This page is a bit of a mess - article plus dab page combined - there is a proposal on its talk page to split it. PamD08:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Danilovsky District
Here is an interesting page, Danilovsky District, a disambiguation page that, I think, appropriately uses maps to help distinguish various Russian rayons, but that, inappropriately is loaded with footnotes appropriate to the articles themselves. Enjoy. --Bejnar (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I did clean up Danilovsky, though, to avoid having the readers go from the dab page through the set index before reaching an article with information. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
When to have both disambiguation and set index articles
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
These two pages need some attention - overlap, dab/name page unclarity, etc. I'm not in the mood at the moment, but someone might like to take up the challenge! PamD07:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
At some point, bag was turned from an article to a disambiguation page, containing mostly, WP:PTM listings of types of bags. I have restored the article and improved it. Further improvement, to prevent it from being removed again, is needed. bd2412T19:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Italics within italics
This is a small issue, but one that I come across fairly frequently when disambiguating using hatnotes; when mentioning things that are typically italicised, such as titles of works, ship names, etc. in a hatnote, which is itself italicised, how should the text be represented, e.g., in a hatnote? Example pages:
I don't worry about it there, but if you are so inclined, things that are italicized in normal text typically have the italics removed when they appear in italicized text: For the Beatles album, see Help! (album). But getting that formatting right is IMO more trouble than it's worth. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Where there are 2 disambiguated titles in addition to an article at the base name, I favour a hatnote rather than a dab page. I believe this is supported by Wikipedia:Hatnote#"This page is about … For other uses …", when it says "When there are up to four other uses – You should generally create a disambiguation page at this point." beside one of its example uses of {{about}}. But when I PRODded Iamus (disambiguation), because the hatnote at Iamus makes it unnecessary, it was dePRODded with the summary "(deprod; hatnotes shouldn't cover more than one article; more than one and a disambig page is necessary)". Any thoughts? If a hatnote shouldn't cover more than one article, it's difficult to know why {{about}} can take so many parameters. Perhaps I should just take it to AfD. PamD23:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with a two-link hatnote. We have all kinds, actually. We have See x, see x and x (disambiguation), see x1 and x2 and x (disambiguation) hatnotes. On the other hand, that's not necessarily a reason to delete the disambig page. Suppose someone wants to point out that the word Iamus has several meanings - shouldn't they be able to link to Iamus (disambiguation) if they intend to point to its ambiguity? bd2412T04:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Right. A hatnote could be used for two other articles. {{two other uses}} is intended for this, for instance. A disambiguation page could be used instead for two other articles. I wouldn't say either of them should be used in favor of the other. I tend to go with the hatnote if I encounter the ambiguity, and leave the disambiguation pages if someone else has created them. If the hatnote is quite long, though, I'll go ahead and make the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Hatnotes_for_disambiguated_topics about whether the rule against a hatnote pointing from an article with a disambiguated title to the corresponding disambiguation page is a good thing. (ie Should we allow a hatnote pointing from "Foo (something)" to the dab page at "Foo" or "Foo (disambiguation)"). PamD10:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you can help. Consensus is that the 1885 corp is AT&T Corporation and the 1983 corp (formerly SBC) is AT&T (aka "AT&T Inc."), a primary topic for AT&T (disambiguation). However there are probably 2000 links to "AT&T" and probably half of them refer to "AT&T Corporation" instead. My concern is that, even after the 2000 links are sifted in the ordinary way, newly created incorrect links to "AT&T" that intend "AT&T Corporation" are highly probable indefinitely and will not be easy to find among the remaining approx 1000 links to "AT&T" that intend the 1983 corp. My proposal is that we have a convention that the remaining links be changed from [[AT&T]] to [[AT&T Inc.|AT&T]], which means that there would be no incoming links to AT&T in WhatLinksHere except for new links, which can be filtered as they appear. If we did not change the remaining links, there would be no easy way to spot new incorrect links. Also, per WP:NOTBROKEN, there is no reason not to adjust these links.
