Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages

Archives

/Archive 1: Apr 2005–Jun 2005 (Pre-implementation) /Archive 2: Jul 2005 /Archive 3: Jul 2005–Aug 2005 /Archive 4: Jul 2005–Aug 2005 /Archive 5: Jul 2005–Aug 2005 /Archive 6: Jul 2005–Aug 2005 /Archive 7: Aug 2005–Oct 2005 /Archive 8: Aug 2005–Oct 2005 /Archive 9: Oct 2005 /Archive 10: Nov 2005–Dec 2005 /Archive 11: Dec 2005 /Archive 12: Dec 2005 /Archive 13: Dec 2005–Jan 2006 /Archive 14: Jan 2006 /Archive 15: Jan 2006 /Subcategories: Jan 2006 /Archive 16: Jan 2006 /Archive 17: Jan 2006–Feb 2006 /Archive 18: Jan 2006–Feb 2006 /Archive 19: Feb 2006 /Archive 20: Feb 2006–Mar 2006 /Archive 21: Mar 2006 /Archive 22: Mar 2006–Apr 2006 /Archive 23: Apr 2006–May 2006 /Archive 24: May 2006–Jul 2006 /Archive 25: Jul 2006–Aug 2006 /Archive 26: Aug 2006–Sep 2006 /Archive 27: Aug 2006–Sep 2006 /Archive 28: Sep 2006–Oct 2006 /Archive 29: Nov 2006–Jun 2007 — Topical index— Archives 25 through 28 haven't yet been topically indexed.

See also

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation

Jazz (disambig)

Could someone who is more familiar with this MoS look at Jazz (disambiguation). I tried to clean it up but I would really appreciate some advice. Naufana : talk 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good. Not much there to complain from my side. The only things I'd change (maybe just for personal preference) would be:

1. change the intro to: "Jazz is a music genre but may also refer to:"
2. avoid the huge section headers within the People section (and replace them with bolded text) because the sub-sub-sections are not long enough (yet)
3. add why Carlene Begnaud is listed on the dab page (e.g. add "known by her stage name Jazz"), or maybe use the existing redirect Jazz (wrestler) on the dab page (redirects are cheap) because people looking for the wrestler will find her faster that way

– sgeureka ^t•c 22:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice, I think the page looks much better compared to when I first came to it. Tschuess, Naufana : talk 23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Jazz from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is included but not the actor who plays him, DJ Jazzy Jeff? Or does that not count? --Geopgeop (T) 10:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of what a dab page is intended for, and what a person or thing is called. The Jazz dab page is not meant to be a guide to everything with Jazz in it. It is intended to distinguish among things that are or could be referred to as Jazz. The Fresh Prince character is called "Jazz"; DJ Jazzy Jeff is not. --ShelfSkewed Talk 12:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguating Titles

I haven't found anything on how to disambiguate titles, or whether to do this or not. My prime scope are Tolkien-related articles, and within them, for example, four persons (fictional characters) are titled "the Tall": Galdor the Tall, Maedhros, Elendil and Húrin the Tall. I suppose it is worth noticing such uses, but how can they be introduced into existing dab pages? Súrendil 12:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Be aware of WP:NOT#DIR, and consider that this comes close to "repositories of loosely associated topics". Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the resolution of conflicts where more than one topic could have the same natural article title. Your collection does not suffer from this problem, and I don't see where any of them belong on dab pages. Chris the speller 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent change about categories

"It is generally undesirable to include a disambiguation page in another category." I can't figure out what this has to do with parishes, and find this generally confusing. When IS it desirable? Should we avoid adding Category:Ambiguous place names to dab pages where there is more than one town with the same name, as in Peabody? Shouldn't this have been discussed before the manual was changed? If it's not clear to me, it's not going to be clear to many new editors. Chris the speller 04:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, I agree with what User:Robin Patterson added. Categories are intended to navigate between articles, but since dabs are non-articles... Anyway, I'd keep the section but change it to something like "Categories aid navigation between articles. Disambiguation pages however are non-articles and do not require categorization other then for maintainance purposes (disambiguation pages get auto-categorized by using {{disambig}}, {{hndis}} and {{geodis}}). Other categories should generally not be added to disambiguation pages. Exceptions are Category:Surnames, Category:Given names and their subcategories if disambiguation pages include short sections of name information or lists of people. Delete these categories if you move those sections to their own pages." (Needs to be tweaked.) – sgeureka ^t•c 09:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we just need to spell out the cases where it is desirable. Take this hypothetical case, a dab page "Sunset Lake" that has 3 different articles about bodies of water, with a proper {{geodis}} tag, which adds category "Ambiguous place names". Then an editor notices that the movie "Sunset Lake (film)" was overlooked, adds it and changes the geodis tag to disambig. I see that, and add the category "Ambiguous place names", because the page does contain a list of ambiguous place names along with the movie. I don't think I want another editor to come along, armed with the recently added guideline, and remove the ambiguous place names category. Same with "Lists of ambiguous human names", with Octavia as an example (3 women and an opera). Maybe these 2 categories, along with Surnames and Given names, are the only exceptions we need. It might be enlightening to know what the real-life case was that prompted Robin to change the guideline. Chris the speller 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I rarely add another dab subcat to a dab page that is already tagged with {{disambig}}, unless there are many entries that would justify to do so (example: Beaufort).

New proposal for wording (if you agree, just copy it to the MOS): Categories aid navigation between articles. Disambiguation pages however are non-articles and do not require categorization other then for maintainance purposes, and they already get auto-categorized by using {{disambig}}, {{hndis}} and {{geodis}}. No other categories should be added, except Category:Surnames, Category:Given names or their subcategories (if the disambiguation page includes sections of name information or lists of people), or disambiguation subcategories that might apply. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Piet Delport 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

disambigs vs redirects

I've gotten into a short edit-war this morning with a user over a disambig standard that I have been enforcing for a long time, and it's time to seek 2nd, 3rd, 4th (etc) opinions instead of continuing the revert war.

The issue has to do with when a disambig is proper, and when a redirect is proper. My position has always been that disambigs are for navigating between two or more destination articles, and a redirect is the proper form when there is only one destination article on the project. If a disambig has only one destination link, has one link and several non-linked lines, or has one blue link and one or more red-links, then this is a bad/broken disambig, and a redirect would be the proper way to handle the situation. I've been converting all these situations to redirects for a long time. Today I got into a breif revert-war with a user over it.

So we have the general issue of the disambig vs redirect situation, and the specific situation of the multiple (IMHO) broken disambigs being generated by User:Paultyng. The other interlacing issue is that Paultyng seems to be in essence arguing that, whether they are broken or not, he intends to create the extra articles within a few weeks, so this will be a non-issue by then. And that may very well be the case, but for now, they are (IMHO) bad and broken, and I do not see why they have to remain bad/broken disambigs for the time it takes him to build the extra articles. Three examples of the disambigs in question are shown in the links in the previous paragraph. There were ten in total that we were reverting on, and might be more that I did not find before I stopped the warring. Discussion between Paultyng and I can be found here and here.

The general issue effects my general MO on handling these things. I regularly do Short Pages patrol, which is how I generally find these. Single or short double item disambigs often end up on the report, and if they meet the above conditions, I generally convert them to redirects. If this is not the proper way to handle these, I need to know so I can adapt how I deal with these pages. - TexasAndroid 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing to point out, is to check the "What Links Here" on the pages (for example [1]). The pages I changed to disambigs have incoming links that are intending to hit different targets besides the one I created, so by definition typing in that name and going to the one specific page for the redirect can result in confusion for a user when its easily demonstrable that multiple places exist with the same name. And like TexasAndroid stated above, some of those articles will be created as the bot stubbing them finishes its work. pw 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just found: "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject." from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Redlinks, it even has a two entry with one redlink example, so I guess there is a precedent. pw 16:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My (uninvolved) take on the matter: Both of you are right. If, as you say, all the topics are in fact notable enough to get a wiki article, redlinks are fine. The only question that isn't really answered beyond "vague" is: How long does it take for the current redlinks to be turned into stubs, i.e. becoming bluelinks (that's what the bot is for, right?) If it's significantly more than one or two weeks maximum, or if there is the risk that Paul abandons that project (I don't hope so), I would side with TexasAndroid, as such poor dab pages are just distracting for the reader. If it's just a couple of days, then no need to get in a wiki-deadline panic. As I said, my take. (Paul, if it really takes several weeks until the stubs get created, you might want to create a dab page at XYZ (disambiguation), and then swap XYZ with the dab page only after the stubs got created.) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest (but not insist) that pw simply reverse the order of his work - create the articles first then point to them. Having the red link doesn't help much in the interim (in most cases). (John User:Jwy talk) 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to order the article creation by number of things sharing its name, hopefully that will take care of this issue. pw 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Linking to Three-letter abbreviation

A lot of the TLA disambig pages lead with something like:

AAD is a three-letter acronym that may refer to:

This seems to violate the limited wikilinking principle for disambig pages, since a user who is looking for "AAD" is not looking to be disambiguated toward the Three-letter abbreviation article. It's also inconsistent. Is there a policy on this? I'd rather change them to just say "AAD may refer to:" like the rest of the dab pages. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a good point. Pencil me in under "Concur", for now. Of course, the "AAD" would be bolded. Chris the speller 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS:DAB#Introductory line proposes "ABC may stand for:" at the moment. I agree with avoiding overlinking, but would like to point out two things:

1. Sometimes adding a short description for the type of abbreviation is helpful for sectioning. See III. (Might fall under "Break rules".)
2. Some surname sections also link to "surname" as well as to the language of origin and meaning. (Yes, surname sections are the bane of our existence.) – sgeureka ^t•c 07:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine anyone one arriving at one of these pages looking for the three-letter acronym or surname pages. Short descriptions might be OK, but the links is gratuitous and should be delinked. (The link to Roman number could be marginally helpful to a reader, but even then I'd prefer to see it out of the intro and on it's own line.) Ewlyahoocom 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Declared policy against illustrations on disambiguation pages?

