(I posted this same question to WP:Help Desk#Koga links, and it was suggested I come here, which I should have tried first.)
Koga is a dab page. I'm trying to disambiguate links to it, but there are four articles (Cyclingteam Jo Piels, List of Mitsubishi–Jartazi rosters, Mitsubishi–Jartazi, and SEG Racing Academy) where I cannot find any instances of the word "koga". Yet all four link to the dab page itself (not to redirects). I have searched the source and looked for content in templates that might have the link. Nothing. Some use is made of Wikidata, and I tried looking over there to see if I could find anything. Since all the articles have to do with European cycling teams, and because there is a Dutch brand of bicycles called KOGA, I thought maybe there was a team member whose former team was sponsored by Koga. I did not finish going through the list; I got fed up and decided to try to get some help. Any ideas? — Gorthian (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't see any links pointing to Koga: insource:/\[[Kk]oga[|\]]/ prefix:: (although there might be something wrong with my search query). I also recall being in the same situation before (although I've never investigated further). The suggestion that it might be due to some template is sensible, but that (and the likelihood of some subtle glitch) makes me wonder if you aren't going to get referred somewhere else again, this time to WP:VPT. Uanfala (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I've looked into Cyclingteam Jo Piels. The link to Koga is being generated by the 2016 squad list calling the template Cycling race/teamroster with parameter Q23819617 (which corresponds to the Jo Piels entry on Wikidata); I confirmed this by deleting that template in a sandbox text. However, I too haven't been able to track down a Koba entry in the mathching Wikidata, so am also stuck there.Klbrain (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to figure this out earlier, but have no clue. I suspect it's to do with the large nest of modules on Wikidata that is pulling information from multiple wikis. Koga Cycling Team is also apparently linked to by several articles, yet there's no sign of it on any of them. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Xezbeth: The link to Koga Cycling Team is found on every page that links to it; there's one where the link is piped, but otherwise they're clearly present. Did you delete that page for a reason connected to this discussion? — Gorthian (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I´m the one how has written the Lua Module Cycling race. I have deleted the module in article Mitsubishi–Jartazi and the link to Koga disappeared. The next step was to look into the item d:Q2607744 where the team members are listed. I could not find a link to Koga. After that, I have deleted all the members of that team in the item but the error did not disappear. I have deleted the module in the article once more, the link disappeared and this time the link did not appear again after inserting the module again. And after reverting the wikidata item the link is still gone. I don´t know if the link to Mitsubishi–Jartazi is gone now. I don´t think that the lua module is the reason for this problem, therefore I will ask the Wikidata developers to have a look at this problem. see d:Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#Problem --Molarus (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
From the "Mitsubishi–Jartazi 2008"-team only Q948365 (Jens Mouris) and Q1379509 (Maxime Vantomme) have a team data, therefore the problem should come from them, but I can´t see any problem (not in the history too). I have deleted in both items the team data and reverted that. after deleting the module in Mitsubishi–Jartazi and reverting that the link in the Koga disambiguate page is again gone. We will see if that stays this way this time. --Molarus (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hoo man wrote, he has fixed the problem "by null editing the pages in question". I do not see that edit in the history in Wikipedia or Wikidata. The other problem is that Wikidata item labels should lead to this problem. I´m printing [[aaa]] or bbb and wikipedia software understands that as wikicode and turns that into a wikilink or not. The other point is that in d:Q2607744 (Mitsubishi-Jartazi 2008) there are only two riders with a team data d:Q948365 (Jens Mouris) amd d:Q1379509 (Maxime Vantomme). I´m printing the previous team: It is the year 2008 and the previous team for Jens Mouris is the link to the item "Cinelli-Down Under". This link is printed as Wikipedia Link [[Team Cyclingnews.com–Down Under|DFL-Cyclingnews-Litespeed]] (The alias name is the official name of that team at that time)). The other rider, Maxime Vantomme, was 2006 trainee at Etixx-Quick Step, but I don´t print trainee jobs. Therefore, I don´t print any team label into the wikipedia article "Mitsubishi-Jartazi". I´m printing rider labels, but there is no rider called "Koga". To say it short: I don´t understand the explanation.
