Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Any suggestions?

Trying to decide on a title for a set-index-type article to replace Sputnik program. It seems there was no Sputnik "program" as such, just a series of launched objects, the first of which were called Sputnik 1, Sputnik 2 and Sputnik 3, followed by others which were officially named differently, but were called Sputnik 4 etc. in Western circles. Please join in at Talk:Sputnik program#Name of replacement article. --Kotniski (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Another request for suggestions

Would those of you who work with this project please take a look at this Talk:Adam_Pearson_(disambiguation) page and the DAB page that the editor created. I tried to explain to User:Iph why disambiguation pages are different from articles but I may not have been clear enough. As it is I am not sure that the page should even exist since there is only one person with the name that has a wikiarticle but I am not steeped in DAB page policy so I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick. If the page can be brought up to MoS standards please feel free to do so. My thanks ahead of time to any editor that can help in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 03:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Northern (country subdivision), Southern (country subdivision), Eastern (country subdivision), Western (country subdivision)

Something needs to be done about these four incomplete disambiguations. I am not sure whether the best solution is to merge each of them into the corresponding disambig page (Northern, Southern, Eastern, Western) or to create a new article on the proclivity of countries to name some of their subdivisions for the geographic portion of the country that the division occupies, and redirect these terms there. Any thoughts? bd2412 T 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer your first option, which would be consistent with the outcome of the recent AFD for Central (subnational entity). Your second option seems likely to call for original research, unless you are aware of a published source that happens to describe this naming practice as a common proclivity. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd AfD the lot (with the condition that all content would be merged into the corresponding disambig) since they're highly unlikely search terms and therefore of little value as a redirect. --JaGa^talk 20:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Former"

What exactly is the practice with regards to the use of "former" or "retired" for living subjects? Do we always mention this when they no longer do something or do we keep it because it is what makes them notable and recognisable? Clearly, when they die the word is removed because what they used to do in life but then retired is the reason for their notability. I am asking this because mentioning "former" or "retired" can make an entry awkward ("American former rugby union football player"), and it seems that consistent usage would make such sentences very common; I certainly seem to notice more of them than I used to. Waltham, The Duke of 08:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would not include "former" or "retired" in a dab page - if it's what they're known for, then it's what someone will be looking for in the dab page. And it would be absurd to have to update after death by removing it. PamD 09:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend not to add them, but I also tend not to delete them if someone else has added it. I do rearrange "former American guitarist" to "American former guitarist" (assuming they haven't lost their citizenship), though. I can see how either "former" or term years can be useful for office-holders, though, to keep some school student from rushing too fast through it and discovering that Abraham Lincoln is the president of the United States. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point on specific office-holders. Perhaps this is a good reminder to try to keep dab page entries minimal. "University vice-chancellor" would be acceptable even when retired, but "Vice-chancellor of University of Xyz" would need a "former". So "British politician", rather than "Member of parliament for Xyz"; "American musician" rather than "drummer for band Xyz", etc. But for President of the USA, Prime Minister of UK, etc, perhaps we do need the "former". Of course these people will often be the primary usage anyway! PamD 12:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to do as JHunterJ describes. I.e., remove "former" when making an update but leave it be if someone adds it. The qualification of "former", especially if there is a year of death, is largely superfluous. If a person is known for a particular office or activity, that remains true regardless of current status. older ≠ wiser 12:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Same here. I omit former or remove it in cleanups, unless doing so would be patently misleading (the office-holders example is a good one), but I don't go out of my way to delete it when added by others.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

200K

At some point this week, possibly tomorrow, the number of article disambiguation pages will hit 200,000. Maybe I'm the only one to find this fascinating... This would be worth a mention in next week's News and notes section of the Signpost. Few people realize that one in 17 articles is actually a dab page. Pichpich (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Have {{dn}} using Dab solver

Discussion at Template talk:Disambiguation needed#Direct link to Dab solver. — Dispenser 05:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

180 - in need of disambiguation attention

I'm busy in RL so trying not to spend too much time on-wiki this week and actually logged out ... but couldn't resist a little stub-sorting and found a right can of worms when sorting 180 (movie)! There's a 180 (film), some hatnotes, no dabpage, various links from 180 (number)... a nice little project for someone to play with. Have fun. 85.211.13.188 (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=180+&namespace=0 (go to 2nd page) to see more of the problem! 85.211.13.188 (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Niiiiiiice....... Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I created 180 (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Was the creation of 1808 (disambiguation) really what you had in mind? Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not a dab page--it's a list article. Most of it is already covered in the article 1808, and what isn't should be added to the "by topic" box. Except for the asteroid, which should be mentioned in a hatnote, merge and redirect is my opinion.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with ShelfSkewed. None of the "1808 in X" items are ambiguous with "1808". The list is somewhat redundant with Category:1808. older ≠ wiser 14:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then I misunderstood it. The article is now nominated for speedy deletion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Greylock

