Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 8

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

The two WikiProject Disambiguation templates

Template:DisambigProject vs Template:WikiProject Disambiguation - which one should be used? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I redirected the latter to the former because they serve the same prupose, and {{DisambigProject}} seemed superior. In answer to the now moot question: it doesn't matter at all, and they aren't even in use that much. (They may have a purpose on popular pages where the disambiguation may not be as obvious.) – sgeureka t•c 20:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

東北大學

東北大學 has returned to AfD. (didn't it just close?) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that I'm not trying to get the page deleted. I'm trying to make it into a redirect page, as it is a dab page with only two entries, one of them being the main topic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Help for fixing links?

I just changed lactate from a redirect to a disambiguation page. There are now over 50 links to lactate that should link instead to lactic acid. Is there a tool available to help automate this tedious job? --Una Smith (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see there is a bot. Is there a page where I can request someone to run the bot over lactate? --Una Smith (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the incoming links that would need to be fixed, perhaps the solution would be to return lactate to a redirect and put a hatnote on lactic acid pointing to lactation (which is already there)? Was the change to the redirect discussed somewhere? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The change from redirect to disambiguation was not discussed. Link fixing is almost complete. Despite the "see also" on lactic acid, I found a handful of links to lactate meaning lactation. And a large fraction of the links to lactate meaning the molecule were due to a template. Once I fixed the template, the job was reasonably small. --Una Smith (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambig help

Hi, can someone help me with the disambiguation of these pages: Domination, Dominator (disambiguation) and Dominate? It's currently a bit messy, with quite some overlap. Should all this be disambiguated on one page (if so, which?) or is it a good idea to keep these titles separated (even though they are closely related)? Thank you. -- Pepve (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it should not all be disambiguated on one page. Domination, to take your first example, should contain only links to article subjects that are sometimes referred to simply as "Domination" (capitalized or not) -- not, as is popularly supposed, to every article subject on Wikipedia that contains the word "domination." (The point is that a disambiguation page is intended to help a reader figure out which article to go to if, continuing this example, she just types domination into the search box. Thus only things that she could have been looking for with just that one word should be on the dab page.) That means, for example, that all three of the items under Mathematics on that page need to be either reworded or removed. (In particular, the two uses of dominance need to go, as that appears to be the standard mathematical term and domination is unlikely to be a synonym for it in that technical sense. For the same reason, Dominance should not be a redirect to Domination; it should be a separate dab page.) If you follow that principle with all three pages, you will find that the current mess resolves itself quickly. --Tkynerd (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of Links per Disambig Entry

Previous discussion on this topic in this talk page's archives

I see no problem with having two links per entry when the second link is the general subject category of the first. After all, isn't the whole point of a link to reduce the amount of typing and searching that's needed to navigate to where you want to go? If you don't want to navigate to a link, don't click there! So, IMHO, removing valid internal links does not improve wiki quality, it reduces it.

If changing from black text to blue text mid-sentence somehow bothers you, then perhaps that is an issue not with the link function, but with some other issue such as the graphical format that renders the link visible, and the psychology of why alternating text color may be distracting to some readers. (see: Obsessive-compulsive disorder). In theory, if more words were linked than not, then you might say that the unlinked words were the distraction! So, it seems you'd then push to make all words linked! Perhaps it's ironic that a highly ordered link structure would make a highly disordered color scheme. Hmmm.

As far as I'm concerned, the more links the better, and the more blue the better. I see no reason not to have lots of blue, unless you hate that color. I happen to like it, does that make me biased? Actually I like dark blue better. Perhaps it would be easier to read if the two colors were closer in gray-scale. Seriously. Mikiemike (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)--

When you arrive at a disambig page, you were already looking for a specific term and the point of disambig to find the intended article, not serve as a 'mini' article for all the differing applications of the term or as an index of other semi-related terms.
Also, see the very first sentence on this talk page. This discussion is related to general disambiguation and the Manual of style, not this project. So this topic should move. -Gwguffey (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with Disambig

Hi, I have been going through removing links to dab pages, and I need help from the Dab experts. Currently I've been working on unlinking The Fates and I noticed that Fates redirects to The Fates but The fates redirects to Moirae. As i am sort of new I'm not sure how to fix this. (or even what to do for that matter) Also The Fates is a disambig page and it's sort of not, could some one point me in the right direction to figure out what to do with this mess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayls (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How strange. I've changed The fates to redirect to The Fates; it's illogical and confusing for a minor difference in case to have such an effect. Now, the lower portion of The Fates might be OK-ish there or it could be a "See also" in each of the first three entries. I don't know the subject well enough to know if they're significant, and significantly different from the main 3. I think it's OK as it is; if someone who knows better comes along, well then they can do as they see fit. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
When you say that you have been removing links, you're not literally just removing the links right? It defeats the purpose if instead of trying to fix it, you just remove it. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A quick random check of Ayls' contribs show s/he doing "the right things" in general. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks it's alot less confusing now! Ayls (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the various links to The Fates. I restored it from misguided attempts to expand it into an article earlier this year. It's an odd disambig page, in that it is the most common term for its subject, but must lead to at least three distinct—but related—articles describing them. This is the origin of The fates being misdirected: Someone chose the Greek Fates over the rest, which could easily have seemed logical and unconfusing to them. —Yamara ✉ 06:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