What I will do is that I´m doing the same for wikipedia article Ulan, as I did for Koga and maybe that will fix the problem. If that doesn´t fix the problem, I have to think again. --Molarus (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, that is what I did now. I have deleted all links to d:Q2212741 (Ulan) in Wikidata. While the links are gone, I have made null edits in the wikipedia articles that link to WP:Ulan disambiguate page. The result has been that all links to that page are gone. Then I have reverted the deletions in Wikidata and still no links to the disambiguate page. I hope it stays that way, we will see. --Molarus (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
They came back, but I was trying something different and it seems they are gone now. At first, I was cleaning the items of the riders, at last, I was cleaning the teams from the riders with a wd link to Ulan (Q2212741). I´m discussing with Hoo man at WD about the reason of that problem, what I have to change in the module and how to find more such errors in the database. Sorry, for the mess I have created. --Molarus (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Gorthian: You're not alone. Oh how I do HATE those templates with little or no documentation, and an ambiguous link buried several levels deep where you risk having the whole thing crash down on your head if you dare to risk trying to fix it. (I, too, have come across Ulan; and others.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the sort order has gone bizarro, or is it just me? It's showing for me as A, 0-9, K, then B-J and L-Z. Narky Blert (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Azaka should be treated as a DAB page. It's really strange to have a DAB page redirecting to another DAB page. More important, despite its brevity its two links are (literally) related, and the term "Azaka" really does refer to a single item. To quote the page:
Also, why are the links Azaka (disambiguation) and Azaka showing up in orange? I know what red links are, but this is new to me. Is orange something new for DAB page links?
@Thnidu: The orange means that it's a disambiguation page, or that it redirects to one. It's a gadget that you can turn off or on in your preferences. In my preferences, it's the second to the last checkbox in "Appearance" under the "Gadget" tab. It's incredibly handy for those working on dab pages and links to them.
As for your question about redirects to dab pages, every dab page that does not have "(disambiguation)" in its title should have a redirect to it that does have that phrase. Those redirects are used when the link to the dab page is deliberate (usually in a "See also" section or in a hatnote). It helps to distinguish inadvertent links to dab pages from those linked purposefully.
Azaka is typical of many dab pages: there are two entries, each to an individual article with a name that might be confused with the other. Neither is a primary topic. Presumably, the article Loa discusses the term or name Azaka somewhere in it. (I haven't checked because I'm rushing out the door shortly.) — Gorthian (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You're right, Thnidu, this looks more like the beginning of a stub article and less like a dab page. If you feel like expanding it, please go ahead (but remember to remove the {{disambig}} template from it). As for the redirect, its purpose was explained by Gorthian, but if you'd like to read more, you might have a look at WP:INTDAB. Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
All or almost all of the links from this template (60+ by my count) are to DAB pages, but "This template employs intricate features of template syntax" which I lack the knowledge to repair, and which look hideously time-consuming to decipher. Can anyone help? Narky Blert (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This was brought up on the talk page of the template (8½ years ago!). Apparently, the purpose of the template is to be used by other templates. It, itself, is never seen in article space. Pick out any article listed here, scroll to the bottom of the page, and look at the template there that has the word "European" in it. The links in that template are not to dab pages, but to other countries' pages on the same topic.
For instance, at the bottom of the page Hungarian cuisine, the template titled "European cuisine" has links to articles about food in every European country. Or there's an "Air forces in Europe" template at the bottom of Hellenic Air Force with links to all of the air-force articles.
That is incorrect to build a distinct page for Iranian mythology without reliable sources . Existence of Iranian peoples does not mechanically means the same/corresponding relationship exists in mythologies ! As an example , Ossetian mythology can not be grouped with Persian mythology and no source support that they are in one group , in other hand , almost no separate Kurdish mythology exist that is not covered by Iranian/Persian mythology : they are literally one thing ! And who said that (RS ? ) the Scythian religion is a part of "mythology" ? I think we may omit the page "Iranian mythology" and redirect the title to the more known , and better sourced , Persian mythology . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I split out a large section from Warrant to Warrant officer (disambiguation). It seems to contain a lot of partial-name matches, though. (Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer, SAF Warrant Officer School, etc.) If anybody has ideas about cleaning up (or re-merging, or deleting) that page, I'd be happy to see them. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Good job cleaning up Warrant! If you leave the new dab pages as is, you should add hatnotes to Warrant officer and Warranty.
