christianity. bd2412 T 16:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. As you suggest, the current content of the page is a list of pages on a broad concept, and thus not a disambiguation. The problem, though, is that contributors to the linked AfD expressed a consensus to (quoting one of the participants) "DAB or whatever". Is there any appropriate "whatever" that might honor the spirit of this consensus without misusing the disambiguation process? Cnilep (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the comparison with Mercury is apt. "Conservative" does not have a primary meaning, but a whole bunch of widely divergent meanings, religious, political and cultural, many of which do not overlap at all. It means something completely different when applied to "Evangelical Fundamentamentism" than it does when applied to Traditional Catholicism, Greek Calendarists, the Amish, Radical Calvinism or Russian Old Believers. There is no "broad concept" of "conservative Christianity" per se. Anyone using the term "conservative Christianity" will have to explain what they mean by the term, or at least make sure that their listeners are on the same page, which is exactly what disambiguation means. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
@Cnilep, the "whatever", as suggested by BD2412 is a broad concept article. This would be an article, or perhaps a list article, with prose that provides context and presumably with references that support assertions that entities are "conservative christianity". older ≠ wiser 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
While it is true that "Conservative" does not have a primary meaning Actually, it appears that "conservative" does have a primary meaning; even so, not every meaning of "Conservative" is generally used as an identifier for some kind of Christianity. For example, although there are many Christians interested in environmental conservation or energy conservation, there is no usage of "conservative christianity" meaning "Christians who conserve the environment". Instead, "conservative christianity" tends to mean Christianity that is eitehr doctrinally conservative, or socially conservative for doctrinal reasons (political conservatism is merely the political expression of this social conservatism, which is, again, a result of doctrinal conservatism). The topic is no more ambiguous than "Christianity" itself, and all of this can be addressed in an article. bd2412 T 13:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
One suggestion that was made at AfD – and while this is not my argument, it seems more or less right to me – is that there are two different concepts: the broad concept of doctrinally conservative Christian groups, and the Christian right. If that is the case, maybe a way to handle it is a list article for the broad concept, with a hatnote to Christian right? Cnilep (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that makes sense. bd2412 T 01:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Neil McLeod

I have a specific question regarding a disambiguation. There is a association footballer called Neil McLeod or Neil MacLeod (SK Brann write his name with an a, while no:wiki write it without the a). I thought I should add him to the dab-page Neil McLeod (and eventually write an article about him), since he is notable and have a couple of incoming links, but the problem is that Neil MacLeod (footballer) is occupied by an australian rules footballer. I have four different alternatives to differ those two: 

The first alternative might not be possible if I find more sources that write his name with an A. I believe that the best way is the last alternative, but opinions on what I should do are appreciated. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting one. Looking at Category:Fitzroy Football Club players, just to see a group of Australian rules footballers, there is a variety of disambiguations being used! I think I'd go for your 4th option, but will be interested to see what other people say. If he was undoubtedly a "Mac" and the other undoubtedly a "Mc" then your 1st option would seem OK, but there's doubt here. PamD 11:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest writing the article first, and naming it in accordance with the naming conventions for footballers Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer). Sadly, they don't address Australian rules players explicitly. If the common name for the SK Brann player is with an A, I would move the existing article to Neil MacLeod (English footballer) and create the new article at Neil MacLeod (Australian rules footballer) -- each would conform to its project's dab qualifier selections. Once the article on the SK Brann player exists, add it to Neil McLeod. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, as they say, "If all else fails, read the instructions"! Makes a lot of sense. PamD 11:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for the replies! Mentoz86 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

How far do we go in including unlinked entries?