use of bolding in entries

Previous discussion on this topic in the appropriate forum

I have been having a discussion with another editor who has adding bold to links for entries Title on Title (disambiguation) pages. For example, the Grant City link on Grant City (disambiguation), and the Peter Law entry on Peter Law (disambiguation)‎, both of which I've reverted. I pointed out the section of MOS:DAB#Individual entries that says, "There is no need to emphasize the link with bolding or italics" and his/her response was, "It doesn't say not to do it" and the community chose which article gets the title without the dab. My point isn't with which article gets the non-dab title it's with the style. Am I interpreting the MOS correctly? Or is this a gap in the MOS? Thoughts would be appreciated. -Gwguffey (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of bold might well be redundant, since the undistinguished term is, in my eyes, emphasised by the very absence of a distinguisher. To use one of your examples, Peter Law is in a sense THE Peter Law, whereas Peter Law (actor) is another person who happens to have the same name. Of course, this puts more weight on the choice of which article gets the non-distinguished title, but that's why we have the "move" button! I think this would lead me to support strengthening WP:MOSDAB to say bold, italic etc should not be used. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the formatting is suggested by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to a primary topic. However, since these are at present both two entry disambiguation pages -- there is no need to link to the dab page from the primary topic article -- just link directly to the other page. older ≠ wiser 02:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
True enough, but that's not the bolding that USer:Gwguffey is questioning. The bold in question is being applied to the first link, not the name of the subject in the very first line. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that use of bold is not supported by the MOS. older ≠ wiser 11:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what would be the process to suggest altering the MOS to clarify this point? -Gwguffey (talk)

Since everyone agrees, I have changed the relevant words to clarify. Abtract (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As the responses to the question of interpretation ended up resulting in a style clarification, should the dialog above be copied over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) for further comment and archiving? Gwguffey (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagging pages for disambiguation

I would like to come up with a way of tagging a normal article (in its talk page) for the attention of this project, when an editor believes that the page (e.g. Paul Burgess) requires disambiguation. (Commentary on this example at Talk:Paul Burgess#disambiguation page instead?.)

(I couldn't find any discussion of this concept in the main page or this talk page's archives.)

Would anyone like to help me come up with a "badge" template (including a special category) that could be used to do this? --AlastairIrvine (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one is needed. The determination of whether the base name should be held by an article about a particular person (the primary topic) or by the dab page (no primary topic exists) should be handled by discussion to consensus on the base name Talk page. Dab project members are unlikely to be knowledgeable enough about the subjects being dabbed to make that determination. And if input is requested anyway, it can be done as you did it, by making a talk page section here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
JHunterJ, that's a style of dab page I haven't seen much (at Paul Burgess (disambiguation), and it seems contrary to my reading of WP:MOSDAB#People. Is there another MoS section that you've applied here, perhaps? I'm a little confused. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
See WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic. Although it's not a very clear that there is any one person named Paul Bugess who is significantly more notable than all the others. older ≠ wiser 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't much like that; the logic makes too many assumptions about how people use WP. For example, it doesn't allow for casual browsing, following interesting links. I also agree with you about the relative notability of the different Paul Burgesses, although one could parse that debate into "who gets the unmodified name?" and then let the dab page follow, as JHunterJ has. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how it doesn't allow for casual browsing -- the primary topic is still linked from the disambiguation page and the disambiguation page is linked from the primary topic (and perhaps from other pages). If there's a case of mistakenly applied primary topic, there are two legitimate approaches: 1) you could be bold and move the pages yourself so that the disambiguation page resides at the simple title and all the specific topic articles have properly disambiguated titles; (and also cleanup the various links to the disambiguation page) or 2) you can put the request up at requested moves and collect some other opinions. Sometimes a subject that might seem completely obscure to one person may in fact be of considerable significance. older ≠ wiser 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

what to do with Holland (disambiguation)

I just tagged Holland (disambiguation) for clean up due to all of the info that teeters on encyclopedic content. Anyone want to take a shot at this one? Gwguffey (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear (disambiguation)

