Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics

Here's some more bits of info I've gathered after someone asked at Talk:Tupelo:

• Talk:Slow#followup to move
  • hatnote got up to 50% of traffic
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic barely registers though the common section does consistently get a measurably noticable chunk of traffic
• Talk:Panis#post-move
  • a primary redirect was in place and no hatnote
  • after the move, the previous presumed primary topic got ~1.2%, ~1.4%, ~2.4%, ~1.9%
• Talk:Zozo#post-move
  • hatnote got a small amount of traffic but almost all identifiable traffic anyway; RM received very little interest
  • after the move, the previous presumed primary topic got ~2.6%, ~1.9%, ~2.2%
• Talk:Mar#post-move
  • hatnote got ~5.2% compared to incoming traffic
  • after the move, the previous presumed primary topic got ~6.5%, ~4.3%, ~4%, ~2.9% (the latter being a weird month)
• Talk:Julius#followup to move
  • a primary redirect was in place before, hatnote got ~3.5% of traffic, we noted the redirect ratio back then as 68/91 = ~75%
  • after the move, the previous redirect destination got ~11%, ~5%, ~3%, ~4%
• Talk:Sola#followup to move
  • hatnote got ~10% of traffic
  • after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~7%, ~7%, and then with the fall of overall traffic it was below the anonymization threshold (< 10/273 = < 3.66% with every source-destination combination - which doesn't mean it wasn't actually something different though still a minority).
• Talk:Tete#post-move
  • the hatnote got ~11% before the move
  • afterwards the previously presumed primary topic gets ~6%, ~7.2%, ~8.2%
• Talk:Uma#post-move
  • there was a primary redirect in place and the hatnote got ~25.3% of its traffic before the move and dis. traffic was much larger still
  • afterwards the previously presumed primary topic gets ~8.2%, ~9%, ~11% interest
• Talk:Ty#post-move
  • hatnote got a very small amount of traffic (max 220/13742 = ~1.6%), was only #5 in the top list
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic was sorted down in the list, got ~7% clicks the next month; sorted back up the following month it got ~8%, ~7.5%, ~5% clicks, though ~53% / ~55% / ~60% / ~47% of identifiable outgoing
• Talk:Hum#full disambiguation again
  • used to be primary redirected to human humming, went back and forth a bit
  • previous primary redirect destination gets ~10%, ~8%, ~8%
• Talk:Marr#post-move
  • hatnote got ~10% of traffic
  • after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~11%, ~10.5%, ~11%, ~7.2%, ~9.6%
• Talk:Rara#post-move
  • hatnote got some traffic before, all small
  • after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~11.9%, ~11.3%
  • closely connected topic also shows up in outgoing destinations, but nothing else
• Talk:Cam#post-move
  • hatnote got ~3.3% of traffic
  • after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~11.5%, ~8.6%, ~12.3%
• Talk:Luz#post-move
  • hatnote got ~9.7% of traffic, total disambiguation list traffic at times substantially higher as well
  • after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~12%, ~7%, ~7.7% among several other topics
• Talk:Top#post-move
  • hatnote got ~2%
  • after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~12%, and half of identified outgoing
• Talk:Kolya#post-move
  • hatnote got ~1.4%, total disambiguation list traffic substantially higher than that
  • after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~13%, ~11%, ~8%, ~7.6%, ~7%
• Talk:Shoot#post-move
  • hatnote got ~1% of traffic
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~11%, ~10%, ~11%, ~12%, ~14.5% interest
• Talk:Redd#post-move
  • hatnote got ~5% of traffic
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~10.8%, 19.6%
• Talk:Tupelo#post-move
  • hatnote got ~3% of traffic
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~14%, ~28%
• Talk:Boyle#post-move
  • hatnote got <4% of traffic
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~15.6%, ~33%, though it's not clear if this is an actual improvement
• Talk:Vic#post-move
  • hatnote got ~2%
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~15.8%, ~15%
• Talk:Golden shower#disambiguated
  • hatnote was on top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Popular pages
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~0.7%, ~0.75%
  • another popular meaning got ~15%, ~17.3% though >90% identified outgoing
• Talk:Bold#post-move
  • the previous stats indicated up to ~20% interest in the hatnote
  • after the move the interest in the previously presumed primary topic was ~16%, ~14.7%, ~18.4%, ~12.1%, ~14.3%
• Talk:Julia#post-move
  • hatnote got ~20% of traffic
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~14%, ~16%, ~17%
• Talk:Slava#post-move
  • disambiguated after 18 years of being presumed primary topic, 15 years with a hatnote (March '22 1199/9356 = ~13%)
  • after the move, we continue seeing seasonal spikes for the previously presumed primary topic, and regardless of spikes it gets ~23%, ~15%, ~11% interest
• Talk:Hamme#post-move
  • hatnote got relatively small traffic, was not measurable, most likely <10%
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~16% interest
  • reverted, subsequent discussion resulted in no consensus
• Talk:Baudouin#post-move
  • primary redirect, hatnote got < 0.5% interest compared to total incoming traffic at destination, nobody checked a comparison of redirect and disambiguation traffic
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~16%, ~23%, ~17% interest
• Talk:Warren#followup to move
  • hatnote got ~7% of traffic
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~18%, ~12%, ~14%, ~15% interest
• Talk:Hamm#followup to move
  • hatnote got ~2.5% of traffic
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~18.4%, ~21%, ~22.9% interest
• Talk:Mana#post-move
  • hatnotes combined got ~8% of traffic
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~19%, ~17%, ~16% interest
• Talk:Charlotte#post-move
  • the hatnote got ~0.7% before the move, yet there were hints that it could do better if reorganized because of ~20% measurements related to the primary redirect (which we sadly can't have in a lot of cases)
  • afterwards the previous presumed primary topic gets ~21%, ~23.5%, ~21.1%, ~22.9% interest
• Talk:Lili#post-move
  • the hatnote got ~2% before the move
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~23.2%, ~15.4%, ~26.4% interest
• Talk:Gaga#post-move
  • the hatnote got ~1.5% before the move
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~24.8%, ~29.9%, ~27.4% interest
• Talk:Saba#post-move
  • hatnote was in the top 5 of identifiable outgoing clickstreams, the ratio wasn't recorded then but was around 635/23806 = ~2.6%
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~28.5%, ~26%, ~24%, ~23.5%, though around half of outgoing
• Talk:Frida#post-move
  • hatnote got ~2% of traffic
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~27%, ~19%, ~27%, ~24.2%
• Talk:Thomastown#post-move
  • hatnote got ~1%
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~25%, ~28%
• Talk:Forced march#post move to disambiguation
  • was a soft redirect between 2011 and 2015, when it was made a primary redirect, and in 2023 it was disambiguated after a discussion
  • previous primary redirect destination gets ~29%, ~27%, ~44%, ~34.1%, another meaning that wasn't even mentioned in the RFD gets much more
• Talk:Major#post-move
  • the previously discussed primary topic was moved after a lot of discussions, at the time of the RM the hatnote had max 431/17909 (~2.4%) interest
  • afterwards it shows up with ~30.6%, ~30.3%, ~25%, ~28%, ~21.3%, ~26.9%, ~37.1% of reader interest, though three quarters of outgoing
• Talk:Ultra#post-move
  • the hatnote got ~2% before the move
  • afterwards the previously presumed primary topic gets ~29%, ~30.6%, ~26.5%, ~23%, ~26.9%, ~20.6%
• Talk:Quantum leap#post-move
  • the hatnotes got ~21% before the move
  • afterwards the previously presumed primary topic gets ~32%, ~29.7%, ~32.5%
• Talk:San Juan#followup to move discussion
  • before the discussion, the most popular link is alphabetically sorted in the middle of a big list and got ~22% clickstreams
  • after the discussion, it's on top of a MOS:DABCOMMON section, and gets ~29%, ~38%, ~26%
• Talk:Sokol#post-move
  • hatnote got ~3-4%
  • afterwards the previously presumed primary topic got ~33%, ~21%, ~30%
• Talk:Rasna#post-move
  • hatnote got ~1%
  • afterwards the previously presumed primary topic got ~20.9%, ~23.2%
  • move got reverted, went through a RM
  • afterwards the previously presumed primary topic got ~37%, ~38%
• Talk:Severian#post-move
  • hatnote got ~1.7%
  • after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~37%, ~33%, ~31%
• Talk:Tiro#post-move
  • primary redirect was in place and we could measure ~18% of interest in the hatnote
  • after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~36%, ~28%, ~36%
• Talk:Lio#post-move
  • before the move, hatnote got ~1%
  • after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~35.6%, ~37.9%, though >90% outgoing
• Talk:Mons#post-move
  • hatnote got ~2%
  • after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~38.5%, ~33.3%, ~32.3%, ~40.9%
• Talk:Starwood#post-move
  • hatnote got ~2%
  • after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~38.5%, ~35%, ~36.6%
• Talk:Dave Hill#post-move
  • hatnote got ~0.5%
  • after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~39%, ~46.1%, though almost all outgoing
• Talk:Alnair#post-move
  • had a primary redirect
  • after disambiguation, previously presumed primary topic got ~46.5%, ~38%, ~41.5%
• Talk:Angles#followup to move discussion
  • with primary topic in place, hatnote got less than 0.5% compared to incoming traffic and wasn't even in top 20 clickstreams
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic gets ~46.5%, ~43.6%, ~43.7%, ~42%
• Talk:ATB#post-move
  • hatnote got ~1%
  • after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~47%, ~45%, though almost all identifiable outgoing
• Talk:Lord Cameron#followup to move discussion
  • proposed primary redirect quite recent, no consensus
  • proposed primary topic later got ~47%, ~54.8%, ~36.3%, ~54.2%, ~52.4% of incoming traffic
• Talk:Give Me Liberty#post-move
  • hatnote did not get an observable level of interest
  • after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~62%, ~39%, ~42.5%
• Talk:Erasure#post-move
  • hatnote got < 0.3% interest, I myself doubted that there's a navigation issue there, but it wasn't completely clear
  • after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~48%, ~47%, ~44%, ~47.9% interest
• Talk:AEG#post-move
  • hatnote got ~1% of traffic, I was skeptical because of that and long-term significance aspects
  • after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~49%, ~47.5%, ~47.3% interest, though ~90% of identifiable outgoing
• Talk:Motul#followup to move discussion
  • proposed primary topic gets ~51%, ~49%, ~52%, ~48%, ~51%
  • no consensus to move
• Talk:Nabis#post-move
  • hatnote had ~1% interest
  • after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~50%, ~58%, ~41.8%
• Talk:King Charles#post-move
  • several RMs, kept disambiguated
  • proposed primary topic gets ~60%, ~55.9%, ~58.4% interest, though ~80% of identifiable outgoing, and hints of more
• Talk:Sugar Man#post-move
  • was a primary redirect, the ratio between redirect views and disambiguation views was between ~23% and ~43% but then mostly going back
  • after the move the previous redirect destination got ~60%, ~61.5%, ~61%, ~68.2%
• Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 13#Requested move 12 June 2023
  • proposed primary topic got ~60% of traffic, though a fair bit of of it came from there, too
  • the discussion was overwhelmingly against the move regardless
• Talk:Sean O'Malley (fighter)#Requested move 5 March 2024
  • proposed primary topic got ~71% or ~84% of traffic, one other topic identifiable as well
  • no consensus
• Talk:Michael Fagan#Requested move 17 February 2024
  • proposed primary topic got between around 70 to around 85 percent of traffic for years and across spikes in usage
  • no other major topics by long-term significance, consensus to move by usage