However, looking over those dab pages, I feel the urge to mark them as WP:DABCONCEPTS. Each one lists small pieces of the overview subject. Since the overview articles already exist, I think that the dab entries need to go into their respective articles (several already are) instead of being listed on a dab page. They can go either in a {{main article}} section hatnote, or in the "See also" section. Then those extra dab pages can be deleted. — Gorthian (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
AfD for Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers)
I turned this from a redirect into a DAB page a couple of hours ago. I'm onto it, and think that as a loyal subject of QEII ("Gawd Bless 'Er!") I can sort out the links-in on my own. I'll follow through with the links to Royal warrant of appointment, which are also a mess. However, it's past 1 AM here, so I'd appreciate being given 24 hours to clean this lot up. Narky Blert (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Gorthian: - NP! :-) I've seen enough examples of people doing that sort of thing and going merrily on their way whistling, leaving this WikiProject to clean up the mess. (I was slightly delayed, because when I woke up I found that my IP had been autoblocked because some gottverdammt vandal had been using it - but after rapidly firing off an email to an admin who once gave me a barnstar, and then more slowly digging around in Wiki: I found {{unblock}}, and the problem was quickly resolved by another admin.)
Changing subject: I'm beginning to think that Royal warrant might be a MS:DABCONCEPT; but that's not a scheme I've yet got my head around. To avoid forking the discussion, I suggest it be carried out at Talk:Royal warrant, and I invite other members of this WikiProject to comment there. (I'm no expert, but I can think of at least half-a-dozen distinct meanings of "royal warrant", only one of which has an article with anything like a worldwide perspective (namely, Royal warrant of appointment).) Narky Blert (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the that discussion, there's also something of a MOS question here: which version of the dab page is better: this one or that one. Keywords: one-entry sections, bolding vs. section headings, relevance of wiktionary links. Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I was on Wikipedia for quite a while before I found that page myself. Hint to anyone wanting to be a sysop: Suggest you'll help out there in your RfA. Just acknowledging that you know that work queue exists will win you big points with me. wbm1058 (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It's the first time I've seen this type of issue, or at any rate the first time I've been confident enough to raise it.
A semi-professional footballer is WP:PRIMARY - seriously? I am minded to move Ben May to Ben May (footballer), and to turn Ben May into a {{hndis}} page after shifting the info now in Ben May (disambiguation) into it, and then to turn Ben May (disambiguation) into an everyday redirect. Thoughts? Narky Blert (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a clear primary topic to me. He's a semi-professional footballer now, but that's only a recent development. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
TLAs and Tlws
I used to see three-letter-word dab pages to be like:
I'm not aware of any guidelines either and I have seen examples of both approaches, for example Ta and TA are separate (I'm not sure we need to treat three-letter words any differently from words that come in other sizes). I do have the impression though that most dab pages I've seen mix both capitalisations, and I find that counterintuitive, as in the vast majority of cases TLAs and tlws have disjunct sets of referents (there's seldom anything that can be referred to by both). Mixing them feels equivalent to mixing in a single page for example all the entries from Dit, Did and Tit.