Perhaps WPDisambig people may have some thoughts to add at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Gear (disambiguation). --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pike & Pike (surname)

Seems to me that all the human names listed at Pike ought to be at Pike (surname), that Pike needs a big ol' cleanup, (both of which I can handle) and that the content at Pike (surname) about the origins of the name and so forth don't have an obvious home. Any suggestions on that last point are most welcome. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You can either just pitch Pike (surname) as an ordinary entry with a "list of people with the surname Pike" on it or consider if it'd work as a set index. This seems to be a handy solution for such disambiguation concerns and gives you more flexibility on formatting. Technically I don't see too much of a problem going with the first option as you probably don't actually need to disambiguate to surnames, just if you had a full name, e.g. you might want to disambiguate to John Smith but not Smith (surname), which is awfully broad and I'd recommend taking Smith as an example - it doesn't have to be a disambiguation page at all. It might be worth talking to the Anthroponymy Project and thrashing out a solution that is acceptable to everyone but given the other examples I'd suggest surname articles shouldn't be disambiguation pages. While it is on my mind I might make a few tweaks to Pike (surname) - feel free to move the names across. (Emperor (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
This is pretty clear: MOS:DAB#Given names or surnames - just make Pike (surname) an article with a list of people of that name. There is a link already from Pike so I'd just remove the section and move it across. (Emperor (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
So would you leave the existing content of Pike (surname) in place? --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes - I'd also suggest it is expanded somewhat if possible (and certainly sourced). I think for this kind of thing we want to use some well-rounded examples like Smith and Smith (surname) (which is obviously going to have had a lot of work). The surnames can become the basis for a useful article about the surname which is more informative and still provides a useful service, which can then hook back into full name disambiguation again (e.g. John Smith). Where the surname is common it could completely dominate a disambiguation page (e.g. White (surname) and White (disambiguation)) reducing its effectiveness. So it might be in our interests to keep an eye out for disambiguation that has a long list of names and look into splitting them off to a surname page - just at random I looked up Burton, which could benefit from this. The added advantage is that it is much more focused and useful and it allows it to be brought within the remit of a specific project (in this case the Anthroponymy Project - I do quite a lot of work on names and disambiguation so should probably sign up there too, I also have a dictionary of surnames, for my sins) who can bring more specialist knowledge to bear on taking the article to the next level.
So it helps produce a more focused, informative and useful page (which is always our goal) which, while not strictly speaking a disambiguation page anymore, acts as a bridge to more specific name disambiguation pages which are within our remit, e.g. Smith -> Smith (surname) -> John Smith. (Emperor (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
a word from another WikiProject Anthroponymy participant
  • These days, we are moving toward treating something like Pike (surname) as any other dab line item, meaning it would not appear in the _see also_ section but up top with other items such as Pike (cipher). As the Pike (surname) article exists right now it is a stub and the dab page line item might read * [[Pike (surname)]], list of people sharing the 'Pike' surname; origin and demography of the surname, or something simpler like * [[Pike (surname)]], a human name shared by many notable people and fictional characters.
  • Also, we are typically including both biographical links and fictional character links on the surname/name/given name articles. This is because the fictional characters have names that are often chosen to reflect particular characteristics of the character (nationality, ethnicity, temperament, etc.) and there can be a feedback loop between human names and fictional names (among given names, that is). So a complete article on a name would necessarily include treatment of the name as used in fiction.
  • We are trying to move away from simple lists to actual articles on names, but it is slow going. There will likely always be far more simple lists than fleshed out articles due to the sheer number of names that exist (only a tiny proportion are banner tagged by the Anthroponymy Project so far).
  • As for people who are best known by or often referred to by a particular single name, like Madonna, Cher, Lincoln, Mao and Lenin, these would be listed on both the dab page and the corresponding name page (if one exists). When you get down into the maybe/maybe not grey zone, like Bush, Carter and Solzhenitsyn it gets more iffy, which is why this is more of an emerging trend than a generally accepted MOS-ready principle.
  • Finally, we are quite active in splitting name articles off from dab pages and encourage this practice.
Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both, and also to User:Marchije. I think the pages are better now. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Sesshomaru

I am seriously considering giving up working on dab pages because of harassment by this editor. Does anyone else find him difficult or is it just me? Abtract (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just you Abtract. I'm really not trying to antagonize you or anything but it seems that you so choose to do edits here and there, preferring to keep your "wrong edit" on a page, quite persistently if I may add, until several have to convince you that you are in the wrong. As I've said before, get into the habit of discussion once told to do so instead of battling over your "wrong edit". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I took a very quick glance and my first suggestion is that there is a lot of wikistress floating around. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably good advice, thanks. Abtract (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just follow my advice and there shouldn't be problems. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a very constructive comment. My suggestion was addressed to both of you. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a possibility of setting up a taskforce here? Littleteddy (roar!) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The taskforce is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, which is already linked from here. Or do I misunderstand your question? – sgeureka t•c 09:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Harshing My Mellow, now here