I think I'll have to keep updating this summary here to build up a knowledge base. --Joy (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

--Joy (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

--Joy (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

--Joy (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

--Joy (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't to say that all of these moves were truly warranted or that there aren't a plethora of individual factors at play. But even with this spread of outcomes, there's something distinctly off with our current near-consensus interpretation of how stats should look like for primary topics by usage. This also means little for considerations of long-term significance. --Joy (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Your numbers for % of "interest" are rather misleading, as they don't mention that in many cases, the largest percentage by far was "no traffic at all", i.e. no clickthrough, for whatever reason (visits not by humans? wanted target not available? info on disambig page sufficient?). E.g. for Hamme, you note "after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~16% interest", which was more than 4 times as much as the other topics "combined". Fram (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've mentioned this several times. I agree it is misleading to simply assume that every incoming view counts for something meaningful. Truth is that there is no way for us to know what if anything those 'dead-end' incoming page views signify. older ≠ wiser 15:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bkonrad exactly, but it's not exactly that we don't know that they don't signify anything. There's multiple hints that they do:

First of all, there is a spread of cases here, ranging from where we see a lot of the incoming views translate into clicks, to where we see few of the incoming views translate into clicks. I didn't summarize all of that information on this talk page, you have to go click through the links to examine that. (I may find some time later to extract that dimension of data and extend the list above.)

That means that we're not just consistently seeing some ghost traffic always, rather, we've got to be observing actual reader behavior at least to an extent. So we can't just see e.g. 60% of traffic translate into clicks in a fresh case and then jump to the conclusion that most of the remaining 40% is ignorable.

Secondly, there are cases where we see almost all of the incoming views translate into clicks. The most recent such example I found is described at Talk:Forced march#post move to disambiguation, where our identification rate went from 34/55 (~62%) in the first month observed, to 96/96, to 95/95, to 135/135 in the last three months, amazingly enough, even at such a small amount of traffic.

This negates even the idea that there's always got to be at least some of this ghost traffic, because apparently we have a falsifying scenario that seems quite consistent. So we can't just see e.g. 75% of traffic translate into clicks and then jump to the conclusion that any part of the remaining 25% is ignorable.

--Joy (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that we since observed forced march getting more outgoing clicks than incoming ones. That's another scenario we can't account for - the same readers clicking multiple items in a list. --Joy (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

On the individual points raised by @Fram earlier:

• meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream says it tries to exclude visits not by humans: We attempt to exclude spider traffic by classifying user agents with the ua-parser library and a few additional Wikipedia specific filters. It's certainly possible that it misses, but then the page views "User" category is likely missing, too, so I don't know that we should rely on that being a major effect.
• Wanted target not available - how would this improve the odds for the claim that there would have to be a primary topic, when there'd be topics that detract from there being a primary topic yet they're not even available? That would seem to just raise the risk of astonishing more contingents of readers. "These people don't even know about meaning X, and they proclaimed meaning Y as the main one - pfft!"
• Info on disambig page sufficient - this use case is indeed not studied at all, and I agree that it seems possible for at least some cases. Ultimately, why would we consider all navigations that do not result in another click bad? IOW surely this also detracts from the idea of there being a primary topic, if there is also the contingent of readers who we cannot convince to click on the link to read about the proposed primary topic (which is also usually the very first link in the list).
• More than 4 times as the other topics combined - I've explained already at Talk:Hamme (disambiguation) how you are making weirdly incorrect statements. Even if we compare 28 identified clickstreams and the 10 identified clickstreams, the ratio between those two numbers is 2.8, it is simply not 4. Likewise, both 28 and 10 are so close to the anonymization threshold that it's not at all clear that this ratio has to be precise. In other words, this could have been 4 or it could have been 2 with just a few more src-dest pairs of views identified as opposed to anonymized out. And none of these ratios are impressive when we also see a lot more traffic interested in neither of these.

In any event, thanks for the interest. --Joy (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not saying the count of incoming views should be completely ignored, only that trying to read into what it signifies is highly speculative and we should be very cautious about what significance we attribute to such dead-end views. If there is a sudden change in the number of such incoming views, that likely merits some further consideration. Similarly, if there is a consistent, very large gap between incoming and outgoing views, that also may merit some consideration. But even in such cases, deciding what readers reaching such dead-end views were looking for when arriving at a particular disambiguation page is still highly speculative. It could play a factor in arguing that there is no primary topic where there is none at present (i.e., where there is a request to replace a disambiguation page with a primary topic). I'm not sure what significance we could read into such dead-end views of a disambiguation page where there is an existing primary topic. It could be readers are just curious about what else might have the same name, without intending to look at any of them in more detail. We just don't know why such readers behave that way. older ≠ wiser 13:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the change in pattern would be a significant indicator. But on that front, I point again to evidence above - we often observe a clearly consistent pattern, and then we do a switch for whatever reason, and then we the data switches to observing a clearly different consistent pattern. Well, it often takes a few months for things to settle, and in the interim period there's a swing or two, but still.

In cases where there is already a primary topic selected, it's very hard to read into the no-clickthrough traffic. Because the content is larger and varied, it could be any number of possibilities. Just like it could be readers who are navigated wrongly and just immediately click away, it could also be misnavigated readers who stayed and learned something and then clicked away, or it could be a bunch of completely content readers who were absolutely happy to read what was in front of them and had no need to immediately learn more about another related topic. We don't have the tools to discern these.

With simpler pages like the disambiguation lists, however, it's less hard to understand the general reader behavior because we don't present people with huge amounts of possibilities, we reduce that number and streamline their options, and make it more likely we can understand the measurements of our existing tools.

What I think we should learn from all this is that we should not be too cautious and instead we should not be afraid to experiment as much as we have been so far.

In all this data I've tracked, we've yet to observe a case where there was a fresh reader complaining about disambiguation lists being the wrong choice. As long as we apply MOS:DABCOMMON, and we do, we have no indication that we're confusing or troubling any appreciable amounts of readers even in contentious cases. --Joy (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

In all this data I've tracked, we've yet to observe a case where there was a fresh reader complaining about disambiguation lists being the wrong choice. This seems a peculiar criterion. Quite aside from reactions to the lists you have been compiling, I can't recall the last time I came across a "fresh" reader ever complaining about an incorrectly placed disambiguation page where the complainant was not a myopic partisan seeking to promote their preferred topic.

Regarding What I think we should learn from all this is that we should not be too cautious and instead we should not be afraid to experiment as much as we have been so far. I'm glad you are taking a deeper dive into the data, but I hope no one is being misled that the reems of data of uncertain quality based on poorly documented functions represents an agreed upon approach to making decisions. older ≠ wiser 16:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

We actually have some interesting data points about that, too, cf. Talk:Tito (disambiguation), where nobody really paid attention for over a decade as disambiguation was in place, and then a consensus of editors practically instantly chose to apply a primary topic redirect mainly for long-term significance. (On the plus side, that flip allowed us to measure something else afterwards, Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 56#on the quality of clickstream and pageviews usage data explains more.)

I'm pretty sure if we go through other cases we can also find similar timeframes, where some arbitrary navigation choice has been in place for years and decades, and then we arbitrarily decide to congregate, make fun new decisions and pat ourselves on our collective backs :)

IOW our decision-making process seems perfectly sound (mostly to me too, I'm not excluding myself here), but so much goes through the cracks that it's doubtful that much of it really matters as much as we think it does. --Joy (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

how many months it takes for disambiguation usage statistics to change

I'd like to point out an aspect of #on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics that is becoming increasingly clear - we don't need a lot of time to detect changes in readership navigation patterns. Usually whatever happened with one month after a change was quite indicative of the pattern of traffic going forward, there's never a serious fluctuation.

We should use this to our advantage - to be more willing to experiment for e.g. two months, because that will usually suffice to get measurements and decide if the change was good or not. --Joy (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There's another corollary to this - our traffic patterns are sometimes remarkably stable. At times, it's actually too stable - some of these examples defy a logical expectation of organic variety in reader interest. It makes me think that most of the traffic is heavily moderated by external search engine algorithms, and the little variety that we do see is actually organic traffic. --Joy (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

including the most notable set index topics on human name disambiguation pages

This is effectively a continuation of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55#effects of WP:NAMELIST on navigation outcomes for anthroponymy entries which went stale and got archived out, but still applies.

More examples have since cropped up where we see from the available data that readers would benefit from us including the most popular given name and surname entries on the base disambiguation pages whenever a separate name list (set index) exists:

• Talk:Boyle
• Talk:Luka

I wanted to title this section "WP:NAMELIST considered harmful", but it's not really, just the overly strict implementation we employ right now. :)

If there are no objections, I would go ahead with making this change:

Lists of names

To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, long lists of given name or surname holders can be moved out of disambiguation pages into separate set indices. In cases where there are distinctly popular entries in such lists, such as those with substantially large usage or long-term significance compared to the rest of the list, links to such articles should be retained on the base disambiguation page. This kind of extra listing should in turn still be constrained by the base list size, so it should not typically exceed five to ten entries.

We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", nor is he a topic of outsized reader interest, so he is listed only at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article. Conversely, it's reasonable to expect that a lot of readers might want to navigate to Andrew Lincoln because of consistently measurable outsized usage, so he should be listed at both.

footnote here: All-time page views for all entries listed at Lincoln (name) All time monthly page views comparing the aforementioned 'Lincoln' topics

This does not necessarily prejudice primary topic considerations. For example, many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. However, as the usage statistics show the interest in Herb Alpert to be typically exceeding the reader interest in the plant topic, the hatnote at Herb or the list at Herb (disambiguation) may include a link to that biography, next to the links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed. Consensus among editors determines if an article should be listed on the disambiguation page.

footnote here: All-time page views for all entries listed at Herb (given name) All time monthly page views comparing the aforementioned 'Herb' topics

--Joy (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This covers the most pressing topic of #Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Request for comment. The other issue, whether to encourage keeping anthroponymy lists merged, needs more discussion because it may detract from the goals of this - e.g. if we squash a short list like Herb (surname) back into Herb (disambiguation), and don't squash the given name list, that may give undue prominence to people with the surname. We already have a problem with the long tail of ambiguity cluttering disambiguation pages. I'd prefer to deal with the complexities of that separately. --Joy (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've applied this change, but something confused me with note formatting in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Disambiguation&oldid=1227556919#Lists_of_names - if someone could render assistance, I'd appreciate it.