I can't find any criteria which specify what entries should be included in a dab page. WP:DAB has a section on "What not to include", but I'm left uncertain about some potential entries. Should we include links to where the term appears in an article, but is not linked there - the editors of that article have not created a red link, implying that they do not consider the subject likely ever to have a WP article. There are four examples in Maggie Anderson (disambiguation) (an actress listed in the cast list of a film; a minor character in a musical, mentioned in one line of a lengthy plot summary; etc). Without them, the dab page is not necessary, and the presence of 2 Maggies and a link to the Margaret dab page could be handled by hatnotes. I had the impression that we only included entries which had at least a red link in an existing article. Any thoughts, or links to chapter and verse of policy or guidelines? PamD 09:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a redlink is necessary. There has to be content (presumably meeting applicable article content criteria of being verifiable, referenced, etc.) on a subject that is ambiguous with the term. Looking for incoming links is a useful first step. I usually then search for existing articles that might treat the term. Generally I look for some substantive content beyond a bare passing mention. For example, I would likely not consider a single mention of a minor fictional character as needing disambiguation. Real persons mentioned once for a relatively non-notable accomplishment are more iffy. We shouldn't unwittingly become party to a self-promotional publicity campaign. older ≠ wiser 14:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DABMENTION has been pointed out to me, but its two examples are of an alternative term, and a term which is a component of something discussed in another article (actually, dreadful example, as there is an article at Comet tail which should be the target of that dab page entry!), rather than concepts which receive only a minimal mention in that article. If we really mean it to include unlinked cast members etc, then we should illustrate this in another example, such as a cast list member or passing mention in a plotline. PamD 14:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the current examples in WP:DABMENTION are unhelpful and need to be updated. older ≠ wiser 15:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think a sensible approach would be to only disambiguate articles and redirects, so the question then is should we create a redirect for the person/character? If a redirect exists for them then add it to the disambiguation page, if it doesn't then don't. That's what I would do in the absence of explicit guidance from the disambiguation project. Making it into a redirect issue simplifies the problem, because you can check the traffic stats for the redirect and make an objective decision based on how many people actually search for the term. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
OTOH, another sensible approach would be to disambiguate all Wikipedia topics that are ambiguous. If there's a topic covered on Wikipedia that a reader might seek by entering a particular series of characters in the search box and hitting [Enter], the WP navigational aids should aid the reader in navigating to information on that topic. This can be done either by relying on the search feature (which would result if there is no page at that title), or by a disambiguation page listing the topic at that title, or by hatnote(s) on the article at that title pointing out the alternate paths to other topics. Traffic stats are unneeded for disambiguation page inclusion; they're only needed if the topic is controversially claimed to be the primary topic for the title. That said, I have no objection to the creation (and usage) of redirects for every dab page entry, as long as the presence of the redirect on a dab page (and the targeting of the redirect to an article that mentions the topic) is sufficient to keep the redirect in an RfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The point I was kind of making was to just make the disambiguation page a mechanical process. If a redirect can't survive an RfD, then would there be any point in disambiguating the search term on the disambiguation page? I don't know, there may be and I just can't think of an example. But we do have a process for considering redirects so it is an easy option to put the "burden of proof" on the RfD process. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if the redirect can't survive an RfD but the topic is mentioned on a Wikipedia article, there would be a point in disambiguating that topic on the disambiguation page. I'm all for making the disambiguation process as straightforward as possible, but I think the current dabmention wording is as straightforward as possible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested more useful examples at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#More_realistic_examples_for_WP:DABMENTION. PamD 08:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the scope of WP:DABMENTION I was going to suggest that "mention" should be clarified to require it to be a proper mention within the prose, rather than just as an appearance in some list within the article. Then I noticed that "Maggie Anderson" appears only in the cast list of Corpus Callosum (2007 film), but is not otherwise mentioned there. Checking the other members of the cast list of Corpus Callosum I observe that one is blue-linked, but none of the others appears in any dab page even where a dab page for their name exists (that is Evan Lewis, Michael O'Connor, John Garcia). So this suggests to me that the "Maggie Anderson" example is ill-chosen, and that WP:DABMENTION should be revised to require more than just inclusion in a list. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Why? How would readers (few though they may be) find the cast member of Corpus Callosum otherwise? Appearance in a list is sufficient for inclusion in a disambiguation page. Not to mention the vast NRHP can of worms that would open if we excluded list-entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The answer to JHunterJ's "why?" is that if all possible DABMENTIONs thus legitimised were actually included in dab pages, it would cause a substantial increase in the number and length of those pages. I don't understand his second sentence, since I'm not suggesting any change to the Corpus Callosum page itself. Perhaps he'd also like to explain the "vast NRHP can of worms" since I don't understand that either.
As for Geo Swan's second point, he says that he "should be able" to do something that he already can do, and nobody is trying to stop him; I often do the same. But rather than deliberately creating the structure he describes, it would usually be better to create a stub article; that's what stubs are for. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
NRHP (National Registry of Historic Places) in the archives here. Second sentence: reader looking for the Maggie Anderson from some short film whose name he doesn't remember, enters "Maggie Anderson" and reaches the disambiguation page. Without a dab-mention entry, how is the navigational aid (the disambiguation) going to aid this reader's navigation? I'm also not suggesting a bot go add all possible DABMENTIONS, so the length and number of those pages would only grow with editor focus (as with doncram's NRHP thrust). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • it is true, I can first type anything into the go box, and then instead of creating a new article, I can click on "what links here". However, when individuals have removed the redlinks from the DAB pages, and articles, the "what links here" would otherwise have reported to me, that exercise has been rendered pointless. The ancient greeks were great mathematicians -- but they didn't invent the zero. Zero, the empty placeholder, was key to the development of mathematics. A redlink is an empty placeholder. Like a zero it is not pointless. On a wiki important knowledge is encoded in how the information is structured, how it is related to one another. Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with MOS:DABMENTION as it stands, for the reason JHunterJ describes. Wikipedia is huge, and even with the searchbox and disambiguation pages, we often can't find any info on someone when there is some. However, I completely understand why others would disagree. I guess I prefer them to be there because WP is such a work in progress. Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please remain alert to the alerts