Please see Harshing My Mellow's edit history, as well as Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation) (sic), Talk:Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation), WT:D#Harshing My Mellow, indeed, and (if you really want to see 'em) the various "harshing my/your/his/her/their/one's mellow" redirects created by User:Evrik. I need some editing assistance rather than just have my own reverts in the edit history. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • JHunterJ, with your edit here I have to ask, are you trying to get a {{rally}} going? I was going to create a soft redirect to wiktionary, see pimp slap as an example, but there are two albums with similar names - as well as at least one television show. There were more things that used the term, but someone has delinked them and I'm too busy to go add the links back in. The DAB is fine as it is, and there is no real reason to make it go away. --evrik (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
No rally. This is the project that the dab pages fall under, so it seems obvious to raise issues here rather than continue a revert war. The dab is not fine as it is. "Things" that use the term are insufficient; there need to be more "Wikipedia articles" about the term. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

New dab made

See Freezer (disambiguation). Could someone check if it needs tweaks or any other additions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Fridge (disambiguation) could use a little tiding up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Both done. – sgeureka t•c 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I made a few more tweaks. Also, any comments on the above section? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Madison Middle School

I would appreciate thoughts on Madison Middle School. Should this be speedied as a dab page that contains no entries for actual articles? Gwguffey (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a speedy criterion, but it does seem to be rather pointless. Another option would be to ask at WP:SCH for someone to kick off the appropriate articles; many schools seem to survive XfD. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent thought, I'll head over to wp:sch and leave a note. Gwguffey (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Akuma (band)

What this a disambiguation page before? It is apparently about a band, but it mentions the Street Fighter character. Can someone take a shot at this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not a dab page. I suspect the band was named after the character and the article is not all that clear about it - but I don't know. Unclear in a quick look for a reference. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Should I do a revamp per WP:VERIFY? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Burdock

Could someone from this WikiProject perform a disambig style repair on Burdock (disambiguation)? It's lacking, and I've done quite a few changes already. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not attempting to criticize or anything, but, I wasn't expecting this "mess". Example, why apply WP:WAF to an E/R character, change Burdock (Dragon Ball) to Burdock (Dragon Ball), and use longer sentences than needed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, everyone is welcome to edit. IF you don't like it and you think you can improve it, then be bold! --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I know. Just wanted a helping hand but JHunterJ took care of it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you thought my edit was a "mess". I've no idea what you mean by "apply WP:WAF to an E/R character" -- the only edit I made to that line was to italicize E/R, which is an actual title. As for "change Burdock (Dragon Ball) to Burdock (Dragon Ball)" -- there is no reason to italicize Dragon Ball when it is used as the disambiguating term. That use is completely different from italicizing the actual title of something separate from the disambiguating term (as with a ship, or an ambiguously titled novel, film, or album). When used as a disambiguating term, it is no longer functioning as a title and thus does not need to be italicized. As for the longer phrase, I giving enough context to readily understand what something is. What's the point of making an entry so short that it is unintellible? I don't see that fourteen words is excessive for a disambiguation entry. older ≠ wiser 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I've asked for input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Query about when italics are necessary. older ≠ wiser 03:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I gave it a bit of a tweak. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

MGS

How does this one look? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a bit of a tweak. Let me know what you think. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

AHD

Hi, gnomes. Am I in the right place to say that I intend to make it so that when you "Go" on "AHD" you get The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language with an "other uses" thingie when you get there? As soon as I figure out how to do that, that is. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would advise against that move unless there has been discussion about it and consensus achieved that the dictionary is clearly the primary use of AHD. I see no such discussion at Talk:AHD. --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah. Now you do. I must have come to the right place. Thanks. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
What ShelfSkewed said, especially since I don't associate anything with this abreviation as primary meaning. – sgeureka t•c 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ShelfSkewed. It's also difficult to anticipate some of the collateral damage that would go along with that. (Although it's not difficult to see that there a substantial number of pages that redirect to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and hence plenty of double redirects that the mover would be honour-bound to fix.) Kudos to User:Milkbreath for bringing it up here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)en
(edit conflict) Should this discussion be moved (or copied) to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation? It's not really about the Wikiproject.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Better at WP:RM? ,although the implied AHD (disambiguation) is in scope here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kubo