I am wondering if there are any other primary topics that have a similar potential for incorrect incoming links and how this may have been handled previously. And how well would my proposal be received from this project as a general rule? Thank you for your attention. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection to adjusting links to enable easier identification of the rare errant link to a primary topic for which other meanings exist. bd2412T23:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your saying that, but this issue has more inertia to overcome before it is fixed. It's true that one person can do 2000 links but one IP cannot do every semiprotected article if they are fielded by a random slice of Wikipedians. So far on semiprotection I've gotten a few accepts, and 3 declines from 2 users. Here is the current list of unsorted bare links to "AT&T", about half or more of which are wrong. The argument is that the other half should be redirected silently to "AT&T Inc." so that new incorrect unsorted links can be quickly fielded on an ongoing basis. Can someone please adopt at least the (currently 3) semiprotected articles at the top of this list, and perhaps follow me as I make further edit requests or chip in with dabbing some of the (still nearly) 2000 links? Thank you. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Discography disambiguation pages.
I am concerned about the following pages currently tagged as disambiguation pages:
In each case, the disambiguation page contains only two links, one being a "singles" discography of the artist, and the other being an "albums" discography of the same artist. I wonder whether these can properly be called disambiguation pages at all, or if perhaps some other solution should be implemented for these pages. bd2412T23:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Subjectively/personally, I'd suggest that these root pages get redirected to the "albums" page, at which we add a hatnote pointing to the "singles" page.
These root pages are never linked to directly - the main article should always list the 2 destinations, not this disambig-like page - and that should be standard. eg Crystal Gayle#Discography and Dwight Yoakam#Discography.
These root pages will also potentially clog up our and google's search results.
I dropped a note there, but I don't see anyone coming over to talk about the matter. I would agree to making the "albums" list the base page name, with a hatnote to the "singles" list, since this will keep people who are searching for the albums from having to click a second link. bd2412T01:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Since these really are not disambiguation pages, I don't think this project should have anything in particular to say about what is done with them, other than to insist that they not be marked as disambiguation pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
They're clearly "disambiguation-esque" in purpose and format, so even if they weren't tagged with templates/categories, this project would still have strongly relevant advice to offer. Whether a project (or an individual editor) "should" give advice is often subjective, but the quality/substance of the advice should be more important than where it came from. (Ie. do you object to the advice/suggestion offered, or more to the location it is being written at?) —Quiddity (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's not that I object to discussing these pages here, but you are more likely to find users who are knowledgeable about and interested in the particular topic of discographies elsewhere. And, no, they are not "disambiguation-esque"; a list of articles containing parts of a single artist's discography is in no way resolving any "ambiguity"; the only thing they have in common with disambiguation pages is that they both happen to contain lists of article titles. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
They are not disambiguation-esque, they are disambiguation. Disambiguation is all about pointing people to the correct article, not the correct topic - after all, articles are split and merged constantly. Here, the phrase xxx discography is ambiguous as to which article to go to, so this page disambiguates that. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Still, the common sense solution seems obvious to me, and our participation in the disambig project doesn't prevent us from boldly enacting a solution to solve a problem which has arisen out of incorrect use of the disambig tag. bd2412T22:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
@Ego White Tray, first, please do not insert comments between the existing comments of other editors, as this creates a false impression that the following comment is a response to your comment instead of the comment to which it actually responded. Second, there are two policies which these pages conflict with - WP:DABCONCEPT (which defines pages as being not ambiguous if they address related topics that are collectively capable of being addressed in a single article), and WP:TWODABS, which discourages the use of disambiguation pages distinguishing only two links. This policy applies even if the pages are actually ambiguous, because there is no need to send readers to a third page if the only other possible meaning can just as easily be presented as a hatnote on either of the two links mentioned. The case for that is certainly stronger where the lists are closely related, as they are with products produced by the same artist. bd2412T17:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Petronella Barker: how to disambiguate?
I've just come across an article titled Petronella Barker actress b.1942. Obviously this isn't an appropriately formatted title. I was going to change it to "Petronella Barker (actress)", but on checking it turns out that the pre-existing Petronella Barker article is also about an actress (born 1965).
