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 183.89.118.75 (talk) at 20:09, 24 October 2013 (→‎Georgia: Should "Marching Through Georgia" and 'Georgia Bulldogs' be included on Georgia dab page?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

Disambiguation

Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages

Pygmalion issues help wanted

I am not sure if this is outside the scope of this project. I have been attempting to refine improper linking to Pygmalion (play) and Pygmalion (mythology), and I could use some assistance cleaning up {{Pygmalion}}, {{Pygmalion navbox}}, and {{My Fair Lady}} (the latter two which I have recently created). I have posted some particular issues at Talk:Pygmalion (play)#Template:Pygmalion. Please feel free to jump in and edit the templates or leave comments there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:44, 23 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

"Crater" disambiguation pages.

We have 112 pages currently tagged as disambiguation pages, and title "Foo (crater"; for example, Arrhenius (crater); Barnard (crater), Boethius (crater). Do we want to do anything with these (other than the obvious merging into existing disambiguation pages)? bd2412 T 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be merged per WP:INCDAB. In fact I already did the Barnard one. –anemoneprojectors– 21:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, let's do it! bd2412 T 21:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SummerSlam (2003) vs. SummerSlam 2003 vs. 2003 SummerSlam

The titles of the SummerSlam articles are under discussion here. Any constructive input you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames are not ambiguous

Here is what I wrote on the Cooley Disambiguation talk page: Does the idea of disambiguation really apply to a surname? I think not since the name "Cooley" or any other surname by itself is not ambiguous [(1) Open to two or more interpretations; or of uncertain nature or significance; or (often) intended to mislead (2) Having more than one possible meaning]. Yes, "SummerSlam" is ambiguous because that term could be applied to many different events in different years. "Intelligent design" is certainly ambiguous. But the surname "Smith" in and of itself is in no way ambiguous...unless you've expanded the meaning of ambiguity to mean there is a John Smith and an Arnold Smith and a Mary Smith (and millions of others). Dangnad (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smith can be a surname, a band, several films, a TV series, several places, an occupation, or many other things, so yes, surnames can be ambiguous. –anemoneprojectors– 21:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While, for argument's sake, surnames may not be ambiguous in the dictionary sense you cite, the way Wikipedia editors use surnames is sometimes ambiguous for the purposes of this project. That is, an editor may add text such as "[[Smith]] was highly concerned about the problems of poverty", instead of the intended "[[Adam Smith|Smith]] was highly concerned about the problems of poverty." In that case, the internal link will go to not to Adam Smith but to the disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages, by the way, are not intended as articles; they are navigation aids to help readers or editors find the content that is of interest to them when such errors occur.
By the way, "Smith" may be a poor example for your argument, since Smith (surname) is not a disambiguation page (though it is, in turn, listed at Smith (disambiguation)). Cnilep (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You use as an example the five-letter grouping s-m-i-t-h, not the surname. Yes, for example, Smith was a Vietnam-era, one-hit wonder band (What was their one hit?). Please re-read my original posting above. I even supplied a definition of ambiguity. I repeat: the surname SMITH is unambiguous. The surname COOLEY is unambiguous. There should be no disambiguation page for that name. There is a Cooley Peninsula in Ireland. Surely no one would confuse the surname with a place name. You could possibly have a list page for Wikipedia articles that use c-o-o-l-e-y e.g. Cooley High School, Detroit MI. Please read the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation to see the controversy surrounding this project. Dangnad (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Cooley (surname) and Smith (surname) are not disambiguation pages. Are you saying that these pages should not be listed on the respective disambiguation pages or are you suggesting that these anthroponymy pages should not exist? If the latter, you are at the wrong wikiproject as those pages are within the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. If the former, on what basis can you justify excluding those pages? older ≠ wiser 21:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as well. So confused I don't know what to say. I really don't understand what User:Dangnad is asking or wanting. –anemoneprojectors– 22:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cooley_(surname) page changed

Who muddied the waters? No wonder you are confused AnemoneProjectors! Someone changed the Cooley_(surname) page to a "set index article" listing a bunch of well-known Cooleys. That's completely wrong. I will now quote from the first few lines of the Cooley Genealogy by Mortimer Cooley (1941): "That the Cooley family name is one of great antiquity is unquestionable. The name, in one orthographic form or another, is said to have existed in England long before the Danish and Norman conquests, even before the Anglian, Saxon, or Roman conquests...". I don't know what you disambiguists are doing but you sure are on the wrong track vis-á-vis surnames. Dangnad (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cooley (surname) has always and only ever been a set index article. If you have additional verifiable information from reliable sources about the surname, please feel free to add that to the surname article. But I still have no idea why you're bothering the disambiguation project. older ≠ wiser 23:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, this isn't a disambiguation issue, is it? –anemoneprojectors– 21:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Particle DABCONCEPT example