What should I do with this link? Make into a disambiguation page or set it to target KUBO? And can I have some thoughts back here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Does another kubo need to be disambiguated from KUBO? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few if I may add. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You could create a surname or given name page, perhaps? Most of the search hits seem to be name-holders, not articles in danger of being titled simply "Kubo", so a disambiguation page isn't needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I was bold and created a disambig page at Kubo. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CJKV taskforce

The CJKV taskforce has been created to assist in disambiguation of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese when using Kyūjitai, Hanja, Hán tự, Simplified Chinese, and Shinjitai (Kanji). If you wish to participate, please come and help out. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Doc updates and template lists and set indexes

I tried to update the list of templates at this WikiProject's page. I'm not sure if I've found them all, or listed them in the best way possible, please update as needed. The main lists of dab-page-templates I was going by, are at:

I'm particularly unsure about set index templates. Any clarifications that could be made to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles would be appreciated. (I was trying to determine what Mongol invasion of the Middle East should be labeled as, and got distracted by all this ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting input

A (somewhat heated) debate is currently in progress on Talk:Baykal (disambiguation). It concerns interpretation of WP:MOSDAB, applicability of IAR to MOSDAB, and raises question as to whether MOSDAB guidelines are really more important that encyclopedic correctness and whether non-compliance with MOSDAB for what one believes to be a good reason cannot be considered as improvement of the page. Since I've been mostly arguing with only two people, I'd certainly appreciate a broader input. A summary of the debate is located at Talk:Baykal (disambiguation)#Restarted discussion. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

HP still

The "Harry Potter as HP for HP (disambiguation)" tempest continues at Talk:Harry Potter#Harry Potter abbreviated as HP, seems obvious. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

variant templates

Can someone explain the usefulness of the various templates for disambiguation pages like: {{Given name}} {{Hndis}} {{Hospitaldis}} {{Mathdab}} {{Mountainindex}} {{POWdis}} (places of worship) {{Roaddis}} {{Schooldis}}

I don't quite see what purpose they serve beyond that provided by {{disambig}} (John User:Jwy talk) 03:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Disambig}} places the page into Category:Disambiguation, while those other templates place the page in an appropriate sub-category. For example, {{Hospitaldis}} places pages into Category:Lists of ambiguous hospital names. See Template:Disambig/doc for a list of other variants and the associated categories. -- Zyxw (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I had figured that was what they did. . . But what good are these subcategories? For some I left off (like the ship one) I understand as there is a project that monitors these and does some special MOS stuff. But, these others. . .? (John User:Jwy talk) 04:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Mountainindex is another type of set index -- I believe there is also a project behind it. Primarily it presents information about mountains sharing the same name in table format with more links than typically found on disambiguation pages. As for the others, I don't know. I suspect some are just well-intentioned, but perhaps not well-thought through over-categorization. older ≠ wiser 11:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Names