Not sure if this is the best place to make this enquiry, but I noticed when looking up the Native American chief Gray Lock, using the alternative spelling 'Greylock', that it is a redirect to Greylock Partners. Was wondering if instead of a redirect a disambiguation page would be appropriate. Could also be a link to Mount Greylock believed to possibly be named for the former.Number36 (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest a disambiguation page at Greylock (disambiguation) and linked via hatnotes on both Greylock and Gray Lock. older ≠ wiser 04:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Blimey that was fast, thanks :) Number36 (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Potential move of Pointer (computing)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pointer#Mouse cursor. -- Trevj (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Roll (food)

I've started a discussion about this incomplete dab at Talk:Roll (food). Please feel free to come share your thoughts. France3470 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional discussions

Proposals for moving or retargeting existing disambiguation pages are currently underway at Master of Arts, Walkthrough, and Rampart. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There are also some other talk pages discussions (particularly relating to incomplete disambiguation) at Percept (computing) and Charles B. King. France3470 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheese bread

This page is currently tagged for cleanup, which is understandable. The current items seems to be more of a list of "bread products that have cheese in them' rather then objects that are referred to as 'cheese bread'. There also appear to be some clear partial matches (Red Lobster Cheddar Bay Biscuits?). I keep going back to it but I haven't really had any great inspirations on how to resolve these apparent issues. Maybe it would be best as a concept dab. I'll start a section on the talk page, and would appreciate any further suggestions. France3470 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would just redirect it to cheese bun, since none of the other articles even mention the phrase "cheese bread" anywhere. Station1 (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Disambiguation in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Disambiguation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Some disambiguators needed

Hi all. I need some help coming up with appropriate disambiguators for two Kerala politicians; Dr.K C Joseph and K. C. Joseph. Despite initial doubts, I am entirely sure they are different individuals and since they share the same name, K. C. Joseph will need to become a dab page. Considering that the two people share the same occupation and work in the same area I'm having a hard time coming up with a disambiguator to distinguish them and suggestions would be very helpful. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The current titles work for disambiguation purposes. We just need to add {{distinguish}} hatnotes on each, which I'll do. Station1 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you think Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_and_abbreviated_names#Titles and styles applies in this situation? Removing the Dr. was my main motivation for wanting the page to be moved. France3470 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If there were only one article, it would definitely apply. But because of the need for disambiguation, it seems like in this case "Dr." is as good as or better than any other means of disambiguating the titles so that they're not identical, since as you point out occupation or location+occupation won't work. Station1 (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, they appear to have represented different constituencies within the province. Why not go with K. C. Joseph (Irikkur politician) and K. C. Joseph (Kuttanadu politician)? Pburka (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pburka. Yes, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Titles and styles applies, and the "Dr. " portion of the title is not correct there, since "Honorifics and other titles such as "Doctor" are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien)" -- I'm assuming Joseph is not clearly best known as Doctor K. C. Joseph. In this case, I think the years of birth are typically added, since "politician" and "Kerala politician" are insufficient. If the birth years aren't findable, "Kuttanadu politician" and "Irikkur politician" are good choices. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

From my searches it does appear that Dr. K. C. Joseph is treated as the common name (ie he is always refer to with the Dr.), but I'm not confident that this is really is the name by which he is definitively known. I think "Kuttanadu politician" and "Irikkur politician" are good choices and although I thought I had ruled out dates of birth, I just did another search now and I seem to have found them. K. C. Joseph appears to have been born in 1946 according to here, and Dr. K. C. Joseph in 1949 per here. So I suppose those would be the best. France3470 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that "Kuttanadu/Irikkur politician" would be better, as people are more likely to be able to recognise whether they've got the right one - if the birth dates were 50 years apart they'd distinguish well, but 3 years is very close! PamD 22:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

On further reflection, I agree with Pam. Since I mistyped the dates I actually thought they were much further apart then they really were. The dates really provide limited information so "Kuttanadu/Irikkur politician" is certainly the preferred choice. I'll move them now if there no objections, France3470 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just one more forseeable issue. Our article is titled Kuttanad not Kuttanadu, although it is referred to as Kuttanadu in the lead. France3470 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Timiskaming

Hi,

There is currently a disagreement on the content of the disambig page Timiskaming (I am an involved editor in the disagreement). Opinions on the situation would be welcome. -- Whpq (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Index articles