I am not sure what is the best way as you have two options. 1) disambiguate on nationality (as one is a Norwegian actress and the other English); 2) disambiguate on year of birth (as one is born in 1942 and the other in 1965). The Bannertalk03:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
In addition, WP:QUALIFIER seems to suggest that (occupation born year) is an established way of disambiguating two people with the same occupation. I'll go with that, then. — Paul A (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Bible disambiguations
Today I encountered this disambiguation page: Abinadab. This is one of four people mentioned in the Bible. This page is so far from what a disambiguation page should be and I honestly have no idea what to do to fix this page. I suspect that there are a whole lot of other pages like this, since there is a huge number of names in the Bible and any name in the Bible justifies either an article or redirect to someplace. I invited Wikiproject Bible to comment and hopefully someone can provide an answer here. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys - just a quick question. We've a few 'set-index articles' with very similar names; for example Diamond-back rattlesnake and Diamondback rattlesnake. The documentation makes it clear that this is a semantic grouping (that is, by the meaning of the titles listed) rather than syntactic (as in normal disambiguation pages - those with titles that look similar but discuss different subjects), but I'm struggling to work out when it is appropriate to merge such sets. Is the intention of the two rattlesnake lists the same or not? - TB (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I would absolutely merge these. The name is basically a colloquial reference to the animal correctly known by its scientific designation - like a nickname, and therefore susceptible to minor variations. bd2412T13:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with merging. These are unnecessary redundancy and (as they are not synchronized--fraught with potential for confusion). older ≠ wiser13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
They're merged now, cheers. My main hope in posting this here was instruction on how to determine the intention of a set-index article - they lack any obvious definition of the set they describe, and the title is clearly insufficient - a set of things with the same title is just a plain-old disambiguation page. - TB (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a pretty verbose qualifier. There isn't a single word that will suffice? But to the other question, tools like AutoWikiBrowser (WP:AWB) will speed up the process of updating all the incoming links, or a Wikipedia:Bot requests can be made to have them changed in a fully automatic way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is a verbose qualifier. I have chosen it because the article begin by "In mathematics and physics, ...". Rereading the article, it appears to be about a single topic that is called "dimension of a space" in mathematics, "dimension of the space" in physics, "number of dimensions" (fourth dimension, for example) or "degree of freeness" in other contexts. For the moment, it seems to me that the best title would be "Dimension of a space". I'll start a move discussion on the talk page on the basis of what precedes. --D.Lazard (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Nude Modeling
Nude modeling redirects to Model (art), while Nude model is a disambiguation page.
This is not consistent, the meaning of both need disambiguation, since they could refer to art, commercial photography, or porn.
The Nude model disambiguation page is incorrect, since it includes a link to Fetish model, which is not about nudity but either someone dressed in fetish outfits or a type of porn.
FigureArtist (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Good point! Did some fixes & cleanups - DAB pages are for listing existing articles on the topic visitors might likely be looking for, not for long explanations or original research. Please don't take it personally, your contributions were well-intended. --Trofobi (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Better, but I still think that Fetish model is out of place, and anyone searching for nude model or nude modeling is thinking Playboy (glamor/erotic but not porn), which is not covered by either Model (art) or Model (profession). Perhaps moving Nude Photography up to a main link and move Fetish down to See Also?
FigureArtist (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
This all seems very WP:DABCONCEPT-y to me. Why not just have an article on the concept of nude modeling, indicating therein that such modeling can occur for both artistic and commercial purposes, occasionally including fetish purposes? I would guess that there is a rich history of controversies involving nude modeling, and regulation of the practice. bd2412T18:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
@FigureArtist: A DAB is about which articles exist, where the topic is at least mentioned - the visitor has to decide himself, if that covers some of what she/he was looking for. If a concept article would meet relevance criteria is hard to tell in advance - I would think this could be difficult, because no model is working always only fully nude afaik. But be bold and try it in your sandbox?
It is never easy to to priorize a DAB page, when the entries differ from the MOS:DABORDER guidline... I would rather think List of glamour models could be moved up. Or actually all entries here could be moved down to "See also" because there is no real match. Just that would look strange wouldn't it? --Trofobi (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Craigslist killer/murder(er)
Could some native speaker help what is the correct or most common capitalization & word?