I can see the others being potentially useful, but I'm not sure about {{Hndis}} + {{Given name}} + {{Surname}}. Could those 3 be merged or something? I've seen the given/surname templates both used on a single page, somewhere.
Also, weren't most of the variants deleted at some point? I recall that there used to be a {{TLA}} tag for the three letter abbreviation dab pages, and I'd thought it was removed as part of a larger purge? -- Quiddity (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
surname and given name aren't for use on disambiguation pages, but rather for use on Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy articles that list articles on people with a particular given name or surname. It might be possible to combine {{surname}} and {{given name}}, but they should remain distinct from {{hndis}}. Both surname and given name might naturally appear on a single page when that page includes one section listing people by surname and another section listing people by given name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
comment supporting JHunterJ: The templates {{surname}} and {{given name}} are in scope for WikiProject Anthroponymy, not in scope for WikiProject Disambiguation. Changes to these templates - or intention to nominate them for deletion - should be referred to the Anthroponymy WikiProject and not considered unilaterally here. Further, these templates place articles into Category:Surnames and Category:Given names, respectively, which have nothing to do with Category:Disambiguation and provide draft categorization before more specific categorization, such as Category:Portuguese surnames; when a more specific cat is used, the template is parameterized to suppress the general categorization (e.g. {{surname|nocat}}). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
another comment supporting JHunterJ: Ditto. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didnt mean to tread on toes or raise old battles! (I'm inclusionist/mergist/eventualist. no fear) See the thread above, for the cleanup I was trying to do, as context.
I was going by the list at MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage, which I foolishly assumed was both correct and simple ;) Plus the similar wording and design. Plus the distinctly overlapping domains. So, basically, you have to admit that it's really confusing. (You have to!) Especially things like:
! I'm just saying, is all.. ;)
(I do see how the articles are meant to fully expand, like Alexander or Yuan (surname). But so many are stubs or unclear or unlabeled, that it was hard to work out initially.)
Could you perhaps, write an explanation of the differences in a new section under Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What not to include (next to #Set index articles). I'm still not totally sure, and a short synopsis would be helpful in the documentation anyway. Thanks :) Also, a few specific questions (my brain likes examples):
  • should Welles be labelled as {{surname}} instead of {{hndis}}?
  • shouldn't Yuan (surname) and John (first name) be tagged with one of those templates, or are the templates only for the short list-like (disambig-esque!) article stage-of-development?
Sorry for rambling, thanks for any help :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a request for removal of {{surname}} and {{given name}} from the MediaWiki page you have brought my attention to. Thank you - I hadn't been aware of that page existing. See MediaWiki talk:Disambiguationspage#Requested removals for my request.
As for the lack of full-templating on articles ... the number of disambiguation and name articles is each vast. Inclusion of proper templating on all such articles is a work in progress. However, the major articles you have pointed out certainly should be properly templated as a matter of course. Keep in mind, though, that there is an ongoing discussion around lists of name instances associated with name articles, how to title them and under what conditions to split main name article from associated list article (these discussions are taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy.
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I have added {{surname|Yuan|nocat}} to Yuan (surname) in the appropriate section. John (first name) is another matter; in this case, there is no instances list of links to biographical articles. It this article contained a list of instances, then usage of {{given name}} would be warranted. In any case, neither of these articles could reasonably be confused with a disambiguation page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
P.P.S. Welles is among the many pages that could (should) be split into a name-article and a disambiguation page. I have listed this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Articles that could be split, which is an addendum to the 'Articles needing attention' section of the WikiProject. There are hundreds if not a thousand or more articles that could be listed in this pen. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've split Welles (name) from Welles, and Wells (name) from Wells (disambiguation). There are a lot of other disambiguation pages that need the same work (nameholder split). WikiProject Anthroponymy is aware of some/many of these, but not all. It would be helpful if WikiProject Disambiguation members had a notification system (perhaps on this page) that a dab page would benefit from a nameholder split so that those of us who work on both projects can get the request transferred over to WikiProject Anthroponymy. Or perhaps there's a better notification system? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
P.P.P.S. About Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What not to include — name-articles that fall into the list-class and stub-class (which could be confused sometimes with lists) are covered under Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles, in my opinion; the set definition is a variant on "List of people..." such as List of people sharing the name Abney. I think you are alluding to the notion that special treatment of name-articles in this set-index section would be useful, correct? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just hoping you can add pointers to existing-instructions, or fresh instructions, so that those editors who come along later can get the summarized version of this discussion :) Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
P.P.P.P.S. About Alex/Alec/Alexander/Alexander (disambiguation) — Alec is a proper list-type name page; I have replaced the see-also with a {{for}} hatnote to reduce confusion. Alex is an example of a page ripe for splitting, and I have listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Articles that could be split. Alexander is a proper start-class name-article; I have removed the {{disambigproject}} banner from the talk page and properly set {{surname}} and {{given name}} in the article body. Alexander (disambiguation) is a proper disambiguation page. There are several people who are known only as "Alexander". Where people are popularly (rather than colloquially) known by a single name, these listings can properly reside on both a name-article and a disambiguation page as the primary goal of a disambiguation page is disambiguation ... distinguishing among the things (people in this case) that could have their articles identically titled — which is the foundation on which {{hndis}} differs in a basic way from {{surname}}, for example. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Beelzebub (disambiguation)

Did a little revamping here. Could use another opinion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing to criticize. – sgeureka t•c 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a lot wrong, just one item not mentioned in the target article and the lead definition needed a revamp to bring it inline with the target article. I've tweaked it into shape for you. :) Abtract (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Captain be a dab page?

The article Captain has tried, over the years, to describe disparate topics from waiters to Starfleet personnel to a band. If it were to magically be made complete, I'm sure it would top 100K in length. My feeling is that it will never be near complete, good, or even marginally palatable as a summary article.

Looking at it tonight, it occurred to me that the only way I could see it doing what it should do is as a disambiguation page. That is to say: it could point readers in a NPOV, clear, and concise way to articles which explain their respective topics.

I've never pondered collapsing an article down to a dab page before, so I thought I'd ask for input well before doing anything.

