Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Disambiguation of adjectives

As I see, the guideline does not cover disambiguation of adjectives. Please see the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayesian. I filed the Afd because I see the page is a list of terms with one word in common, rather than list of articles which could have the same title. But then I see a bunch of other similar pages, such as Euclidean, digital, Pythagorean etc. They do not seem to conform the definition of WP:DPAGE. But since they exist and in abundance, then obviously there is a need in such pages. At a first glance they are closer to WP:DABCONCEPT: Bayesian lists things that exhibit "Bayesness", so to say ; same with "digitalness". But at the same time it does not feel right to list "Long bow" in the page "Long (disambiguation)".

So how do we distinguish adjectives which call for navigation from "mundane" ones? Do we need a yet another category of dab-like pages, in addition to WP:BROADCONCEPT and WP:SETINDEX? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We have disambiguation pages for terms that are likely to be wikilinked but are ambiguous. In many cases, those terms are adjectives, and the entries in the disambiguation page should be the standard uses of that adjective. This seems unproblematic. They are not partial disambiguations, because if they were then there would be a more generic disambiguation that they should be merged into and in these cases there isn't. Or, to put it another way, if "Bayesian" lists things that exhibit "Bayesianness" then we are doing it wrong, because a list of that type should be tagged as {{sia}} not {{dab}}. The disambiguation page for "Bayesian" should list things that are likely to be the intended meaning for wikilinks to "Bayesian" (generally, articles named "Bayesian X"), not things similar in concept to the primary meaning of "Bayesian". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

My major point stads: We do not have any guideline of that. Especially how do we distinguish cases of Bayesian from Long or, better, from Triangular (disambiguation)? Triangular pyramid, Triangular matrix, Triangular function, Triangular number ... Triangular alopecia ("This matrix is square, but if it were triangular" <-- wikilinked but are ambiguous) -- eh? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, take a look at All pages with titles beginning with Bayesian: "Bayesian" page is a tip of an iceberg. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We do have a guidelines for that, but it's WP:PTM. A list of "Bayesian X" articles is a list of partial title matches. Bayesian should cover that concept of Bayesianess, or if it's not a concept (encyclopedic topic), it should be unlinked, just like we don't link Long everywhere it occurs (long bow --> long bow). If there's a problem with definitions, it could be a soft redirect to Wikitionary instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case, there's already of List of things named after Thomas Bayes that Bayesian can redirect to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, WP:PTM is formally applicable. However since there are so many violations of WP:PTM with "technical/scientific" adjectives, I guess the guideline needs clarification/expansion, either to "legalize" or delete all these pages. In particular, your solution about "List of things" will not work for "digital" (List of things named after digit haha ;-). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't recommend a general solution of redirecting to "List of things". That solution was for "In this case". The general solution is deletion (and fixing the WP:OVERLINKing as needed). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We have List of articles about things which are artificial. PamD 21:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Adjectives for maths topics were discussed at some length in 2016: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 41#Adjective phrases as titles, partial title matches and broad concept articles. – Uanfala (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• WP:PTM states: "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference." [My emphasis by using italics. --L.] In all cases, application of editorial judgment is required to assess the "risk of confusion or reference". So one cannot categorically state that WP:PTM "formally" applies to some dab-like page with an adjectival title. The stated reservation is, of course, informed by the consideration that we should seek to do what is most helpful to the user of Wikipedia, which for adjectival page titles must be based on a case-by-case examination.  --Lambiam 10:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

These so-called dab pages (Bayesian, Newtonian, Pythagorean, etc.) all have list pages which perform pretty much the same function. I don't see the point of maintaining two when one will do just fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Partial title matches and sequels

Can I get some clarification on this? Does WP:PTM instruct against listing sequels on disambiguation pages? I can't quite tell if that is what this means: "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title." I ask because I was reverted when removing a sequel's link (same title but with "2" added) from a disambiguation page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No one is going to think that an article on The Godfather Part II might have been titled "The Godfather", so you were right to remove the sequel from a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. If a sequel has a subtitle but is often refered to without the subtitle then it's natural to list it like Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle in Jumanji (disambiguation). But I see no reason to list both X and X 2, X 3 and so on in X (disambiguation). PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