I am involved in a dispute at Talk:Haguna. Pages like Haguna and Hrōþirīk(i)az look like article pages, but the editor who contributed most insists on having a disambiguation tag on the page. Would it not be a good idea to state explicitly in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) that disambiguation pages must not have illustration, references, etc. /Pieter Kuiper 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Failing to find support among other editors for the removal of the disamb tag on Talk:Haguna, he is trying to change policy here. It may be a case of Wikipedia:Harassment since he is doing considerable removal of information from articles where I am the main contributor, see Pieter Kuiper's edit history.--Berig 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several articles with potentially ambiguous names. If the page is disambiguating a human name, it should be tagged with the {{hndis}} template. If the page is providing encyclopedic content, it is not a disambiguation page and should not be tagged as such. Per current MOS:D conventions, images should only be used on disambiguation pages when they aid in disambiguating the ambiguous term – see, for example, Mississippi Delta (disambiguation). --Muchness 22:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS:DAB does mention images: "Including images is discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles." Haguna violates the vast majority of style guidelines for disambig pages, so it is clearly not a disambig page as it clearly stands. More specific comments on Talk:Haguna. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that the pages in their present form are not disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 23:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're remaining very narrow minded on one format. If a photo gallery helps sort out the subject matter... or if we had some dissambiguation pages that looked more like wikipedia's main page, or some user pages, we could be looking at a revolution that would totally anoy any conservative such as yourself... but may lead to some inovative methode which remains in line with the spirit of WP:MOSDAB. --CyclePat (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here, or who it is that you're calling conservative, but you'd best keep such labels to yourself. Regarding images on disambiguation pages, there have been extremely rare cases where images are helpful for the purposes of disambiguation, such as Congo. But in most other cases the images are merely gratuitous and entirely irrelevant for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 04:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, someone who supports the status of the Manual of Style (as is), would be considered a conservative. I'm simply trying to say, in what was probably one of my least elegant of manners, that a photo gallery, perhaps not for all articles and disambiguation pages, may have its place. Along with tables, colours, and other elements ([such as this user page example) which could help distinguish items and remain within the spirit of this Manual of Style a liberal approach is generally good. And no, I'm not saying that we need to change anything with the Manual of Styles, I'm just saying that thinking outside of the box can sometimes lead to better results. Surely there are studies out there that break down the psychology of the best page layout and set-up (I remember studying a little bit in "marketing class" at University) --CyclePat (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about vague generalities, then sure, consensus can change if there is a demonstrated need and a arguable better way to do something. The style of dab pages has evolved over time. At present, the style guidelines have been pretty stable for a while now, so there would likely need to be a correspondingly strong case for change. But guidance shouldn't change based on vaguely expressed notions. Do you have something specific in mind? I don't see anything on [[2]] that I'd even remotely consider a good thing to consider using on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still in the works but I'll give you a little heads up. Check out Help:Sorting. --CyclePat (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to disambiguations pages on a disambiguation page

How should these be formatted? Please comment on the current formatting of such links on the "Coombe" page. Snowman 20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the last 2 entries under "See also", simple links are enough:

• Coombe
• Combs

and the ", disambiguation" text is not necessary. If you mean something else, please specify. Chris the speller 21:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense not use link via a redirect page, as you have indicated.

What about:

• Coombe, disambiguation
• Combs, disambiguation

This also tells the reader what sort of a page is linked and does not link via a redirect. Snowman 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking via a redirect (as JHunterJ did with this edit) helps may it clear that the link to a dab is deliberate, and is not a link in need of fixing. --Paul Erik 21:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul is absolutely right, what was I thinking? I must have been zeroed in on "formatted" and forgot where it should link. If the link is right, as Paul and JHunterJ have it, no other "formatting" or description is needed. Chris the speller 02:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What about:

[[Combs|Combs (disambiguation)]], which has the same appearance, but avoids a redirect and so requires less work for the wiki servers. Snowman 11:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Paul had it right, as a direct link to a dab page, such a link appears to need fixing. Redirects are not such a great load on the servers, and links to redirects are sometimes preferred (see "Piping" on this guideline). Worry about the readers, but not the computers. Chris the speller 15:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but suggest making the "Piping" section clearer, or write in the particular case for disambig links on disambig pages. I hope AWB knows the rules. Snowman 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One link per entry guideline

The last time this was discussed (October 2006), the majority of editors felt that the one link per entry guideline should remain as is. As I stated the last time this issue was raised, this is a non-trivial change with far-reaching implications for how we go about formatting dab pages, so I feel it's important to establish that consensus of the prior discussion has changed before implementing it. --Muchness 05:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by majority. Decisions require rationales, and if someone wishes to take a particular position they must justify that position and discuss it if necessary. A discussion in which no one else deigned to actually address the problems with their position is not consensus. The consensus of that discussion was at least inconclusive due to the failure of other parties to actually discuss, and at most a consensus to follow the unopposed outcome of the discussion, which was to remove the rigid restriction. —Centrx→talk • 17:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that what the MOS currently says (almost never link more than once per entry) is preferred. If another article really has more information about a subject than the article with the subject's name, than the subject's article should have a link to the other article with more information, and there is no need to link to the secondary article on the dab page. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is more helpful and quicker for the reader to be directed to the related page, and in some cases the reader is indeed searching for and reasonably expecting a link to the highly relevant article of a different title. Pick almost any disambiguation page for place names (Category:Ambiguous place names) and you will find that this is not only common practice, but very helpful. Other general situations are where the primary topic is an article likely to be deleted. Such links are potentially equivalent to red links but are presently navigable. —Centrx→talk • 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should the reader be required to click-through twice, or to copy and paste, in order to get to the article they seek? Why should the guideline assume that readers are so stupid that they will be certainly confused by links that are distinctly separate and have different titles? Why should the guideline be so uncompromisingly rigid, unlike other guidelines, in order to strain to not use the features of the wiki and impede the reader in contradiction of the ostensible purpose of disambiguation pages? —Centrx→talk • 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Because (hopefully in the near future) the article with the intended name should focus on its topic more than a completely different article. If that's currently not the case, fix the article, not the dab page (guidelines). Also, with the current dab guidelines, a reader still only needs to click one link on a dab page to get to the article he seeks, because that's the name he entered in the search box. Where the most information can be found is not the job of dab pages, but resolving conflicts in article titles is. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

People are actively going through disambiguation pages and simply removing the secondary links without improving the primary article; that is, this guideline is 'enforced' regardless of whether the primary articles are improved or not. This is pretty reasonable; it is after all a guideline, and it is easier and quicker to semi-automatically remove links from disambiguation page than to improve the articles, and there is no guideline on Wikipedia that creates an obligation for someone to write an article. This is what people are doing, and there would be nothing wrong with it if the guideline were correct, but the guideline is not correct. —Centrx→talk • 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Centrx, a link is a link, and this guideline is only about the links on dab pages. There will always be links to bad articles. Regardless of that, using a link must remain as effortless as possible. A dab page is meant to get you there, not to distract you on the way. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 00:54 Z

The disambiguation pages are part of the encyclopedia, which is not perfect. There is no distraction. These links send the reader to articles more relevant to their search, and there is nothing distracting about a link that has a clear title. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, Sguereka. Disambiguation pages must stay out of the way, and not engage the reader.

Dab pages are substitutes for direct links from A to B. They are the shortest path from A to B when B has a similar name to C, D, E, and F. They are not destinations on the path: we don't distract the reader by adding a topical menu with B2, B3, and B4

"If another article really has more information about a subject than the article with the subject's name..."—nope. We make links work by choosing the right link text, and choosing sensible article titles, not by adding technology in the middle to second-guess the link. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 00:48 Z

That is in fact not common practice, and a link is not some special technology. Why do you want to impede the reader on the basis of this theological purity? —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Centrx is proposing the following:

• • Each bulleted entry should generally have exactly one navigable (blue) link. Including more than one link can confuse the reader; including no links at all makes the entry useless for further navigation. (See "redlinks" below for cases where no article yet exists.) However, some secondary links may be highly relevant and contain more information than the article the primary topic, such that the reader will more readily find the information they seek through them.

Centrx, could you offer an example of an entry in which a secondary link is the one that leads the reader to more helpful information? That might help to focus the discussion. Thanks. --Paul Erik 17:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry—I just noticed that you did provide examples in the October 2006 discussion. I take it that those remain prime examples of what would be helped by your change to the guideline...? --Paul Erik 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think those examples are cases of articles needing fixing, not disambiguation pages. —Piet Delport 2007-08-12 00:02

People are currently actively semi-automatically removing links from disambiguation pages without fixing the articles. If you want to change the guideline to resolve that situation, go for it but it currently says "almost never", which does not account for these issues. Also, there is the situation where the article at the primary topic is likely to be deleted in the future, that is it is potentially a red link, or where there are two equally relevant topics that do not happen to have the title of the disambiguation page. Pick almost any geographical disambiguation page, Category:Ambiguous place names. —Centrx→talk • 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard enough to keep the "extra" links to a reasonable limit already, some editors go so far as to find their justification in "break rules", so relaxing this prohibition will lead to chaos. (And yes, you can find instances when I've linked more than once per line, so don't go looking.) Ewlyahoocom 19:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Over-reacting in the opposite direction is not going to solve that problem. It may even lead people to blindly disregard the recommendation as being plainly unreasonable. —Centrx→talk • 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there already a guideline that says "break the rules", somewhere? When it needs to be done, most of us will recognize the situation and look the other way. I think that is exception enough. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 02:52 Z

That doesn't mean that the guideline should not be improved to minimize the situations where it is wrong. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, apart from the "ignore the rules" (AKA use common sense) aspect of the guideline, I think there already is wiggle room in the guideline for cases where there may be genuine benefit to including more than one blue link per line. Personally, while I'm sure I've done so in the past, especially before the MOSDAB became formalized, and might on occasion do so now -- in general, about the only times I think there is good reason to include multiple blue links is where the primary term is a redlink -- the extra links can provide some relevant contextual distinctions. older ≠ wiser 03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Almost never" is not much wiggle room. "Generally" is more accurate, and an explanation of the situations where more links can be appropriate is helpful. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've no objection to changing this from "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one" to "Each bulleted entry should generally have exactly one". I think the generic attempt to explain in the edit that sparked this thread is more problematic. I'd just as soon leave the practice marked as exceptional and leave the rest to a case by case consideration of the merits of a specific case. older ≠ wiser 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there something between "in almost every case" and "generally"? I can see why Centrx opposes the first, while I think the alternative is too lax and encourages "break the rules" behavior. It should be made clear that the use of more than one link per entry is strongly discouraged yet possible (but not for the reasons that Centrx stated; common sense situation). – sgeureka ^t•c 07:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "rarely", "seldom" or "infrequently"? Dreadstar † 07:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

normally? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just been reverted based on this policy, so would like to leave my two bits. Removing an accurate (bluelink to a reasonably complete article) wikilink from any page, anywhere, seems utterly pointless. This is an encyclopedia and a wiki - surely both those terms involve crossreferencing everything as much as practical? I can't see how a couple of extra links to relevant non-stub articles might confuse anyone. How about a policy of leaving such links alone unless they are redlinks, point to a stub, or point to the wrong page? Moyabrit 11:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The general understanding is that one comes to a disambiguation page looking for a particular term that happens to have multiple meanings. If an article for a particular meaning exists, there is little point to providing additional links related to that meaning of the term. In relatively rare cases where the target is a redlink or does not have a separate article, relevant information about that meaning may be in a couple of different articles. In such exceptional cases, there may be some value to including more than one blue link. older ≠ wiser 13:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough I suppose, and I'd never suggest systematically putting them in everywhere. It wouldn't be worth the hassle. But it does seem like systematically removing these extra links is an even bigger waste of effort. They're not doing any harm, and occasionally they might help someone. Moyabrit 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is required to "waste" their time -- if an editor feels it is a waste of time, he or she can work on other parts of the encyclopedia. The "harm" the extra links do is clutter up the dab and possibly slow down or confuse a reader. The benefit of helping is not lost, since presumably the linked entry will also link to any significant other entries. -- JHunterJ 21:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate disambig pages for articles with Definite Article ('The') and without