I also swapped out Andrew Lincoln for Jon Hamm, because the difference in reader traffic is even more stark there. --Joy (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted these changes. So much detail is couterproductive per WP:CREEP. It also changes the default to having WP:PTM names on dab pages from current general consensus that they are exceptions. Most PTM name lists belong in anthroponymy articles. Station1 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Station1 you might have missed the reams of data I provided in discussions above and linked in the archive, explaining how readers looking for biographies are being so badly served by our navigation. I'd appreciate it if you could review it.

I think this idea of a general consensus that people's names are just partial title matches, as opposed to instances of actual ambiguity, are not based on an accurate observation of reader behavior, rather it appears more based on an opinion of a relatively small group of us editors. By moving links to biographies behind another click, and by not helping readers to the most common navigation choices, we've been artificially modifying reader navigation as opposed to enabling it.

In a few recently documented examples such as Tito, Charlotte and Luka, hints of their actual behavior still came through. --Joy (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The trouble with Tito (disambiguation), for example, is that the 3 or 4 things actually called Tito are buried at the bottom of a huge list of people who aren't named solely Tito. Station1 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly this. That one or a very few might be looked as a mononym is not a good reason to abandon the current guidance. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, because the proposed wording doesn't talk of mononyms, rather it encourages thinking about outsized usage and long-term significance. A mononymous usage of a name by a relatively minor person should not be prioritized over a normal usage of a name by a relatively major person. (Or in turn by relatively minor toponyms, fictional characters and other items that habitually clutter our disambiguation lists.) IOW we should start thinking about ambiguity in navigation not just through what is technically ambiguous, but what is practically ambiguous for the average English reader, and how the compendium of knowledge about an ambiguous term is most effectively presented to them. --Joy (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just continuing on the same "mononymity rules!" party line without evidence... I had a look in the clickstreams, and found in November '20 that the link to the acronym, "TITO", was clicked at least 20 times, in the same month when the 2019 film was clicked 10 times. The link to TITO has always been in the last section, See also, which is below the film section. No other entry from the film section crossed the anonymization threshold that month, but Jackson (15), Ortiz (11) and two of the footballers +did (11 and 12 resp.). The footballers are in the top mononymous section, while the other two are in the general sections. Maybe it's more likely that we forced the readers looking for the Jacksons and the Ortizes to have to comb through the general lists to find them, and the number of them who gave up and went back to Google might be higher than the number looking for the films? --Joy (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Dab pages are not search engines, and were never meant to be search engines. They are necessary navigation aids where there are two or more topics that would or could have identical or nearly identical titles. That's because of the technical impossibility of two articles having the same title. They were always intended to be as short as possible, in order to be as easy to use as possible. WP has a search engine for people who can't remember or spell someone's last name, which is far superior to anything human editors could put on a page. We also have "intitle" and similar templates to stick on the bottom of dab pages when useful. An occasional IAR exception for a very popular easily misspelled topic is fine, but we shouldn't turn dab pages into inferior search engines. Station1 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and there are readers who think a person with the name Foo Bar has an identical name to a person with the name Foo Baz or Foo Quux, because that's how human names work.

But even so, regardless of this generic argument, I still don't see how the proposed wording doesn't match with what you described in your last sentence. Even if you think Abraham Lincoln isn't an identical enough match for Lincoln, you allow it to be listed already, because whatever, people use that like that. It turns the dab page into an inferior search engine, but you see the usefulness. Likewise, allowing Jon Hamm to be listed at Hamm would be useful, as the same thing happens. The Lincoln biography is read by 400 thousand people a month, while the comparable city articles are read by 20 and 15 thousand, respectively. The Hamm biography is read by 200 thousand people a month, while the comparable city article is read by 2 thousand. In the latter case it's a difference of 100 : 1, we're not talking subtle nuance here, and it's significantly larger than the 10 : 1 difference in the former.

Fundamentally, the encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe. Making huge contingents of readers jump through hoops because we don't feel like they're using these words the right way - is the latter. --Joy (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Lincoln is often referred to as Lincoln, and could conceivably be a PRIMARYREDIRECT like Einstein or Churchill, so belongs on the Lincoln dab page. To my knowledge Jon Hamm is not referred to as just Hamm. Even so, I wouldn't object to adding him to the dab page per WP:IAR, but it would be a bad idea to add the 18 other people at Hamm (surname). - Station1 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

With these kinds of numbers, it seems probable that even the amount of accidental or cursory references to him as just Hamm are statistically relevant.

No argument about not listing the other 18 people there, absolutely, that's why the phrasing was very careful to weed that out. Did you notice the part that said In cases where there are distinctly popular entries in such lists, such as those with substantially large usage or long-term significance compared to the rest of the list. Is that not strict enough? --Joy (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Since this discussion died down, the same kind of problems have cropped up in a few more places, for example at "Dina", described at Talk:Dina (disambiguation), and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Splitting lists of names articles when clearly different names. --Joy (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW Talk:Julius is another such case. We have it on the record that nobody calls him just Julius, yet when we started presenting readers with the choice to click him or to click mononymously named people, the readers consistently choose him. :) --Joy (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:DABNOENTRY is contradicted by WP:PTM

MOS:DABNOENTRY states: "On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name ... This does not apply if the subject is commonly referred to simply by Title." On the other hand WP:PTM says: "Placenames are often divided between a specific and generic part, for example North Carolina (where "Carolina" is the specific, and "North" the generic part). Common generics are compass points, upper/lower, old/new, big/small, etc. It is entirely proper to include such placenames in disambiguation pages with the specific title (North Carolina is properly listed at Carolina (disambiguation))". DABNOENTRY would exclude North Carolina from Carolina (disambiguation) because the state is never called simply Carolina, just as New York is never referred to as York (York Yankees?). In my opinion, DABNOENTRY takes precedence (and makes the most sense), and the wording in PTM should be removed. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"Nothing could be finer than to be in Carolina in the morning ..." —Carolina in the Morning, Gus Kahn and Walter Donaldson.

References to "the Carolinas" or "the Dakotas" aren't unusual. Largoplazo (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to the Carolinas. As for the song, I venture to guess it's talking about the Carolinas, but it wouldn't scan properly as "be in the Carolinas". Also, DABNOENTRY states "commonly referred to". One song isn't going to cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

How about 2? "Carolina in My Mind". The songwriter was specifically referring to his home in North Carolina.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Or three? "Carolina". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The key words in DABNOENTRY are "merely because". It's saying PTMs are not generally helpful to include. WP:PTM is pointing out a subclass of PTMs that often are helpful. There's no direct contradiction, but there could be better alignment – I'd say changing WP:PTM from "entirely proper" to "often proper" would bring it more in line with both DABNOENTRY and best practice, and that the two sections should link to each other with hatnotes. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 15:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This started with Talk:Vic#French places. I think the main criterion is pretty clear - if the average English reader is going to encounter ambiguous references to a topic in practice, they should be listed. --Joy (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I often put partial matches like that in See also; I must have been in a particularly deletionist mood that day. That's the sort of thing I would do with the bizarre New York (disambiguation) entry in York (disambiguation). Who would look for the Big Apple under York? In fact:

Proposal: Reword what PTM currently says to "It is entirely often proper to include such placenames in the See also section of disambiguation pages with the specific title". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is just for see also, because I have encountered numerous examples of toponyms where this would not match real-world circumstances, and this sort of a thing could well be controversial. --Joy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think in the case of "Vic", for most places like "Vic-sur-Aisne" it is common to use plain "Vic" when there is no ambiguity. For instance in the neighbouring town Cœuvres-et-Valsery the road leading to Vic-sur-Aisne is called "Route de Vic", Similarly, the "Route de Rabastens" leads to Rabastens-en-Bigorre. So yes, I think places like Vic-sur-Aisne should be listed on the disambiguation page "Vic". The "-sur-Aisne" is not really generic, more a specifier or disambiguator (because there are several places named "Vic"). Markussep ^Talk 08:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

traffic pattern changes between redirects, broad-concept articles and disambiguation pages

Here's a bit of a continuation of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 56#a change in page views between primary topic and primary redirect:

The term national bank was recently replaced by disambiguation through a WP:MALPLACED redirect, but it used to be read by ~4k readers a month. Likewise happened for state bank, which used to be read by ~1k people a month.

All-time page view statistics for these topics and the disambiguation pages

The change seems to have caused the reader traffic to practically instantly drop to 0.4k and 0.2k a month, respectively.

So it looks like the change caused us to effectively relinquish 80-90% of readers looking up a term like that, as their search engine stopped sending them our way (or at least I can't think of another scenario why this pattern change would happen). --Joy (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's another one: Talk:Ottoman#followup to the merge of plural - once we squashed plural and singular, 80% of incoming traffic magically disappeared. --Joy (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I happened to notice Talk:Pharos (disambiguation)#readership statistics today - a change from disambiguation page to primary redirect in 2016 also caused ~80% of previously recorded incoming traffic to disappear. --Joy (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

Edit purpose: The page section in the example no longer exists. The section and the redirect now use "American Football" instead of "Football".

Current text: In some cases, it may be more appropriate to redirect readers to a list rather than a disambiguation page. For example, Cleveland (NFL) should not be a disambiguation page, but should instead redirect to List of Cleveland sports teams#Football.

Replacement text: In some cases, it may be more appropriate to redirect readers to a list rather than a disambiguation page. For example, Cleveland (NFL) should not be a disambiguation page, but should instead redirect to List of Cleveland sports teams#American Football. Solid kalium (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I reverted "American" on a U.S. topic page, so it works again. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Shield and sword

 Courtesy link: Shield and Sword – a neo-Nazi music festival
 Courtesy link: Shield and sword – red link
 Courtesy link: Sword and shield – a disambig page

Can someone help me unscramble all this?

• "shield and sword" is a metaphor for the function of grand juries; see Grand jury#Purpose for usage (no redirect there by that name)
• A search-bar query for "shield and sword" (lowercased, without quotes) takes you to Shield and Sword, a neo-Nazi music festival, via the redirect Shield And Sword
• "sword and shield theory" is an analysis of Marshal Pètain's leadership of Vichy France in WW2, and redirects to Vichy syndrome#"Sword and shield" argument
  • A query for "sword and shield" (lowercased, without quotes) goes to disambig page Sword and shield (which doesn't link the festival, which has Shield first)
• There is no disambig page Shield and sword (that slot is already taken by the festival article).