What is in fact the use of the "Index"-articles? Most articles I find are full of links to disambiguation pages and often totally incomplete. Are categories not proper replacements for them? If I see articles like Index of World War II articles (T) I get the idea that removal is the best option for this type of articles... Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're likely asking in the wrong place. These are not disambiguation pages, so this project has little influence over them. You might try looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes to understand why these pages exist. older ≠ wiser 19:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Dropped the question there, thanks for pointing me to the project. Never heard of. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Name spelling and disambiguation pages

The problem: We have separate disambiguation pages for Stephen White, Steven White, and Steve White, but variations of the name Katherine Scott (e.g., Kathryn Scott, Catherine Scott, Cathy Scott) are redirected or linked to Katherine Scott.

I've checked the archives and this has been brought up before, but to my knowledge no policy has ever been agreed on. Generally the response has been, "Ask other editors on the relevant talk pages for their input." Inevitably no discussion is started and the issue goes unresolved. As a result, we have these sort of inconsistencies. I know there are bigger fish to fry, but we'll have to figure this one out eventually.

Thoughts? --Calling All Creeps! (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why will we have to figure it out eventually? Having separate pages for Ste(ve|ven|phen) White and a single page for the variation of Katherine Scott work to get the readers to the articles they seek. It may be useful to split some name variations and combine others. This seems to me to be a good decision left to the specific pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! However, I'm not sure that really addresses the issue. As the example above shows, there are several ways we can successfully get people to the same page. Why are there separate articles for Stephen White and Steven White, and what is to prevent me from simply merging them? What is to prevent someone from undoing my edit? Why, exactly, was it useful to split the Stephen Whites and not the Katherine Scotts? It seems to me that whatever thinking lead to the decision to separate the Stephen Whites can be used to guide editors in determining how to manage others pages. But the problem is, there is no standardization of any sort in place - not even some vague guidelines to help clarify why two apparently identical cases were handled differently. Certainly this can't be the ideal? Regards, Calling All Creeps! (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several ways we can successfully get people to the same page, yes. The question IMO isn't why was it useful to split one and not the other, but rather is it harmful to permit some to be split and others to be left combined (or to combine some and let others be left separate)? I do not believe it's harmful, so I'm happy to assume that whoever split (or combined) one name set but not the other acted in good faith, and questions about the reasoning specific to one name set can be addressed at the pages' or splitting/combining editors' Talk pages. From a project point of view, I don't think we gain anything here by forcing consistency, and may even lose some benefit. That is, I disagree with the final rhetorical question "Certainly this can't be ideal?" -- it may well be ideal; standardization is a tool to address some identified problems, not a goal in itself. Still IMO. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

For me, the main issue is that there are at least six ways to spell Katherine, and so there's a high chance people will get it wrong first time. There are also very few Katherine Scotts (or variants), so there's no real chance of someone struggling to find the right Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn etc. amongst all the entries. The Steven/Stephen White pages are for a common name with many entries - to amalgamate them would make the page very lengthy. Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, you guys, I appreciate it. I'm doing my best not to show my OCPD. Since there doesn't seem to be much interest here, I'll get back to frying those bigger fish. Regards, Calling All Creeps! (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation of people

If a person is notable for one event only, appearing prominently in the world press and on worldwide TV, what is the general practice? Do we normally include such a person on the disambiguation page for their name, when there is an article describing the event and mentioning the person? An editor just claimed that we don't, and I was a bit surprised. Hans Adler 21:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If they are covered in Wikipedia, and so the article-with-coverage might be the target of the name-as-redirect, then yes, we include that article-with-coverage on the name-as-disambiguation-page when the name is ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. See WP:BLP/N#John Pike and John Pike for the context of my question. So I gather it boils down to whether a redirect John Pike -> Occupy University of California, Davis would be admissible without the other John Pikes, which is not entirely clear but not a question related to disambiguation. Hans Adler 22:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If this John Pike was the primary topic then John Pike could redirect to Occupy UC Davis (although it would be very unusual). In this case though, I think WP:RECENTISM is definitely a major factor, so I would be very cautious about changing the current setup. I doubt there is any long term potential for such a move, so being routed through the dab is probably the best solution (even if somewhat inconveniencing). France3470 (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, John Pike → Occupy UC Davis would be permissible (if that were the only topic). As long as the name remains in the article, the entry should remain in the dab; if the WP:BLP/N#John Pike discussion, or consensus at Talk:Occupy UC Davis, results in the name being removed for BLP concerns or any other reason, it should be removed from the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We should require references for abbreviation disambiguation pages

Some of the disambiguation pages for abbreviations are a little out of control. I just looked at GS. It includes George Silver, Geroy Simon and Gwen Stefani - does anyone actually call any of these people "GS"? Should every single person whose first name begins with G and last name with S appear on this page? I never heard of the Girl Scouts of the USA being called "GS". There are 14 video game related items on the page. I know the video game community abbreviates a lot, but they wouldn't be able to communicate properly if all 14 of these were called "GS."