See Light (disambiguation) and The Light (disambiguation) for an example. I don't see the reason for keeping these separate. Other disambiguation pages merge Title, The Title and A Title on the same page. Users tend to forget whether the name of a particular song, book, movie or band had 'The' or 'A' in front or not, and may enter it wrongly when trying to go to the article. This is especially true for those users for whom English is a second language. It helps if users can scan one page rather than two. The only exception I can see against combining them is if the pages become very long. Should guidance be put in the MOS on this? Rexparry sydney 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've already merged some "XXX" / "The XXX" dab pages before, so this issue isn't new to me. But I don't know whether there are enough entries for "A XXX" to also be included; the only instance I can think of is A Life on Life (disambiguation), where I put it in the See Also section. The only question now is what the name of the resulting main dab page should be (see The dead (non-dab), The Dead (dab), Dead (non-dab), Dead (disambiguation) (redirect to The Dead) for a really confusing example). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See Void (disambig), where A Void is integrated on the page, and the separate The Void (disambig). Note the duplication of some entries between these pages, and how Touching the Void is on 'Void' but not 'The Void'. This "XXX / A XXX / The XXX" problem arises mainly in subsections to do with entertainment. My feeling is that merging the pages is a great advantage, allowing these variations to appear together on one page under relevant subheads like 'Music', 'Movies', etc with 'XXX' entries first, then 'A XXX', then 'The XXX'. I suggest such merged dab pages have the title 'XXX' with 'The XXX' and 'A XXX' as redirects if there more than two 'The XXX' or two 'A XXX' entries. Rexparry sydney 04:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else care to comment? Someone split the dab pages The Dead and Dead (dismbiguation) (notice the misspelling) a few hours ago and I'd like to know whether I should just revert him, or move the misspelled dab page to the correct name. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd simply revert him.

Incidentally, unless "The XYZ" has a lot more entries than "XYZ", I'd tend to use "XYZ", if only for the ease of later incorporating "A(n) XYZ", "L'XYZ", etc. So ideally this would be "Dead (disambiguation)" -- but the advantage seems minor and not worth wasting thirty minutes over. -- Hoary 08:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Masking piped links to sections

We now recommend using

*The reverse side of a [[coin#Features of modern coinage|coin]]

as a dab entry for Tail. Is this exception to our usual practice of not masking on dab pages really wise? It will make it somewhat more difficult to maintain, and encourage dabbing links to tail with simple [[coin|tail]] instead of a link to a section.

I realize the reason to do what we now recommend is to take the dab page more readable; but I don't think this is any less readable than linking to disambiguated pages, like Dark Star (song), with the disambiguator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Try reading it:

*The reverse side of a coin#Features of modern coinage

"Readability" probably isn't the best word to describe the rationale, it's more, the phrase makes no sense and is confusing. There is a significant difference with the anchor notation, namely, it's not really intuitive in the same way parentheses are: unless you're a Wikipedia or you know about computers, you wouldn't know what it meant.

The reason we refuse to pipe diambiguators, as I'm sure you're aware, is because often it is the only thing a reader needs to make the right pick: it saves him having to read the entire page. There is little real gain in having the anchors there: it is obvious what the reader will expect by clicking on that link (an article on coins, not tails, which is what he gets). Links like [[coin|tail]], I'm sure we're all aware, are forbidden by the manual. Neonumbers 00:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bolding non-redlinks

I see this commonly done, and I added the passage:

It may be useful to bold the last use of Flibbygibby, to assist the reader's eye and mark that it is not to be redlinked, and that links to this meaning should be piped to noodle.

to summarize what seem to me its advantages. I don't really care either way; but let us discuss.

This would permit

Flibbygibby may refer to: Flibbygibby (architecture), a flamingo motif used on cornices Flibbygibby, a type of noodle

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) I dislike any bolding on dab pages (except for the first word) for style reasons, personally. (2) If you start bolding at one place, then people will start bolding other entries, and that makes the problem much worse than anything before. So, no, let's not add this to the MOS. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really too fond of bolding entries like that, mainly because I don't like the look of it and I think it makes the page more complicated than it needs to be. The reader's eye is generally meant to be drawn towards the link itself—if it's really well designed, the reader doesn't actually have to read the page to know which one to click (though he might need to for further clarification). There is no need to mark that something is not to be redlinked for readers, if it is necessary for editors it should be marked with an invisible comment. Neonumbers 00:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sgeureka and Neonumbers. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) encourages us not to overdo it with boldfacing, and I think that this is a case where it is not needed. (Contrary to Pmanderson, I have not found this to be a common practice, although sometimes it happens that someone has attempted to link to a term that is actually the title of the very page it is on—as might happen in the Flibbygibby example—and the software translates that into the appearance of bold formatting rather than a self-link.) --Paul Erik 03:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It probably begins with Paul's examples, and spreads by imitation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I, for one, would be happy if this "feature" were turned off, but it's makes navbox templates that get included on multiple pages look nice e.g. here. Ewlyahoocom 03:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Sgeureka and Neonumbers. And will Paul Erik - the bolding practice is quite rare. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bullet images

I propose encouraging small images in disambiguation pages inline with the disambiguation text. In particular, I find small versions of organizations' logos (think sparklines) makes it much easier for me to skim for the right article. For example, I added the Appalachian Mountain Club logo, and a few others, to the AMC disambiguation page. If you already know the logo, it jumps out in what is otherwise a sea of text. Comments? —Ben FrantzDale 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Non-free logos are specifically disallowed on disambiguation pages, per WP:NFCC#9. (2) I don't think that they're necessary, if even if they were allowed; we assume that Wikipedia users can read. (3) It'd give undue prominence to entries with images over those without, even if the latter are more common. — TKD::Talk 00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of disambiguation would not benefit from having logos. However, these three-letter acronym pages may be a bit of a special case because there's often so much crap on them. IMHO, the real problem with the AMC page is that those categories aren't helpful. I've just tried re-arranging it: into a list of things actually titled AMC and the acronyms sorted alphabetically, then broken out some of the acronyms where the first word is the same (i.e. American and Australian). Here's my version of the page, what do you think? Ewlyahoocom 04:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better. (I also usually divide dab pages into Title and Acronyms sections.) I don't know how it would look to incorporate the "American..." and "Australian..." subsections into the Acronyms sections, but I think the current state assembles all entries in such a (good) way that WP:IAR might apply here. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mm. Not in favor of Ewlyahoocom's changes, though I can see certain situations where they might make sense. Alphabetic listings generally seem a disorganized mess to me; they're only useful if I already know the term I want. I find topic-based disambiguation much preferable, though I will admit that separating the acronyms from the "just a word" meanings is often fine (and something I've done elsewhere, too). SnowFire 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at WP:NFCC#9. IANAL, but I wonder if the usage I suggest would be legal. If it isn't then it isn't, but if it is legal, then I think the proposal should be judged on technical grounds. While I agree that most Wikipedia users can read, personally I am more visual than I am textual; I can spot the logo of the organization I'm looking for in a page of text (even if I'm not actively looking for the logo) whereas otherwise I'd have to read the page (or use my browser's search function) to find the text quickly. Incidentally, a good use of this is found at List of countries, which includes flags next to the country names in the same way I suggested.

In summary, if this use of images is not within copyright, then we shouldn't do it, but I still think this sort of approach can make it much easier for users to find the page they want among a sea of links without having to stop to read them. —Ben FrantzDale 14:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it legal? Almost certainly. However, Wikipedia takes a more restricted approach on fair use than the law (albeit erratically, what with different editors having different ideas). Now, I should add that I think many people draw the line way too thinly on where navigational pictures are fair use... but even I will agree that on a disambiguation page, pictures such as these are only rarely appropriate, and that doesn't even get into the technical and style issues noted above. Pictures are fine when there's a list of similar items (like the List of Countries above), and preferably when there are no copyright concerns (though again there are disagreements on that). An example would be List of English monarchs. Disambiguation pages are linked only by having the same term, and thus aren't normally a listing of similar things, and thus pictures are often an apples-to-oranges comparison rather than "all flags" or "all portraits." SnowFire 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

It would be really helpful if thumbnail images. Human is a visual animal, he can pick up visual things fast. It is tedious to go through text. Giving due weight to topics in dab, default size(180px) thumbnail images would be much easy to navigate to desired page. We skip non-free images in dab pages, but images are essential for disambiguation i think. Lara_bran 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also tedious to go through dozens of small images. Due weight is/should be given by the order of the entry by importance. I have the feeling if we would allow even thumbnail images on dab pages, we'd have the same problems as WP:FLAGS, i.e. it clutters, is used for decoration instead of navigation help, and sets a bad precedent. I think the KISS principle works best here. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

thumbnail, i meant [[image:imagename.jpg|thumb|right, which is syntax "thumb". This "thumb" parameter sets default imagewidth 180px. We can keep it so or even reduce it to 125px. I was not referring to small thumbnail images as interpreted by User:Sgeureka. Thanks. Lara_bran 07:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, should have checked how big 180px are before I replied. But now I have difficulty seeing the use of such huge images on dab pages. Like, what kind of images would you propose for Bambi (disambiguation) that would make it easier for the user to find the entry he is looking for? Or Spinner? Or Dominion (disambiguation)? Honest question. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

180px is default image size, if not specified in articles, even 120 or 100 would be sufficient in dab pages. I saw those disambig pages, maybe i should show by inserting images in one of those pages. I will post link to here in WP:VP also. Lara_bran 10:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It will be posting lead images of all articles that dab page links to. With appropiate caption beside text on right hand side. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate disambig pages for singular and plural?