Yes, you're certainly right, sry misused this a bit as a sandbox... - but are you shure the capitalizations "Craigslist Killer / Ripper" are right instead of "Craigslist killer / ripper"? --Trofobi (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this title redirect to an article on murders initiated by Craigslist meetings, listing these subjects therein? This seems somewhat WP:DABCONCEPT as it stands. bd2412T15:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
In the lead paragraph of Swat, a recent edit by 222.186.101.77 introduced pipes and multiple wikilinks into the lead. I edited this to try to make it conform to (my understanding of) dab page style, but this was promptly reverted. I don't want to get into a revert war, and besides, I'm not sure exactly how the guidelines apply to the lead. Could someone from this project help me understand how to apply the guidelines to the lead paragraph of that article? Thanks! YBG (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Human race
The new disambiguation page at Human race appears unnecessary, especially given the hatnote already present on Human. However, the views of other editors would be welcome. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Then there transliterated terms like Kaddish (disambiguation), Kiddush, Kedesh and Qetesh. Can someone please suggest how they should be treated? All these words come from the same root Q-D-Š used in several languages that don't use vowels so in the original language, Kiddush and Qetesh sound very similar. I thought about using Baal (disambiguation) as a good example of how to handle this. All suggestions are welcome here. USchick (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
They all look fine to me right now offhand. The merger of Kadesh dab into Qadesh is well-done. Kaddish dab is a distinct subset and none of the respelled Kadesh dab items need to be confused with the subset of dabs all spelled Kaddish. The articles Kaddish, Kiddush, Kedesh, and Qetesh are well-defined as separate items (the first two of these refer to different blessings). All that's left are the usual tweaks. JJB 20:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Nage
I've never made a DAB before, and I'd rather not screw it up. I was recently looking up two different unions, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE). AFGE links to the appropriate article, but NAGE redirects to Nage, with a hatnote for Nage (food). It's reasonable to think someone might be looking up National Association of Government Employees when they search for NAGE, so I think this oculd use a DAB, but as I said, I don't want to screw it up, and, while, yes, WP:BOLD applies, I'd rather do it right the first time, or have it done right the first time, than it need to be fixed later.--Vidkun (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've had a go: redirect from NAGE to the union; "redirect" hatnote there to the other two uses; add the union to (and cleanup) the hatnote at Nage. There could be another solution involving a dab page, but with only these three uses it seems better to use hatnotes. PamD14:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I have made very simple disambiguation pages before, but never a complex one. I need your help and/or advice with this one. I started it because there is a sea snail genus called Mammillaria but a search took me straight to the Nipple page with no hat note or any other kind of link to anything else.
However when I started making this disambiguation page it started turning into an article. I tried to rein it in, but it is still a bit wordy, however I want to make it clear what is what. What do you suggest? Should it be an article instead? Invertzoo (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I moved the WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page back to the base name and cleaned it up as a disambiguation page. The topics that couldn't be the topic of an article titled "Mammilla" are not entries for the disambiguation page "Mammilla". I left them in the "See also" section, but they could also be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
OK JHunter. However, I don't really understand what you mean by, "the topics that couldn't be the topic of an article titled "Mammilla" are not entries for the disambiguation page "Mammilla"." All of the listed links would definitely be included in an article about "Mammilla", a word which means not only "nipple" but also "any nipple-like structure". All of the listed links (except for the unrelated name Mamilla), are about nipple-like anatomical structures or organisms that have nipple-like protuberances, hence their names. Would you mind clarifying what you said, since I may at at some point make such an article? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
A hypothetical article about the word mammilla would be a different thing, and possibly run afoul of WP:NOTDICT. But as you noted, disambiguation pages aren't articles, and articles aren't disambiguation pages, so that distinction would need to be made. You could convert the base-name disambiguation page to a term article (and remove the dab tag), if you want to try that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I edited the "sitter" page with regard to someone who sits for a portrait. Most dictionary definitions (e.g. Miriam-Webster and Oxford) and common usage indicate that the fine art namespace meaning of sitter is linked to portraiture, and is not synonymous with anyone who poses for an artist (a model). I have also edited the Model (art) article to provide references for this meaning. Of course this does not mean that there are no instances of over-generalization to be found.FigureArtist (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello again. We have a sea snail article Luria (gastropod). However, if you put Luria into the WP search slot only leads to Luria, which is about the surname. Should Luria become a disambiguation page? If not, then how do we handle this? I temporarily added the sea snail to the bottom of the page, which you may want to change? Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see... that's rather clever. That should be alright I think, don't you? As long as people can find their way to the snail article it's OK. Invertzoo (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
HP
It may be useful to have additional watchers at HP (disambiguation); an editor is trying to rework it to minimized the primary topic (note that there are two entries formatted as primary topics there, per consensus on the Talk page). Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have a quick question about the DAB solver tool. I'm probably doing something wrong, so I would appreciate it if you could please tell me what the error is.
