Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages[edit]

Pygmalion issues help wanted[edit]

I am not sure if this is outside the scope of this project. I have been attempting to refine improper linking to Pygmalion (play) and Pygmalion (mythology), and I could use some assistance cleaning up {{Pygmalion}}, {{Pygmalion navbox}}, and {{My Fair Lady}} (the latter two which I have recently created). I have posted some particular issues at Talk:Pygmalion (play)#Template:Pygmalion. Please feel free to jump in and edit the templates or leave comments there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talkcontribs) 23:44, 23 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Isis (disambiguation)[edit]

There's disagreement on the entry (mostly the link to use) for the organisation in the news. More opinions welcome at Talk:Isis (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 09:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

George Waters (disambiguation)[edit]

Hello, there's an issue with my edits being reverted on this page by an editor with a history of edit warring. I don't want to get involved in edit warring, so can someone else please look it over? See its edit history. Thanks in advance for any help, Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is an issue. We don't red-link personal names. This is done for WP:BLP-reasons, and your pet Wikiproject doesn't get to override site-wide guidelines. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
BLP obviously does not apply in this case, as anyone who had bothered to look would know. DuncanHill (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, there should be an article for the MP and to quote the first link you gave above Joe - " Only add the red link if there clearly should be a corresponding article AND there is an existing article to link to (e.g., a blue link) elsewhere on the page." - which clearly applies here. DuncanHill (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
BLP is the reason that WP:REDNOT exists (so that an article intended to be about an MP doesn't wind up being written about an axe-murderer instead). So yes, WP:BLP does apply. Since there "should" be an article about the MP, simply write one. Problem solved! Joefromrandb (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The redlink made clear it was about an MP. Seriously - I have never, in 8 years of editing, come across anyone applying your interpretation of this. BLP does not apply to very dead people, and it is ridiculous to pretend that it does. You have also engaged in personal attacks and have continued to impose your personal views while avoiding discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah; you can look at this page and see just how much I've been "avoiding discussion". The arrogance! Joefromrandb (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I did and you have. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Suuuuuuuuuure. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

AA/aa - ZZ/zz disambiguations[edit]

There is currently a Category:Letter-number combination disambiguation pages
I was wondering:

  • whether it might be positive to create a category for two letter disambiguation pages,
  • whether it might be worth agreeing (if it hasn't already been done) a preferred style for such pages (simply capitalised - AA, or displaying various options - "AA,Aa,aa" or "AA,Aa,aA,aa" or similar)

Would a suitable title be: Category:Two letter combination disambiguation pages, Category:Two letter disambiguation pages or something else?
Gregkaye (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The preferred style is "XX" where "XX" is not a word (only an acronym/initialism), and "Xx" where Xx is a word (and possibly also an acronym/initialism). If created, please hyphenate "two-letter". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I concur that "Xx" where Xx is a word is the preferred style, although there are a number of current cases (including BI) where that is not being followed at the moment. These should be conformed to one consistent practice. bd2412 T 13:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as the category is concerned I will go with Category:Two letter disambiguation pages,
for text, JHunterJ, I'm toying with the idea of extending your guidelines as follows "in signigicant use" to read: "The preferred style is "XX" where "XX" is not a word (only an acronym/initialism), and "Xx" where Xx is a word (and possibly also an acronym/initialism) in cases where the word has significant currency in comparison to other uses". However I need to see if this addition will have much relevance in reality. ty, sorry, TY for the guidance. Gregkaye 16:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
when I add: [[Category:Two letter disambiguation pages]] at the bottom of pages, should I also remove {{disambiguation}}?

or what entry should I make? Gregkaye 16:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely do not remove the disambiguation template. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I moved the category to its proper hyphenation. Please update the pages appropriately. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I commented here but was directed here. Would it be better to do this with a template that replaces {{disambiguation}}, e.g. like {{Letter disambiguation}} (but without the navbox unless there's a sensible way to do one) or the others in Category:Disambiguation message boxes? This would deal with the over-categorisation and allow for a better description, as the default in this case, "articles associated with the same title", is perhaps not ideal.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Something more like {{hndis}}? This template provides a different disambiguation descriptor, and also adds the page to the appropriate category (see, e.g. Max Weber (disambiguation)). bd2412 T 18:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: What's the need for this category? Is there a link to some proposal or reasoning as I don't see any above. The question "might be positive..." isn't answered (or proposed). As we discourage categories on dabs in general that aren't created by the parameters on the {{disambig}} template (or the other exclusive templates {{hndis}} etc), a gentle ask. (similarly, this extends to the Letter-number combination category template {{Letter-Number Combination Disambiguation}} too - at least we have a template for it, rather than a manually added category). I'm asking this instead of removing from the dabs I've seen it arrive on. Widefox; talk 22:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC) (clarified Widefox; talk 11:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC))
I think it's a very good idea to have this categorization scheme. It lets us see whether we are being consistent with place of these pages at "XX" or "Xx" titles. bd2412 T 22:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Just saw Talk:BI#Request_technical_move. I can't imagine they get moved often, and there's about 26^2 = 676 of them. A one time check would be preferable. If there's a need for it long-term (not yet convinced), I agree with JohnBlackburne that the merits of either a new template or a parameter of the disambig template could be discussed. I'm against more categories being added when we discourage them. Would we stop at 2 letters, for instance? Widefox; talk 00:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned at Talk:BI, I prefer for words and acronyms not to be conflated in the same disambiguation page - that way we avoid having to prefer anything. If done in an orderly fashion, the impact of splitting the two on the speed of reader navigation is negligible. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't agree in general - way too much splitting. BI needs cleanup already. Widefox; talk 00:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
In general, for navigation (dabs) we don't put a high priority on capitalisation. If a reader needs to find their article, we certainly shouldn't split based on types of words... e.g. whether ISIS (or IS, ISIL, Islamic State etc ..., NATO, BBC, HP, IBM) are initialisms or not may not be known by the reader before they reach the article, distinguishing them would be a further decision they may not know the answer of. Put another way, what problem does it solve? Widefox; talk 08:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
What is the benefit of only having disambiguation pages categorized in the disambiguation category, which has hundreds of thousands of entries and is therefore basically unsearchable? This lets us put several hundred pages sharing a distinct common characteristic in one place, where their titles can otherwise easily be compared. bd2412 T 11:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Simplicity. I'm against feature creep on the dabs as there's such a high bad edit rate, and I'm not convinced our cleanup rate matches it. I consider we're failing to get across the basics for even experienced editors without greater complexity - there's admins that don't know MOSDAB. The simpler the better. Saying that, if you need this, you get my yes vote without question. Widefox; talk 12:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Rfc on what belongs on a dab page[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:GNU_(disambiguation)#Add_and_delete_articles.3F, about adding and deleting entries from this dab list. Please add to the consensus. Please note each Add and Delete sub-section. — Lentower (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding red links: Did I handle it correctly?[edit]