An extreme case: "bird (disambiguation)", (singular, no article), up against "The Birds" [3] (plural, definite article). Although few sensible people would type "bird" while seeking the Aristophanes play, or "The Birds" to find Charlie "Bird" Parker, someone has found it logical to merge these. To save you from having to look, "birds" redirects to "bird" (the feathered critter), and that seems fine to me. Note that "bird (disambiguation)" was already a cesspool of anything that had those 4 letters, in that order, in the title. Before I clean out such entries that are at variance with WP:D#Lists, should I act on my impulse to separate these again? Should the guideline mention whether singular and plural should be combined, or is it just another can of worms like "TITLE" and "Title", or "Tîtlé" with diacritical marks and without? Chris the speller 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would split them up and have mutual see alsos. They both probably have reasonably distinct articles they can disambiguate. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I would do is clean up the page e.g. one blue link per line. (I'll do that now.) Ewlyahoocom 01:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably also a good idea to seperate the person entries into a seperate page. As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Given_names_or_surnames. Taemyr 07:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, I agree with John. Neonumbers 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have unmerged them, and then shoveled out a lot of the disambig page. Since nobody has offered rules on singular vs. plural, it apparently remains an area for case-by-case decisions. Thanks for the opinions and ideas. Chris the speller 19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Links to be included on abbreviation pages

We may need a section on what to include in particular on abbreviation lists. I've been using the same criterion that I use elsewhere: the linked page uses the dabbed term in relation to its (or its section's) topic -- nicely clear-cut. Not every page that has the title initials "HP" needs to be on HP (disambiguation), for instance, but Harry Potter can be. But see those pages' edit histories and Talk:HP (disambiguation) and Talk:Harry Potter. -- JHunterJ 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel like we can use previous Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability. I can see the concern that, for example, if "HP" was only used on fan and personal sites, it might not make sense to include on the page. However, if there are neutral sources that refer to it as such, it seems perfectly appropriate to include it. The example given of newspapers mentioning it as HP is exactly what I was thinking of. Those are verifiable, especially since we would consider them valid references for articles. It seems like usually common sense can dictate what should be on the pages; I'm sure most of us are able to tell things that could conceptually be abbreviated by various abbreviations. However, when there is disagreement about it, it seems that if there are verafiable sources referring to the article in question by that abbreviation, that should be reason enough to include it. -- Natalya 21:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Right; my point during the HP discussions is that Talk:Harry Potter editors can determine whether the article Harry Potter should say "HP", and the Talk: HP (disambiguation) editors can simply trust them to reach a consensus, which can be used to determine if the abbreviation is included on the dab. The dab editors don't need to vet every linked page. -- JHunterJ 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

True... but could there be situations where the editors of that page were overly biased in favor of including it, just because they wanted to get their page more attention? Not saying that that is the case now, or even that it often would be, but that possibility would make me somewhat leery of always resorting to that practice. Not to say that we will not get rational editors on both the disambiguation page and the article page who would look for appropriate citations... just that it could be fishy sometimes. A conversatoin between the two groups, perhaps, might lead to the most elegant solution. -- Natalya 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Very possibly on the bias. My philosophy on this, though, is: disambiguation pages aren't articles; they serve to disambiguate Wikipedia articles, even flawed Wikipedia articles. If the editors of a page are overly biased, then (unless and until that bias is identified and corrected) that article merits inclusion on the disambiguation page -- just like if someone creates a redirect HP (Harry Potter), the redirect should be included until it is RfDed, or if someone creates an article at HP (some distinguishing phrase for a non-notable topic), it should be included until AfDed. ... Besides, a conversation between the dab editors (of unspecified bias) and the hypothetically overly biased article editors is like to turn inelegant. -- JHunterJ 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

HP (disambiguation)

We could use some more eyes on HP (disambiguation) -- see Talk:HP (disambiguation) and Talk:Harry Potter for the train wreck over the inclusion of Harry Potter. -- JHunterJ 11:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of links on disambiguation pages

My attention has been drawn to the following:

• Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. Including more than one link can confuse the reader; including no links at all makes the entry useless for further navigation...

This seems counter-intuitive to me. Here are two examples from HP (disambiguation).

The first is a two-liner:

• HP Foods Limited, makers of HP Sauce.
  • The originator of the sauce recipe named it HP after the British Houses of Parliament in Westminster.

Seems okay to me. Explains where the HP in HP Foods comes from, and where it originated, as well as providing three possible meanings of HP (the Houses of Parliament one is very much subsidiary because, outside the HP Sauce connection, the Houses of Parliament are hardly every referred to a HP).

Here's the second:

• America West Airlines, (IATA code HP)

It's been suggested (using the above-quoted guideline as justification) that it's better to remove the link to IATA airline designator. To my mind that seems to rather miss the point that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on a wiki. I'd no idea what a IATA code was until I clicked the link.

Comments welcome. --Tony Sidaway 11:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• From MOS:DAB "These [dab] pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article". And when someone types in "HP", are they looking for the article Westminster? Are they looking for the article IATA airline designator? If the answer is no, then those terms shouldn't be linked. But I admit that abbreviations are not as clear-cut as other dabbable terms, because it can be argued that someone just wants to find out what the abbreviation stands for without wishing to read the article. But (IMO) unless an article specifically mentions that abbreviation, I remove/delink such entries as nonnotable from the disambiguation pages. Other websites like acronymfinder.com (or even wiktionary) exist for such purposes. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • For the first example, your argument only applies to the "Westminster" link, which should be unlinked. Someone typing in "HP" is likely to be looking for "HP Sauce" or "Houses of Parliament", and those should be linked, despite them being more than one link, and this is fairly common situation. —Centrx→talk • 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but your argument seems to miss the point that disambiguation pages aren't encyclopedia articles WP:D. If a reader were looking for America West Airlines by entering "HP" in the Go box, he would have already known what an IATA designator was. Extra links distract from the dabs purpose, which is not to deliver information encyclopedically, but to direct readers to sought encyclopedia articles. -- JHunterJ 11:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What about "HP Foods" and "HP Sauce"; is this not the most logical way to organize related topics, on the same line, so that the reader can navigate more effectively to the article in which they are interested? —Centrx→talk • 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it likely that a reader looking for Houses of Parliament would type HP and land on this page? I doubt it, but if so, then there should be a new and separate entry for the Houses, not attached to HP Sauce. If not, there is no need to mention Parliament at all. In any case, the encyclopedic info about the origin of the name "HP Sauce" is in the article where it belongs, and has no right to be on a dab page. Things would be different if there were another HP Sauce that was served in the Hewlett-Packard cafeteria, but there ain't. Chris the speller 00:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If Houses of Parliament is referred to as "HP", that datum should be noted on Houses of Parliament. As far as the logic, how is

• HP Foods Limited, makers of HP Sauce.

more effective than

• HP Foods
• HP Sauce

? But the arrangement of those two entries is of smaller import than the deletion of valid entries. Somewhere in between the two is the unneeded wikilinking of non-HP articles, like IATA. -- JHunterJ 02:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone is searching for "HP", he may not know which is the product and which the company, or whether they are related. Sure, he could click on both links and read both articles/introductions, but the purpose of the disambiguation page--and the purpose of requiring only one link--is to send him to the one specific page he is looking for, without distractions, not to click on every link on the disambiguation page to decide which is relevant. We could have:

• HP Foods, a food company that makes HP Sauce
• HP Sauce, a sauce made by HP Foods

but that is redundant, and it would be more redundant and confusingly so if there were three or more related items, and the reader may simply click on the first link because its description implies that the unlinked HP Sauce is covered in the linked HP Foods article. That is, he may even be sent to the wrong article because of the guideline that was intended to prevent him from being sent to the wrong article. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd use

• HP Sauce, a UK brand of brown sauce
  • HP Foods, food manufacturer and former maker of HP Sauce

or something similar. That's what I meant by a sub-bullet. -- JHunterJ 11:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like either way would be fine here; both take creative usage of general disambiguating guidelines (either the indented bullets or the two links in one line), but in both cases it makes sense; it seems more of a case of personal preference rather than which is better. -- Natalya 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

These [dab] pages

I'd like to challenge the premise that "These [dab] pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article", and the assertion that "Including more than one link can confuse the reader".

Clearly it is possible to confuse the user by adding links. But in, I think, every case that I've seen of DAB pages with multiple links per line, the risk of confusion has been somewhere around zero. Why we would want to forego the opportunity to provide rich & useful additional links in DAB entries merely because of a narrow and dusty notion about what "DAB pages are for"? Surely existing policy on the general appropriateness of links (i.e. use common sense) would suffice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they tend not to be "rich & useful". Links about the topic of the article sought are rich & useful on the article sought. They are not useful in directing the reader to the article sought. Notions are not "narrow and dusty" just because you disagree with them. Using common sense would suffice, yes, and it's that common sense which has been captured in the premise you're challenging. -- JHunterJ 13:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So to turn around your reply: where links would be rich and useful, policy should not advise against posting them. But currently it does under the - to me- bogus argument that they maybe "confusing".

Common sense has not been distilled into the policy, IMO. Rather there is a - to me - dubious assertion that disambiguation pages "are not for exploration but only to help the user navigate to a specific article" which seems the antithesis of utility in hyperlinked environment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Compare Something wicked this way comes (phrase) (exploration, used to be the main dab page) to Something Wicked This Way Comes (new dab page). Compare Panthers (not cleaned-up dab page) to Panther (cleaned-up). Compare Dominion (old) to Dominion (disambiguation) (cleaned-up with new kipple). Which respective versions are (generally speaking) more helpful to you? "Common sense" is sometimes misleading. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So is a comparison where more than one variable has changed. Compare Something Wicked This Way Comes 1 and Something Wicked This Way Comes 2. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Having only one choice (the most likely one) is always less confusing than having more options. I could also ask why you didn't link the years, novel, album and all the other words that have wiki articles - someone may want to click those things afterall (not). When someone types in "Something Wicked This Way Comes", does he want to find out about the film or the actors in it, the novel or the writer of it, the album or the artist of it? If it is almost always the former, why link the latter? Does a reader need to click on the artist to realize that the related SWTWC page is not the one he wants, or vice versa? Have you ever helped out with Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, where any unnecessary link slows down the cleanup process?...
Having said that, there are examples where I'd say having extra links is neither absolutely helpful nor absolutely confusing; that is most often SONG by ARTIST on ALBUM, and FILM by DIRECTOR starring ACTOR. In the unusal case when someone really wants to use dab pages for exploration, the artist/actor/writer link is just one extra click away. You may also compare which of your examples looks "cleaner" (for lack of a better word, but maybe that's subjective). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Who on earth are these people who would be confused between Something Wicked This Way Comes and The Enid??? I find your argument incredible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When someone types in "Something Wicked This Way Comes", why does he want to have a link to the Enid (insert three question marks) – especially when this link will be just one more click away (in the desired article, likely in the first sentence). Also, don't mistake Including more than one link can confuse the reader with Including more than one link will confuse the reader. The current guideline is a tradeoff between easy rules, having little redundance and having nice-looking dab pages. Allowing more than one link worsens all three goals. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When someone uses a massively hyperlinked creation such as wikipedia, why would they wish to be presented with pages which do not make use of this facility? Links 'can, fullstop, confuse in any situation. For what reason would I not wish to click on the enid if that's my interest, having remembered SWTWC? For what reason would I wish to have to click to a new page and find the enid link there, rather than go from the DAB page? In my view, the advice we give in this respect is not appropriate - specifically These [dab] pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article. Rather, in my view These [dab] pages help the user navigate to a specific article, and can provide brief linked contextual information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Resetting the indent. I would say the additional links "slow down" rather than "confuse." If someone is focussed on getting a specific item from Wikipedia, then we want to streamline that process for them. I see this as the key distinguishing factor of the dab pages as currently defined and intended - get the user to the intended information quickly when there is some ambiguity in what they entered. This means balancing the help you give to each of the people looking for each of the different meanings. If you have extra bluelinks, it will take more time for them to scan the page to find what they are looking for - there is TOO MUCH information on the page for them. Yes, they would like it if the detail about their article were on that one page, but that would make it more difficult for someone else to find THEIR information about a different article.