In the example above, The Godfather (film series) is listed and covers the sequels, with prominent links to their main articles. Certes (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

JHunterJ, PrimeHunter, Certes: I brought this up in regard to God's Not Dead since the sequel God's Not Dead 2 was listed. I'm still unclear about where God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness (the third film) belongs, considering that its title is like Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle in being a non-obvious sequel title? Also, regarding The Godfather Part II, the disambiguation page godfather lists the second and third films. Is this acceptable or not? Curious to know since I try to improve navigation for various films and would like to have a best practice in mind. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I would omit God's Not Dead 2, but it's arguable and I wouldn't revert if another editor added it. Listing it in See also looks like a good compromise. Certes (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I shunt things to See also in general, if the page isn't terribly long to start with. Path of least resistance. Yeah, unnumbered sequels with subtitles are harder to slot. IMO, the new Jumanji is referred to commonly as "Jumanji", because of the release date differences. The latest GND isn't referred to as just it; the audience is principally unchanged, and they need the distinction for clarity anyway. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

To follow up, I realized no one said anything about the Godfather films. Should the sequels (and related soundtracks) not be removed from the disambiguation page? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Good gravy. Cleaned. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

So along the same lines, on Django, I'm thinking to move Django Strikes Again, Django Unchained, and Sukiyaki Western Django to See also. And Django Unchained (soundtrack) too, I guess. Does that seem reasonable? Leschnei (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Beware of Django (character), which is about two barely related topics and might be split. Certes (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Leschnei (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

And I'd just delete them the first time, and if they are restored, then move them to See also. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Kolossus

I'm not an expert on dab page content, so can someone please review Kolossus (disambiguation)? Some of those entries seem like a stretch. See also discussion on the talk page. Thanks! --В²C ☎ 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

They all seem to pass MOS:DABMENTION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Article naming discussion

Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

From a disambiguation perspective, if it keeps two articles from having the same title, it's suitable. Whether the word is useful to the project is up to the topic project's naming conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

How precisely are we supposed to disambiguate?

In the case of William R. Allen, there are at least four notable people with that initial. Someone has just redirected that page (although it only had two entries listed) to William Allen. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two valid approaches here:

1. redirect William R. Allen to William Allen, as someone just did
2. have a secondary disambiguation page William R. Allen with just the relevant topics, as was (almost) the case before that edit

Whether to have a double disambiguation is a matter of judgement. Personally I'd go for option 1 in this case, but I wouldn't say that 2 was obviously wrong. I'm sure an expert will be along with a more experienced opinion soon. The debate at #Proposal: Clarifying WP:INCDAB above is partly about this choice. Certes (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Two more solutions:

• Have a {{hndis}} page for W. R. Allen and redirect William R. to it.
• Add the full names into William Allen.

Both have pros and cons. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

They (six actually) are already listed in William Allen, though they are not all readily apparent to the eye:

• William Allen (Canadian politician)
• William Allen (Montana politician)
• William Allen (Utah architect)
• William Rodney Allen
• William Reginald Allen (English cricketer)
• William R. Allen (economist) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Purely by coincidence, I've also found Joseph L. Smith (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a list of some other partially disambiguated name pages. There will be plenty more which don't contain that exact pattern. Certes (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Since there's plenty of precedent, I've restored and expanded the page. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Blue Ridge (New York)

Dab Blue Ridge contains the perfectly reasonable entry

• Blue Ridge (New York), several places

How should we mark this as an intentional link to (partial) dab? I think Blue Ridge (New York) (disambiguation) would work, but it feels somewhat like using a sledgehammer to adjust a delicate watch. Certes (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• • I'd either mark that page as a set index or merge the entries into the main dab and change it into a redirect marked as incomplete disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's an incomplete dab. Fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

What's to be done with this?