There are several rivers in Iceland called Jökulsá. Until now, English Wikipedia had only an article about Jökulsá á Fjöllum and Jökulsá was a redirect there. I created now Jökulsá á Dal (mainly as a translation from German-language Wikipedia) and changed the redirect into a disambiguation page Jökulsá. As I'm active mainly in German-language Wikipedia where disambig practice apparently differs from here, I wanted to make sure - was it correct to include only the two rivers where articles in English WP already exist? In German WP, we usually also add red links to disambiguation pages if we're sure that the topics are notable. However, as Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts says "Don't add entries without a blue link", I did'nt add Jökulsá í Fljótsdal, Jökulsá í Lóni, and Jökulsá á Sólheimasandi (they all have articles in German WP, however). Correct? - I also wondered whether to use a hatnote, Jökulsá á Fjöllum may be the best known one. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You have the sense of it in general. However, many of these do appear to be included at List of rivers of Iceland and so could be included on the disambiguation page with a blue link to that list article per WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRL. Although there might be some question as to whether these are partial title matches. olderwiser 02:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I think it looks good now. If they were partial title matches, if I understand it correctly, we would need to delete Jökulsá altogether, as there is probably no river simply called "Jökulsá" - but this wouldn't be very helpful, I think... List of tallest dams in the world linked to "Jökulsá", meaning the Jökulsá á Dal (so the link even did go to the wrong Jökulsá as long as it was a redirect), Öxarfjörður also linked to "Jökulsá" and meant the Jökulsá á Fjöllum (both are fixed now). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look[edit]

Would someone please take a look at this page, Russo-Ukrainian War? It really should be deleted, as it doesn't refer to anything. It started as the original title for Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), a PoV fork that was created to avoid full protection at some other articles. That article was moved, and hence Russo-Ukrainian War redirected to it. However, someone insists on making this redirect a disambiguation page to disambiguate things that do not and have never had the title "Russo-Ukrainian War". RGloucester 01:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternative titles, and italics[edit]

There's discussion at Talk:Danzig (disambiguation) and Talk:Baykal (disambiguation). It may be that a couple of examples for the different types of alternative wordings for primary topics may help standardise, as there's issues of if we're going to use italics for "words as words" / foreign words, vs what we currently do. Separately, regarding WP:ITALICS, we have an inconsistency between MOSDAB and the essay WP:REFERS (backed up by ITALICS / foreign words / use-mention distinction) that I guess we can simply address by mentioning it at MOSDAB for now. Widefox; talk 11:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Piped links to indexes[edit]

User:Sminthopsis84 suggests that "Pipes are permitted when linking to another disambiguation page" and has edited Violet accordingly. (List of plants known as violet is a plant-name index.) That seems incorrect to me and I don't see it in WP:DABPIPING, but I may be ignorant of a relevant standard. Can anyone help? Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, (a) piping is not permitted when linking to another disambiguation page and (b) set index articles (including plant indexes) are not disambiguation pages. So the piping is not needed, and the link to the set index of partial-title matches is not needed outside of the "See also" section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Contentious hatnote[edit]

I think hatnotes are closely related to this project. There is a contentious hatnote being discussed at Talk:Legends_(TV_series)#Call_for_a_vote_on_hatnote_for_this_page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Marriage equality (disambiguation)[edit]

Input from this wikiproject would be appreciated at Talk:Marriage equality (disambiguation)#DAB lacking link to primary topic and Talk:Marriage equality#Restoring redirect target.--Trystan (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


A RfC is open at OpenOffice on how or whether to include terms that, while not ambiguous with that title, are ambiguous with another topic that is.

Please participate here. --Tóraí (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Flags and logs in section headings[edit]

See Rehal (disambiguation) - I've never seen this before. I'm struggling a bit also with the concept of a noble book rest. :-) Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well the logo is non-free, which should help with the decision whether to remove it. William Avery (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Someone's cleaned up the page. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement at Islamic state (disambiguation)[edit]

There is some disagreement about whether Islamic state (disambiguation) should link to Islamic State (militant group), Islamic State (organization), or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Outside opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation)#Redirect. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct, for completeness, also The Islamic State

See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Remove most of the guidance against using redirects. Where I've commented. Widefox; talk 10:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing dabconcept article drive[edit]

I have started drafts for a number of topics that have a clear primary topic, but for which there is currently no article at all on that topic, and a disambiguation page in that space. The quality of these drafts varies widely, but I would like to build them up and knock them out of draft space in short order. So far, the drafts I have begun are:

Cheers! bd2412 T 04:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)