My understanding of WP:DABCONCEPT is that the dab page lists only additional entries that aren't covered by the DABCONCEPT primary topic. The example Particle (disambiguation) also included lots of entries covered in the DABCONCEPT. I removed assuming normal buildup over time, added a comment, but wanted to check other's opinions as this is our example. Widefox; talk 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with listing subtopics of "Particle" that include the word, "particle" at Particle (disambiguation), so long as they are properly indented. bd2412 T 13:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: WP:DABCONCEPT "Where there are additional meanings that are not instances or examples of a "Foo" primary concept or type, those should be included on a "Foo (disambiguation)" page." (emphasis my own) and again "Other meanings, such as Particle (band), are presented at Particle (disambiguation).". This seems to logically infer they should be excluded from the DAB. Shouldn't we either change the wording to say they may be included (they've already come from the concept page, so is that desirable?), or remove instances or examples of the primary concept (like I did [1] ) Widefox; talk 14:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wrote that section. What I intended was to exclude things like Particle (band) and Particle (film) from being listed on the DABCONCEPT page, Particle. The basic idea of the rule is to unambiguous abstract topics from being presented as disambiguation pages; it is not intended to have any bearing on the contents of the actual disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 14:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good, thanks for explaining. Bear with me a bit more...looking at this from another angle: we talk {{Dabconcept}} about converting a DAB to a dabconcept, but if I've understood correctly the DAB should be unchanged - apart from the primary topic. Seems we're not being consistent - shouldn't we just move the dab (to create the primary topic) and not talk about converting it, writing a separate dabconcept at the primary topic. I've been party to converting at least one already and the DAB was deleted. "so that no information is lost from what would have been presented in the disambiguation page format." - again this may allude to having items in the dabconcept (possibly - but from you're saying not meant to be - as it won't be in the DAB). Is it worth tweaking the wording to remove this interpretation? In particular, {{Dabconcept}} - why convert a DAB if we actually want it unchanged? Widefox; talk 16:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, if a page is "dabconcept", it means that it is actually a primary topic that is incorrectly being presented as a collection of ambiguous links. With Particle, for example, most meanings of the term that were on the page were variations of a "small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties". Similarly, Rice cake was merely a list of cake-like dishes made from rice, Rocket launcher was merely a collection of devices that launch rockets, and Color code was merely a list of schemes by which color is used to code things. The fact that there may hypothetically be a band named "Color Code" or a film titled "Rocket Launcher" doesn't change the fact that the primary topic is the meaning covering a subset of the collection of links that are not really ambiguous. When a dabconcept page is converted to an article, all of the links that are aspects of that article should continue to be discussed there - for example, all of the links listed at Rocket launcher that were really about devices that launch rockets continue to exist in the article, which explains why all of these are kinds of rocket launchers. Thus, no information is lost. There is also an actual Rocket launcher (disambiguation) page for other meanings of the term that are actually ambiguous. bd2412 T 16:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, there's no issue about the dabconcept (incl. reason to create or wording at WP:DABCONCEPT) - that is fine. Just about the DAB. What we do with entries linked from the dabconcept overlapping with the DAB entries once the dabconcept is there. e.g. Subatomic particle (and indented). Readers will come from the primary topic, where it's already listed. Just checked...particle was moved rather than converted. From what you're saying, the creation of a dabconcept shouldn't change the DAB too much, so the template should be about moving the DAB and creating a new article at that location based on the DAB, rather than expanding and losing the current DAB "Pages needing to be expanded to describe the concept may be tagged with {{dabconcept}}." "This disambiguation page should be converted into a broad-concept article, describing the primary meaning of the term. Additional meanings linked to this term should be moved to a separate page with "(disambiguation)" in the title." Why expand/convert, when we want to keep the DAB anyhow? Sure it will be at that location, but we want to move and create anew based on some entries, and retain the DAB not expand. Widefox; talk 18:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EXT, refs and DABMENTION

There's discussion about the interpretation of WP:DABMENTION and inclusion of EXT and refs in dabs at Talk:Buckethead (disambiguation), in particular did MOSDAB encourage adding them in the past? Widefox; talk 21:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, MOSDAB never encouraged adding them in the past. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical bias

What the... heck? bd2412 T 21:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was funny. SchreiberBike talk 22:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What to do? Delete? Widefox; talk 00:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROD'ed, should take care of itself. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move for Lorca

