Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.212.30.135 (talk) at 15:56, 11 January 2009 (→‎Grosch: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For discussion related to disambiguation on Wikipedia but not to the project, please see the Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation (general disambiguation) or the Manual of Style (specific style questions).

Need native speaker help. Carn (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Returned the base name to the primary topic and removed the dab entries that did not have any WP articles to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help in gaining consensus. Details are on Talk:Hastings, but in summary, the town in Sussex England (close to the site of the famous battle) is the primary subject, but it's unclear whether it's primary enough. It certainly is if article visits are anything to go by, and also with whatlinkshere (though there are considerable numbers of misdirected links intended for other article pages). Google gives a murkier superiority - a rough estimate of 3.0 million ghits for Hastings, East Sussex, 2.1 million for Hastings, New Zealand, and 2.0 million for Hastings, Michigan. Is it worth mocing the article to Hastings, East Sussex and moving the dab pagee to Hastings? Grutness...wha? 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I visited this category looking for information about abandoned clothing, and all I found were articles about a band. What kind of dab header would work here? Is there an appropriate template? At one extreme, I would expect a category redirect to Category:Waste, but I'll leave the final decision to the good folks in this project, who will probably not want to rename the category. I couldn't find the right template, so I just added {{for|Rubbish, trash, garbage, or junk|Category:Waste}}. Is there a better way? Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page Garbage you will find the term disambiguated - I will see if it needs improving in the next few minutes. We here tend to specialise in dab pages not categories so that page may be the best we can offer. Abtract (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard that before. Disambiguation applies to all names used for files, articles and categories. FWIW, I often browse by category, so only disambiguating articles doesn't help here. Remember, article browsing is not the only way to find things. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages are not intended for browsing, they are to assist with finding the sought-after article out of a group of similarly named articles. Abtract (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote above. I often browse by category, and categories are subject to the same disambiguation requirements as any other article. Nobody browses by a dab page, as it wouldn't make sense. Viriditas (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? Abtract (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breeching

After some discussion (now on Talk:Breeching (boys)), I made Breeching a dab page. Help disambiguating the incoming links, and also improving the dab page, would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Una, I've tweaked the dab page a bit, made the two links to dab pages into links via redirects, and edited the {{Clothing}} template which provides the vast majority of the links. Edits to templates like that seem to take time to feed through the system, so I suggest you let it take its time and then clean up the remaining minority of links. PamD (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks PamD. I had not found the template yet (I see you added it to Breeching (boys)). Lately it seems to be taking 3 days or so for template links to catch up. --Una Smith (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename Category:Ambiguous place names

Not my idea, but figured some here might have an interest. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 20#Category:Ambiguous place names. olderwiser 14:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone turn this into a proper disambig page?Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done (John User:Jwy talk) 21:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Cool beans. Thanks.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 21:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need more eyes on James Cary. Sesshomaru is insisting on including Jim Carrey on the disambiguation page as James Carrey, even though that's not the name he is known by. An attempt to discuss the matter on Sesshomaru's Talk page was removed without discussion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening. Like I had already announced, a thread has been initiated at Talk:James Cary. Everyone is invited to express any thoughts there. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 06:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you announced, was that you had changed the article without discussion or consensus, then edit warred to keep your version. You also rudely removed any attempt to discuss the issue on your Talk page, without discussion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm rude? Didn't mean to come off that way, and I apologize for the misinterpretation, but I was clear on taking the matter further to Talk:James Cary. Didn't you see my edit summary? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 06:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have shown it as: *Jim Carrey (born 1962), Canadian actor, born James Carrey
so that both names are there - it may help the user. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the dab page is for James, readers there looking for Jim Carrey (although unlikely) would be served by * James Carrey or Jim Carrey (born 1962), etc., and that entry should be low on the list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I second JHunterJ's view. – sgeureka tc 16:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anima, a disambiguation page, happens to be a relatively common typo for anime, Japanese animation. I tried to find out what the consensus on linking from anima to anime would be in this case, but wasn't able to get any clear answers. Any thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 20:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a {{distinguish}} hatnote in Anima. Would that work? --Tesscass (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have put them in a see also section, but a distinguish hatnote works is also good. I've started some simple cleanup, but more could be done -- seems odd to have so many short sections. olderwiser 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, that works. I don't do much work with dabpages, so I decided it'd be better to ask. —Dinoguy1000 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a red linked entry on this page which is missing a blue link mention, but I'm unsure which would serve best. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any of them would serve better, so I added one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moxon