However, I tend to put TLAs and tlw in a single dab (but in separate sections) if there are too few entries to make separate pages sensible. Uanfala (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
If any major changes are proposed to be made, then other pages should at least be notified. However, there isn't really a proposal here, just a concern. As for the question at issue, I generally combine the uppercase and lowercase unless there are too many to fit neatly on a single page. bd2412T18:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's any guidance about the issue, but I think they should be all on one page to help those using the case-insensitive search engine to find a topic. I've always kept them on one page, unless the page length gets too unwieldy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorthian (talk • contribs)
I too prefer them on one page, and strongly so; searches are often case-insensitive, and contrary to Uanfala, there are many terms which accept variations on capitalization; I often see these distributed seemingly at random among multiple-capitalization dabs. For this reason, even within a single dab page, I prefer to see all entries grouped (if at all) by subject area, not by capitalization, punctuation, or other typographical variations, which tend to be very fluid. The comparison to mixing Dit, Did and Tit is inapt—spelling is tremendously more fixed than formatting. I would support an explicit guideline of "Combine variations of capitalization, punctuation, and other formatting on a single disambiguation page, unless there is an extraordinary reason to do otherwise." —swpbT18:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a side note: the analogy with Did/Tit wasn't meant as an argument, but merely a way to convey a subjective perception, and that was based on my experience dealing with foreign language terms where spelling (=common English romanisation) is usually much less fixed than capitalisation.Uanfala (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
That's fair, and transliterated foreign terms can vary in spelling—but in most such cases, we do redirect different spellings to a single dab page, unless, as in your example, the words are so short (or otherwise common) that each spelling belongs to a different ambiguous set (which I think represents an edge case that we currently handle well). But more importantly, I believe that to our English-speaking audience, formatting variation largely does not connote "these are different words/terms", the way that spelling variation does—which is why I think most readers expect to find entries in different formats listed on the same page, and may be confused (and abandon their search) when they are not. —swpbT13:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I admit this is a strong case for keeping capitalisation variants on one page. However, there is a pretty big middle ground: lowercase vs. all-caps. Of course, a user typing dit or Dit might equally likely be looking for things in any capitalisation variant, but on the other hand, a user typing DIT is very unlikely to be looking for anything named dit. There is an inherent asymmetry in the use of these two variants and I don't think there's an easy way to balance it. Uanfala (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I agree that it's "very" unlikely—this is the same internet where some people never turn caps lock off, and where many ESL speakers' first languages don't even have the notion of case. (You'll note that, unless separate pages exist, the Wikimedia software treats article searches as case-insensitive.) But at any rate, those all-caps entries really should be maintained on the not-all-caps dab(s) in addition to any separate all-caps dabs (since relegating them to a "See also" entry violates expectation). Besides creating duplicate work, this would also negate any potential speedup on the not-all-caps dabs. And where would CamelCase entries go? Would each capitalization get its own dab page, with significant duplication between them? —swpbT18:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we would want to centre wikipedia's design around the convenience of the small number of people who always keep caps lock on :) Otherwise, I agree with your reasoning. If we want to make the dab pages maximally efficient for readers, we'd have to deal with a horrid amount of duplication. So if we leave that aside, the two practicable approaches left (the ones we're discussing now) have their pros and cons. If we keep the two dabs separate, a user who types a lowercase phrase looking for the all-caps variant will have to do the extra step of clicking on a link in a hatnote (which is probably better than keeping it in the "see also"), and if we have a single page mixing the two types of entries, then such a user will have to sift through a bigger number of irrelevant entries.
At any rate, now I'm not trying to argue one way or the other. Choosing one of the two approaches will be a matter of common sense and context, so I'd strongly oppose any explicit guidelines about that. Uanfala (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Invariably?
I've just stumbled upon the following wording in WP:DPAGE (emphasis mine):
Editorial judgement should be used in deciding whether to combine terms in the ways described above (except for differences in capitalization, which invariably share a disambiguation page)
Now, as it reads, it seems to command against the exercise of editorial judgement when it comes to capitalisation variants. That's odd, isn't it? Uanfala (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't strike me as odd; it's saying that differences ONLY in capitalization should all be on the same dab page. An example is Central line, where both Central Line and Central line are listed. If there were articles called CentralLine, Central's line, The central line, or Central lines (where the differences involve more than just capitalization), then editorial discretion would be called for. — Gorthian (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
In that case, shouldn't the wording be prescriptive, rather than descriptive? Something like:
except for differences in capitalization, which should normally/always share a disambiguation page
We also saw in the discussion above that it isn't always the case the capitalisation variants should be on the same page. I'm proposing to drop the bit in parenthesis altogether. Uanfala (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Reading that section over again, I realize that it contradicts itself wrt capitalization: Terms which are commonly so combined include...Terms which differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks. (emphasis mine) The part in parentheses directly contradicts this. I agree that the parenthetical statement should just be removed, both for its contradiction and for unnecessarily muddying the statement about editorial discretion.