Al-Jami'ah al-Islamiyyah (disambiguation) is a list of Islamic universities, none of which have Al-Jami'ah al-Islamiyyah in their text. It was originally split off from from Islamic University. Should it be converted to a list article or put back into Islamic University? Leschnei (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know either. I think it's either a List of Islamic universities or Islamic University (disambiguation), depending whether the qualifying criteria are "being Islamic and a university", or (in the language of this wiki) "being called The Something Islamic University of Somewhere". A list may be better done as a category; a dab may suffer from partial title matches. Certes (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation vs. set index

I have seen several disambiguation pages that include, among other things, a long list of people who share the term as a name (usually with more that could potentially be added). Is there any general guideline as to when/if such a list should be split off into a surname page? Leschnei (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Including surname as a disambiguation template parameter results in Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists being added (same with given name). This seems to me to be a strong hint to split the page. If there are only one or two people, I don't bother. At the other extreme, if a large majority of entries are people, I usually keep them as the primary topic and create a dab page from the non-people entries. Otherwise, I create a surname list. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that you would keep the people at, for example, Last-name, and put the other items at Last-name (disambiguation)? Leschnei (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Just like what I did two days ago with Jodi (about 40 people) vs Jodi (disambiguation) (4, none of them particularly well-known). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A similar question was recently asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#First names as articles or as disambiguation pages?. – Uanfala (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've put some notes at User:DexDor/Dabs and SIAs. By the way, any comments on that essay are welcome. DexDor ^(talk) 06:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Has the dab page, including list of people with the surname, grown to such a size that the reader will find it easier if they have to click on a further link to access a separate surname page? If the answer is "no", then leave the name-holders in the dab page: no benefit in splitting. PamD 08:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This has given me a lot to read and think about - thank you all. Leschnei (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

One other answer: the list is split off to an anthroponymy list article as soon as any editor feels like doing so. Most of us don't feel like doing so with short lists, but if someone does split a two-name list off to a listicle, they can. The listicle is a valid link target; the disambiguation page is generally not. I do add the template parameter no matter how short the list (same as I would add "geo" even if only two places were present in a longer dab list). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to remember to add those template parameters. I'm rubbish at choosing categories in general, but even I can figure out 'geo' and 'surname'!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leschnei (talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Oops! Leschnei (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass removal of entries from dab pages and name lists