The page Moxon used to point to Moxon Huddersfield and I have now redirected it to Moxon (disambiguation). Ideally I would prefer to have the disambig page as the main page, but cannot remember the process, and the steps that I have taken are obviously incorrect. Guidance to the right process would be appreciated. Thx. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's history, you can't just do a simple Move of Moxon (disambiguation) to Moxon but have to go through the Wikipedia:Requested moves system - there are instructions on that page for the process. I'd reckon you could list it as an Uncontroversial move. PamD (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had my moves back to front, now all complete. :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen spectra

Hi, I think some disambiguation is required for Hydrogen line, Hydrogen lines and Hydrogen spectral series, but not sure of the best way to do it. There may be some other articles that could be put into an umbrella disambig page too. OrangeDog (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the ambiguous phrase that might refer to either of them? Hydrogen line doesn't mention "hydrogen spectra", and Hydrogen spectral series doesn't mention "hydrogen line". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The emission spectrum of hydrogen consists of a number of lines, all of which could be described as hydrogen lines either collectively or individually. These lines are grouped into spectral series. Hydrogen line talks about a specific line in the emission spectrum, which isn't a member of any of the spectral series. Hydrogen line would seem to be the ambiguous phrase, but I'm not sure if other merge/disambig issues with Emission spectrum, Atomic emission spectrum, Emission spectrum (fluorescence spectroscopy) and Molecular radiation should/could be dealt with at the same time. OrangeDog (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could add a {{for|the spectral series|Hydrogren spectral series}} hatnote to Hydrogen line. What are the issues with Emission spectrum, Atomic emission spectrum, Emission spectrum (fluorescence spectroscopy) and Molecular radiation? Are they also referred to as "Hydrogen line(s)"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a merge/disambig discussion going on on talk pages about whether Emission spectrum should refer to Atomic emission spectrum, Molecular radiation (fluorescence spectroscopy being an example of this), or both. The hydrogen articles being an example of an atomic emission spectrum. Thanks for the hatnote suggestion. OrangeDog (talkedits) 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Emission spectrum is the potentially ambiguous phrase? When the primary topic has been decided by consensus, or the lack thereof determined, then the appropriate merges, redirects, and/or moves can be performed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who agrees that this should be merged to Batman (disambiguation)? I'd have done it by now, however, I'm not 100% comfortable performing this merger without some discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I could easily see it fitting as a Manga section on the Batman disambig page. It definitely is not worthy of a separate disambig page with the existing MOS. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, incomplete dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECTs to disambiguation pages?

I am confused by these REDIRECTs: Hans Müller-Einigen, Hans Müller (pentathlete), Hans Müller (CSU). They all redirect to Hans Müller; the pentathlete has a circular link on that target page. I couldn't find any guideline regarding REDIRECTs to disambiguation pages, but these seem confusing and misleading. I think they should all be deleted. Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have put all three at WP:RfD. PamD (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any point in moving Ed to this title? I couldn't find any legitimate reason for this so I tried to move it back, but am unable to do so. Is there some discussion I'm unaware of? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the move summary shows that the editor who moved it didn't understand WP:DABNAME. I guess it needs to go to WP:RM. PamD (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CFN (disambiguous)

Can anyone verify the reference to CFN as a "notorious downtown street gang"? There seem to be no external references to this. link to CFN page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.221.4 (talkcontribs) 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. Dabs don't need external references, but they do need internal articles to link to. Thanks for pointing this one out! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should get disambiguation for Groschen, Grosch's law, Herb Grosch and maybe more. --82.212.30.135 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]