Starting with the easy stuff: it seems pretty clear that D-page Sword and shield should contain an entry that links the festival article, right? Do we need to move the festival to Shield and Sword (festival) so we can create "Shield and sword" anew as a disambig page, so it can point to the festival, and also to Grand jury page, and maybe also the theory about Marshal Pètain? Thanks for any advice. Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would move the festival and redirect Shield and Sword (and Shield and sword) to Sword and shield as an alternative form. BD2412 T 21:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Makes good sense to me. I'll wait some days to see if there are more thoughts about this before acting. Oh, and what would you do about the Grand jury sense of "shield and sword"; add it to the D-page? Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary Topic

There is a move proposal at Talk:Rallying#Requested move 12 June 2024 suggesting the article should be disambiguated. Another user has supported, mentioning the policy of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, no other Rallying topic articles can be found - making the move unnecessary under that very policy. Is that correct, does primary topic only mean a primary Wikipedia article and not common usage of a word within multiple contexts? I'd be grateful if anybody could clarify that within the discussion, or here for me. Thanks. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What does "under certain circumstances" mean in WP:DABSISTER

Wouldn't it be useful to either define what the words "under cetain circumstances" at WP:DABSISTER mean? or (even better) provide examples when a link to a foreign language Wikipedia would be useful and when it wouldn't be useful?
I would give it a stab, but I have no idea what those words mean. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should avoid linking to articles in other language wikipedias… instead, we should create articles here, and link to those. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed definition using the existence of quality control policies of Veifyability, Notability, and Neutrality

Since no one has provided a definition for "under cetain circumstances", how about this defintion:
In cases for which no article exists for a disambiguation term in the English Wikipedia but an article exists in a different language Wikipedia, it is acceptable to use the {{interlanguage link}} template to link to the article in the sister project, with the disambiguating term counting as a blue link (so an additional blue link would not be necessary for the entry) only if the sister project has verifyability, notability and neutrality policies.