I have noticed that User:JesseRafe has removed lots of valid entries from dab pages and list articles. See [1], [2], [3], [4] for some examples, there are presumably many more. It appears nobody has raised this with them before so I would like some more eyes on it, since I'm inclined to revert most of the removals. Most of the ones I checked were fine per MOS:DABMENTION. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I see a brightline disctinction between "Maggie Anderson may refer to:" followed with non-notables (who may have passing mention, such as non-notable individual members of a notable band) compared to a "List of notable people named Maggie/Anderson" in which blue links (or redirects to embedded subsections of characters) seems to be the standard, per my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Adding individual items to a list. JesseRafe (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:DABMENTION is a bright line rule allowing the inclusion of a topic on a disambiguation page if it is validly mentioned in another article. Individual notability is not a condition for inclusion on a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 19:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What about this sentence on this very page Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists of names, "To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it." suggests two things: 1, that these lists shouldn't get too long, i.e. bloated with non-notables, and 2, "reasonably well known by it" suggests that they are reasonably well known to begin with, which a reasonable person would interpret as having the same criteria as general notability standards. JesseRafe (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That is a different issue. We don't include Cincinnati Zoo at Zoo (disambiguation) or Cincinnati (disambiguation), not because this is a non-notable example, but because it is a partial title match. I do note, however, that some of the pages referenced by Xezbeth above are surname pages, not disambiguation pages, so WP:DABMENTION does not apply to them at all. bd2412 T 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Also do given names apply to that same standard? If so, that's then 3/4 of the ones referenced and almost all of the unlinked actions Xezbeth is referring to are on name pages, not disambig, which is where I look for them. JesseRafe (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) There is a difference between a specific name like "Maggie Anderson" which should include WP:DABMENTIONs of the name and pages that include people with the surname or given name. In those cases, unless the person is commonly known mononymously, they are candidates to be moved to a separate page for the surname or given name. However, persons who are commonly known by the single name should remain on the dab page, even if they are only mentioned in another article. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Re-reading, yes, I think we are in agreement (Bkonrad and BD2412), per my first comment I said I saw no problem with "Maggie Anderson may refer to:" followed with non-notables" which would apply uniquely to disambigs and thus under these rules you've explained, but did have a problem with "a "List of notable people named Maggie/Anderson" containing red links" which would be found not on disambig pages, but on pages for the names Maggie or Anderson. Is that a correct understanding of the distinction? And to follow, is that a correct application of the notability standard at the given and surname pages? JesseRafe (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have linked to MOS:DABMENTION, since that's somewhat misleading. Most of these removals are to fictional characters that are covered at either an article on a work of fiction, or a list of characters. They have been removed because they're a direct link, whereas other fictional characters have been kept because they were linked to via a redirect. These don't even count as redlinks since there's a blue link pointing the reader to the correct location. Take Kato, which I reverted: Megumi Kato and Marika Katō were both removed as they were perceived to be redlinks, despite being a major character and a protagonist respectively. Meanwhile Katō Kyōji was not removed since it's a redirect, even though he's so minor that the character list it points to doesn't even mention him. I'm aware that a lot of these aren't dab pages, but I was struggling to find any guidance on the inclusion of fictional characters in lists, even though I'm sure there must be somewhere. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Xezbeth is going through undoing dozens of my useful edits wherein I removed non-notables, but these are not disambiguation pages. Is this appropriate? Per Bkonrad and BD2412 in this thread it seems like this was NOT the case for anthroponymy articles as distinct from DAB pages. JesseRafe (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• A general comment on WP:DABMENTION. The threshold for inclusion as an entry on a dab page is usually much higher than merely having a passing mention in an article. This is especially true of people: any reasonably developed biography article will include mentions of dozens of people: family members, associates, various people the subject has interacted with etc. These shouldn't be included unless the article in question has significant content about them or they're notable (or almost notable) individuals who are known primarily for their association with the subject. – Uanfala (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Well then, I'm at a loss, it seems what I was doing was right then, yes? And those non-notables should be listed on all of these pages? Xezbeth is adding them back to dozens of pages. JesseRafe (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit of a judgement call. Dab pages really shouldn't be a catalog of every minor person or character mentioned in an article. However, the threshold Uanfala mentions is entirely subjective. older ≠ wiser 17:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Your judgement of a "non-notable" is way off. You removed major characters and protagonists yet left minor characters, purely because their name had a redirect. I doubt you even checked any of them. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Bkonrad, but these aren't dab pages. Xezbeth is restoring non-notables to main space articles, which fall under the guidelines for notability for inclusion in lists as I quoted above, no? JesseRafe (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