There is a handy section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#Article alerts, but it's transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts. If the subpage isn't on your watchlist, you might miss some of the links to current discussions, and many of the current move discussions in particular would benefit from additional input from project members. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Georgian

User:GeorgianJorjadze and I disagree on what should go in Georgian. Could we get a third opinion? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is pretty much a stalemate. Additional comments are welcome. older ≠ wiser 14:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Mademoiselle d'Elbeuf

How much detail is needed on a dab page about people who are not even redlinked? We have a difference of opinion, and rather than run into 3RR I'd welcome other views. PamD 21:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think in this case, where most entries don't have articles, more info is needed than usual, in order to direct the user to suitalbe places. For that reason, I think more than 1 link is also very useful here. Boleyn (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. There are several people by this name, and some description is needed to explain which articles are relevant to identifying them. bd2412 T 22:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is more than 1 link useful? All of the info in the description (and hopefully more) should be in the one linked article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Perceptible and Imperceptible

I just created these two new disambiguation pages. Any feedback or bold changes would be appreciated! —danhash (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason to think readers looking for the watermark will search on the adjective alone? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably not, but there were no entries at all for perceptible and imperceptible before or for perceptible watermark or imperceptible watermark. I was looking for an article on perceptibility (not just perception) and couldn't find one, and I also thought that there were probably more entries that could be added to a disambiguation page for either term. If the disambiguation pages are not useful, they could be simply redirected to perception if that article is the best we have on the subject at the moment. —danhash (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The watermark entries appear to me to be partial title matches, and I would opt for simple redirects to Perception. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright I will redirect them then. Thanks for the input. —danhash (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:RussBot/Duplicate disambigs/001

Only 27 duplicate disambiguation pages left to be fixed at User:RussBot/Duplicate disambigs/001. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

need help

Can somebody do a short cleanup at Wild in the Streets (disambiguation) please? mabdul 11:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. {{disambiguation cleanup}} may be used to bring it to the (eventual) attention of the project as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh thanks. Didn't know that cleanup tag. But is it really wise to do following:
Wild in the Streets (film), a documentary by Peter Baxter
That film link should link to the popular Wild in the Streets film, or? mabdul 12:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, good point. I fixed it to 2012 film. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Removal_of_spurious_hatnote

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Removal_of_spurious_hatnote. KarlB (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Health care (disambiguation). The cleanup I applied has been partially undone in favor of burying the ambiguous "spurious" TV episode. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Mountie & Mounties disambig

The plural of Mountie is a separate disambig page. Mounties (disambiguation) should be merged into Mountie (disambiguation) --TheTruthiness (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Members of this project may be interested in the RFC at Template talk:Disambiguation#Just a blank line please?, proposing a change in the appearance of the {{Disambiguation}} template. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Typing in William McDougall