We should maybe require reference on abbreviations pages to prove that the item is actually abbreviated like that. We could put the references on the talk page instead of the article page, but we need some kind of basis for inclusion or exclusion on abbreviation pages, and references seem the best way to go. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your second question is certainly "no". However, the references you are looking for should be in the linked articles. If George Silver, for example, is commonly known by his initials, that fact should be in the article about him, and should be referenced. If not, that link could be deleted from the disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It sure would be 20 times easier to clean these up to have the references all in one place instead of on 50 different pages. That's why I'm suggesting putting the refs on the talk page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The "all in one place" for the references would be Wiktionary. Content on Wikipedia needs to be referenced in the content (articles); disambiguation pages (which are not articles) simply disambiguate content on Wikipedia that could have had an ambiguous title; their "references" are solely the linked articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, if the abbreviation is used in the article, then it belongs on the dab page. If not, then not. None of the three people listed at GS has this abbreviation mentioned in their article, nor does the Gaza Strip: these could be removed from the dab page. If an abbreviation is included in an article, unsourced, and you doubt it, then add {{cn}} to request it to be sourced. The Girl Scouts are a bit of a grey area, as the abbreviation is used within the article, but not explicitly mentioned. I can see no evidence for "Golden State" being abbreviated as "GS". But dab pages do not have references, and that's not the route to go down to clean up these pages containing abbreviations. PamD 21:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with PamD. If the reference is not in the article, toss it from the dab. We should not get into the business of putting references on disambig pages, which would distract from the basic purpose of having the dab provide as concise an assist as possible to readers searching for a target article. bd2412 T 04:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at Talk:Itti-Marduk-balatu

Hi all. Could someone have a look over at Talk:Itti-Marduk-balatu. My brain is not quite in thinking mode tonight (far too little sleep) and I would really appreciate some thoughtful suggestions for moving forward with the cleanup of this dab page. For whatever reason, I appear to be muddying the situation. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Awkward. (TV series)

Disambiguators might be interesting in the requested move at Talk:Awkward. (TV series) which is currently discussing whether the TV series is the primary topic and/or whether a disambiguation page should be created for Awkward. France3470 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Applying MOS:DABNAME to nonstandard name constructions

Recently I have noted surprising edits to move articles I believed belonged on the DAB page to the relevant name page on the DAB pages Hannah and Bion. The relevant entries were Hannah (Bible), Saint Hanna, Bion of Smyrna, Bion of Abdera and Bion of Borysthenes. The first appears to be an open-and-shut case for inclusion. I interpret the others as not being name and surname combinations and therefore MOS:DABNAME should not be applied.

Should these entries should appear on the main DAB pages and why? Many thanks. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And what out findability? Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MegaSloth's interpretation of DABNAME. IMO, disambiguation pages should not include lists of people with a given name unless the person is known as the given only (i.e., where there is actual ambiguity). When the DABNAME guidance was added/clarified, there was an unfortunate conflation of given names and surnames. I think there is a distinction between the two. It is relatively uncommon to refer to individuals from the modern era by given name only and there is really no reason to include people with a given name on a disambiguation page unless they are known by the given name alone. On the other hand, individuals can frequently be referenced by surname only (or by surname and initials in some scientific publications). Thus there is rationale for including people by surname on disambiguation pages. Where an article on the surname exists, the list can be transferred to that page. older ≠ wiser 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about notability

When reading this week's Signpost question about notability, the concern arose to me: suppose there is a borderline notable television show called Big Cast Show with loads and loads of characters that happens to have an article Big Cast Show. Now suppose that for each character X someone goes to the corresponding disambiguation page X or X (disambiguation) and adds an entry: "X is a character in Big Cast Show" or a slightly more descriptive version of that. Now suppose 20 other people do the same thing, resulting in an accumulation of such entries. Is there a risk that such entries could overwhelm disambiguation pages in time? What's the right balance to draw? Thanks for your thoughts! Dcoetzee 12:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No risk. I suppose this isn't an actual problem in the encyclopedia today, so I suppose we keep the current guidelines MOS:DABMENTION unless it becomes an actual problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

When there get to be that many entries of this type, typically we'll just create a section under the heading ==Fictional characters== or the like, and relegate it to the bottom of the page. bd2412 T 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So long as there is an article that includes mention of the characters in a manner that meets verifiability, notability, and any other relevant guidelines, then there is no issue with inclusion on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 15:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Help: Should manuals of style lead to non sense ?