JesseRafe This is becoming hard to follow without specifics. The criteria for inclusion on lists of Anthroponymy pages are similar to that of dab pages -- i.e., does the linked article have content indicating there is a character or person by that name. Questions regarding the notability of any such characters or persons should be addressed on the talk pages of the articles that mention them -- not summarily removed from the list article based on a subjective interpretation of the guidelines. older ≠ wiser 15:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, what about this at Veronica? Xezbeth indiscriminately reverted. Those Czech film articles where the non-notable actresses should probably be deleted, no refs on almost any of them, and the lists of Hungarian weightlifters also seems tenuous. But what about the fictional characters? There's no Veronica on Questionable Content or Fallout: New Vegas pages. This is just indiscriminate "vengence" against me it would seem. Or, I've point out numerous times that from a formatting perspective saying "*Veronica [[Ronnie Mitchell]]" is much less pleasing to the eye than *Ronnie Mitchell, especially at Cassie where it was done abundantly. This user is claiming to be "rescuing valid entries" but is blanketly restoring invalid entries (as seen above) and also restoring glaring formatting errors. Seems more like a vendetta to me, rather than a thoughtful case-by-case process. JesseRafe (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Jesse, from my reading of this, you made edits and removed entries. Another editor objected and restored the entries. Now is the time to go to the talk pages and explain why you believe each entry does not belong on the page. This can lead to consensus that maybe some do belong and others don't. ~ GB fan 15:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Because it's been dozens of pages and there's reference made to a policy that I don't see written anywhere. I didn't start this, btw. The other editor did about me, and I'm concerned about what to do since they're seemingly following my contributions and undoing them with objectively false edit summaries and allusion to a policy that doesn't seem to apply. I've tried asking them direct questions (on my talk page) and they refuse to answer. I don't know where the appropriate venue is, but from what I can glean from the policies quoted above, my edits are in the right because these are not dab pages and this editor should stop? JesseRafe (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There are no policies involved, there are editing guidelines and manual of style references. I gave a suggestion on a way forward because I do not think this thread will yield an answer that your removals were correct or wrong in every instance as there are way to many nuances over the dozen of pages and dozens of entries. What you do with my suggestion is all up to you. ~ GB fan 16:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think JesseRafe did good cleanup work, which should not be mass-reverted. Indeed, addition of individual entries should be discussed on the relevant talk pages. — JFG ^talk 16:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. Just looking at Veronica, Jesse removed many valid entries. older ≠ wiser 16:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can explain how these constitute good cleanup work: Removed several main characters while keeping some minor characters purely because their names had redirects; Removed at least four major characters while keeping a very minor Ouran High School Host Club character, purely because she has a redirect while the others didn't; accused some poor new editor of vandalism because they had the temerity to add a major fictional character. I haven't actually fixed that many pages; I cleaned up about a dozen before getting bored. Am I going to have to build a dossier of evidence when I visit the others? Because that will make the whole process take a lot longer. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a reasonable assumption that an editor using a common first name and a common surname as a username then adding that full name to an article as their third ever edit in their first 5 minutes of creating that account is adding themselves, I've seen it hundreds of times, so, yes my reaction is to call that "vandalism". But sure, keep taking potshots at me, in any attempt to besmirch me for some reason? You still refuse to answer direct questions on now multiple talk pages, about some of the characters you added back at Veronica don't even meet your standard or where this standard is published as it fits anthroponmy articles (not dab pages). Even it's not published then fine, that's your interpretation then, so please don't say I'm breaking a law that only you know. I provided references to my interpretation of the rules and MOS that these non-notable inclusions are violating. JesseRafe (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a fictional character. You could have worked this out if you spent just one moment looking at The Lorax (film). This proves that you aren't even looking at the articles in question before removing them. You also have very little understanding of what a "non-notable inclusion" is. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The edit referred to is this one where an editor whose editname is that of a fictional character had added that character quite reasonably to a dab page, in the "Fictional characters" section, as their third of four edits to date, to be reverted as "vandalism" because JesseRafe thought they were adding an autobiographical link. Hmmm. Not a lot of care going into these removals, it seems. PamD 17:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not a dab page. It's an article about the given name with its history and translations. And I didn't think they were adding an "autobiographical link", but adding their own name to the page. Hmmm. Not a lot of care is going into these responses. JesseRafe (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

How is adding a notable fictional character with that name to the page vandalism? Did you click the link to provided to see if there was a fictional character by that name in the film or did you just look at the username adding it and see it was the same and decide it was vandalism? ~ GB fan 17:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a mistake there, yes, as acknowledged, but it was a reasonable one. Lots of people, largely kids, add their own names or their crushes' to anthroponymy articles and film casts and lists of alumni etc all the time. If it weren't for the username, yes, it almost certainly wouldn't've been removed, but I jumped the gun there, as acknowledged. Especially as I didn't remember any characters having names in the book, it looked like some kid named Aloysius O'Hare adding himself as an Aloysius and saying he was in his favorite movie. Happens all the time here. The question is, whether it belongs on the list, not whether I made a mistake labeling its removal "rvv". JesseRafe (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above examples, this is not good cleanup, and actually impedes reader navigation by using an arbitrary criterion. The existence of a redirect is only tenuously linked to the importance of the subject matter. In fact, at WP:RFD, editors routinely cite WP:REDLINK to argue for deleting redirects on notable topics with no significant coverage on Wikipedia in order to encourage article creation (see: [5]). So in some cases, the non-existence of a redirect might mean that the topic is more important and more likely to be searched for. And based on the above thread, it looks like in at least some cases, JR is not even checking the linked articles to assess if the entry should be included or not, meaning that their removals are likely not backed by diligently checks. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but on the other hand, removing minor athletes, actresses or band members called "Veronica" who don't have an article looks like good cleanup work to me, and they shouldn't have been restored wholesale. Inclusion of manga or movie characters should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. I think both editors are acting in good faith, and they should be able to find consensus. — JFG ^talk 17:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, JFG, I tried, but the other editor absolutely refuses to engage in conversation and is incapable/unwilling to answer any direct questions as seen on my talk page. JesseRafe (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