Cheers, HausTalk 01:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Most sections already have a 'main article' so it would be pretty straightforward to do. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The page would be more useful as a dab than in its current state as a series of mini-articles. I just checked Talk:Captain and there are a few other wikiprojects that have stamped the article, so it may be worth dropping by those projects out of courtesy, first. -Gwguffey (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ideally suited for dab with spin-off articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I've started a thread on the Captain article's talk page which summarizes this one and contacted the wikiprojects per Gwguffey's suggestion. Cheers. HausTalk 18:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This is all done -- in case anybody's keepting track, the Captain dab page now has about 4,200 incoming links. Cheers. HausTalk 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

bulk dab page redirects

I need an opinion on the edit here to Madison. I reverted it as the links that were changed to "(disambiguation)" were simply redirects back to the non-qualified topic page. Upon looking at Khatru2's edit history I'm not sure why all of these (disambiguation) page redirects are being added. Am I missing something obvious? Make me smarter. Gwguffey (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Khatru2 is following the guideline Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Intentional links to disambiguation pages: "To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation) rather than America). This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones." Of course, this guide is intended to apply to intentional links in articles. I'm not sure if it applies when linking from a dab page to a dab page, but in any case the links shouldn't be piped. --ShelfSkewed Talk 21:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That completely make sense in articles. Should this be clarified to be the case when linking between dab pages also or would that be redundant? Thoughts? -Gwguffey (talk)
For dab pages, it seems a lot of make-work to create page "XXX (disambiguation)", simply to follow the same rule for articles. --Tesscass (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, philosophically, that it seems unnecessary. Technically, though, I don't care which is preferable as long as it is clear. I also just noticed that the text in the example at WP:DAB#Double disambiguation "Montgomery is a disambiguation page that leads to Montgomery County" does not match what is actually occurring on the Montgomery dab page itself. It is linking to Montgomery County (disambiguation) with piping for "Montgomery County". It seems some cleanup is needed here for the example once we nail down whether dab and articles should be treated the same -Gwguffey (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Should this discussion continue here? Or should it move to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation? Or should it move to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)? -Gwguffey (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You might first reach a point where a statement can be made on behalf of WikiProject Disambiguation, a consensus - if one can be reached - within the WikiProject, then take this consensus to WP:MOSDAB. This is one use of a WikiProject - to reach tentative conclusions among practitioners in a topic area, then take this to a guideline or policy forum for more general discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see that such linking adds much value on disambiguation pages. But if someone creates the link that way, I don't see much benefit to changing them back to direct links either. However, I don't think that such links should be piped as Khatru2 had been doing (and has anyone informed Khatru2 about this discussion of his/her edits?) older ≠ wiser 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I dropped a note on Khatru2 page asking about it, then ShelfSkewed helped clarify what was going on. I'll let him know that this is being discussed. -Gwguffey (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-done. Khatru2 has been notified. -Gwguffey (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The benefit of always using (disambiguation) redirects rather than direct links to base-name dabs is that "what links here" can be used to identify articles that need to have disambiguation links repaired vs. those that intend to link to the disambiguation page. This is useful for human editors, but especially useful for bots and other automated edits. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent observation. That alone, in my mind, would seem to be a strong case for us to standardize on this practice. -Gwguffey (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed — this is a good observation. In order to support popup-based disambiguation, one needs to include the Ballybop (disambiguation) link on the Ballybop dab page. Please consider a) an addition to WP:MOSDAB about this and b) a revision to {{disambig}} that could add such a link to the popup-selectable set so that one needn't add one separately. The latter might not be so easy, and hatnote-based links don't appear (to the best of my memory) in the popup-dab link listing; so I would suggest inclusion of the extra link in the 'See also' section as a matter of best-practice. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
demonstration-of-principle — Evita, with an implemented target revision here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. The addition of Evita (disambiguation), redirects here, used for links to Evita that cannot be disambiguated without consultation under See also seems confusing to me. What does cannot be disambiguated without consultation mean? older ≠ wiser 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I raised the suggestion at Template talk:Disambig#Linking from from base name dab to (disambiguation) redirect. Linking to the disambiguation page is not the solution for links that cannot be disambiguated without consultation though. Such links should be left linking to whatever and tagged {{dn}} instead. Links to (disambiguation) pages or redirects is for links that can be determined to intend to link to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Things are back to where they were before I stuck my foot into it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps what you were getting at was rather than the hatnote at Evita (musical) should point at Evita (disambiguation) rather than Evita so that "proper" link can be distinguished from "links that need to be fixed". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. one implementation of this understanding at Shelah (name) where one might normally link to Shelah in a hatnote, but could link to Shelah (disambiguation) (as done) to clarify that this is a proper linkage. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely correct -- a perfect use of the (disambiguation) redirect. I've updated Evita (musical) too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I caused so much controversy. Yes, I was following the guideline for intentional links to disambiguation pages quoted above. I think it makes sense to have the same policy for both articles and disambiguation pages, because they are in the same namespace. If one were trying to sort through the incoming links to "Madison County" for example and comes across the page "Madison", the editor doesn't know that "Madison" is itself a disambiguation page without opening it. If every intentional link to a disambiguation page, whether from an article or from another disambiguation page, has the "disambiguation" suffix, then every new accidental link to the page can be properly sorted. As for piping the links from disambiguation pages to other disambiguation pages, I wasn't sure what to do, because I didn't come across any specific guideline. It probably makes sense not to pipe them. In the mean time I'll hold off on any new changes. Khatru2 (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One good reason for not piping a disambiguation in a disambiguation page is that Madison ( [[Madison (Disambiguation)|Madison]] ) is just as confusing as Madison ( [[Madison]] ). The reader still doesn't know its a disambiguation page by just looking at it. --Tesscass (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack (fish)