In mathematics "generator" means almost always "member of a generating set". If this is not said to the users concerned with the mathematical meaning of "generator", the disambiguation page generator does not play its role. Recently User:JohnBlackburne (talk) has systematically reverted all my edits aimed to insert the mathematical meaning of "generator" in the mathematics section of generator, invoking various manuals of style for justifying his reverts. The problem here is that generating set is also a disambiguation page. It is clear to me that we are in a rare case where a disambiguation page should link into another disambiguation page. What should I do for having a satisfying generator page without entering in an edit war? D.Lazard (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have replied at the page, before seeing you had posted here. I will leave that reply but copy the additional comments I made to here, as I think they need wider consideration.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Let us be positive.

Although my heart is broken by 2242 templates with links to disambiguation pages, I like to look at the bright side of life. What do you guys think about the article in the Signpost ([1]) about the project? Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, we're famous! On the downside, this means wiki-groupies will be hounding us for our autographs. Here's mine: bd2412 T 16:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I don't mind the groupies. They can get a signed picture for solving one index-page with disambig-links (if that article is in the top 100 of the list of pages). :-) Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Where are those 2242 templates listed? Sounds like an interesting project to work on, where one correction will fix a whole load of incoming links. PamD 17:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They are already fixed. About 2,200 of the 2,242 were templates that transcluded a meta-template that contained the dab link, each of which was used on only one page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:INTDABLINK and reversions

Another editor has repeatedly reverted edits to Dan Miller (sportscaster) that brought the hatnote on the page into compliance with WP:INTDABLINK. I don't want to make this into an edit war and would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor would review the situation and offer a third opinion. (Also, you may be interested in User talk:R'n'B#WTOP-FM/WBQH, where a similar situation seems to be brewing but at least for now the pages haven't been reverted.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the hatnote there, per WP:NAMB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And I restored it, per WP:NAMB: However, a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator). Dan Miller (sportscaster) could be confused for other Dan Millers. older ≠ wiser 18:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed? Which one(s)? I am familiar with that exception, and it didn't appear to apply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Could easily be confused with either Dan Miller (American football) or Dan Miller (journalist). older ≠ wiser 19:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can see how Dan Miller (American football) or Dan Miller (journalist) might be mistaken for Dan Miller (sportscaster), but not the other way around, since neither the football player nor the journalist were sportscasters.--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. (sportscaster) is a valid qualifier for only one Dan Miller, and then not ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That presumes readers looking for the person have full knowledge of the person. A sportcaster in some contexts is a journalist and someone who announces for football games could be confused with the "(American football)" disambiguator. Precisely because human name disambiguation is rather imperfect, it seems rather better to enable readers to easily find alternate possibilities. older ≠ wiser 01:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

But that's partly what we're saying: The (American football) dab might mean the player or the sportscaster, so the hatnote there is okay. The (journalist) might mean the news anchor or the sportsacaster, so the hatnote there is okay. However, the (sportscaster) clarifier can refer only to the sportscaster, so no hatnote is necessary on that article. The ambiguity of the other two article titles is not an argument for hatnoting the third article. --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, I'd be inclined to keep the hatnote on the principle of "better safe than sorry." The purpose of hatnotes is to help readers who are having trouble finding what they are looking for. Although you are correct that a reader with full knowledge would never end up on the (sportscaster) article if they were looking for someone else of the same name, the hatnote isn't there for the reader with full knowledge, but for the one with extremely incomplete knowledge. Here, the qualifying terms are closely related enough that the latter reader could easily wind up on the wrong page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, though, there is no "sorry"; or I disagree that the terms are close enough. There is no reasonable way for someone looking for one of the other Dan Millers to reach Dan Miller (sportscaster). As ShelfSkewed pointed out, Bkonrad's example has it backwards: a reason to keep the hatnote on Dan Miller (American football) (which might be reached unintentionally) -- that's the wrong page the incomplete-knowledge-haver might wind up on. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My point is that disambiguation of human names is highly imperfect. I don't agree that there is no reasonable way for someone looking for one of the other Dan Millers to reach Dan Miller (sportscaster). It is rather quite easy to reach the wrong page based on mistaken assumptions or limited starting knowledge. I think it is preferable to facilitate recovery from unintentional errors than to enforce rigid adherence to rules. older ≠ wiser 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How is this different in substance from the hundreds of thousands of redirects we have all over Wikipedia using fairly unlikely misspellings, miscapitalizations, mispunctuations, etc. of titles? The great majority of them may never be used, but we leave them because redirects are cheap and they do no harm, and occasionally a few of them may help someone. The hatnote equally is doing no harm and there is no way of knowing whether it might help someone someday. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Then we should require every article to have at least one hatnote, because there is no way of knowing whether it might help someone someday and "does no harm". Hatnotes on an article where they are not needed have a negative impact (harm) in clutter and bytes. Redirects are not hatnotes and do not have that clutter. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. The problem is specific to human names and the inherent limitations in how human names are disambiguated. If hatnotes are clutter, then we should remove all hatnotes and force all readers to simply get used to using the search function if they end up on the wrong page. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, we could remove them when they aren't needed (such as when the title isn't ambiguous and the hatnote is useless clutter) and include them when they're needed (and the hatnote is useful and not clutter). This is the current state of the hatnote and disambiguation guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You like to-may-toes and I like to-mah-toes. So do you have a 100% foolproof method that has wide support for determining what is "useless clutter"? Rather striving for mathematical-like precision according to artificial standards, I'd prefer to err on assuming that Wikipedia is both imperfectly constructed and incomplete and that some readers may need and appreciate some unobtrusive assistance. older ≠ wiser 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the rhetoric. Wikipedia has nothing that is 100% foolproof. In this case, though, the guidelines would indicate that we err on assuming that readers at Dan Miller (sportscaster) don't need the obtrusive assistance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathematical disambiguation