"We also saw in the discussion above"? There was no conclusion to that effect; more care in representing discussions would be appreciated. I maintain that capitalization differences should be combined barring extraordinary circumstances. I would not support removing the parenthetical from WP:DPAGE, but I would support softening it to a more descriptive "(though differences in capitalization almost always share a disambiguation page)", which maintains that capitalization-based splits are extraordinary, unlike splits based on variants of spelling and part-of-speech mentioned in the other bullets. —swpbT17:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, the discussion was indeed contentious, but there was one thing we all agreed on: capitalisation differences do warrant separate pages if the list of entries is too long. Uanfala (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
What? I don't see anyone agreeing on—or even suggesting—that, unless you're looking at a completely different discussion from this one. To editors BD2412, Staszek Lem and Gorthian: Are you seeing something I'm not? I didn't think it was contentious until right now... —swpbT12:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess the only source of contentiousness in the discussion was me, (not that there were a hell lot of participants anyway). As for the point there was agreement on, I see it in Gorthian's I've always kept them on one page, unless the page length gets too unwieldy and bd2412's I generally combine the uppercase and lowercase unless there are too many to fit neatly on a single page.Uanfala (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Those are editors' statements of their personal practices; you extrapolated a statement of consensus where absolutely none exists. Misrepresentation never helps your case on a wiki. —swpbT13:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Misrepresentation? I'm lost now. Isn't editing practice what we're all talking about? If three out of the four editors who voiced an opinion follow the practice of splitting based on capitalisation for long dabs, then I see that as an indication of consensus. Or did everyone else get persuaded in the course of the discussion not to follow that practice? Uanfala (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
There is an objective reason why capitalization is singled out: it is quite often the same term may be written in no-cap/all-cap/CamelCase/etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I came across a removal in my watchlist on a dab page with an editsummary with something akin to "not necessary". Personally I started to become a fan of Template:Ill as well. Agathoclea (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I'n not sure if William Tunberg (artist) needs to be disambiguated. There are no other articles titled William Tunberg and I think the disambiguation was just added in error by an inexperienced editor who created the article. Is there some policy/guideline reason why the "(artist)" part is needed? I'm really not too familiar with this type of thing and not familiar at all with what happens when an article is un-disambiguated, so would be really grateful for any clarification that anyone can provide. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Currently Reanalysis links to six articles, but only one of those six (Folk etymology) says its topic is sometimes called "reanalysis". Meteorological reanalysis and ocean reanalysis each use the term, but they are partial name matches. Rebracketing and Back-formation are each a kind of folk etymology, so the ambiguity is not out of the question, but might not bear DAB treatment. Statistics doesn't mention reanalysis at all, but does talk about analysis.
In addition, Reanalysis (linguistics) currently links to the relevant section of the DAB page. Should this link to the DAB, or to folk etymology, since that's the only article that uses the term?
Is this DAB page necessary? It's not unimaginable that a reader might be looking for the partial-names or the subtypes, but it's not obvious that a DAB page is the way to go.