Standards of quality for the Wikipedias in the available languages

Wikipedia name in English Wikipedia name in native language Language Script (ISO 15924 code) Language code/prefix Verifyability Policy Notability Policy Neutrality Policy English Wikipedia English Wikipedia English Latn en Y link Y link Y link Simple English Wikipedia Simple English Wikipedia Simple English Latn simple Y link Y link Y link Abkhaz Wikipedia Аԥсуа авикипедиа (Apsua avikipedia) Abkhaz Cyrl ab N N N Acehnese Wikipedia Wikipèdia bahsa Acèh Acehnese Latn ace N N N Adyghe Wikipedia Адыгэ Википедие (Adıgə Vikipedie) Adyghe Cyrl ady N N N Afrikaans Wikipedia Afrikaanse Wikipedia Afrikaans Latn af Y link Y link Y link Albanian Wikipedia Wikipedia shqip Albanian Latn sq Y link Y link Y link Alemannic Wikipedia Alemannische Wikipedia Alemannic German Latn als N N N Southern Altai Wikipedia Тӱштӱк алтай Википедия (Tüštük altay Vikipediya) Southern Altai Cyrl alt N N N Amharic Wikipedia አማርኛ ዊኪፔዲያ (Amarəñña wikipediya) Amharic Ethi am N Y link Y link Amis Wikipedia Wikipitiya 'Amis Amis Latn ami N N N Angika Wikipedia विकिपीडिया Angika Deva anp N N N Arabic Wikipedia ويكيبيديا العربية (Wīkībīdiyā al-ʿarabiyya) Arabic Arab ar Y link Y link Y link Aragonese Wikipedia Biquipedia en aragonés Aragonese Latn an N Y link Y link Armenian Wikipedia Հայերեն Վիքիպեդիա (Hayeren Vikʿipedia) Armenian Armn hy Y link Y link Y link Aromanian Wikipedia Wikipedia pri Armâneaști Aromanian Latn roa-rup N N N Franco-Provençal Wikipedia Vouiquipèdia en arpetan Franco-Provençal Latn frp N N N Assamese Wikipedia অসমীয়া ৱিকিপিডিয়া (Ôxômiya wikipidiya) Assamese Beng as Y link Y link Y link Asturian Wikipedia Wikipedia n'asturianu Asturian Latn ast Y link N Y link Atayal Wikipedia Wikibitia na Tayal Atayal Latn tay N N N Atikamekw Wikipedia Atikamekw Wikipetcia Atikamekw Latn atj N N N Avar Wikipedia Авар Википедия (Avar Vikipedija) Avar Cyrl av N N N Awadhi Wikipedia अवधी विकिपीडिया (Avadhī vikipīḍiyā) Awadhi Deva awa N N N Aymara Wikipedia Aymar Wikipidiya Aymara Latn ay N N N Azerbaijani Wikipedia Azərbaycanca Vikipediya Azerbaijani Latn az Y link Y link Y link Balinese Wikipedia Wikipédia Basa Bali (ᬯᬶᬓᬶᬧᬾᬤᬶᬬ ᬩᬲᬩᬮᬶ) Balinese Latn ban Bambara Wikipedia Wikipedi Bamanankan Bambara Latn bm Banjarese Wikipedia Wikipidia basa Banjar Banjarese Latn bjn Bashkir Wikipedia Башҡорт Википедияһы (Başķort Vikipediya) Bashkir Cyrl ba Basque Wikipedia Euskarazko Wikipedia Basque Latn eu Toba Batak Wikipedia Wikipedia Batak Toba Toba Batak Latn bbc Bavarian Wikipedia Boarische Wikipedia Bavarian Latn bar Belarusian Wikipedia Беларуская Вікіпедыя (Bielaruskaja Vikipiedyja) Belarusian (official Narkamaŭka orthography) Cyrl be Belarusian Wikipedia (Classical) Беларуская Вікіпэдыя (Bielaruskaja Vikipiedyja) Belarusian (Taraškievica orthography) Cyrl be-tarask Bengali Wikipedia বাংলা উইকিপিডিয়া (Bangla uikipiḍiẏa) Bengali Beng bn Betawi Wikipedia Wikipédi basa Betawi Betawi Latn bew Bhojpuri Wikipedia बिहारी विकिपीडिया (Bihārī vikipīḍiyā) Bihari (Bhojpuri) Deva bh Bishnupriya Manipuri Wikipedia বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী উইকিপিডিয়া (Bişnupriya mônipuri u'ikipiḍiẏā) Bishnupriya Manipuri Beng bpy Bislama Wikipedia Wikipedia long Bislama Bislama Latn bi Bosnian Wikipedia Wikipedia na bosanskom jeziku Bosnian Latn bs Breton Wikipedia Wikipedia e brezhoneg Breton Latn br Buginese Wikipedia ᨓᨗᨀᨗᨄᨙᨉᨗᨕ ᨅᨔ ᨕᨘᨁᨗ (Wikipedia basa Ugi) Buginese Bugi bug Bulgarian Wikipedia Българоезична Уикипедия (Bǎlgaroezična Uikipediya) Bulgarian Cyrl bg Burmese Wikipedia မြန်မာဝီကီပီးဒီးယား (Mranma wikipi:di:ya:) Burmese Mymr my Catalan Wikipedia Viquipèdia en català Catalan Latn ca Cebuano Wikipedia Wikipedya sa Sinugboanon Cebuano Latn ceb Central Bikol Wikipedia Wikipedyang Bikol Sentral Central Bikol Latn bcl Chamorro Wikipedia Wikipedia Chamoru Chamorro Latn ch Chavacano Wikipedia Chavacano Wikipedia Zamboanga Chavacano Latn cbk-zam Chechen Wikipedia Нохчийн Википеди (Noxçiyn Wikipedi) Chechen Cyrl ce Cherokee Wikipedia ᏫᎩᏇᏗᏯ ᏣᎳᎩ (Wigiquediya tsalagi) Cherokee Cher chr Cheyenne Wikipedia Vekepete'a Tsėhésenėstsestȯtse Cheyenne Latn chy Chewa Wikipedia Wikipedia Chichewa Chewa Latn ny Old Church Slavonic Wikipedia Словѣньска Википєдїꙗ (Slověnĭska Vikipedija) Old Church Slavonic Cyrs cu Chuvash Wikipedia Чăваш Википедийĕ (Russian-based: Căvaš Vikipedijĕ, Turkish-based: Çovaş Vikipyediyö) Chuvash Latn cv Cornish Wikipedia Wikipedya Kernowek Cornish Latn kw Corsican Wikipedia Corsipedia or Wikipedia in lingua corsa Corsican Latn co Cree Wikipedia ᐎᑭᐱᑎᔭ ᓀᐦᐃᔭᐍᐏᐣ (Wikipitiya nēhiyawēwin) Cree Cans cr Crimean Tatar Wikipedia Qırımtatarca Vikipediya Crimean Tatar Latn crh Croatian Wikipedia Hrvatska Wikipedija Croatian Latn hr Czech Wikipedia Česká Wikipedie Czech Latn cs Dagbani Wikipedia Wikipidia Dagbani Dagbani Latn dag Danish Wikipedia Dansk Wikipedia Danish Latn da Maldivian Wikipedia ދިވެހި ވިކިޕީޑިޔާ (Dhivehi vikipīḍiyā) Maldivian Thaa dv Dinka Wikipedia Wikipedia Thuɔŋjäŋ Dinka Latn din Doteli Wikipedia डोटेली विकिपिडिया (Ḍōṭēlī vikipiḍiyā) Doteli Deva dty Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia Nedersaksische Wikipedie Dutch Low Saxon Latn nds-nl Dutch Wikipedia Nederlandstalige Wikipedia Dutch Latn nl Dzongkha Wikipedia རྫོང་ཁ་ཝེ་ཁེ་རིག་མཛོད (Rdzong kha we khe rig mdzod) Dzongkha Tibt dz Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia ويكيپيديا مصرى (Wīkībīdiyā maṣri) Egyptian Arabic Arab arz Emilian–Romagnol Wikipedia Emiliàn e rumagnòl Vichipedèia Emilian–Romagnol Latn eml Erzya Wikipedia Эрзянь Википедия (Erzäń Vikipedija) Erzya Cyrl myv Esperanto Wikipedia Vikipedio en Esperanto Esperanto Latn eo Estonian Wikipedia Eestikeelne Vikipeedia Estonian Latn et Ewe Wikipedia Wikipiɖia Eʋegbe Ewe Latn ee Extremaduran Wikipedia Güiquipeya en estremeñu Extremaduran Latn ext Fante Wikipedia Fante Wikipedia Fante Latn fat Gurene Wikipedia Gurenɛ Wikipedia Farefare (Gurene) Latn gur Faroese Wikipedia Føroysk Wikipedia Faroese Latn fo Fiji Hindi Wikipedia Fiji Baat Wikipedia Fiji Hindi Latn hif Fijian Wikipedia Vaka-Viti Wikipedia Fijian Latn fj Finnish Wikipedia Suomenkielinen Wikipedia Finnish Latn fi Fon Wikipedia Wikipedya ɖò Fɔngbemɛ Fon Latn fon French Wikipedia Wikipédia en français French Latn fr Friulian Wikipedia Vichipedie par furlan Friulian Latn fur Fula Wikipedia Wikipedia Fulfude Fula Latn ff Gagauz Wikipedia Gagauzca Vikipediya Gagauz Latn gag Galician Wikipedia Galipedia or Wikipedia en galego Galician Latn gl Georgian Wikipedia ქართული ვიკიპედია (Kartuli vik’ip’edia) Georgian Geor ka German Wikipedia Deutschsprachige Wikipedia German Latn de Spanish Wikipedia Wikipedia en español Spanish Latn es Ghanaian Pidgin Wikipedia Ghanaian Pidgin Wikipedia Ghanaian Pidgin English Latn gpe Kikuyu Wikipedia Wikipedia Gĩgĩkũyũ Kikuyu Latn ki Gilaki Wikipedia گیلکی ویکیپدیاٰ (Giləki vikipөdiya) Gilaki Arab glk Konkani Wikipedia कोंकणी विकिपीडिया (Konknni Wikipidia) (ಕೊಂಕ್ಣಿ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾ) Konkani (Goan Konkani) Deva/Latn/Knda gom Gorontalo Wikipedia Wikipedia bahasa Hulontalo Gorontalo Latn gor Gothic Wikipedia 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺 𐍅𐌹𐌺𐌹𐍀𐌰𐌹𐌳𐌾𐌰 (Gutisk wikipaidja) Gothic Goth got Greek Wikipedia Ελληνική Βικιπαίδεια (Ellinikí Vikipaídeia) Greek Grek el Greenlandic Wikipedia Kalaallisut Wikipedia Greenlandic Latn kl Guarani Wikipedia Vikipetã avañe'ẽme Guarani Latn gn Guianan Creole Wikipedia Wikipédja an kriyòl gwiyannen French Guianese Creole Latn gcr Gujarati Wikipedia ગુજરાતી વિકિપીડિયા (Gujrātī vikipīḍiyā) Gujarati Gujr gu Gun Wikipedia Gungbe Wikipedia Gun Latn guw Haitian Creole Wikipedia Wikipedya kreyòl ayisyen Haitian Creole Latn ht Hausa Wikipedia Wikipedia Hausa Hausa Latn ha Hawaiian Wikipedia Hawai‘i Wikipikia Hawaiian Latn haw Hebrew Wikipedia ויקיפדיה העברית (Vikipedya ha-ivrit) Hebrew Hebr he Hill Mari Wikipedia Кырык марла Википеди (Kyryk marla Vikipedi) Hill Mari Cyrl mrj Hindi Wikipedia हिन्दी विकिपीडिया (Hindī vikipīḍiyā) Hindi Deva hi Hungarian Wikipedia Magyar Wikipédia Hungarian Latn hu Icelandic Wikipedia Íslenska Wikipedia Icelandic Latn is Ido Wikipedia Wikipedio en Ido Ido Latn io Igala Wikipedia Wikipídiya Igala Igala Latn igl Igbo Wikipedia Wikipedia Igbo Igbo Latn ig Ilocano Wikipedia Wikipedia nga Ilokano Ilocano Latn ilo Aramaic Wikipedia ܘܝܩܝܦܕܝܐ ܠܫܢܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ (Wīqīpedyāʾ leššānā suryāyā) Aramaic (Syriac) Syrc arc Inari Sámi Wikipedia Anarâškielâlâš Wikipedia Inari Sámi Latn smn Indonesian Wikipedia Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia Indonesian Latn id Ingush Wikipedia Гӏалгӏай Википеди (Ghalghaj Vikipedi) Ingush Cyrl inh Interlingua Wikipedia Wikipedia in interlingua Interlingua Latn ia Interlingue Wikipedia Wikipedia in Interlingue Interlingue Latn ie Inuktitut Wikipedia ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᕆᐅᙵᐃᐹ (Uikipitia inuktitut) Inuktitut Cans iu Iñupiaq Wikipedia Uiqipitia Iñupiatun Iñupiaq Latn ik Irish Wikipedia Vicipéid na Gaeilge Irish Latn ga Italian Wikipedia Wikipedia in italiano Italian Latn it Jamaican Patois Wikipedia Jumiekan Patwa Wikipidia Jamaican Patois Latn jam Japanese Wikipedia ウィキペディア日本語版 (Wikipedia nihongo-ban) Japanese Jpan ja Javanese Wikipedia Wikipedia basa Jawa Javanese Latn jv Banyumasan Wikipedia Wikipédia basa Banyumasan Banyumasan Latn map-bms Kabardian Wikipedia Адыгэбзэ Уикипедиэ (Adıgəbzə Wikipediă) Kabardian Cyrl kbd Kabiye Wikipedia Wikipediya kabɩyɛ Kabiye Latn kbp Kabyle Wikipedia Wikipedia taqbaylit Kabyle Latn kab Dusun Wikipedia Wikipedia Dusun Dusun Latn dtp Kannada Wikipedia ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ (Kannaḍa vikipīḍiya) Kannada Knda kn Kapampangan Wikipedia Wikipediang Kapampángan Kapampangan Latn pam Karachay-Balkar Wikipedia Къарачай-Малкъар Википедия (Qaraçay-Malqar Wikipédiya) Karachay-Balkar Cyrl krc Karakalpak Wikipedia Qaraqalpaq Wikipediası Karakalpak Latn kaa Kashmiri Wikipedia کٲشُر وِکیٖپیٖڈیا (Kạ̄śur vikipīḍiyā) Kashmiri Arab ks Kashubian Wikipedia Kaszëbskô Wikipedijô Kashubian Latn csb Kazakh Wikipedia Қазақша Уикипедия (Qazaqşa Wïkïpedïya) (قازاقشا ۋىيكىيپەدىييا) Kazakh Cyrl/Latn/Arab kk Khmer Wikipedia វិគីភីឌាភាសាខ្មែរ (Vikiiphiidiaa phiăsaa khmae) Khmer Khmr km Kinyarwanda Wikipedia Wikipediya mu Ikinyarwanda Kinyarwanda Latn rw Kirundi Wikipedia Wikipediya mu Ikirundi Kirundi Latn rn Komi-Permyak Wikipedia Перем коми Википедия (Perem komi Vikipedija) Komi-Permyak Cyrl koi Komi Wikipedia Коми Википедия (Komi Vikipedija) Komi Cyrl kv Kongo Wikipedia Wikipedia kikôngo Kongo Latn kg Korean Wikipedia 한국어 위키백과 (Han-gugeo wikibaekgwa) Korean Hang ko Kotava Wikipedia Wikipedia men Kotava Kotava Latn avk Kurdish Wikipedia Wîkîpediya kurdî (ویکیپەدیا کوردی) Kurdish (Kurmanji) Latn/Arab ku Kusaal Wikipedia Wikipiidia Kʋsaal Kusaal Latn kus Kyrgyz Wikipedia Кыргыз Википедиясы (Kırgız Wikipediya) Kyrgyz Cyrl ky Ripuarian Wikipedia Wikkipedija en Ripoarisch Platt Ripuarian Latn ksh Ladin Wikipedia Wikipedia per ladin Ladin Latn lld Judaeo-Spanish Wikipedia Vikipedya en lingua Judeo-Espanyola Judaeo-Spanish Latn lad Lak Wikipedia Лакку мазрал Википедия (Lak:u mazral Vikipediaˤ) Lak Cyrl lbe Lao Wikipedia ວິກິພີເດຍ ພາສາລາວ (Wi ki phī dīa phasa lao) Lao Laoo lo Latgalian Wikipedia Vikipedeja latgaļu volūdā Latgalian Latn ltg Latin Wikipedia Vicipaedia Latina Latin Latn la Latvian Wikipedia Vikipēdija latviešu valodā Latvian Latn lv Lezgian Wikipedia Лезги Википедия (Lezgi Vikipediä) Lezgian Cyrl lez Ligurian Wikipedia Wikipedia Ligure Ligurian Latn lij Limburgish Wikipedia Limburgse Wikipedia Limburgish Latn li Lingala Wikipedia Lingála Wikipedia Lingala Latn ln Lingua Franca Nova Wikipedia Vicipedia en lingua franca nova Lingua Franca Nova Latn lfn Classical Chinese Wikipedia 文言維基大典 (Wéijī dàdiǎn wényán) Classical Chinese Hant zh-classical Lithuanian Wikipedia