PK: As stated, I understand there to be a distinction between DAB pages and those that are a "List of notable people in which blue links (or redirects to embedded subsections of characters) seems to be the standard, per my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Adding individual items to a list. Have still not heard explicitly that this is not the case, based these three rules, where am I misapplying them? JesseRafe (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• "The threshold for inclusion as an entry on a dab page is usually much higher than merely having a passing mention in an article." No, it's exactly that threshold. If it's mentioned on an article and someone adds it to the dab, the two possibilities are either remove its mention from the linked article as non-encyclopedic or leave its entry on the dab page per MOS:DABMENTION. The addition of the entries to the dab does not need discussion. The deletion of such entries would require discussion. Barring ambiguity, the mentioned entries could have been created as a redirect to the articles that mentioned them. Since there's ambiguity, they can have the redirect. Since there's a disambiguation page, searching for the name won't land on search results, but rather on the disambiguation page. Removing them from the disambiguation page means that reader navigation is hindered. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

JHunterJ, sorry, I don't see why people keep talking about dab when I've said time and time again that these are not dab pages, they're articles. Lists of people should fall under the governing principles found at the following: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Adding individual items to a list, is this not correct? Xezbeth is restoring scores if not hundreds of non-notables to these lists. Has nothing to do with dab pages or dabmention criteria. JesseRafe (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably because this is the talk page for disambiguation pages and the section header says "dab pages". If you want to talk about name listicles (separate from disambiguation pages of human names et al.), this should take place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Luckily Trent is a dab page, and this revision demonstrates yet again that you have no idea what "non-notable" means. A heroine of a Charles Dickens novel is non-notable according to you. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

JHunterJ, I didn't bring this up here and I don't know why my argument should suffer because the other party made a mistake. Is my removal of non-notables from listicles that not dab pages appropriate or not? I've found several sources from the MOS that suggest it is, but no one is confirming that here, yet Xezbeth is still removing them from dozens of non-dab pages as well as the dab pages where I was mistaken. JesseRafe (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm responding to the argument (not yours) as presented. The quote I gave (not yours) mentioned dab pages, and I replied to it. You took that response as if it ignored what you've said time and time again, probably because I was ignoring what you've said time and time again and was instead responding to the other user talking about dab pages on a dab talk page. Your argument, if not about dab pages, neither suffers from nor is aided by my response to another editor. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Xezbeth, please keep this conversation civil. This is just the latest of a half-dozen attacks and aspersions you've cast about me. Discuss the edits, not the editor. JesseRafe (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Corvette and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

I've proposed moving Corvette (disambiguation) to Corvette at Talk:Corvette (disambiguation) and Netoholic has raised an objection that I think warrants consideration regarding how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should apply in situations like this. Have a gander... --В²C ☎ 20:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Long-term significance vs usage

I made a change to the primary topic section, switching the order of the two criteria given. Wikipedia:Five Pillars are our core values, and chief among them is that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". In an encyclopedia, long-term significance of general knowledge topics is the primary value for inclusion. "Usage" (aka page views, search results) certainly has value, especially in a digital medium such as us, but should not be presented as the top criterion. Usage is a fluid and fickle thing - it is heavily dependent on time, region, and context. Taking the example in that section, apple is given primary topic because it is a general knowledge topic compared to the transient commercial popularity of Apple Inc.. Usage is perhaps better presented as a "tie-breaker" when two topics have roughly equal long-term encyclopedic significance.