Inspired by the above, I've noticed that mathematical disambiguation pages generally don't fit into the pattern of related terms that usually appear in the 'See also'. E.g. in the above case the page Generating set could as easily be called Generator (mathematical disambiguation) (and it was at Generator (mathematics) once). It is disambiguating exactly the same term, Generator, as well as some related terms.

There are a lot of mathematical disambiguation pages like that. Mathematicians are lazy and tend to re-use terms and phrases rather than come up with new words for new concepts and applications. So words are often re-used, and as articles are added disambiguation is needed. Often this does not get done on a general disambiguation page but a math specific one.

The question is how should they be named, linked to and treated? Should they be merged back into a main article like generator? Should we adopt a standard naming convention for them? Should they stop being disambiguation pages altogether and become overview pages, describing the concept (there usually is a core mathematical concept) then listing the topics derived from it?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:DABCONCEPT would militate in favor of the latter solution. Mercury, the planet, and Mercury, the element are truly ambiguous as to one another. Mathematical concepts sharing a core commonality are not. bd2412 T 05:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the latter solution is the best at long term. But writing a overview page on "generating set" is a rather difficult task, may be controversial, and I am not willing to do it. A solution is needed quickly. For that I do not see any other solution that to restore my edit and, possibly, replace the disambiguation tag of generating set by a stub tag.

To be clear, my edit was to remove the reference to Generating set (disambiguation) in "See also section" and add

Member of a generating set

at the beginning of "Mathematics section". D.Lazard (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should have longt-term/short-term distinctions. The encyclopedia is a long-term venture, and if there is a problem that needs addressing, it should be addressed. If a broad concept has been incorrectly framed as a collection of ambiguous terms, that should be fixed right away, to the extent that it can be fixed. If that means writing a stub, tagging it as such, and notifying the project, then that is what should be done. bd2412 T 18:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. I'm not sure what the deadline is for the "quick" solution, but a quick solution would be to tag the current supposed-dab as a math stub and remove the (disambiguation) redirect. WP:IAR isn't needed: it's a valid link target, and trying to treat it an invalid link target is what appears to be causing the confusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just seen that, thanks to PamD, my edit of Generator has been restored per WP:IAR. D.Lazard (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Turntable

Turntable is a redirect to Turntable (disambiguation), which is the full dab page. Are these page names the wrong way around? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The base name was recently changed without discussion from phonograph. I've restored it. Otherwise, yes, it was a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been altered again. Could project members please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Notice: Turntable, that being the longer thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted again. Discussion about Turntable should take place at Talk:Turntable, or a move could be proposed at Talk:Turntable (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It feels more than a hair peremptory to me for anyone to complain that the base name "was recently changed without discussion," considering that the base name was moved to one of the meanings, and a new dab page created, a year and a half ago with no discussion. I have, at any rate, started a discussion at Talk:Turntable. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Tangientially related discussion on using qualifiers when not needed: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Using qualifiers when no ambiguity exists -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion

Some time ago, Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion was marked as a failed proposal and shut down. I'd like to revive it. We have too many dispersed discussions of whether a given page should or should not be a disambiguation page. Not all of these are deletion debates or even primary topic discussions (although many are). We also have proposals made in various forums for de-disambiguation based on the page itself more properly being an article covering the topic described therein (I have recently proposed Random number for de-disambiguation on that basis), or more properly being a list or a set index. I think WP:DFD would be the place to have all of these discussions, and by bringing them all together, to create solutions addressing large numbers of common issues. bd2412 T 19:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. Good idea. I think a formal process for reasoned, slow discussion of disambiguation matters would help in defusing many situations and allowing better consensus to be established. It could be organized like CFD or RFD processes, where the discussion itself is centralized, or it could be organized like wp:RM where there is central coordination but the discussion is at the Talk page of an affected article. I've seen previous disagreements that could properly be handled calmly in a forum like this, be raised to ANI (not the right forum, not the right expertise present). And I've seen the use of WT:WPDIS (i.e. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation) work sometimes, but also not work well on other times. A process which comes to a decision by a neutral third party is needed. --do ncr am 19:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think expanding WP:RFD to cover disambiguations would be better, since a disambiguation page is in essence a redirect with multiple destinations (true, there's more, but the most basic thing is that). But a WP:DfD would be good if RfD is not expanded. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think RfD encompasses a somewhat different set of policies, although I see your point about disambigs basically being a group of potential redirects. However, I think that there are enough unique issue coming up within this project to merit its own treatment of the area. bd2412 T 13:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/List of three-letter initialisms

So... List of three-letter initialisms was created a few days ago. It was then moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/List of three-letter initialisms in lieu of deletion. However, in 2005, the pre-existing TLA lists were moved to Wikipedia space, and into the category Category:Lists of TLAs . At one point all the TLA lists were one unified list, but it was broken up because it was too big (say circa 2003/2004, IIRC).

As a subpage of WikiProject Disambiguation, is this page useful? It seems to replicate existing lists which are atleast 7/8 years old. Note that List of TLA-Dabs also exists, and is solely for listing disambiguation pages for TLAs (3-letter-acronyms) . 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've so redirected it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Colombiana

Can someone say if these removed entries are invalid? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colombiana&action=historysubmit&diff=467184387&oldid=467139096

I don't see why the "see also" section was removed, or the wiktionary link, and related disambiguation pages all list species whose species name part of the binomial name is the dab page name.

70.24.244.248 (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Restored much of the deleted material. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Compañía Colombiana Automotriz fall into what is described at Mos:dab#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created:

"On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name"?

It seems to me, and I may well be wrong, that the majority of the entries added recently to that DAB page are described in WP:PTM as inappropriate entries. If the disambiguation page's purpose should be to aid navigation rather than list every article that contains "Colombiana" (or, for comparison's sake, "American") in it title, can we reasonably expect that someone looking for a Colombian auto manufacturer will simply type in "Colombian" or "Colombiana" and expect to be taken to that page? Would the same apply to the insects and plants with the partial title match? Like I said, I may be wrong so hopefully I learn a bit from this little exchange. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any indications that Compañía Colombiana Automotriz is known as "Columbiana", so that might be an unambiguous PTM. For species, these have tended to be added. User:Nono64 did a lot of work on these. There is {{Species abbreviation}} which standardizes the format somewhat, though I don't think it handles redlinks well, and there seems little point in creating a redirect from a species name to the genus where the genus is the only page that links to the species. older ≠ wiser 15:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not add PTMs, since there are a lot of them (such as Escuela Colombiana de Ingeniería or Academia Colombiana de la Lengua or Asociacion Colombiana de Actuarios, ...), I only added the automotive company. As for species, I saw them on other disambiguation pages, and species are frequently referred to by the species part of the binomial name. (look at how many anthropology papers call "Homo erectus" just "erectus"). MOS:DAB says it's ok to add the mispellings, like "Columbiana", and different spellings, like "Colombian" and a wiktionary link, which were all deleted by referring to MOS:DAB. As the mispellings were part of the "see also" section, I don't see why they were deleted, and especially not the wiktionary link. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The deletion of the valid entries was my fault for being a bit too quick on the trigger and misinterpreting some points in MOS:DAB; my apologies for that. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Should the "War of independence" article remain a disambiguation page?