There's a move request to place Lorca at Lorca, Spain to avoid ambiguity of the title with Federico García Lorca. Diego (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   And would Lorca become a Dab or a Rdr?
--Jerzy•t 01:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini Dab screw-up

The Dab

   The presumed main contributor to Kundalini (energy) insists that that topic is primary for "Kunadalini" because (in Sanskrit, i infer ) Kundalini is a noun meaning only an energy or energy center (i'm not an expert) within the human body. I haven't even done the Google test, but i have very high confidence that "Kundalini" will turn up as overwhelmingly used as a shorthand for Kundalini yoga, a style of yoga (exercise) reasonably well known in the US, at least among yoga practitioners and new age/alternative medicine/etc. enthusiasts. Thus Kundalini should IMO be a Rdr to Kundalini yoga, and that article should have a hatNote pointing to Kundalini (disambiguation), whose content in turn should be

Kundalini is Kundalini yoga.

as heading, plus

Kundalini (energy)

and

a link to the article on a book whose title is Kundalini:" followed by some subtitle]".

(I've had some thot about the peculiarities of the needed Google test, and will try to make some suggestions for formulating it in time to save someone else effort.)
--Jerzy•t 01:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My screwup

   I was overconfident about the obviousness of what i've described above, and made the required move(s) without using Requested Move. User:Freelion is livid both as to primary topic and as to my resistance to undoing the moves in order to start from scratch, since i expect discussing the merits of the completed Dab cleanup would be far more efficient. I offered to personally do the move back in the (unlikely) event that the yoga as primary failed to find consensus, but Freelion got another admin to start an RM to restore the esoteric topic as primary.
   I'm obsessive-compulsive, and even if i can manage to oversimplify a complex situation, it takes me too long to be heard in an arguement. I don't intend to remain actively involved in this needed Dab cleanup, and perhaps others here will participate.
--Jerzy•t 01:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant background

   I am well enuf informed in related areas to have come up with yoga (exercise) as my second try to linking to that topic, without doing any searching. I had earlier, in an effort to gain a little credibility with Freelion as not totally ignorant about one of his favorite subject areas, made mention of knowing that karma yoga is not a case of (however i worded it at that point) yoga (exercise). Altho that topic now disappoints me by not being the primary topic of Yoga, perhaps there's something to be learned about the arguing the Kundalini dispute by examining the history of the Yoga case.
--Jerzy•t 01:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project description

I just noticed that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia, there's a line for this project, but there's no description there. Please consider the text below as a potential addition to that page.

Improve disambiguation pages and fix accidental links to disambiguation pages. There's even a friendly competition to see who can fix the most links each month.

Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 05:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objection, I'll add the description. SchreiberBike talk 23:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Automobile (disambiguation)

I'm not sure what to make of this articles for creation request. I declined the request but comments have been made since I declined it that have given me reason to reconsider. Please help out if you can. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary qualifiers again

There's a current discussion going on about WP:PRECISION here: Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)#Incremental improvements

Past discussions related to the problem:

If other editors from the broader consensus would like to participate. If anyone else has had similar conversations on individual article Talk pages, I'd appreciate pointers to them as well. Eventually either this guideline or the project or station naming conventions should be updated to help avoid more churn. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPCON

OPCON currently disambiguates two terms, both of them military. However, the first, Operational control redirects to Internal audit, an accounting term that is unrelated to the military and has an unrelated meaning. The words "operational control" appear nowhere in the audit article. I can't figure this one out at all. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added wiktionary link and OpCon to the dab and retargeted Operational control. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public Law and Private Law

Public law is an article treating a class of laws; Public Law (note the capital letter) is a disambiguation page. Public Law (disambiguation) redirects to the DAB page. Likewise, private law treats a class of laws, while Private Law is a DAB page and Private Law (disambiguation) is a redirect. It seems to me that the DAB pages should be at Public law (disambiguation) and Private law (disambiguation), though given how the search function works currently, I guess the lower-case letter is not vital.

NB: I just removed 27 items from Public Law that were either partial-name matches (e.g. Public Law 280) or were piped to appear as partial-name matches (e.g. [[Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009|Public Law 111-2]]). Cnilep (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "look from" See Also, to help people find numbered Public Laws - and fixed the one case where there was a redirect from Public law 84-140 rather than the version with upper case "L". PamD 07:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need eyes on Gary, Janice

Gary could use additional help dealing with a disruptive editor. Their talk page has also been engaged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

Should "Marching Through Georgia" and 'Georgia Bulldogs' be included on Georgia dab page? 183.89.118.75 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation&oldid=578595819"