If someone is just browsing Wikipedia for what information they can find, then speed is of less importance and the additional links you think are missing from the dab page are most likely in the first paragraph of the one link that IS there. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sub-dabs, letters, and symbols

I undid this addition to the guideline: "[See also can be used for] Links to other related disambiguation pages, for example T (symbol) from T (disambiguation)". I think that the letters and symbols still present a problem, but in the general case, there should not be both a "base name (disambiguation)" and a "base name (other disambiguating page)" on the Wikipedia; see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 25#Incomplete parenthetical disambiguations. -- JHunterJ 20:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just added that because I thought it was common practice, but if I was incorrect, I apologize. I do have to admit that I've been really struggling with pages like these:

• C (disambiguation)
• F (disambiguation)
• P (disambiguation)
• T (disambiguation)

And others, but those are a few of the messier ones that come to mind. Anyway, it was my understanding that they should be split out into "disambig" and "symbol" pages, but I'm honestly happy to handle it in whatever way makes the most sense. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I about disambig protocol could tackle one of those pages, clean it up, and then I'll emulate your technique on the rest of them? --Elonka 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that, if the (disambiguation) and (symbol), are both dab pages, they should be merged into a single dab page -- Y (disambiguation), for instance, covers both the symbolic and other uses of "y". Or the symbol page could be refactored as an article instead of a dab, and linked from the main section (not see also) of the (disambiguation) page -- but then it might be better merged with the (letter) or base name page. I could be wrong, though, and we might want to have separate (symbol) dabs, but I would make that a separate section of the MoS, and not use it as an example in the "See also" section instructions, since in the general case we do not want "sub-dabs". I will also take a crack on one of those pages to show how I'd merge it, but that won't be this weekend. Monday, probably. -- JHunterJ 13:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; we should definitly address the issue of "symbol" dab pages. It seems that it would be ideal to merge the two pages, but I could see those pages getting out of control. JHunterJ's plan of trying to see if they can be merged sounds like a good idea; if they cannot, then we can look at other options.

For merging, it seems like all the "Symbol" links can just go under their own section, just like when we section longer disambiguation pages by category. -- Natalya 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also the issue of how much should go on a "symbol" page, and how much should just get moved over to Wiktionary. For example, at T (symbol), do we really think it's likely that any Wikipedia editor is going to link T when they really mean Teaspoon, Tera, or Alberta? Or that they're going to link S when they mean Svedberg, Serine, or Entropy? I personally think that this goes way beyond even the "remote possibility". Granted, they might link some of it, like they might say S-type star when they mean Carbon star, but in my opinion, we should keep the disambig pages for their original intention, which is to provide a resource for those things that are likely to be linked, not simply anything that uses that abbreviation or symbol. --Elonka 17:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I have limited expertise, of those examples, I can see legitimate reasons for "S" to link to entropy, as it is often represented as such, and could easily be confused. This seems to go back to the issue brought up when there was discussion of whether "Harry Potter" should be linked to from HP; it seemed (at least here) that if there were reliable sources that referred to the article as such, then it should be linked. Otherwise, discretion could be used on which extraneous ones should be removed. -- Natalya 00:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a pass at C (disambiguation). Let me know if that helps or if it needs help. :-) -- JHunterJ 00:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks great! Very well organized - nice work. -- Natalya 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See also for different forms of the word

This guideline says that see also sections should be used only for spelling variants/likely mistakes. It seems to me appropriate that it would also include variants of the word that have a different form; for example, the disambiguation page Splitting would have links to Split (disambiguation) and Splitter (disambiguation), and it seems appropriate to put them under see also. Is this correct? Can that be added to the guideline? Rigadoun (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That definitly makes sense. I might consider them "spelling variants", or at least variations of the word, but perhaps we can make that clearer. -- Natalya 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added it. Rigadoun (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Should sequels be listed on a DAB page?

When the DAB page can refer to a movie which has sequels with a similar name, should all of the sequels be listed? For example, should Halloween (disambiguation) really list ever Halloween film, or should it just list the original film, its remake, and the film series article? -Joltman 18:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say only the first movie and the series article need to be linked; the others, if not removed outright, should be relegated to the "See also" section or the whole set moved beneath all the other entries known as just "Halloween". -- JHunterJ 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would make sense under the See also (it doesn't meet the criteria here), but I agree that only those films known as "Halloween" (i.e. without numbers, etc.) should be included, in addition to an article on the series. A better case could be made for topics missing an article on the series, but still I think a user is unlikely to intend to find the sequel when searching the first movie's title, or even if s/he is, s/he would expect to find a link to them from the first movie's article. Rigadoun (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there's already a Halloween (film series) I'd probably just list the first one + the film series link. Otherwise, I might try collapsing all the sequels into a single entry -- having multiple blue links on one line might be preferable than these 10+ entries. (But there's so many other marginal entires on this particular page -- songs, episodes of shows, etc. -- that I'm not sure it makes much difference.) Ewlyahoocom 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can or will

I think the bar for including redlinks needs to be will an article be written, rather than can an article be written. Anything can be written about, but what are the chances that it actually will be? I don't think we want dab pages with long lists of redlinks, which I've seen happen because of the wording in this style guide. Will is a slightly stricter bar that helps reduce the number of redlinks. Dreadstar † 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on your standpoint. For example, an article for a nonnotable character of a popular piece of fiction can and will likely be written, but it won't survive Speedy or AfD for very long (so does "can" imply notability for the article to remain?). On the other hand, it is often doubtful that a sufficiently notable person of the 1870s will have an article written about them in the near future, although it would survive AfD anytime and can thus be written. It really depends on the kind of dab page. (Compare Thumper with John Smith; you could even compare the real people section of John Smith with the fictional people section.) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote from the guideline, emphasis mine: "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term." Redlinks mean that no article exists, but I do think we should allow a certain limited number of redlinks for articles that we believe will exist in the near future. "Can" only implies that an article is capable of being written, not that one will exist in the near future. I think we should only allow for redlinks when an article is in process of being written. That better fits the purpose and definition of this guideline. Dreadstar † 17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I'm bringing this up is because I've seen several dab pages with many more redlinks than actual article links, and I've seen the editors who added those long lists of redlinks use the wording in this guideline to justify keeping redlinks on the pages...without ever intending to write the articles themselves or even knowing if anyone would write them. Perhaps even stronger wording about the number and quality of redlinks in dab pages is in order. Or maybe I'm the only one who's seen this problem...just my bad luck..;) Dreadstar † 18:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll bet that many of those "dab pages with many more redlinks than actual article links" probably come from the old lists of acronyms (and character combination) pages (see also here and here). Some redlinks I don't mind -- and it gives Wikipedia:Most wanted articles something to work off of -- but at this point in the project if those articles aren't going to at least be stubbed out it's probably going to be a long time before they get created. Redirects (+{{R with possibilities}}) are probably my favorite way to deal with redlinks, but it can take time to find a good redirect -- if one exists at all. Ewlyahoocom 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

...or in surname lists on dab pages. What I do in such a case is check for incoming links. If a redlink is used nowhere on wikipedia other than a dab page, it likely is nonnotable and doubtful that someone will create that article because he sees a redlink on a dab page. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've done very many dabs, but yes, a couple of them were indeed lists of surname redlinks, others were just links of article names that the editor who added them thought they could be articles. At the time I just wanted a little stronger wording than "can be written" - and I still think it's a good idea to tighten it up a bit. Perhaps we can change it to "can and will" as in:

"Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") should be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclpedia article can and will be written on the subject."

Dreadstar † 19:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be "will", and within a month or so, otherwise it's an invite to redlink city. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As a hardcore eventualist, I think "can" is the correct word. There's nothing wrong with redlinks, so long as they're not overdone. My criteria is that there needs to be at least some other article that links to the term (and the article needs to be in reasonably decent shape -- i.e., not a hack job only recently thrown together by the same editor that added the term to the dab page. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And, to that end, I think the note "Redlinks should usually not be the only link in a given entry;" should be tightened up to "A redlink should not be the only link in a given entry;" -- there's no need for both "should" and "usually" in the guideline. -- JHunterJ 12:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, using can and will is the same as saying will (because of course if it "will" than surely it "can"). Certainly, in either case, no redlink should appear on a dab page without a corresponding blue link. A redlink with no blue link is useless to the seeker. I therefore heartily agree that we should tighten up the guidelines as proposed by JHunterJ. -- SlackerMom (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good one: First National Bank[4]. Anyone care to take a crack at it? Ewlyahoocom 04:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -- JHunterJ 17:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

More on redlinks

Sometimes there is a question whether the "entry word" in an entry should be redlinked or not linked at all. For instance, from Sephiroth:

• Sephiroth (Tales of the Abyss), the ten ancient devices used in order to support the Outer Lands in Tales of the Abyss

vs.

• Sephiroth, the ten ancient devices used in order to support the Outer Lands in Tales of the Abyss

Both entries have a single blue link, which is good. I usually click through the proposed redlink and see "What links here" -- if anything else links to it (and preferably the blue-linked article in particular), then I'll also include the redlink on the dab; if the only thing that would use the redlink is the dab, I opt in favor of no link for the "entry word". I was considering making the suggestion in the guidelines. Thoughts? -- JHunterJ 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'd probably prefer the creation of a redirect ("with possibilities" if necessary) to make the redlink blue. But maybe that's just my coward's way out. Ewlyahoocom 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do the same (checking for incoming links etc.). But if you add this to the guidelines, you might want to elaborate on how to find and use Whatlinkshere. It took me two months as a newbie to realize the potential of the toolbox (and I still don't use it much unless I have to). – sgeureka ^t•c 02:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a reasonable rule of thumb. You could just add a link to Help:What links here in lieu of explaining it anew. I think the converse is a reasonable guideline, too: a link that seems like it should have an article written reasonably soon (that is, one to be redlinked) should have other oncoming links, and they should be added from relevant articles per Wikipedia:Build the web. Rigadoun (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted WP:MOSDAB#Red links based on this discussion. -- JHunterJ 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary links to foreign-language words