Can I just ask whether, if one types in a name into the box on the left, you think that the most famous names should be near the top, should one get a name where there are several matches? If one types in "William McDougall" into the box on the left, one gets several names. I would have thought that the two most famous "William McDougalls" were the psychologist, and the Canadian politician linked with the Red River Rebellion. Fair enough - the latter is at the top when one types in "William McDougall". However, the next name on the list is Canadian ship builder who I would not have thought is as famous as the psychologist! What do people think of my suggestion? Feel free to leave responses here or on my userpage. Thank you in advance for any responses. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Disambiguators. I've been doing some disambiguation lately and I've begun to wonder whether disambiguating to a redlink when the dabpage contains a relevant entry is beneficial to our readers. Consider an article which makes reference to the racing driver Chris Lambert (who doesn't have an article). If "Chris Lambert" is linked to (the dabpage) Chris Lambert, a reader clicking the link will see "Chris Lambert may refer to ... Chris Lambert (racing driver) (died 1968), British racing driver, killed in a Formula Two race at Circuit Park Zandvoort", thereby learning that Chris was a British driver who was killed at Zandvoort in 1968. However, if "Chris Lambert" is linked to Chris Lambert (racing driver), a reader clicking the (red) link will be taken to a blank page. I'm wondering if that's actually useful. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably the most useful thing would be to create a stub at Chris Lambert (racing driver), since the information needed to do so is already contained on the disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately such stub would almost always be deleted by lack of notability, as the verifiable information contained in the other article (e.g. Circuit Park Zandvoort) will likely not be enough to support a stand-alone article. I think a link to the disambiguation page would make a lot of sense in such cases, but other editors strongly feel that any link to disambiguation from article content is a terrible mistake (there's an active discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation right now). In this situation, I think Chris Lambert (racing driver) could be created as a redirect with possibilities to Circuit Park Zandvoort and directly linked from the DAB (as it would be no longer red-linked). Diego (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done; thanks for the suggestion. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for your responses and actions. DH85868993 (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Coincidence

An editor has proposed to move Coincidence to Coincidence (non-causation), and make the current title into a disambiguation page. There are three other meanings; one is mathematical, one relates to road designations coinciding, and one is an alternative translation of the title of the Polish film Blind Chance. I believe that disambiguating this title would be an utterly bad decision, and would needlessly create a perpetual magnet for disambiguation links needing to be fixed. However, if there is consensus for such a move I will, of course, be bound by that. bd2412 T 16:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

   The other meanings to which my colleague has just referred are the respective topics of the targets of the Rdrs
Coincidence (mathematics),
Coincidence (road), and
Coincidence (film),
and i'm inclined to think they meant "that disambiguating equal disambiguation of this title..." -- tho it's not impossible that the colleague considers them misleading Rdrs, and will at some later point give priority to arguing they should deleted. In that event, and in any case until they are duly deleted, it seems obvious to me that such Rdrs -- those with titles of the form
<Existing-article title> (<Disambiguating parenthetical term>)
-- should if neither del'd, nor Dabbed at the corresponding page <Existing-article title>, have rationales for non-Dab'n posted at the top of their talk pages -- or, really (to avoid time wasted on checking for such a rare exception), be tagged on the Rdr page itself, with a hidden Cat i've never heard of, say
Category:Articles, with disambiguated-style-titles, that should not have Dab entries or HatNotes.