Lietuviškoji Vikipedija Lithuanian Latn lt Livvi-Karelian Wikipedia Livvinkarjalan Wikipedii Livvi-Karelian Latn olo Lojban Wikipedia ni'o la .uikipedi'as. pe lo jbobau Lojban Latn jbo Lombard Wikipedia Wikipedia in lombard Lombard Latn lmo Low German Wikipedia Plattdüütsche Wikipedia Low German Latn nds Lower Sorbian Wikipedia Dolnoserbska wikipedija Lower Sorbian Latn dsb Luganda Wikipedia Wikipediya Luganda Luganda Latn lg Luxembourgish Wikipedia Wikipedia op Lëtzebuergesch Luxembourgish Latn lb Macedonian Wikipedia Македонска Википедија (Makedonska Vikipedija) Macedonian Cyrl mk Madurese Wikipedia Wikipèḍia bhâsa Madhurâ Madurese Latn mad Maithili Wikipedia मैथिली विकिपिडिया (Maithilī vikipiḍiyā) Maithili Deva mai Malagasy Wikipedia Wikipedia amin'ny teny malagasy Malagasy Latn mg Malay Wikipedia Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu (ويکيڤيديا بهاس ملايو) Malay Latn ms Malayalam Wikipedia മലയാളം വിക്കിപീടിയ (Malayāḷaṃ vikkipīṭiya) Malayalam Mlym ml Maltese Wikipedia Wikipedija Malti Maltese Latn mt Manx Wikipedia Wikipedia yn Gaelg Manx Latn gv Marathi Wikipedia मराठी विकिपीडिया (Marāṭhī vikipīḍiyā) Marathi Deva mr Mazanderani Wikipedia مازرونی ویکی‌پدیا (Mazandarani vikipedi) Mazanderani Arab mzn Meadow Mari Wikipedia Олык Марий Википедий (Olyk Marij Vikipedij) Meadow Mari Cyrl mhr Meitei Wikipedia ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯋꯤꯀꯤꯄꯦꯗꯤꯌꯥ (Meeteilon weekeepaydeeya) Meitei Mtei mni Minangkabau Wikipedia Wikipedia Minangkabau Minangkabau Latn min Mingrelian Wikipedia მარგალური ვიკიპედია (Margaluri vik’ip’edia) Mingrelian Geor xmf Mirandese Wikipedia Biquipédia an lhéngua mirandesa Mirandese Latn mwl Moksha Wikipedia Мокшень Википедиесь (Mokšenj Vikipedijesʹ) Moksha Cyrl mdf Mon Wikipedia ဝဳကဳပဳဒဳယာမန် (Wīkīpīdīya mawn) Mon Mymr mnw Mongolian Wikipedia Монгол Википедиа (Mongol Vikipyedia) Mongolian Cyrl mn Moroccan Arabic Wikipedia ويكيبيديا المغربية (Wīkībīdiyā maḡribiyy) Moroccan Arabic Arab ary Māori Wikipedia Wikipedia Māori Māori Latn mi N'Ko Wikipedia ߥߞߌߔߘߋߞߎ ߒߞߏ (Wkipdeku n'ko) N'Ko Nkoo nqo Nahuatl Wikipedia Huiquipedia nāhuatlahtōlcopa Nahuatl Latn nah Navajo Wikipedia Wikiibíídiiya Dinék'ehjí Navajo Latn nv Tarantino Wikipedia Uicchipèdie tarandíne Tarantino Latn roa-tara Neapolitan Wikipedia Wikipedia napulitana Neapolitan Latn nap Nepali Wikipedia नेपाली विकिपिडिया (Nepālī vikipiḍiyā) Nepali Deva ne Newar Wikipedia विकिपिडियाय् लसकुस (Vikipiḍiyāya lasakūsa) Newar Deva new Nias Wikipedia Wikipedia Li Niha Nias Latn nia Nigerian Pidgin Wikipedia Naijá Wikipedia Nigerian Pidgin Latn pcm North Frisian Wikipedia Nordfriisk Wikipedia North Frisian Latn frr Northern Sámi Wikipedia Davvisámegiel Wikipedia Northern Sámi Latn se Northern Sotho Wikipedia Wikipedia Sesotho sa Leboa Northern Sotho Latn nso Norwegian Wikipedia Norsk Wikipedia Norwegian (Bokmål) Latn no Novial Wikipedia Wikipedie in novial Novial Latn nov Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia Norsk (Nynorsk) Wikipedia Norwegian (Nynorsk) Latn nn Occitan Wikipedia Wikipèdia en occitan Occitan Latn oc Odia Wikipedia ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ (Oṛiā uikipiṛiā) Odia Orya or Kalmyk Wikipedia Хальмг Бикипеди (Haľmg Vikipedi) Kalmyk Oirat Cyrl xal Old English Wikipedia Engliscan Ƿikipǣdia Old English Latn ang Oromo Wikipedia Oromoo Wikipedia Oromo Latn om Ossetian Wikipedia Ирон Википеди (Iron Vikipedi) Ossetian Cyrl os Pa'O Wikipedia ပအိုဝ်ႏဝီခီပီးဒီးယား (Pǎʼǒ wikhipi:di:ya) Pa'O Mymr blk Paiwan Wikipedia wikipidiya nua pinayuanan Paiwan Latn pwn Palatine German Wikipedia Pälzisch Wikipedia Palatine German Latn pfl Pali Wikipedia पालि विकिपीडिया (Pāli vikipīḍiyā) Pali Deva pi Pangasinan Wikipedia Wikipedia Pangasinan Pangasinan Latn pag Papiamento Wikipedia Wikipedia na papiamentu Papiamento Latn pap Pashto Wikipedia پښتو ويکيپېډيا (Pax̌tó wīkīpeḍyā) Pashto Arab ps Pennsylvania Dutch Wikipedia Pennsilfaanisch-Deitsche Wikipedelche Pennsylvania Dutch Latn pdc Persian Wikipedia ویکی‌پدیای فارسی (Vikipediā-ye Fārsi) Persian Arab fa Picard Wikipedia Wikipédia in lingue picarde Picard Latn pcd Piedmontese Wikipedia Wikipedia an piemontèisa Piedmontese Latn pms Norfuk Wikipedia Norfuk Wikkapedya Norfuk Latn pih Polish Wikipedia Polskojęzyczna Wikipedia Polish Latn pl Pontic Wikipedia Ποντιακόν Βικιπαίδεια (Pontiakón Bikipaídeia) Pontic Greek Grek pnt Portuguese Wikipedia Wikipédia em português Portuguese Latn pt Western Punjabi Wikipedia پنجابی وکیپیڈیا (Pañjābī vikīpīḍīā) Western Punjabi Arab pnb Punjabi Wikipedia ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ (Pañjābī vikīpīḍīā) Punjabi Guru pa Quechua Wikipedia Qhichwa Wikipidiya Quechua (Southern Quechua) Latn qu Romanian Wikipedia Wikipedia în limba română Romanian Latn ro Romansh Wikipedia Vichipedia rumantscha Romansh Latn rm Buryat Wikipedia Буряад Википеэди (Buryaad Vikipjeedi) Buryat (Russia Buriat) Cyrl bxr Russian Wikipedia Русская Википедия (Russkaya Vikipediya) Russian Cyrl ru Rusyn Wikipedia Русиньска Вікіпедія (Rusîn'ska Vikipedija) Rusyn Cyrl rue Sakizaya Wikipedia Wikipitiya nu Sakizaya Sakizaya Latn szy Samoan Wikipedia Wikipedia gagana Sāmoa Samoan Latn sm Samogitian Wikipedia Žemaitėška Vikipedėjė Samogitian Latn bat-smg Sango Wikipedia Wïkïpêdïyäa na Sängö Sango Latn sg Sanskrit Wikipedia संस्कृतविकिपीडिया (Saṃskṛta vikipīḍiyā) Sanskrit Deva sa Santali Wikipedia ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ ᱣᱤᱠᱤᱯᱤᱰᱤᱭᱟ (Santaṛi wikipiḍiya) Santali Olck sat Saraiki Wikipedia سرائیکی ویٖکیٖپیڈیا (Sarā'īkī vikipīḍiyā) Saraiki Arab skr Sardinian Wikipedia Wikipedia in sardu Sardinian Latn sc Saterland Frisian Wikipedia Seelterfräiske Wikipedia Saterland Frisian Latn stq Scots Wikipedia Scots Wikipædia Scots Latn sco Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia Uicipeid na Gàidhlig Scottish Gaelic Latn gd Seediq Wikipedia Seediq Wikipidiya Seediq Latn trv Serbian Wikipedia Википедија на српском језику (Vikipedija na srpskom jeziku) Serbian Cyrl/Latn sr Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia Srpskohrvatska Wikipedija (Српскохрватска Википедија) Serbo-Croatian Latn sh Shona Wikipedia Wikipedhiya chiShona Shona Latn sn Shan Wikipedia ဝီႇၶီႇၽီးတီးယႃးတႆး (Wiː-kʰiː-pʰiː-tiː-jaɑː- táy) Shan Mymr shn Sicilian Wikipedia Wikipedia ’n sicilianu Sicilian Latn scn Silesian Wikipedia Ślůnsko Wikipedyjo Silesian Latn szl Sindhi Wikipedia سنڌي وڪيپيڊيا (Sindhi wikipidia) Sindhi Arab sd Sinhala Wikipedia සිංහල විකිපීඩියා (Siṁhala wikipīḍiyā) Sinhala Sinh si Slovak Wikipedia Slovenská Wikipedia Slovak Latn sk Slovene Wikipedia Slovenska Wikipedija Slovene Latn sl Somali Wikipedia Soomaali Wikipedia Somali Latn so Sorani Kurdish Wikipedia ویکیپیدیای کوردیی سۆرانی (Wîkîpîdiyay Kurdî Soranî) Kurdish (Sorani) Arab ckb Sotho Wikipedia Wikipedia Sesotho Sotho Latn st South Azerbaijani Wikipedia تورکجه ویکی‌پدیا (Azərbaycanca Vikipediya) South Azerbaijani Arab azb Dagaare Wikipedia Dagaare Wikipiideɛ Dagaare Latn dga Sranan Tongo Wikipedia Sranan Wikipedia Sranan Tongo Latn srn Moroccan Amazigh Wikipedia ⵡⵉⴽⵉⴱⵉⴷⵢⴰ ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ ⵜⴰⵏⴰⵡⴰⵢⵜ (Wikibidya tamaziɣt tanawayt) Standard Moroccan Amazigh Tfng zgh Tibetan Wikipedia བོད་ཡིག་གི་ཝེ་ཁེ་རིག་མཛོད (Wylie: Bod yig gi we khe rig mdzod) Lhasa Tibetan Tibt bo Sundanese Wikipedia Wikipédia basa Sunda Sundanese Latn su Swahili Wikipedia Wikipedia ya Kiswahili Swahili Latn sw Swazi Wikipedia Wikipedia siSwati Swazi Latn ss Swedish Wikipedia Svenskspråkiga Wikipedia Swedish Latn sv Shilha Wikipedia Wikipidya taclḥiyt (ⵡⵉⴽⵉⵒⵉⴷⵢⴰ ⵜⴰⵛⵍⵃⵉⵜ) Shilha Latn/Tfng shi Tagalog Wikipedia Wikipediang Tagalog Tagalog Latn tl Tahitian Wikipedia Vitipetia Reo Tahiti Tahitian Latn ty Tajik Wikipedia Википедияи Тоҷикӣ (Vikipedijai Toçikī) Tajik Cyrl/Latn tg Talysh Wikipedia Tolyšə Vikipedijə Talysh Latn tly Tamil Wikipedia தமிழ் விக்கிபீடியா (Tamiḻ vikkippīṭiyā) Tamil Taml ta Tatar Wikipedia Татар Википедиясе (Tatar Wikipediäse) Tatar Cyrl tt Telugu Wikipedia తెలుగు వికీపీడియా (Telugu vikīpīḍiyā) Telugu Telu te Tetum Wikipedia Wikipédia iha lia-tetun Tetum Latn tet Thai Wikipedia วิกิพีเดียภาษาไทย (Wi-ki-phi-dia pha-sa thai) Thai Thai th Tigrinya Wikipedia ዊኪፐድያ ብትግርኛ (Wikipädya bətəgrəñña) Tigrinya Ethi ti Tok Pisin Wikipedia Wikipedia long Tok Pisin Tok Pisin Latn tpi Tongan Wikipedia Wikipedia ʻi lea fakatonga Tongan Latn to Tsonga Wikipedia Wikipediya Xitsonga Tsonga Latn ts Tswana Wikipedia Wikipedia Setswana Tswana Latn tn Tulu Wikipedia ತುಳು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ (Tuḷu vikipīḍiya) Tulu Knda tcy Tumbuka Wikipedia Wikipedia Chitumbuka Tumbuka Latn tum Turkish Wikipedia Türkçe Vikipedi Turkish Latn tr Turkmen Wikipedia Türkmençe Wikipediýa Turkmen Latn tk Tuvan Wikipedia Тыва Википедия (Tıwa Vikipediya) Tuvan Cyrl tyv Twi Wikipedia Wikipidia Twi Twi Latn tw Tyap Wikipedia Wukipedia nTyap Tyap Latn kcg Udmurt Wikipedia Удмурт Википедия (Udmurt Vikipedija) Udmurt Cyrl udm Ukrainian Wikipedia Українська Вікіпедія (Ukrayinsʹka Vikipediya) Ukrainian Cyrl uk Upper Sorbian Wikipedia Hornjoserbska wikipedija Upper Sorbian Latn hsb Urdu Wikipedia اردو ویکیپیڈیا (Urdū vikipīḍiyā) Urdu Arab ur Uzbek Wikipedia Oʻzbekcha Vikipediya (Ўзбекча Википедия) Uzbek Latn/Cyrl uz Venda Wikipedia Wikipedia nga tshiVenḓa Venda Latn ve Venetian Wikipedia Wikipedia en łéngoa vèneta Venetian Latn vec Veps Wikipedia Vepsän Vikipedii Veps Latn vep Vietnamese Wikipedia Wikipedia tiếng Việt Vietnamese Latn vi Romani Wikipedia Romani Vikipidiya Romani (Vlax Romani) Latn rmy Volapük Wikipedia Vükiped Volapükik Volapük Latn vo Võro Wikipedia Võrokeeline Vikipeediä Võro Latn fiu-vro Walloon Wikipedia Wikipedia e walon Walloon Latn wa Waray Wikipedia Waray Wikipedia Waray Latn war Wayuu Wikipedia Wikipeetia süka wayuunaiki Wayuu Latn guc Welsh Wikipedia Wicipedia Cymraeg Welsh Latn cy West Flemish Wikipedia West-Vlamse Wikipedia West Flemish Latn vls West Frisian Wikipedia Frysktalige Wikipedy West Frisian Latn fy Western Armenian Wikipedia Արեւմտահայերէն Ուիքիփետիա (Arevmdahayerēn Uikʿipʿetia) Western Armenian Armn hyw Wolof Wikipedia Wikipedia Wolof Wolof Latn wo Xhosa Wikipedia Wikipedia isiXhosa Xhosa Latn xh Yakut Wikipedia Сахалыы Бикипиэдьийэ (Sahalyy Bikipieçje) Yakut Cyrl sah Yiddish Wikipedia יידישע וויקיפעדיע (Yidishe vikipedye) Yiddish Hebr yi Yoruba Wikipedia Wikipéédíà Yorùbá Yoruba Latn yo Zazaki Wikipedia Wikipediyay Zazaki Zaza Latn diq Zeelandic Wikipedia Zeêuwstaelihe Wikipedia Zeelandic Latn zea Zhuang Wikipedia Veizgiek Bakgoh Vahcuengh Zhuang (Standard Zhuang) Latn za Zulu Wikipedia Wikipedia isiZulu Zulu Latn zu Norman Wikipedia Augeron, Cotentinais, Percheron: Viqùipédie normaunde Auregnais: Ouitchipédie Nourmaounde Brayon, Cauchois, Rouennais: Viqùipédie normande Guernésiais: Ouitchipédie normande Jèrriais: Ouitchipédie Nouormande Sercquiais: Witchipedi Normãdi Norman Latn nrm Eastern Min Wikipedia Bàng-uâ-cê: Bànguâpedia or Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄ Wikipedia Eastern Min Latn cdo Southern Min Wikipedia Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Holopedia or Wikipedia Bân-lâm-gú Southern Min Latn zh-min-nan Hakka Wikipedia Pha̍k-fa-sṳ: Hakkâpedia or Hak-kâ-ngî Wikipedia Hakka Chinese Latn hak Chinese Wikipedia Traditional Chinese: 中文維基百科, simplified Chinese: 中文维基百科 (pinyin: Zhōngwén wéijī bǎikē) Chinese (written vernacular Chinese) Hans/Hant zh Gan Wikipedia Traditional Chinese: 贛語維基百科, simplified Chinese: 赣语维基百科 (Pha̍k-oa-chhi: Gon wéijī bǎikē) Gan Chinese Hans/Hant gan Wu Wikipedia Traditional Chinese: 吳語維基百科, simplified Chinese: 吴语维基百科 (Romanized: Wu-nyu Vi-ci-pah-khu) Wu Chinese Hans/Hant wuu Cantonese Wikipedia Traditional Chinese: 粵文維基百科 (Jyutping: jyut6 man4 wai4 gei1 baak3 fo1) Cantonese Hant zh-yue Uyghur Wikipedia UEY: ئۇيغۇرچە ۋىكىپېدىيە (ULY: Uyghur wikipëdiye) (UYY: Uyghur vikipediyə) (UKY: Уйғур википедийә) Uyghur Arab ug