I just cleaned up Gelb, and it had an entry "the German word for yellow". True enough, but I changed it to a wiktionarypar, mainly so you, my esteemed colleagues, can easily observe what's over there. I have seen quite a number of wiktionary links to entries like this, where there are only definitions of foreign-language words. My tendency is to remove them from dab pages, but perhaps we need a guideline. I suggest that we discourage wiktionary links where they only lead to foreign-language definitions. And I don't think we needed the original entry "the German word for yellow", as a speaker of German who wants to know about the color yellow should be entering "gelb" in de.wikipedia.org, not in the English WP. Any thoughts? Chris the speller 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on whether there are people with that surname on the dab page (someone may actually want to know what the surname means and where it comes from). I'm not sure what to say about surname-less dab pages. I just think that some drive-by wikipedian will add the translation to the dab page again anyway, especially such popular ones, so I wouldn't bother(?). – sgeureka ^t•c 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the English Wikipedia article (Yellow in this case) doesn't serve to disambiguate the term ("Gelb" doesn't appear on the article), then yes, it should be deleted. I think the existing disambiguation guidelines cover this, but I'm all for making them clearer since there are may editors who don't read all the nuances I see in them (and I don't blame them). If a surname-full dab page reaches the point where it's covering the meaning and other info about a surname, the dab info and surname article should be split into two pages. -- JHunterJ 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a dab page that has onomastic info about a surname or given name, (or which has more than a handful of people) deserves to have that stuff moved to a surname or given name article (which I did for this article because it had 6 people already, with many more existing articles yet to be listed). In this case, I assume that the name has something to do with "yellow", maybe yellow hair or yellow teeth, but I don't know it for a fact, and don't care to dig up references. I have gotten to this point by moving surname blather off hundreds of dab pages, having found most of them by looking for one-word pages that use hndis. The question about wiktionary links to foreign-language words remains, and I have seen quite a few of them, but feel that they clutter up disambig pages, and that it's not the mission of WP to be a German-English or Italian-English dictionary. If I'm wrong, please tell me now. Chris the speller 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What question remains? Include a link to Yellow on Gelb? No. Include a link to (English) wiktionary through Wikitionarypar on Gelb? Yes. -- JHunterJ 04:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The question about linking to a (supposedly English) dictionary from an English encyclopedia page even when there is no English definition of that term. I don't know why Wiktionary has foreign terms defined in it, but don't care, either, as I have very little use or respect for it. You say yes, but don't say why. I say why is anyone searching for a completely foreign word in WP, and why should we add clutter to WP to accommodate them? Following Sgeureka's lead, I propose the acronym DBWE (drive-by Wikipedia editor) for the type of person who sees "gelb" , thinks "that's the German word for yellow" and feels compelled to add it, even though "Gelb" is not a candidate for a WP article title about colors, except in the German WP. I try not to forget the true reason for dab pages. Chris the speller 06:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to add the wiktionary template, that's fine, but I think it's the right thing to add when removing dictionary defs from a dab. And if another editor has already added a wiktionary template, certainly don't remove it just because it has no English content. Perhaps there could be a separate Wiktionary template for use when the target Wiktionary entries have no English definitions. I don't think clutter is an issue unless there's a TOCRight template as well, then it can start looking a little funny. -- JHunterJ 11:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:acronyms question

I came across Category:acronyms on a dab page today. It's a fairly well populated category, although I have never come across it in the past. MOS:DAB#Categories currently only refers to name categories, so I don't really know what to do. I also ask because HOS would allow for redlinks as an acronym page. As a disambiguation page however, it shouldn't, and I've previously always deleted the masses of redlinks without incoming links. Opinions? I don't want to "harm" other projects. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit: It seems this category is usually applied to articles whose subject is widely known by the acronym, like DINKY. But I'd still like others' input about whether to remove all redlinked term without incoming links, even though they are/were sourced. (My take: Wikipedia is not Google, therefore delete them.) – sgeureka ^t•c 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not see a WikiProject for acronyms identified with the category. In any event, complete lists of acronym definitions should be left to Wiktionary, and yes, I agree that the redlinks (and no-links) should be removed from the acronym dab pages here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, wouldn't have thought of transwiki'ing the list. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid using wikilinks

I notice this has been raised several times already, but I'd like to state for once, that I agree with the notion that the restriction "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link." and its rationale "Including more than one link can confuse the reader" (i) seem counter-intuitive as per the general wiki architecture, and (ii) assumes rather easily confused readers, to say the least. Anyone knows how a wiki works by now. If links are relevant, e.g. links to a parent subject, I believe such a link is warranted. Couldn't the guideline advise to bold the primary link per line, and to make it the first link in the line? |dorftrottel |humor me 14:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(i) has some merit, but the consensus regarding the purpose of a disambiguation page is that it is not a destination article -- that is, most links to a disambiguation page are intended to be links to some other article. (ii) is somewhat condescending. Do you have some reliable source to support the claim that "Anyone knows how a wiki works by now"? A perusal of Wikipedia:Helpdesk should quickly dispel that misconception. While consensus can change, the consensus of editors who spend time cleaning up disambiguation pages and mistaken links to them is that "one blue link" per entry is a sound practice. In any case excessive bolding is one of the worst things that can be done to disambiguation pages (or to lists in general). older ≠ wiser 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am apparently not the only editor who cringes when he sees the suggestion to bold the primary link on each line; that is a sea change in the style of a dab page. The prohibition is more about speed than stupidity; with more than one blue link, the reader has to switch from a vertical search to a horizontal search, and then choose between finer differences of meaning. In the very few cases where two blue links could really be useful, break the rule (even if it didn't already give latitude with "in almost every case"), and then add an invisible comment explaining why that entry is better with multiple links. That's not too much to ask for these very rare cases. If you think that more than one out of 500 entries needs this treatment, then I suspect that you are not trying hard enough to create two separate entries for slightly different meanings. I have created or cleaned up many thousands of entries, and I can't remember one where I thought two links were needed. Chris the speller (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Condescending? I find the current assumption that readers are easily confused somewhat condescending. But ok, I just wanted my opinion to be heard once. Nevermind. |dorftrottel |humor me 16:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not handling "stupidity" we are talking about here, but providing a page that is streamlined for navigation purposes. Yes, many readers would be able to sort through more than one link, but this will slow down even the most brilliant readers. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What tells you the majority of readers isn't at all interested in breadth? Not arguing either way (what do I know?), but you appear to make that fairly strong assumption in your reasoning. |dorftrottel |humor me 17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't make that assumption: I do assume a significant number of people are interested in getting to a particular article quickly and appreciate a quick pass through a necessary dab page. I also assume those interested in breadth are not in such a hurry and don't mind clicking through to articles to get fuller breadth. Most of the breadth you speak about is still available, only in the various articles, not the dab page. I appreciate you questioning this - I find it useful to articulate it occasionally to make sure it makes sense and that I (we) are not being pedantic and doctrinaire. I still believe the current approach makes sense. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguated page should be expected have links to the parent subject, and readers looking for the page are probably not looking for the parent subject in particular (otherwise they wouldn't be at the disambiguation page). So the link serves no purpose on the dab. The dab should disambiguate articles, not become a Wikipedia article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok all. As I said, I just wanted to state my opinion once. So, I take it I should go and remove one of the links from the line that reads

• Malcolm in the Middle, an American television series and its title character, Malcolm

from the Malcolm disambig page. Which one should be removed? And should there be two lines for the two links? How would that improve overview and streamlining? |dorftrottel |humor me 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead with:

• Malcolm in the Middle, an American television series
• Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle), the title character of the series

I think it helps as one scans down the list to see a single link per line and if the "blue" text looks close, they read the rest. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. |dorftrottel |humor me 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to ruffle feathers, but the link to the TV show is about as useless as wing-tip fuel tanks on a glider. As far as I know, the show is generally referred to as "Malcolm in the Middle", not just "Malcolm", so it does not belong on the page, per WP:D#Lists. And anyone looking for a TV show that has a Malcolm character would probably not miss the next entry anyway, and the article about the character has a link to the series article right in its opening line. Chris the speller (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Very correct of you. |dorftrottel |humor me 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, this TV show is in fact called just Malcolm in some parts of the world (check the interwikis). Although I don't live in the English speaking world, I use EN wikipedia as my main wiki, and I sometimes have no clue what a TV show is called in its original version. Having it appear on the dab page is then very convenient to me. The same goes for example with Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide on Ned. Just something to consider. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if it's outside of the English-speaking world (i.e. a foreign name) it doesn't really belong here. That's why there is interwiki links. However, if the English name has different English variations in certain parts of the world, then by all means include them. Rocket000 (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if there are places where it's generally called "Malcolm", then include it, preferably with an invisible comment noting that reason. Chris the speller (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Another example: Adriatic (disambiguation), which contains the line

• The fictional starship Adriatic, from Battlestar Galactica 2004

I don't mind either way, but please understand that I do not intend to remove the imo plausible link to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). All in all, the manual of style is a good thing (and necessary), but applying these guidelines strictly and indiscriminately is certainly idiotic. |dorftrottel |talk 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's plausible, but plausibility is not a sufficient reason to add an entry; likelihood is sufficient. Why would anyone who wanted to read about Battlestar Galactica enter "Adriatic" and hit the <Go> button? Why wouldn't they enter "Battlestar Galactica"? Even in the plausible but unlikely case that they wanted to read about the TV series which featured a spaceship named "Adriatic" but couldn't remember the name of the series, they could enter "Adriatic", follow the link to the spaceship, hit the <Home> key on their browser, and the name of the series is right there. Wikipedia dab pages are not there to cater to every possible case of reader confusion or forgetfulness, nor are they a place for editors to dump every scrap of information that comes to mind, no matter how helpful they want to be. The Adriatic dab page is there to provide paths to articles that might be referred to as "Adriatic", and the TV series is not called that. Most editors see the need to draw the line somewhere on what goes on a dab page, and this is where the line was drawn by consensus. Chris the speller (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what would Wikipedia be without its one truly reliable gauging mechanism which magically never errs on anything, consensus. Incidentally, my opinion differs significantly from yours on this. I hope you're not seriously saying that "because of consensus" and "the need to draw the line somewhere" you are fighting for "clean" dab pages. But it's none of my business. |dorftrottel |talk 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to be snide. I cleaned up the entry on Adriatic, since I agree with the points made by Chris the speller, and they're in line with the guidelines. Why would the link to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) be needed by someone on the Adriatic dab page? -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that WP pages need a certain uniformity so as not to appear unprofessional. That level of uniformity for dab pages was settled by consensus before I came on the scene, and I read and understood the style guide. I determined that I can contribute within that framework. I might have (probably would have) come up with something very different if I were doing it all myself, but it's not my encyclopedia, and it works by consensus. This does not stop anyone who has their own ideas from building their own encyclopedia on their own computer. Chris the speller (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I as a reader would welcome that link, but my reading pattern probably isn't that of the average person. I'm of the type who would argue that every term that has an article should be linked exactly once in every page where it appears. Chris the speller, I do believe guidelines are very important, esp. the MOS, but this particular subguideline (as opposed to e.g. WP:WAF) seems like a weird place to exclusively focus your efforts on (which you don't do), when there's so much more important work to do as far as professional appearance is concerned. A link "too much" on a dab page ranks very low as far as potential to degrade the professional appearance of Wikipedia goes. JHunterJChris the speller: "This does not stop anyone who has their own ideas from building their own encyclopedia on their own computer." — So should I, in your opinion, leave Wikipedia because I don't agree with current MOS:DAB consensus regarding wikilinks? At least that's what I can't help but read into your comment. So let me just add, consensus how to handle wikilinks in dab pages is not a very deep thing, and it should orient itself on current practice. And since so many dab pages I come across contain more than one link per line, maybe consensus isn't really against those additional links after all. You see: Consensus includes the actual practice "out there", not only (or even predominantly) what a straw poll or some such decides on a MOS subguideline established by the style police. |dorftrottel |talk 08:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't leave WP just because you disagree with the style guidelines, but you shouldn't make edits that conflict with the WP guidelines just because you don't agree with them. But the place to make any edits you want in your own style is in your own encyclopedia. The consensus I have talked about is the consensus that brought this guideline to its current state; what's "out there", if different from the guideline, is what we (who read and understand the guideline) would be bringing into alignment with the guideline if we were not spending a lot of time on this talk page in discussions such as this. Chris the speller (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"the mess "out there" is not consensus, just ignorance" — Listen, I think I do know where you're coming from, it's just not "my" area of special interest. But ideas like "ignorance", "unwashed masses" or "Eternal September" are indeed familiar to me in other areas. |dorftrottel |talk 12:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The "unwashed masses" are not what worry me; a lot of people who each make one or two additions in good faith, in the general style of what they see on the page, are doing a lot of good. A smaller number of people who hammer away at WP every day without bothering to find out what the real goal is, or who find out but set their own sytle anyway, they worry me. I enjoyed reading the Eternal September article, by the way. Thanks. Chris the speller (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Telling from your last 500 contributions, it seems like you don't cleanup disambiguation a lot, if at all. While there is nothing wrong with that, it is somehow weird that you tell "the regulars" that all they have been doing is not necessarily based on consensus and therefore needs to be challenged. However, I did not see the point of some of the things in this MOS until my first month of extensive dab editing was over, and the only changes I later offered were some minor MOS modifications in the (sur)name area. Why would other newbie dabbers know what's best for this dab MOS without going through this learning curve as well ("learning and understanding by doing")? No offense intended. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I first stumbled upon this guideline a few days ago. It never occured to me that this could be a place for regulars. How many things are there to decide now that the guideline is in place, as compared to other, more content-related MOS-subguidelines? Seems to be primarily maintenance of the status quo, with the random adjustment every once in a while. In the meantime, different dab pages may require so vastly different layouts that more than some basic issues cannot possibly be prescribed.