As such, I would like to reinstate my edit, switching the order, as a first step. I think this community should also discuss rewording the two criterion so that it is clear that usage is used when long-term significance doesn't give a clear result - perhaps changing the line to "A topic may be primary for a term with respect to usage..." while the other line stays "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance...". -- Netoholic @ 05:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles. So when the reader types a search term, we're aiming to provide the page they expected and desired, even if another page might advance their knowledge of a topic that we consider more worthy. Usage, over a period of decades rather than months, is a good indicator of what's expected and desired. Where it conflicts with the general knowledge criterion, we probably have no primary topic and should put a dab at the base name. Certes (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic, in one respect, if discussion here establishes consensus for the change then I'm OK with that. But it is a significant change. The criteria was based primarily of usage from the earliest days and the long-term significance criteria was added later (and is still disputed by some). I don't think a subjective reading of WP:5P justifies elevation of that criteria without some broader discussion and consensus. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it's bad enough that long-term significance even got added as a criterion; trying to make it a higher priority is even worse. We are building an encyclopedia, but it's an online encyclopedia, and we're trying to serve our readers as well as possible. That includes trying to get them to the article they are seeking in the fewest clicks possible, when reasonable. I've long held that historical significance is inherent in likelihood of being sought. That is, if it's that historically significant, then that supposed significance should be reflected in how often the article is sought, thus page view counts, link counts, etc. There is no need for a separate historical significance criterion. It does nothing to improve the encyclopedia, and just gums up the primary topic decision-making process. --В²C ☎ 02:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We have access to many techniques which can get a reader quickly to an article. A PRIMARYTOPIC debate rarely (never?) requires more than a single extra click for the reader who lands on a subject they were expecting, so the effect is negligible. Even the best encyclopedias (print ones) often had to include page references to guide the reader. We also have the major benefit of search engine technology, which I think almost makes this concern moot. Its a small sacrifice (if you can even call it that) for the benefit of being a reputable encyclopedia which prioritizes its topics appropriately by putting general human knowledge about commercial products, fan content, etc. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a long-standing and insoluble problem with page views. As for being a reputable encyclopedia, things like the NYRM2016 fiasco certainly don't help that. We will only be reputable to the extent we follow our own rules.

One of the problems with primary topic is that Wikipedia is becoming a citeable authority to others. Google search cites us for example. So our use of language, and in particular our choice of article title and in particular of primary topic, influences English usage. It has become in this sense content. However, it's not content that can be related to its sources by citations in the same way that article content can be, and in presenting it as content we are subtly violating both NPOV and NOR.

We would stand far more chance both of being regarded as a reputable encyclopedia and of attracting and retaining good editors if we got rid of the problematic and unnecessary concept of primary topic altogether. It seemed a good idea to the founders. It has proven otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Proven" how? We should move William Shakespeare (disambiguation) to the base name? Mexico (disambiguation)? Bread (disambiguation)? No, it may be at times problematic (and not necessarily insolubly so), but it most certainly is necessary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Proven by experience in many RM discussions and others such as this one. Yes, it would do no harm to have William Shakespeare (playwright) as the article title, and similarly for the others. It would take some getting used to by the old hands!

Why exactly is it most certainly... necessary? Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

To keep exactly that from happening: to add qualifiers to a bajillion titles that don't need them, hindering both readers (predominantly looking for the, hm, "primary" topic for a title) and editors (who now have to figure out which qualifier to add to nearly every wikilink to a "primary" topic). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and for answering the whole question, that is, you've said not only that you think William Shakespeare the playwright should be at the base name but that this is for three reasons: To avoid needing to change many articles (I agree that's a consideration but I think the task is manageable); To spare some readers (hopefully a majority) from loading a short page and needing then a single mouse click to get to the page they want; And to spare editors the need to choose and type a disambiguator. I don't think any of those are serious problems. Andrewa (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

They are serious impacts with negative return on investment. You say "some readers" and "short page" and "single mouse click" to minimize it, but that is exactly the negative return on this investment you're seeking: we do a bunch of editor work (and increase the ongoing maintenance editor work) in order to worsen the overall reader encyclopedia experience. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