Please view Talk:War_of_independence#Should_this_remain_a_disambiguation_page.3F. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation of two topics

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation of two topics, following a rather interesting debate at Talk:Engelbert Humperdinck#Requested move. I would welcome contributors to the discussion. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Eidos disambiguation

Just a quick note, I've put in a move request to move Eidos Interactive to Eidos (which currently redirects to Theory of Forms, an article that mentions the word Eidos once), and the discussion is here. It was suggested at that discussion that Eidos is instead replaced with Eidos (disambiguation), so I thought some members of this project may be interested. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The pages Fido and FIDO (disambiguation)

Please experienced project memebers have a look at the pages Fido and FIDO (disambiguation) as well as their corresponding discussion pages with an eye to improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've clean up both pages. The discussion pages appear to have current discussions only on possible merger, not on clean up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, but I was wondering if you'd join the discussion on the merger as well. Chrisrus (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, un-sorting them doesn't seem to make the one a user wants easier to find. Finally, why did you remove Mark 24 Mine aka "Fido" or "FIDO"? Chrisrus (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't join the discussion on the merger as well -- either arrangement will work in this case, so I have no preference. I didn't unsort them; I sorted the short list by the recommended order of entries. I removed the FIDO entry from the Fido page; if it is also known as Fido, it could be restored with that revision. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

By "restored", I meant "restored", not "reverted". I've tagged the page for clean up, since you undid all of the WP:MOSDAB changes as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Al Rosen (dab)

This disambiguation page had a collection of distinguishing names. However, Boleyn thinks that it is not helpful. Does anybody think so? --George Ho (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Boleyn. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Pumps

I'd appreciate another set (or sets) of eyes on Pumps. A number of the entries there appear dubious at best, but I've already had my edits to the page reverted by another editor. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Avenue U

I'm mystified why this article is a disambiguation page. Can someone please explain? ScottyBerg (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It looked more like a dab page before October 2011. I've removed the dab tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought maybe there was a reason for the dab tag. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Four Heavenly Kings (disambiguation)

This disambiguation has hidden references that may consume data. Must I remove them or leave them alone? --George Ho (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "consume data", but the commented-out entries look like they may be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Care to elaborate "may be deleted"? Does this imply: it is all right to remove them? --George Ho (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is okay to remove them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson township

Hi,

Can someone from this project please check out Jefferson Township, South Dakota, Jefferson Township, Oklahoma and Jefferson Township, North Carolina, to name a couple. (More can be found at Special:PrefixIndex/Jefferson Township). A user has been creating separate dab pages for each US state's occurrences of Jefferson township and most of the listed articles are redlinks. I'm not sure how to proceed here. Merge all to Jefferson Township, maybe?

Thank you. Claret Ash 10:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be part of a long-established hierarchy of similar pages - see Jackson Township which has been in this format since before Jan 2008. Probably best left alone as a slightly WP:IAR set of partial disambiguations - some of the pages might be very long if all states were combined onto one dab page per township name. PamD 10:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I'll leave it be. I expect the page creator intends to create the redlinked articles, or inspire others to do so. Thanks again. Claret Ash 11:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The red links should still be removed unless there's an appropriate blue link to add. But if the "X Township, Y" title is ambiguous, then agreed, the dab should exist. The "X Township" dab should also exist, and IMO point to all the individual articles, no to the other dabs, making it very long (with TOC) but better than ensuring a second click and second page load. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@JHJ: are you saying that both Adams Township, Ohio and the listing at Adams_Township#Ohio should exist? (They have done, since 2007 or so). Or should one of them link/redirect to the other, to avoid duplicated listings which can so easily get updated inconsistently? Either way, before anyone launches in to a major cleanup or reorganisation of this (inconsistent) hierarchy, there should perhaps be some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. PamD 13:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. If it's reasonable for a reader to look for either "Adams Township" or "Adams Township, Ohio", and if each of those is ambiguous, it is reasonable for each to be disambiguated, and separate disambiguation pages is one way to do this. Keeping them in sync is an editorial chore, but a necessary one over listing the disambiguation pages at Adams Township. I do not have any problem with having Adams Township, Ohio redirect to Adams Township#Ohio, however; the reader will also get where she is going just as quickly that way, minus a slightly longer pageload time. But having a disambiguation not include all of the ambiguous entries but instead part them out to other disambiguation pages seems like an editorial convenience at the expense of the reader, and I'd avoid it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the state listings are just fine. No one types in X Township, State, looking for a township elsewhere. Most states have a List of STATE townships or List of townships in STATE that can be linked to provide a bluelink for redlinks. Though it should be noted that some states are unlikely to ever have articles for every township in the state. The list articles for these are a mostly unlinked list, and I don't think the townships for these should be linked on the disambiguation page either. older ≠ wiser 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

People who type in "X Township" also need to be served. The state listings are fine, but I'd suggest they should be duplicated on the base page as well, rather than linking to the state listings. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. older ≠ wiser 19:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)