Also, I have no intentions whatsoever of becoming a "regular dabber", ever. And I've been at WP long enough to know that everytime a guideline/policy regular employs the word "consensus" (as opposed to e.g. "explanation", "reasoning", and "compromise") to respond to a differing view... God kills a kitten. Consensus is found through editing out there, not through groupthink in here. And as far as I can see (which probably isn't that far), actual consensus appears to possibly defy the strength and validity of consensus as reflected in the guideline, not to mention the usage of that buzzword as an argumentative sledgehammer against users with a valid differing opinion. It doesn't require an insider to recognise this.

However, I can live with the reasoning that readers are looking for a particular article, and don't need possibly distracting convenience links. But it isn't a rebuttal by any stretch of imagination of my contradicting reasoning (based on likewise valid logic, if I may say so), that on every mainspace page, exactly one instance of each term with an according article should have a link. While I understand the need for a status quo for dab pages, I'm confident my opinion is not utterly underinformed. |dorftrottel |talk 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely underinformed....it is common enough merit an FAQ type of response -- which may explain some of what you describe as groupthink. While I may be misunderstanding your argument that on every mainspace page, exactly one instance of each term with an according article should have a link -- that is not supported by the manual of style page Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. older ≠ wiser 15:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'd just find it a lot more logically compelling to do that, but it's my own private reasoning only. |dorftrottel |talk 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fewer dab pages with just given names and surnames

It's not just your imagination. There are fewer, about 1800 fewer. I took it seriously where it says "Pages only listing persons with certain given names or surnames who are not widely known by these parts of their name otherwise are not disambiguation pages". Today I finished a 6-month-and-5-day effort, from Glenda to Sandra, from Barker to Winkler, following one-word pages in the category: "Lists of ambiguous human names", changing from hndis templates to the surname template (1494) or given name template (295). Along the way, I split many dab pages onto new surname articles (395) or given-name articles (133). This cleaned up dab pages so that CorHomo could process them, allowing it to disambiguate 1,986 links. I only got yelled at a couple of times. This is not just to brag, but to encourage all editors; you can get a lot done if you just keep chipping away. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. Thanks! I've been chipping along too, although without the statistics (but my numbers would be much lower anyway). -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is AWESOME! Way to go. I am encouraged, since "chipping away" is my only option. (And I've come to feel that you have to get "yelled at" once in a while to be sure you're making a difference!) SlackerMom (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Order of entries

I notice that the order of entries is recommended to be "most used at the top" etc. It seems to me that this creates a possibility of pov creeping in ... who decides which is most used? what are the criteria? etc. I know there are some guidelines in the section but I am still dubious ... would it not be better to stick to alphabetical order, splitting into sections for larger lists? There would then be no possibility of pov. See MS and its talk page for the sort of difficulties that can arise. Abtract (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This has come up before. It's only POV in the sense that the good judgment of editors is required; that is, the same judgment exercised in every other article. An alphabetical list is only rarely helpful; if there are a few major uses and a bunch of minor ones, it greatly helps to move the major ones to the top, where they'll be used by 95% of readers. SnowFire (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

mmm I'm not convinced (alphabetical lists are completely nuetral and are widely used throughout wp) but thanks. Abtract (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting case at AFD

Here is an interesting case at AFD involving a disambiguation page that disambiguates foreign language (non-latin) characters. I've voiced my opinion there, so I won't repeat it here, but I think it raises interesting questions for disambiguation on WP:EN. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of non-notable entries when they have lost their popularity?

The longer wikipedia lives, the more things wind up on dab pages that have a short burst of major popularity but are then forgotten after some months/years, and it becomes unlikely that they are still search terms. I'm specifically referring to fictional characters by given name (Zelda) and television episodes (Point of no return (disambiguation), but also songs (Money (disambiguation)).

While songs rarely get their own article for long, it was common practice to create and keep articles about non-notable characters and episodes (WP:FICT and WP:N). But there are current efforts to cut down on such characters and episodes by merging them into List of characters in XXX and List of XXX episodes. So in the end, none of these three groups will have articles on their own for long, but are still likely search terms for a while. Can we agree on a clause to eliminate these things when popularity has waned unless there is proof to do otherwise (song was a single, non-notable fictional character was in the main cast, episode was the 100th episode or was a season opener/finale)? I sometimes have the feeling that disambiguation pages are used as trivia dropping places for what has been called XXX in popular culture. What do others think? – sgeureka ^t•c 16:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't be sorry to see some of the juvenile fancruft go, but many of these terms have a rdr to an anchor in the "List of characters in XXX" page. The right way to clean this up is to go through an RFD, and if the rdr gets deleted, then the entry can be removed from the dab page, but being unpoplar is not grounds for an RFD. Even if it were, how could you measure disuse? Even if the Wikimedia software could count and report "hits" on the link to the rdr, there would be hits from editors clicking through just to see if it's notable. You would have to rely on a consensus of editors who patrol the RFDs, and after all that work, one diehard fan would put it back in. You may be overestimating the potential of these fans to let go. Good luck. Chris the speller (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, assuming that there is no article on the subject itself... my general rule is that the topic should be prominently mentioned in the linked article, or stand a good chance of having a prominent discussion eventually. For instance, on the Zelda page you linked, the "a codename used by someone else in fiction" example is clearly silly. As for "the maid of Katinka van de Velde," that seems entirely too minor a character - I don't see it coming up at all in a CTRL-F of Wilbur Smith. Even for characters that did come up, ideally they should be *major* characters, i.e. ones worthy of their own heading in a list article. The other rule is that the more common the name, the stricter the requirements. Someone named just "Harry" in fiction better be really important to the associated work to merit a mention; a name like Kluragara might have a bit more leeway, since it's more likely that's what was actually meant.

Don't see a problem with linking to songs or episodes, though, in general. For modern music, I think the line is that there should be an article on the associated album or single - if a musician is so minor as to only merit an article on themselves and not their works, then it's not a good link (and it's certainly not a good link if the band/musician has no article!). SnowFire (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to both) I accept that. But what about keeping fictional characters on disambiguation pages when there is a separate "given names" pages? To take my example from above, Zelda / Zelda, I moved all fictional characters but Princess Zelda and Hilda and Zelda to Zelda (given name) because all others seemed to me like "look, I know another person called Zelda and put it on the dab page", just like what happens with real people called "Zelda". Should I reinsert all fictional characters back on the dab page? – sgeureka ^t•c 09:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If the article (or a redirect to the article) has the form "Zelda (disambiguating phrase)", then yes, I'd say it should go on the disambiguation page (and possibly on the name page too). If it's a two-named character (first and last names) with no such title or redirect title, then no, I'd say it shouldn't be on the dab, and if another editor insists, I'd relegate it to the See also section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments could be made that I should create these redirect titles, like I just did for (real-world) Zelda (poet) now redirecting Zelda Schneersohn Mishkovsky. If I won't, fans could create these redirects very easily, which is already happening for minor characters in really popular fictional works (Bernard (Lost), Janus (Stargate)), and therefore demand an appearance on dab pages. Five years from now (if it hasn't already happened), no one will remember these characters anymore, but their redirect will still exists (if no-one takes them to RfD), and they would therefore have to be included on the dab pages forever. That's where I'm coming from, but maybe the tendency I perceive will only really become a problem in a few years. I'll use your suggestion and common sense in the meantime. Thanks. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you know enough about the dabbed subjects to identify the needed redirect, sure. If you happen to be cleaning up a dab and you don't know the target well enough, I'ld leave it to the fans. I wasn't suggesting that the lack of a redirect right now should prohibit someone (dab editor or topic fan) from creating it in the future (and returning it to the dab if it was deleted). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

External links?

I'm puzzling over the external links (embedded citations, if you will) in the page Gathering of Eagles (disambiguation). The guideline says nothing about them (it would be nice if it did); my sense is that they're not supposed to be there, but I'm not sure if that is the norm. Other opinions? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

MOS:DAB#Individual entries says, External links should rarely, if ever, be given entries in disambiguation pages. Including them as comments or on a talk page is a way to mention URLs that might be helpful in the future. I cleaned up the mentioned page accordingly. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. It didn't answer my question; perhaps I was unclear. The page I pointed to had an entry of this form:

[[Wikilink to article]] - brief explanation [external link].

The text you quote, I believe, refers to entries of this form:

[URL External page] - brief explanation.