The dab page Zhongsheng has 74 incoming links, and I want to clear it.
It has been tagged by the bot with the "incominglinks" template. So I click on the link in the tag that goes to the Dab solver tool. But when the Dab solver tool loads, it says that there is nothing to disambiguate on this page! But that's got to be wrong, because if you go to the page and look at "what links here", you can clearly see that there are 74 incoming links.
Could you please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I want to clear this page!!
No, your are not doing anything wrong. Due to a recent Toolserver-problem, a lot of articles are still on the list while already resolved. The techies are working on that, but that takes some time. The Bannertalk10:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Nobody has a clue how long it will take. Perhaps we should make a list of resolved but unfiltered articles. By now, the only thing you can do is gamble and look at the article. The Bannertalk10:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed the "incoming links" template. Now it links directly to the fix page for the dab page. Much more useful! Azylber (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Another tricky disambiguation situation
Hello once again folks! Here's a situation: there is a sea snail named Ficus variegata Röding, 1798. We do have an article for it under Ficus variegatus, an old spelling of the name, but, right now the title of the sea snail article needs to be moved to Ficus variegata, as per [the WoRMS entry here].
I tried to put a better hat note on the tree article and the snail article, the one you see now, but what should be done now? We obviously need a disambiguation page, as both articles names will be spelled the same once the sea snail article name is moved to Ficus variegata. What else we need to do, I am going to leave to you guys. It is too confusing for me. We may need to delete some disambiguation pages I think.
UPDATE: One of the gastropod project's other members had a go at cleaning up the situation. I think it is all OK now, but maybe you guys can check and see if you agree, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The arrangement is fine. I reformatted the entries on the disambiguation page to put the italics only around the title, not the qualifier. I also removed the italics from the title and intro of the dab page; I'm less sure about this though. I don't think that disambiguation page should have italics titles, even if all of their entries are italicized. Other opinions? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I've added a hatnote to the dab page - not sure it's totally standard but seems to work, in the context of a slightly iffy dab page anyway. We could do something with capitalisation, redirecting "About to Die" to the EP and adding a hatnote there to link to the dab page, and perhaps adding the EP to the dab page as "See also", but I think the hatnote solution is probably better. Other editors may differ! PamD08:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Abbreviate primary topics for an abbreviation disambiguation page?
Should the links to the primary topics be piped to show the abbreviations on a disambiguation page for an abbreviation? See HP (disambiguation), where both Hewlett-Packard and Horsepower have been piped to appear as HP. Here is the abbreviated links and here is the unabbreviated links. This is a discussion on style, so don't please don't discuss Harry Potter. Please chime in. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Note this has nothing to do with piping, but rather on the use of base-name primary topic redirects on "base-name (disambiguation)" pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Note also the previous discussions at Talk:HP (disambiguation) and that "When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article." -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
A proposal for discussion before articles with many incoming links are turned into disambigs.