(the table still needs to be filled out -- I only filled out the first 25 entires in the table). The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

• No, this would open the floodgates to dab pages listing vast numbers of entries with no information useful to the reader of English Wikipedia unless they happen also to be readers of the other language. A rule distinguishing between "good" and "bad" non-English wikis would be confusing and difficult to implement. PamD 08:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Props to TMoE for going through the effort of starting that list above, but this really sounds like something that would have to be standardized at e.g. meta before it would be really reliable. --Joy (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

This doesn't seem necessary. It hasn't been demonstrated that a problem actually exists with the current text, which allows for flexibility on a case by case basis. Remsense诉 01:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This also misses one main reason not to include ills--even on wikis that have vnn standards, not every article in said wiki meets those standards. Just take a look at the amount of sheer crap that exists on the English wiki which supposedly has high standards. And besides that, the mere existence of an article in another language wiki provides zero indication whether that same topic has any notability at all in English. I thought the last discussion on this determined that at minimum, the term must be mentioned in a current article to provide at least some minuscule suggestion that the topic has some currency in English. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Just like notability is not a function of time, I wouldn't think it would be a function of the language used to write the article. But it is a function of the people who participate in the discussion, which is why consensus can cange. This is why I think we ought to have a clear policy, so we will have consistency. The current wording of WP:DABSISTER is meaningless to me, and in 5 days nobody was able to provide me a meaning for it. That's why I proposed something that has meaning.

While it is obvious that having policies for verifiability, notability, and neutrality does not assure that each and every article fully complies with the policies, it's better than having no policies. That's why I proposed it instead of of the vague "under some circumstances". The Mountain of Eden (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, in that notability is very much dependent on language and culture. Your proposal in essence gives a green light to include ills to every single article in other languages that have some sort of vnn standards, regardless of whether any given term has any usage whatsoever in English. older ≠ wiser 10:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability policy says that notability is established with coverage by "reliable and independent sources". How would that be dependent on language and culture? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't really the right forum for discussing notability of foreign language topics on the English Wikipedia. The concept of disambiguation arises within a language wiki when there is more than one topic that could have the same title. If there is no extant information about a foreign language topic on the English Wikipedia, there is nothing to disambiguate. older ≠ wiser 03:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that disambiguation is needed "when there is more than one topic that could have the same title". The point is what do you do when there is no article on the English Wikipedia. We have MOS:DABRED to handle that. But in cases when there is an article, just not on the English Wikipedia, that's handled by WP:DABSISTER. The current verbiage in WP:DABSISTER with the words "under certain circumstances" is ambiguous at best, and meaningless at worst. The idea is to clean up the language to give a clear guideline. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

To add insult to injury, there is a footnote in WP:DABSISTER saying "There is no agreement on the conditions under which such links are acceptable." We should therefore come up with someting. Even if it's not perfect, it could be improved later on. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Good luck on with reaching such agreement. Previous discussions were long with more or less intransigent partisans. I think like a lot of things on Wikipedia, the guidelines cannot precisely prescribe what to do in every situation and some things are best left to case-by-case discussions. I do not think it is wise to assume any sort of equivalence between articles in various language Wikipedias. With the guideline as you proposed, it would be a very short roll downhill to having dab pages stuffed to the gills with ILL entries for any and every other language that has any semblance of VNN guidelines (regardless of how rigorously said guidelines are followed in practice). My take is essentially that disambiguation pages are meant to disambiguate articles in the specific language of that Wiki. That is, there is no title conflict between articles in English wiki and any other language wiki. Each one can have different articles with exactly the same title without any conflict. If a foreign term has any relevance for English, there should be some indications within the English Wiki (i.e., the term is at least mentioned somewhere in some article). older ≠ wiser 17:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"[T]he guidelines cannot precisely prescribe what to do in every situation." I fully agree with you.

[S]ome things are best left to case-by-case discussions. I also agree with that. The problem is that the current wording at WP:DABSISTER, especially the footnote, is so useless, you might as well have nothing, and just treat the case of a red link in the English Wikipedia that a blue link in some foreign language Wikipedia the same as any other red link.

If we think that a red link on the English Wikipedia with a blue link to a foreign language Wikipedia should be handled differently from an ordinary red link, we should spell out what to do in such a case, rather than say there is no consensus on what to do.

My proposal may not be perfect, but at least it's something. If we put it into the page, it might spawn future editors with ideas on how to improve it. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should be handled differently from other red links. I don't think articles in foreign language wikis should be treated as equivalent to English articles for blue links in dab entries. In my opinion, there should be an existing English article that mentions the term. older ≠ wiser 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. If nobody else contributes to this discussion within the next 4-5 days, we'll call it a consensus and change the project page accordingly. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

What would you be changing if it is not what you originally proposed? older ≠ wiser 23:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Good question. See below The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Change the wording of WP:DABSISTER to the following:

If an article doesn't exist on the English Wikipedia, but exists on a sister project, that is likely an indication that an article should be created on the English Wikipedia. However, at the end of the day, per WP:WRITEITFIRST, until an article is created on the English Wikipedia, the term to be disambiguated is to be treated as prescribed in WP:DABRED.

The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

• I think saying this is a likely indication is too strong. We don't really know that in general, and there's so much variation between languages that any such assessment seems like a generalization. A term might be a common word in a foreign language and have numerous meanings documented there, but few or none of these would exist in English as in English they'd be using the native word instead.