FYI, I started to rewrite the DAB page, but thought it would be better to get more opinions. My draft is in my sandbox, here. Cnilep (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
2016 Community Wishlist Survey - Proposals related to "Recent Changes"
Hello WP Disambiguation members! I noticed that you make extensive use of RecentChangesLinked to produce your Project watchlist. Here's a couple Wishlist Survey proposals related to making watchlists like this more productive:
Just out of curiosity, is there in the eyes of the rest of you sufficient cause or not to maybe add names from various editions of the Marquis Who's Who and similar works to dab pages of names or would that maybe wind up getting excessive? John Carter (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
If I understand your proposal, it would not be helpful. The names you are proposing to add presumably do not come with WP articles to point to. If they did, there's no question that they should be on the dab page. Since they don't, putting them on the dab page seems more like clutter than help for navigation. —jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)17:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
No, disambiguation pages are not lists of "Everyone who has that name", but "Everyone with that name who is written about in English Wikipedia". If someone in Who's Who looks interesting, and you can find other sources about them, then write the article and then add to the dab page. PamD17:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
In response to @PamD: I guess one maybe grey area might be individuals who are mentioned in an article on a broader topic. There are, for instance, several individuals who are editors of a religious periodical, some of which may have articles here and may list their editors. Others are hosts of radio or TV programs which might reasonably be mentioned in the article on the station(s) that carried that program, or possibly in an article on the program itself. Granted, there are a hell of a lot of people who might appear in wikipedia in some way based on those criteria, but some clarification as to whether to deal with them in dabs or not. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Quite so, @John Carter: I said "Everyone with that name who is written about in English Wikipedia", not just "Everyone who has their own article in English Wikipedia". If the editor is mentioned in the article for a journal, s/he can have an entry on a dab page with a blue link to the journal title (or a redirect if unique, or a hatnote if only one other name-holder). That's quite different from loading the contents of Who's Who. PamD22:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The relevant guideline would be WP:DABMENTION. You can include people who do not have their own articles, provided they are mentioned in another article. When writing the entry, simply link to the broader article. --Tavix(talk)19:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally mention a RM request here, but as no-one has yet responded to the RM above, I believe some input from neutral disambiguators would be helpful at the link above. --NSH001 (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Mr.choppers had guideline consensus on his side, and was in no way obligated to start an RfC before removing the hatnotes. The editorializing in this notice is straying awfully close to WP:CANVASSING, Kevjonesin. —swpbT16:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Kriya Yoga
I am utterly defeated by this tangle of articles:
Kriya Yoga — Seems the most straightforward of the bunch
Kriyā — I can't even tell what this is talking about, and it seems to overlap Kriya Yoga
Kriyā (disambiguation) — a supposed dab page intent on defining different Kriya Yoga practices, with (I think) one real article link
I can't tell if that fact that I can't make heads or tails of these is my own ignorance or the failings of the articles. Probably a combination of both. I welcome any ideas about how to make these make sense. — Gorthian (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
In the light of a different day, I see that what I really want help with here are the two pages with " (disambiguation)" in their titles. 1) Is a dab page even possible here? 2) If so, which page should hold the dab? (I'm assuming that the other would redirect to it.) — Gorthian (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
For anyone interested, additional eyes on this page would be appreciated. Editors are adding two links that redirect to the same target, which makes no mention that either term is known by the initials. older ≠ wiser13:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to discussion about hurricane- and tropical storm-related articles
Hi. I've just created an article about a leaf beetle, Zygogramma suturalis, which shares a common name with a different species Ophraella communa. The common name 'Ragweed leaf beetle' currently redirect to the latter page. It needs a disambiguation, but such witchcraft is currently beyond my ken. Here's hoping the fine folks here will be able to resolve. Zakhx150 (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruddy closed as "link to Wiktionary". The closing admin, User:Czar, implemented this by making Ruddy into a DAB with Wiktionary template and content merged from Ruddy (surname), as well as the names of several bird species.
The problem, as I see it, is that the non-surname content consists almost entirely of partial-name matches: mostly birds that are not, as far as I can see, called simply ruddies or the like. Would it make more sense to have the page contain only the content of the former surname page plus the Wiktionary template, maybe in a See also section?
I will invite WikiProject Color and WikiProject Birds to comment here, as someone from these three projects will no doubt have better ideas than I do. Cnilep (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added an entry under "Other Uses", which is a full-word match mentioned more than once in the target article (bloody). A command of British profanity can be useful even (or, especially?) when editing Wiki.
I can anecdotally confirm what Wiktionary says: British ornithologists do indeed call ruddy ducks "ruddies" for short. Narky Blert (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a whole pile of them in German Wiki: de:Greifenstein - 10 with articles, 3 without. How's your mapreading? {{ping}} me if you fall across a head-scratching problem, I enjoy sorting out this sort of thing. Narky Blert (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our movement's overall goals, "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?". It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. There are further details in the related metawiki pages (FAQ, lists of other simultaneous communities' discussions, etc). (Also, if you're interested in helping facilitate and summarize the discussions here, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, please let me know. Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