The biggest jumps in the number of disambiguation links usually come from circumstances where an editor unilaterally decides that a page with an arguably ambiguous title should in fact be a disambiguation page, or should redirect to one. This results in instances such as the one yesterday, in which an editor decided to change Meter from a redirect to Metre to a redirect to Meter (disambiguation). Although that was quickly resolved, such moves are not always so easily addressed. Occasionally this also occurs in AfD or RfD discussions where a dispute is resolved by changing an article to a disambiguation page, even though such a change does not accord with the policies developed by this project. I would like to propose, therefore, that the a page that has existed as a regular article for a long period of time (say, a year or more), or that has over a certain number of incoming article space links (say, fifty or more), should be presumed to be the primary topic for the term. In such cases, before any change to the page in question is made, a discussion should be initiated, with this project being notified of the discussion, and a consensus should be reached. This is not to say that the move itself is wrong, since the community has often developed consensus that a term has become ambiguous (as was the case with Android, which is now a disambiguation page). However, I do think that some discussion should be had before a change is made that generates substantial numbers of disambig links. bd2412T02:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Lots of pages are changed "unilaterally"—not just DAB pages. Nothing wrong with that. After all, WP:Bold. If there is an objection, then you go to the Talk Page. This is normally the way such things are done. I'm not sure that any given editor would be familiar with a rule about fifty incoming links, or a year up on WP to gain seniority. What might be the ill effects of the plan you suggest? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This would still fall into the WP:BRD cycle, but it would make it easier for disambiguators to require page-movers to justify making a move that creates a mess to be cleaned up. Of course, a prospective page mover (for a fairly new page) could avoid this rule by fixing the incoming links first. bd2412T01:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I love the idea of more thought before someone creates a big pile of disambiguation links, but how would this work if the above were policy? Would there be a software solution which would make such changes impossible without previous consensus, or would it be reactive - a change would be reverted when someone notices a big new set of disambiguation links, then some tag would be added to the page to start a discussion to reach a consensus? Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Such pages usually make a big splash on the daily report, so they are easy to spot. As much as I'd like a software solution, I think it would be revert and point to the policy requiring discussion, so that the situation doesn't immediately degrade into a revert war based solely on the competing opinions of two editors. bd2412T04:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Sayyid (name)
The page Sayyid (name) looks like a DAB page to me, but seems to be treated like an article page. A user is having a hard time with the page, and listed it at DRV. The page previously was at AfD. I can see the DRV nominator's point. If you have time, would you work your magic and make the page into a good DAB page. That might help ease some tension. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
If it were a dab page, we'd delete it as being a partial title match list. This is one of the reasons the anthroponymy project came into being; the article is an anthroponymy list article, and treated as an article page. You can check with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to approach an apparently needed disambig. Microsatellite is apparently a term widely used both in the field of spaceflight and also in genetics. Currently, Microsatellite is the genetics article, and Microsatellite (spaceflight) is a redir to a sourced article section on the use of microsatellite in spaceflight. Given the apparent widespread use of the terms in both fields, it seems it might be best if Microsatellite became a disambig page, and Microsatellite (genetics) (which is currently a redir to Microsatellit) would become the genetics article.
This seems complex in that there are pages in the way of page moves happening. Wondering if someone in the project has some sort of tool (or set of tools) that might make this easier.