See my replies at User talk:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic#Ongoing discussion. Andrewa (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the change. IMO it's an improvement, and will save a little editor time and improve overall reader experience a little. A far bigger improvement would be to abandon the whole problematic and Wikipedia-invented concept of primary topic and disambiguate whenever there is ambiguity, but I can't see that happening. Andrewa (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If I've understood you correctly Andrewa, your change would make Corvette a dab, and I don't think that's what Netholic had in mind! Certes (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I would indeed make Corvette a DAB, and would retire the pseudo-disambiguator (disambiguation) completely, as unnecessary. I concede that this is unlikely to be accepted, in fact I'm not sure it will ever have any (other) supporters at all! But I can see many positives, and absolutely no negatives, to this approach. One more click does no reader significant damage, and yet we spend many person-hours seeking this elusive primary topic, which achieves nothing significant. Andrewa (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We would need to keep a redirect at William Shakespeare (disambiguation) to mark the few wikilinks which are genuinely intended for the dab page, so the long-suffering gnomes can skip them when editing the daily torrent of new links to dab page William Shakespeare to read William Shakespeare (playwright). Certes (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Exactly.

We might even keep a long term concept of primary topic just to help partly automate this process. But primary redirects and pages named XYZ (disambiguation) would go. The DAB names would still be there for navigation, but they'd be redirects not pages, and ambiguous primary redirects would point to a DAB (or in some cases be one). And non-ambiguous redirects aren't primary redirects at all, and would be unaffected. Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I too support the change. It seems clear from the move discussions I've participated in, that long-term significance is more important than page hits.--Ykraps (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, see user:andrewa/The Problem With Page Views, and please add to the Examples section there. And while it's not the only or even the best evidence of search term likelihood, it's almost always the only one cited, and the arguments above demonstrate this unfortunate tendency too. Andrewa (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Or just drop PT altogether

I'm encouraged by the response... it's negative but not as negative as I had feared, and more encouraging still, the arguments against so far are very easily answered IMO. But it's not ready for this talk page IMO, and has gone off-topic for this section. See User talk:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic and its user page, where I intend to try to develop the proposal. Comments welcome there of course! Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I am completely onboard with eliminating "primary topics", the use of (disambiguation) pages, and in fact, I'd love to get rid of all parenthetical disambiguation and replace it with a "subtitle" field so that each page could be named as they should, and the subtitle would be a of short phrase of clarifying text (very much like you see on Wikidata entries). This would also require that our wikilinking mechanism work like Wikidata's dropdown selection menu rather than straight text. This is probably a big change to the mediawiki interface. Your solution might be a good one in the meantime, since any conversion process could move anything in a parenthetical into that subtitle field. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I empathise with this position and can see the benefits (not least the potential to massively reduce discussions like the one about Corvette). However, if we remove primary topic entirely that introduces new problems shown by a couple examples:

1. Mathematics is ambiguous. Do we really want to disambiguate one of the top-ten vital articles? When the competing terms are 2 relatively obscure songs and a hip-hop producer? And even if we did, how do you clarify such a major topic further?
2. Bangkok is apparently unique. Even if it is today, that could change tomorrow. That means messing with stability, generating page moves and adjusting thousands of links, just because of a new article with less than 10 links. Is that good? We could avoid that by pre-emptively disambiguating everything? But is that wise?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A second opinion, please?

I'm trying to come up with a reason why Dorset Coast should continue to exist. One item on the page, MSTS: Dorset Coast has a link to MSTS1 and that article does not mention either Dorset or coast. The second item is Dorset which does not seem to disambiguate Dorset Coast. I searched for other likely items but found none and DabFix had nothing to suggest. The page has been dormant since 2008 (with good reason). If no one has an objection, I think that I will AfD it. Leschnei (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It can go. Looking at the history it originally linked to MSTS: Dorset Coast. This was an article about a freeware download route for Microsoft Train Simulator. It was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSTS: Dorset Coast. There is nothing to disambiguate. ~ GB fan 21:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is no valid target, you can label it G6 for speedy deletion. Otherwise it can be changed to a redirect; I'd suggest that Jurassic Coast would be valid in light of the UNESCO World Heritage site. Dekimasuよ! 21:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I would replace it by a redirect to section Geography of Dorset#Coastline, which links prominently to Jurassic Coast and other relevant articles. Certes (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. I will go with Certes solution as it includes Jurassic Coast as well. Leschnei (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)