In short, I wasn't referring to an external link given an entry, I was referring to an external link added to a valid entry (Thank you for cleaning it up, but I'm still concerned about the absence of advice in the guideline, or perhaps the lack of clarity. A wording change seems in order.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the link I gave applies to both kinds of entries, and I've never seen any regular dab editor leave external links after a cleanup. If someone feels the external link is important, they can start a stub and give the external link there. For everything else, I always use the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google rationale. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I strengthened the note on external links to cover both entries and descriptions. -- JHunterJ 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Using TOCright

For the second time recently I've noticed that an editor removed a TOCright template from a dab page, with the comment that it's unattractive or unnecessarydiff. Personally, I like TOCright on dab pages because it uses otherwise wasted white space and makes the actual content more accessible by pushing it closer to the top. But I suppose I shouldn't go around adding the template to pages I clean up, or reverting edits that remove it, just because I happen to like it. The topic was discussed a bit here last year--see this discussion about long lists, which generally seemed to favor the use of the template on dab pages--but I still thought I'd ask how others feel about TOCright and the circumstances under which it should or shouldn't be used. --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, thank you for notifying me on my talk page to come visit here. To be honest, when it comes to forcing tables of contents, I prefer only to do so when it is completely necessary, for example, when there is an image in the way of the left hand side of the page, where otherwise there would be no practical need to do so. To encourage whitespace, for me at least, encourages the reader to read in a straight line downwards, rather than telling them to click right at the top of the article. To be honest, it makes little difference, but there are times when I think it is necessary and times when it is less so. It's only very occasionally I make these edits, but I will exercise better judgment in future. Bobo. 21:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I also have a tendency to prefer TOC's only on long lists, feeling them an unnecessary distraction on a short list. In fact, I often follow the MOS format here which doesn't generate the TOC at all. I admit I've never thought of the vertical line argument, which is interesting, but I think I still prefer to use TOCright (I dislike excess scrolling). I'm afraid I do things all the time "just because I happen to like it". It hasn't gotten me in too much trouble yet! SlackerMom (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, ShelfSkewed, I love {{TOCright}} exactly for your reasons. In this particular case, I would definately add it back. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also a huge fan of using TOCright on disambiguation pages. Regarding a specific point made by Bobo192, dab pages are not exactly articles, but rather navigational pages. Very few persons "read" a disambiguation page from top to bottom -- there is very little in the way of linear continuity in any case. Considering that the ideal for a good disambiguation page is to help a reader find the article they intended to find as quickly as possible, having a large chunk of useless white space at the top doesn't really help. older ≠ wiser 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Count me as another person who likes using {{tocright}}. Especially on pages where the TOC takes up as much room as the actual list, it's much cleaner to move it to the side, so that the reader can actually get at the list.  :) --Elonka 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of consensus, if another editor objects to {{TOCright}}, consider __NOTOC__ too. But when a TOC is needed on a dab, I too prefer pushing it right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think older ≠ wiser is right on the mark. I also think that on dab pages that are long enough to require sections instead of bolded headers (more than about a screenful), we have a better chance of having the entry being sought on the first screen if the TOC is on the right. I'm not keen on dispensing with the TOC, as there are likely to be sections starting on subsequent screens, and the reader should be given a chance to jump to the right section, rather than paging forward to look for it. Chris the speller (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I generally don't like sections on dab pages, so I like TOC on dab pages even less. (On some long articles, TOCRight can be OK but unfortunately -- on my computer at least -- it screws up some of the formatting: the section edit links ("[edit]") get shifted around as to make the unusable.) Ewlyahoocom (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of "Red links" section

The "Red links" section is pretty messed up. Logically it does not work (Killer (Swiss band) is no more likely an actual title than Killer (metal band), Killer (heavy metal band) or something more specific like Killer (speed metal band) or Killer (thrash band), ergo the what-links-here test does not work in actual practice for a very large number of potential article names that themselves require disambiguation in their names). Perhaps even more importantly, WP:MOSDAB is in direct conflict with WP:REDLINK, which is clear that redlinks should remain if it is plausible to write a legitimate article for it; they therefore should not be de-linked on article pages. Similarly, the very well accepted maxim that redlinks encourage article creation also militates against WP:MOSDAB's seemingly out-of-nowhere "rule" that a redlink should only be added to a dab page if it is also redlinked from other articles. This at least has the effect of a sotto voce attempt to discourage article creation, because in more cases than could possibly be counted, the only easy way to determine whether an article exists or is needed is via examining the relevant dab page, if the topic in question has a name that could be ambiguous with other topics; the implication to many editors is "if it isn't listed at this dab page, then don't create it". This is not an appropriate role for dab pages or MOSDAB. Also, without the redlink, the inference of some other editors will be that the missing article may well exist somewhere, under a name the person has not thought to look under yet.

Proposed replacement

With numerous other minor clarifications.

====Red links====

A link to a non-existent article (a "[[Wikipedia:Red link|red link]]") should only be included on a disambiguation page when the topic is [[Wikipedia:Notability|notable]], i.e., could plausibly sustain a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliably]] [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|sourced]] article. There is no need to brainstorm all occurrences of the disambiguation page title and create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics.

If other articles also include this red link, that is usually a good indication that the topic qualifies, though absence of such links is not a reliable indicator of lack of notability. You can use "Show preview" to see the entry with the red link, click through it, and then use "What links here" to see if any other articles use the red link. ''(See [[Help:What links here]] for more information.)'' This technique is not always helpful, especially with red links that have disambiguated names themselves – the subject of [[Example (Canadian band)]] might be red-linked, or even be an extant article, at [[Example (metal band)]] or some other article name.

In contrast to normal entries, which are usually one link each, red links should not be the ''only'' link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, especially one that also red-links the topic in question or at least mentions it, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information.

If the entry is unlikely to ever have an article about it, then do not red-link it, and instead link only to an article about whatever class the topic is a member of. It is permissible but not necessary to link to the topic's specific section at the target article, if one exists (do this in the link to the named main article, instead of creating a piped title link).</nowik> <nowiki>A contrived example:

:{| style="border: 1px solid black" width=100%
|-
|'''Badminton''' may refer to:
* [[Badminton]], a racquet sport related to tennis
* [[Badminton (band)]], a British rock group
* The badminton, a [[Flying disc techniques#The badminton|flying disc technique]]
* <s>[[Flying disc techniques#The badminton|The badminton]], a flying disc technique</s>
* Badminton, a type of [[noodle]]
|}

In this example, the sport already has an article, the band may be appropriate for a future article, the flying disc technique probably would not (but is linked to a section that, in our hypothetical example, does already exist at the main article on such techniques), the struck example (which would not actually appear on the disambiguation page) shows how ''not'' to link to sections, and the noodle is neither notable enough for its own article nor linked to anything more specific than the article about noodles.

A rendered (un-nowikied) copy is at User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox for the duration of this discussion.

The struck example might be too redundant.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no conflict with WP:MOSDAB and WP:REDLINK, since disambiguation pages aren't articles. Disambiguation pages disambiguate other articles, and if no article uses the red link, then the dab shouldn't either. I disagree with your conclusions that Wikipedia article creation will suffer through the omission of redlinks on dabs when those redlinks are not used anywhere else in the encyclopedia; if the topic is article-worthy, then another article should link to it (or it can be requested through the article request process). Disambiguation pages are not topics-for-article-creation-ideas pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite all the effort you put into this proposal, I cannot support it. I agree with JHunterJ, and I'd add that, since WP is so "old" now, most notable topics already have an article, or are linked from somewhere. If a topic isn't, then it's probably so obscure that the dab editor would not be able to judge its true notability anyway. Rather the opposite is true: the number of incoming links suggests the topic's notability. Someone once said it's unlikely that someone will start an article just because he sees a redlink on a disambigation page. In my experience, it happens much more often that people add non-notable stuff to dab pages (think of all the XXX (band)s). There needs to be a way to get rid of that, even at the risk that a notable (yet obscure) redlink gets removed. Common sense is often helpful in such situations. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "most notable topics have an article, or are linked from somewhere." I routinely run into highly notable topics, especially in the areas of history and archaeology, where certain things are neither stubbed nor linked. There's also the issue of foreign spellings (Arabic names are particularly bad), where even reputable history books can't agree on consistent spelling, so that makes it difficult to determine if something is being linked to. I've spent hours just making redirects, trying to make sense of certain medieval Turkish monarchs.  :) --Elonka 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Transliterations aside for the moment: in the case of notable history and archaeology topics, I would expect there are existing articles (instead of dabs) that the redlinks can be added to first, right? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of why the current wording of MOSDAB is a bad idea. A bot created the article Kresty (and numerous other); however, it turned out that there is not one but four places by this name in Pskov Oblast alone, and the information in the article was insufficient to determine which one of the four it was. Someone suggested creating a dab page listing all four localities instead, but that currently contradicts the red links clause of MOSDAB (all four places are very minor and are not mentioned in any of the articles). Without the dab, however, it is possible this article will be created again by a different uninformed reader and there is no guarantee that this re-created article would not have a horrible mix of information on four different places labeled as one locality. I had an unpleasant experience of cleaning up such messes before, and it is not a task I am looking forward to repeating.

Needless to say, I fully and whole-heartedly support SMcCandlish's proposal above. Considering the fact that the current revision of this MOSDAB's clause was decided by only four editors who, to the best of my knowledge, did not advertise the proposal outside this talk page (here), I'd say we should revert to the original wording of the "Red links" clause and then decide on whether the changes are necessary and, if so, what kind of changes. This guideline affects too many things for it to be edited so hastily and without broader input.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

correct application of MOS:DAB?

Are the following acceptable cleanup/format edits per MOS:DAB? Just asking for a bit input to learn.[5], [6] I dorftrottel I talk I 12:00, December 13, 2007

Looks good. The only two (extremely minor) things are Savo can refer to: can be tweaked to Savo may refer to:, and one of the two extra newlines for Savonia at the end can be removed. Edit: There also shouldn't be punctuation at the end of each entry. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, adjusted accordingly. I dorftrottel I talk I 12:31, December 13, 2007

And I restored Savonia (historical province) since its article indicated that it is also known as just Savo. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, noted. Thanks to you as well. I dorftrottel I talk I 17:11, December 13, 2007

Nationality / Citizenship

Wikipedia:MOSDAB#People does not give any suggestions for mentioning nationality or citizenship in dab page entries. ( Wikipedia_talk:Citizenship_and_nationality ). Given that these tend to be very contentious topics, do we want to develop any recommendations? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My $0.02. Mention it if it is useful in disambiguating the person. Don't mention it, especially if it is contentious, if isn't necessary to distinguish it from another person. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For {{hndis}} pages, I prefer to include both nationality/citizenship and birth/death years, even if there is only one, say, John Smith (politician). But Wikipedia talk:Citizenship and nationality doesn't appear to mention "disambiguation", and I haven't found any contentiousness when I've added them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't recall the issue of nationality / citizenship causing problems specifically on disamb pages, but the issue is frequently a problem on Wikipedia - for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_10#Nationalities , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_10#Putting_.22Jewish.22_back_in_the_opening_sentence , etc, etc, etc, etc, ad delirium. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a really interesting point, Wikipedia:MOSDAB#People does hint at country of origin with their examples of "London based" and "Ohio senator", but does not mention country of nationality. In editing name DAB pages I have also frequently relied on date and nationality to disambig, especially with given name DABs. - AKeen (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

MS

Would someone (else) kindly take a look at MS please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)