Also, if the subject should be beat around for a while first, in order to gain consensus, I'd be happy to kick that off; but unsure where to do it to get a balance of folks looking at it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Odd, however, that the move away from a DAB page occurred when there was clearly no consensus on the move. I don't know what the criteria are for making such a change, but it certainly could not have been a "consensus" that met the criteria. N2e (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This disambiguation page is not needed for 2 articles : both articles are linked, one being an adaptation of the other on screen; there will never be a third page to put here. What’s more, it does not help navigation and the book page should be simply renamed without the mention « novel » to simplify.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
This pair of pages need a thorough sortout, but I mustn't get into it right now as I've got other stuff I need to do off-wiki. A nice little project for someone to pick up. Happy Boxing Day. PamD08:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Skoll (disambiguation) and the articles linked from it need some looking after. It seems like an easy enough job for people used to DAB pages. I came across it when searching for Skol, Vikings which isn't linked from it and should be. Skol, the article I came across after my search, links to Sköll rather than the DAB page. None of the other pages link to the DAB page. In addition, the DAB page starts by saying "Skoll is the mythological figure Sköll". Shouldn't that be more like "Skoll, or Skol, may refer to:"? RyanVesey02:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:PTM offers no guidance on the contents of the See also section of a dab page. Such partial title matches that have some overlap with the ambiguous term are typically included in the see also section. older ≠ wiser03:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
That's why I also created this link which does. Please explain to me which of those 4 bullets compares to confusing "apples" with "the little apple" or "apple tree". Also, if you're gonna add Apple River and Apple Valley, why did you not add Appleton? CTF83!04:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The language of WP:MOSDAB#"See also" section is deliberately not presented as a comprehensive list or meant to be overly restrictive. The examples given are those most likely to be encountered. Can you conclusively say with certainty that entities such as Apple River and Apple Valley are never referred to as "apple" or that no one would look for them at the apple disambiguation page? I didn't include appleton because I was mostly just restoring entries you had removed, I thought without good reason. I wasn't considering what else might be included. But even so, unlike Apple River or Apple Valley, I very much doubt anyone would refer to any "appleton" as simply "apple". older ≠ wiser04:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense! Have you ever heard anyone call Los Angeles - Angeles, New Orleans - Orleans, New York - York, New Hampshire - Hampshire, San Francisco - Francisco? I can go on and on. You don't just cut a key word out of the name of a city or other place. CTF83!04:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You're making poor comparisons. Has the golden apple of myth ever been called simply an "apple"? Quite likely. Has any of the Apple Rivers ever been called simply the "Apple"? Quite likely. Has the Big Apple ever been called simply the "Apple"? Quite likely. On the other hand, is apple pie often referred to as simply apple? Not very likely. Is Adam's apple often referred to as simply "apple"? Not very likely. Consider how confusing such colloquialisms can be for non-native speakers. While WP:PTM does exclude such tangents from the main listing, there is no harm and some benefit to including terms with overlapping usage in see also. older ≠ wiser04:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Disagree. I find it very difficult to believe anyone has ever referred to, for instance, "the golden apple myth" as "the apple". Ditto for the rest of the examples. If these are "quite likely", it should be easy to find at least one example of them. Yet my considerable Google-fu has failed to turn up a single example. Let's also not use absolutism as a trump for common sense, which appears to be the suggestion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
To second what Bkonrad said, particularly when it comes to deciding what might be appropriate in a See also section, but also what goes in the main list, there's always a measure of judgement and discrimination involved. Could this use reasonably be commonly referred to by the ambiguous term alone? If a user comes to this page searching for the ambiguous term, could s/he reasonably be searching for this instead? You're absolutely right, CTF83!, that we would do users no service by larding a dab page with every possible near match. But it is possible to exercise some judgement in the matter and provide users with navigation to topics they might logically be looking for while omitting those that seem highly unlikely. --ShelfSkewedTalk05:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
So...is that just a neutral reponse? Who decides what term is close to the main DAB page to decide what to list? Bkonrad, looks like a lot of that is your opinion and WP:OR. If someone asks what kind of pie I want, I say simply apple. I've twice linked what 4 examples are given for the see also section, none of what you type is related to any of those. CTF83!05:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Who decides? As with anything at Wikipedia, any editor who chooses to edit the page. Or, if there is a disagreement, as in this case, a discussion among interested editors arriving at a consensus. This discussion should probably be moved to Talk:Apple (disambiguation), unless you are looking for a blanket statement clarifying the guidelines for all pages. But I don't think such a thing is possible, as each page and set of entries presents its own set of possibilities. To stick to the present case and your examples, I think Apple Blossom (disambiguation) and Apple pie (disambiguation) might be useful additions to the See also section, and the other three you mention would not. But as I said, such a discussion probably belongs at the dab page's talk page.--ShelfSkewedTalk06:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Well apple dab has been dead for 6 months, so I didn't bother posting there. While the disagreement I'm having is specifically about apple, this discussion can have broader guidelines for what to include. CTF83!11:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