It seems to me that the existence of the dabsister section is mostly a safety provision to make sure people don't remove those external links from {{ill}} as we don't permit external links otherwise.

In general, I'd advise thinking about this from a readers first perspective - to large contingents of English readers, even adding interlanguage links isn't useful and might possibly be confusing, because they might click through the one blue link expecting to continue reading in English. Allowing these links is already generous enough, but requiring some other standard to be met (like dabmention) is safer. --Joy (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I think there it is wrong to say that is likely an indication that an article should be created on the English Wikipedia. The mere existence of an article in another language says nothing about whether the article should be created on the English Wikipedia. And what happens to the footnote which provides an example of how the entry should be constructed (which example by the way satisfies MOS:DABRED). older ≠ wiser 00:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We can replace "is likely an indication" with "may be an indication". The Mountain of Eden (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• @The Mountain of Eden: Please give a couple of examples of cases where the current vagueness has been a problem. Noting that, as pointed out above, the single example in the current documentation, in endnote "f", doesn't make anything clear as Árbol is mentioned in Vilalba#Administrative_units so the dab page entry is fine with or without the {{ill}} link (let alone the complications of Vilalba vs Villalba in Spanish/Galician wikis, making it a pretty poor example). Some real examples would make this discussion more meaningful. Thanks. PamD 08:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• The wording "at the end of the day" is not the sort of thing to see in documentation.

I think that the current wording probably works well: in almost all cases a blue link will be possible to an article which mentions the topic, but I can imagine occasional cases where there is an ambiguous term, easily confused with a topic in Eng.wiki, that is present in another wikipedia but not (yet) in en.wiki and where there is no obvious place to add a reliably sourced blue link.

Perhaps there's a Canadian poet newly-added to en.wiki, with a common given-name-and-surname combination, and a German poet with the same name but clearly different birthdate and bio in de.wiki. It's helpful to our reader to include a wikilink to the German poet alongside the entry for the Canadian poet of the same name, even though the German poet isn't mentioned in our List of German-language poets and we can't expect the editor who's just created an article about the Canadian, and is adding them to the name dab page, to research their German namesake beyond finding that they exist in German wikipedia and are identifiably a different poet. (But it would be much better to add the German to that list or some other appropriate article, or create a minimal stub for them.)

If we're changing WP:DABSISTER at all, the first sentence should perhaps read:

Redlinks for topics covered in other language Wikipedias can be enhanced by using {{Interlanguage link}} to link to those other Wikipedias, but a blue link to an article in English Wikipedia is still required unless there is an exceptional need to help our readers by disambiguating a topic not yet mentioned here.

Perhaps adding:

Editors are strongly encouraged to find an article or list where the topic can be mentioned, reliably sourced, so that a blue link can be created per WP:DABMENTION.

PamD 08:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Basically that sounds like encouraging use of the {{Interlanguage link}} template whenenver applicable. This should be the case for any red link. If that's indeed the case, then the entire section WP:DABSISTER should be redirected to WP:DABRED, with WP:DABRED encouraging use of {{Interlanguage link}} template whenever applicable. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

No, just no. These are different things, although there is some overlap. Sister links are relatively uncommon. Red links are routinely added incorrectly by inexperienced editors. We need guidance for red links that is a clear as possible. Sister links are at best a sort of special case of red link. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"Sister links are at best a sort of special case of red link"

I would strike out the words "at best" and "sort of", to read "Sister links are a special case of red link", which means the two sections should be combined rather than spread out over two different pages. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal #3

1. Eliminate WP:DABSISTER from this page and move the shortcut to MOS:DISAMBIGUATION under WP:DABRED.
2. Under the boxed Flibbygibby example add the following sentence (w/o the italics):

   "If the article to be disambiguated does not have an article on the English Wikipedia, but has an article on a sister project in another language, the term may be linked to the sister project using the {{interlanguage link}} template."

3. WP:DABSISTER would link to this new proposed sentence.

The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Could we redirect the shortcut without adding the text? Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

::Sounds like that's proposal #4. But why not add that one sentence? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, misread the question. I don't see how we can redirect the shortcut w/o adding the text since nothing in MOS:DAB talks about links to sister projects. We could either delete the shortcut, or if we change the shortcut to WP:DAB, we would somehow need to discuss links to sister project in MOS:DAB. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• This proposal doesn't clarify whether the redlink guidance is also applicable to ILLs or whether this is just some appendage and that the blue link to the other language alone is sufficient. And further this removes the existing guidance at DABSISTER about not linking to other sister projects, like Wikidata or Wikivoyage. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  You lost me. By definition, you only add the {{interlanguage link}} template if there is no article on the English Wikipedia. The proposed wording doesn't affect the existing wording in WP:DABRED. It just says that it's permissible to add the template to red links. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  The text and placement makes it read like a non sequitur add-on. It isn't clear whether any of the conditions applicable to red links are applicable to ILLs or if they are an exception. And what about the other sister project text and the example in the footnote? older ≠ wiser 03:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why it's not clear. The proposed text neither modifies nor impacts the existing WP:DABRED. It just says that it's permissible to use the {{interlanguage link}} template. I think it's absolutely related because you would only use this template on red links. You would not use it if there is an existing article on the English Wikipedia. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Placed at the end and without any example, this could be taken to mean that an entry with only an ill link is ok, regardless of whether it is mentioned in any existing article. It would be clearer if the example from the footnote were preserved. And what about the guidance regarding the other sister projects? older ≠ wiser 03:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know what footnotes you're talking about. Regardless, we can also add a sentence that use of the {{interlanguage link}} template is not a substitute for the need to have a red link from an existing article.
  

  What guideline for other sister projects would be needed? The article either exists in a sister project, or doesn't. If it exists in a sister project, use of the {{interlanguage link}} template is OK, and if it does not then use of the template is not OK. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal #4

Eliminate WP:DABSISTER entirely.

Oppose

• Oppose - While the shortcut requires WP:TNT, deletion is not the answer. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

I have added this proposal (after the fact) simply because it should have been an option from the beginning. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

top/common ordering as a matter of style vs. navigation efficiency

I've noticed a few cases recently where MOS:DABCOMMON formatting was a bit of an issue:

• Talk:IPA#clickstreams data - whether to sort items by reader interest etc
• Talk:Charlotte#post-move - whether to include some items and whether to make a section heading for the top list
• Talk:Cell#common section at the top + Talk:Cell (biology)#Requested move 13 July 2024 - whether to include more than one item in the top list, whether the formatting of the top section affected the clickthrough rates etc
• Talk:King Charles#followup to move discussion - whether a volume of clicks inside the first section is readers missing the single-item common list above
• Talk:The Sun (disambiguation)#followup to move discussion - whether the top link inside the sentence was good enough

Several of the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 44 have been about ordering, too. The search of talk page archives here brings up a lot of discussions on ordering as well. Maybe we need to ponder this matter more coherently.

It seems to me that we should move the part of the style guideline that affects the top of a disambiguation page into the main guideline here, because this doesn't seem to be a matter of just style per se, rather it might be making a significant impact on ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily. --Joy (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that advantage of having a common uses group at the top is always clear-cut. It can result in slowing navigation if readers jump to the relevant section expecting to find the specific item listed there only to have to look back up to the top. This is similar to what can happen with a primary topic as well and raises question of whether such entries should be duplicated within the appropriate section as well as at the top. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we should actually list the common items in both places. If the list is already relatively long, duplicating a couple of popular items shouldn't lengthen it unreasonably, and we hopefully catch most of those cases. --Joy (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That and also with relatively short pages, it may be unnecessary or even counter-productive to try to pull out a couple. older ≠ wiser 17:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Because of so much possible variety, we'd have to test on specific examples. For example, is it 1 common 20 uncommon, or 2 : 20, or 1 : 10, or 3 : 10, and then the varying levels of how common each of the common ones is, etc. --Joy (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization of a disambiguation page title with both all-caps and lowercase senses

I seem to recall that there is a rule that if a disambiguation page has both all-caps and lowercase senses, then the title of the page should be at the lowercase title, if that is available. In particular, I am thinking of LOR (for which many Lor senses exist). Lor currently redirects to LOR. I am not asking for a page move here, but for where the rule on this can be found. If there is no rule on this, where should one be put? BD2412 T 01:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is two of the bullets under WP:DABNAME:

• A word is preferred to an abbreviation, for example Arm (disambiguation) over ARM.
• The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives.

Those can sometimes be contradictory, but it's probably best to hash those out on a case-by-case basis. Station1 (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The real question here is do we have to account for this merge in the first place? If you see distinct usage patterns based on capitalization, and if it would make navigation more efficient if the reader didn't have to wade through both lists together, they should simply be split up, as this guideline is not actually consistently applied in the first place, cf. #WP:DABCOMBINE not actually with organic consensus in the acronym space.

In my browser, I have to do PgDn twice already to browse that list, so if that can be two lists of Lor and LOR and if these would be more straightforward, that would actually make more sense. The idea of merging is valid where we believe there's a huge amount of traffic of people e.g. typing in "lor" but wanting "LOR". If these could be served with a link to LOR visible on the first page without scrolling, that seems better than forcing the readers to go through two pages of a more complex list on every visit. And, it would become measurable, we could see in the statistics how many readers needed to do that. --Joy (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

... as this guideline is not actually consistently applied in the first place ...: It is a guideline, until it is modifed or removed. Until then, it's unclear if other examples are WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:IAR.—Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joy: I have seen much longer "merged" pages, and would be concerned that some people searching for "LOR" will not bother to capitalize when typing the letters into the search box. BD2412 T 17:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

In the case of long pages, that can be handled by adding, for example, "LOR (disambiguation)" to See Also, or even adding it as a hatnote if See Also is really far down the page. Even with merged pages I think it's easier for readers to find what they're looking for if the Lors and LORs are split into separate sections. Station1 (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Question: "/" in parenthetical disambig?

Currently working on rewriting WP:KOREA's guidance on mountain article titles. For disambiguations with multiple terms, I'm unsure of what is preferred, a "/" or an "and". For instance, here's a page with an "and": Taehwasan (Gangwon and North Chungcheong). Here's a page with a "/": Sinseonbong (Chungju/Goesan).

Are either formats acceptable? I know having multiple terms in the first place isn't great; but in the worst case scenario where we had multiple terms, what should we do? seefooddiet (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Note, some relevant sections I found. WP:NCPLACE#Natural features and possibly a loose interpretation of WP:DISAMBIG#Format may suggest that we should avoid "/" as article titles don't typically have them? seefooddiet (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the more usual approach in such cases is to use the mountain range as the disambiguating term. But that info is currently missing in the articles. older ≠ wiser 10:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)