   BTW please note (even if my colleague's description was intended to avoid embarrassing me) that i did not propose a move, i did a move -- one that the guidelines mandate (equal disambiguation is the default, and primary-topic dab'n requires a specific quantitative finding to support it). That mis-description, and the unmentioned addition of {{other uses}}, are especially worthy of mention bcz they obscure my having done so on account of the previous neglect of that mandate, which seemed (and still seems) to me to be of a piece with the neglect and indignity the article has suffered in
  • carrying a hodgepodge of multiple topics related only by ambiguity,
  • carrying as a HatNote linking other articles only the markup {{For|more on simultaneous events|Concurrency}} (to a page making no mention of "coincidence" or even "coincide"),
  • attending to the ambiguity of "coincidence" only following the lead 'graph reading (italics added by User:Jerzy)
    Coincidence is the noteworthy alignment of two or more events or circumstances without obvious causal connection
and then covering them (well, two of them) in succeeding sections, following the nearly 200 words of the two lead-section 'graphs, likely convincing all but stubborn readers that only the senses known even to dopes are covered,
  • having apparent OR as its nearly sole source, and
  • relying, for 3 of its 4 refs, on
an accessible introduction to theories of parapsychology...
by an author distinguished essentially for nothing more than compelling expressiveness about oppression (and, for all i know, retaining or regaining some sanity) after escaping from Stalin's grasp -- with the remaining ref (to a non-free work) only justifying an editor's single-sentence reference to one exceptionally well-quantified problem that AFAIK is so artificial that i have never heard of it (let alone of its being described as "a coincidence") except as one gedanken experiment countering intuition's intuitively obvious superiority in general over statistics.
In any case, there is nothing on the talk page to even hint that the need for overcoming the eq-Dab presumption was attended to by the creators or movers of the three current Rdrs.
   There was no discussion on the talk page, before mine, of equal or primary Dab'n. As i read the guidelines, a change from no compliant Dab'n to equal Dab'n was mandated for the first willing editor, w/o waiting around for a consensus (let alone on a system page) -- and anyone who objects to it should have first independently investigated whether and how many articles need links from the Dab'n page, beyond the 3 "other meanings" whose entries any Dab-bot would have created on its own authority. I'm not sure a decent respect for colleagues' opinions requires even a straw-man estimate of how many tenths of the encyclopedic usage each sense represents, but my talk contrib included
to mention only the most obvious pages
and
i [will] quit in the middle,
so even in the colleague's position (of apparent obliviousness to PRIMARYTOPIC), i'd have ruled out reversing such a move as reckless without more homework.
--Jerzy•t 09:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The move created sixty incoming disambiguation links, which generally resolved to the topic already addressed by the page. This is, I think, a situation like we had with Particle and Chirality. The topic is so straightforwardly the overarching primary topic that it is difficult to write an article with the requisite level of abstractness. It doesn't matter that there are redirects to other uses of the term. Apple is still a page about a fruit, despite many other legitimate topics named apple, because that is the primary topic of the term. The other meanings of coincidence offered are not illegitimate uses of the term, but are merely very minor uses of the term compared to the meaning encompassed in referring to one event following another as a "coincidence". bd2412 T 15:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Jerzy, you could have as easily ruled out making the move without more homework. The guidelines do not mandate "equal disambiguation" (assuming that means "no primary topic") as the default. The bold move was fine if you thought it would be uncontroversial (which I believe), and the undiscussed reversion was also fine (by analogy with WP:BRD). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says:

    "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

    Given that Coincidence has been viewed over 49,000 times in the last 90 days, while Coincidence (mathematics) and Coincidence point have been viewed around 1000 times, it is thus much more likely that a given user is searching for coincidence. This is a clear case where the current primary topic is correct, and I don't think that Coincidence should be a disambig page. --KarlB (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Numbers

Should this page be titled Numbers, or Number (disambiguation)? For me, the latter, since it contains roughly equal numbers of uses of the two forms, and calling it "Numbers" and expecting people to know that the extra "-s" indicates that it's a disambiguation page appears very cryptic. But when I placed a db-move template on Number (disambiguation), someone removed it saying that because there are in fact more uses of "Numbers" on the disambiguation page than of "Number", it should stay as it is. I also find it odd that "number" should link to the article about numbers, but "numbers" should not. Worth bothering about? Victor Yus (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The dab page is a bit of a mess - if it's a joint dab page for "Number" and "Numbers" then I'd think Number (magazine) and Numbers (magazine) should be in the same section. No time to cleanup right now, but I think someone could do with knocking it into shape! Or even, possibly, split into 2 dab pages for singular and plural. PamD 17:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer to see Numbers redirect to Number, but I acknowledge that Numbers is also a book of the Bible (which is a pretty significant usage), and a TV series. bd2412 T 17:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I would split it; aside from the primary topic, most of the topics that are known as "Numbers" aren't known as "Number, and vice versa. There are probably some partial title matches there too (does anyone call "Number theory" just "Number"?). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
"Number" and "numbers" are ambiguous to each other, they shouldn't be split apart to separate disambiguation pages; readers expect to find all topics ambiguous to the term at the same place. Victor has explained it well: the primary topic can be named either number or numbers; both of them refer to the mathematical object, and thus the link for both terms should be at the same page.
While differentiating only by singular/plural is acceptable for article names (as the only requirement for article titles is that they occupy different strings), separating them at DAB pages would defeat the basic disambiguation purpose. Readers would be forced to remember exactly whether the topic they're looking for was named as singular or plural which is not ideal. PamD is also right that the magazines should be put together (was the literary magazine called Number or Numbers? in which section should I look for it?) Grouping sections by subject as recommended at MOS:DABORDER is the proper fix for this currently two-headed page.
("Number theory" is a good addition to the See also section, I've added it). Diego (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The key distinction is titles vs. topics. The topic of the article number could have gone to the title "Number" or "Numbers". The topic of the article reached by Numb3rs could not have gone to the title "Number". Except for the primary topic, readers searching for "Numbers" aren't looking for the topics ambiguous with "Number", and readers searching for "Number" aren't looking for the topics ambiguous with "Numbers". The title "Number" is not ambiguous with the title "Numbers". Sometimes a set of topics that could have gone to an ambiguous title mostly overlap the set of topics that could have gone to another ambiguous title (because the topics themselves could each have gone to the multiple titles). Readers do not expect to find all topics ambiguous to the topic at one title on the same disambiguation page; this is why we have three dabs hatnoted from United States, and why Hero (disambiguation), Heroine (disambiguation), Heros, and Heroes are different. If most of the topics that are ambiguous with a singular version of a title are also ambiguous with the plural version, and vice versa, the dabs should be merged. If not, they should be separate. If they are separate, the minority of topics that happen to be ambiguous with each title would be placed on each disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I am still inclined to think that the primary topic of numbers is number(s); that is, that a person interested in finding out information about the symbols used for mathematical quantification will be inclined to look up numbers in the plural rather than in the singular, because we think of them in terms of there being many of them. I regularly disambiguate new incoming links to that title, and I would say that more than half are intended to go to number. On the other hand, there are always a few going to the TV show and the book of the Bible, and (very rarely) to the magazine or one of the albums. I think we could safely redirect numbers to number, and have a hatnote directing visitors to the two different disambig pages for other meanings. bd2412 T 03:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that numbers should probably redirect to number, for simplicity for all concerned. However I'm more persuaded by the arguments that all the meanings should be on one disambiguation page, since it will be easier to maintain that way, and also people won't be too careful or certain as to whether they should look for their desired meaning on one page or the other. (By the way, it looks like there used to be two separate pages, but someone combined them at one point, though they didn't integrate the two lists.) Victor Yus (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I also agree that the primary topic of "Numbers" is the topic at Number. I'm only saying that the dabs should be split, which is a separate thing from determining their primary topics. Combining them is easier for editors, but separating them is for the benefit of the readers. Readers reaching Number when they intended one of other topics will have an easier time of it if the topics ambiguous with "Number" and the topics ambiguous with "Numbers" are on separate, shorter lists, since their is so little overlap or risk of confusion. The few topics that are also ambiguous with both "Number" and "Numbers" would be listed on both pages. A little more work for the editors, more benefit for the readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Having mulled it over, I agree with JHunterJ, because of the large number of individual meanings for each term. However, since we are all in agreement that numbers should redirect to number, why don't we implement that now? The disambiguation pages would then each be at their "Foo (disambiguation)" title, which is the least surprising outcome of all. bd2412 T 12:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think separate DABs is a good structure. The hat note at Number should then link both to Number (disambiguation) and Numbers (disambiguation), leaving readers with no clue as to which one of both they should navigate to for other uses. The WP:DPAGES guideline (singular and plural should go in the same DAB page) exists for a reason and should be followed here. The current DAB page is not too long anyway, so why that urge to split it? Diego (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No clue? Readers