Have a look at the redirects which link here. Should they be deleted? The creation of Jack (fish) (disambiguation) would be most appropiate. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It should either be a set index article or a redirect to the Jack (disambiguation) (and the redirect tagged {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}). --JHunterJ (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Goki

Can a sysop please move this page to Gouki? I am unable to since I'm lacking administrative powers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

{{db-move}} will work fine in such cases. – sgeureka t•c 07:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Tagged it. Thanks! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This was a sensible move which I've done for you. As there was no talk I just cut-and-pasted. Abtract (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not the talk, but the history that is the problem with cut-and-paste. We want to keep the history with the text. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Will a history merge be necessary? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed cut-n-paste problems. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Seru (disambiguation)

I just did a major update on this one. Can someone take a gander and correct whatever needs fixing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I made some minor changes. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Rosiestep, what exactly was wrong with this revision? Now that I realize it, the "redness" was fine per WP:MOSDP#Red links. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Not if you look carefully at WP:MOSDP#Red links "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article". Abtract (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ace (disambiguation)

There is a merger proposal for Ace (disambiguation), Aces, ACE and ACES being discussed at Talk:Ace (disambiguation). Comments are welcomed. Flibirigit (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have ceated at sandbox at User:Flibirigit/Ace. Anyone is welcome to edit. Flibirigit (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging of Project Banner at Talk pages

Hello! My bot got trial approval for tagging talk pages of articles with WikiProject banners, so I am carrying out a trial of about 250 edits on Talk pages of Disambig pages. Any Objection? --SMS Talk 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the current consensus about dab banners on talk pages is somewhere along the lines of "Do what you want to do, but the {{disambig}} template in the name space is all that a dab page needs to associate it with its WikiProject." I.e. adding dab banners on talk pages is neither really helping nor destroying anything. – sgeureka t•c 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit: I was sure {{disambig}} linked to this WikiProject, but I now see this isn't the case. I am however sure that I got the consensus opinion right. – sgeureka t•c 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok! Thanks! I think I can continue with it, if it isn't doing anything bad and even if it not doing anything good now but in future it may be of some help. --SMS Talk 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I like the project banner (as it helps editors find our project), but I dislike the random addition of the {{talkpage}} banner, and dislike the empty class/importance variables, that some editors have been adding recently (not just him, that one is just on my watchlist from today). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It just seems appropriate that all talk pages should have a {{talkpage}} banner, it gives a human connection to the talk page, which is what a talk page is, human communication. OOODDD (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
To second Quiddity: please don't just add the bare banner, as it is of no help to anyone whatsoever, but make sure to assess the page when the banner is added. Having hundreds of dabs popping up in one's watchlist when these banners are added on mass scale is annoying enough, having them pop up yet again when the actual assessment is made later is doubly so.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any parameter for assessment in {{DisambigProject}}, and even in my opinion there isn't any need for adding it. --SMS Talk 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: {{talkpage}}, see the bold usage instructions.
Re: {{DisambigProject}}, I've asked at Template talk:DisambigProject whether the (unneeded?) class-rating variable can be removed. However, as I mentioned to OOODDD: My guess is that people are adding the banner templates using a script, which adds the variables by default? (Something like User talk:Outriggr/assessment.js perhaps?) If so, I'm not sure how easy that would be to resolve. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Quiddity. I must have gotten so used to these things polluting my watchlist that I failed to notice that class and importance parameters are no longer available for this template! In that case, for the record, here is my opinion that {{DisambigProject}} is completely and utterly useless. Adding it just because "there might some time be a use for it" is, in my opinion, a complete waste of editors' time and server resources. If there ever going to be a time with a good use for a template of this nature, I am sure it will be trivial to take care of tagging with one efficient bot run (which can easily detect the dabs by the presence of the {{disambig}} template on the page).
As for the bold usage instructions for {{talkpage}}, thanks for pointing this out. This is one set of instructions that some folks need to print out and prominently display at their workstations.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you propose it for a Tfd(3rd time)?, I think it must be added to talk pages, if it is not deleted. At least it still has a purpose(without assessment parameters).i.e. it is inviting other editors to join the project. --SMS Talk 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)