looking for "Numb3rs" will know which page to go to. Readers looking for any of the albums or songs will know which one to go to. Readers looking for the magazine, manga, game, etc. will know which one to go to. For most, there is no plural/singular distinction: there are not multiple Numb3rses TV series (nor a Numb3r TV serie). Length is not the impetus, you're right. It's the lack of overlap. The small set of things that are actually ambiguous with both "Number" and "Numbers" (e.g., Number (music), Number (sports)) would be listed on both pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. bd2412 T 13:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Now, what was the name of that Japanese sport magazine? I can't remember for my life whether it was NumbeR or NumberS. Can you remember it right now, without looking at the current DAB page first, no cheating? (Even if you can, why do you think a reader that remember reading the magazine twenty years ago would be able to recall the exact title?) Diego (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah Ok, you suggest having ambiguous entries at both pages. So you repeat Number (game), Number (manga), Number (music), Number (sports), Numbers (magazine), Numbers (Dick Tracy) and Numbers monsters (Yu-Gi-Oh!) at both pages, and what you get is that both disambiguation pages are nearly identical and could be merged anyway. Diego (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
People who can't for their lives remember what something is titled would use the "See also" links to similar dab pages, as they always have. Otherwise we'd have to expand all disambiguation pages infinitely to cover everything any user might ever mistake for the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Or, we could limit the links in the page to those that differ only in capitalization, punctuation, plural or possessive form, variant spellings and the presence or absence of an article. JHunterJ, you're usually very strict to comply with guidelines and quick to ask others to respect them, except when the guideline says the opposite of what you want. ;-) Diego (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
You may have glossed over the "may" in that section. Indeed, titles that vary in any of those ways may be combined. When the little differences like that make little difference in the sets of ambiguous topics, I'm right there with combining them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
That's why I included the *wink, wink* emoticon. I know that the DPAGES guideline is optional (all of them are), but I still think the logic in it makes sense here. I have problems understanding under which criteria you define what is or is not ambiguous. How is it that you find Number (Music) or Numbers (Nanoha) ambiguous for the terms Number and Numbers, but you don't find Number (magazine) and Numbers (magazine) ambiguous for the terms Number and Numbers? Diego (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
That one is not optional in only the way that all guidelines are optional. That one guides editors in weighing the benefit of combing dabs for titles with trivial differences. So the guideline is being applied (I'm not ignoring it because it's optional) and I conclude that the trivial differences in titling result in non-trivial differences in the sets of ambiguous topics. "That's a musical number." "Those are musical numbers." "He's a Number in Nanoha." "They're Numbers in Nanoha." (I confess I could be mistaken there, since I known nothing about Nanoha.) But not "Give me the latest issue of Numbers" when I mean Number or "Give me the latest issue of Number" when I mean Numbers. Titled works that use singulars or plurals in their titles are not typically ambiguous with the same title word in different count. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd say keep as a single dab. Check the page reviews on it and watch the talk page, and see if anyone actually complains. The way it's currently divided (i.e. number then numbers) is good enough - no need for two dabs.--KarlB (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
We'd need a new policy WP:BOLDIFSOMEONECOMPLAINSELSETIMID. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I support having separate pages in this instance, it would also be possible to have all of the meanings at Number (disambiguation), but to have a section on that page for meanings exclusive to "Numbers", and have Numbers (disambiguation) redirect to [[Number (disambiguation)#Numbers]]. bd2412 T 15:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've created a proposal for having all entries in a single page at User:Diego_Moya/Number, trying to follow MOS:DABORDER. The items are not ordered by spelling but by topic, which creates similarly sized groups. Finding entries in this page is easier than with two separate pages, as an entry can be searched for with the TOC or with in-page text search. What do you think? Diego (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed some of the title formatting and ordering (like name-holders at the end, and partial-title matches in See also), leaving the topic grouping. I think two dabs, one for Number and one for Numbers, would be more useful, and I've tagged in the comments on there the entries that would not be on both pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Diego's effort is more useful than the page in its current form. I would suggest substituting the former for the latter straight away. The "split" form will still be in the page history to make use of if consensus turns out to be in favour of splitting the pages. Also, am I right in thinking we generally agree that numbers should redirect to number, rather than being used as the title of the dab page? Victor Yus (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've updated the page to the last version in my user space as reordered by JHunterJ. Diego (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
And I've moved it to Number (disambiguation) so that Numbers and Number go to the primary topic. (And I still hold that separate dabs will serve the readership better.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Pro-death, anti-life

After obtaining unanimous consent to undelete "pro-death" with stated dab content, I also expanded anti-life. I am a project-member inclusionist, and I naturally was met by a project-member deletionist who cut them back to overtight versions of pro-death and anti-life.

This editor also tagged both articles twice with insufficient explanation; left rude edit summaries in the third restoration of the tag; referred to my inclusionism as "obvious violations" on talk without detail; and left pro-death ungrammatical, and anti-life still tagged as if the deletionism is incomplete.

The only reason supplied is: "remove entried not supported by the linked articles and unambiguous entries and partial title matches". Because these two terms are also pejoratives in the abortion debate, though neither pejorative is a primary topic, it is important to handle these circumspectly and with fuller treatment rather than hastily. E.g., it is not necessary for the targets to mention the exact title without the "pro-" or "anti-" prefix, as that is a trivial addition; the exact title appears in sources relating to the targets. It is certainly possible I am overlinking, and definite that the other editor is underlinking. I would appreciate if other members could assist via point-by-point analysis at Talk:Pro-death and Talk:Anti-life. JJB 00:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)