Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style‎ | Disambiguation pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 14:40, 25 April 2024 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 40 ← Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44

Creating redirects for dab entries

Splitting the diversion from preceding section to a new section -- I just came across an example that may help illustrate some of the issues. On Small Mercies (disambiguation)#Other media, the entries are currently presented as below:

Until moments ago, the entry for the newly created article for the Dennis Lehane novel was similarly formatted to link to Dennis Lehane. And the List of Black Jack Justice episodes was deleted in 2021, although backlinks were not removed.

All of these entries could potentially use a redirect rather than placing the link in the description. But is a reader better served by clicking on a redirect link that ostensibly appears to be a link to an article about a short story/film segment/song/episode/whatever -- but in fact takes them to an article about something else where the subject is briefly discussed (or in some cases, barely mentioned)? And keep in mind, that, based on MOS:DABSHORT, the description for entries using a redirect are frequently trimmed to a bare minimum and remove contextual cues that might help readers understand the link target. For example, the entry

  • "Small Mercies", a short story by Australian author Tim Winton appearing in the 2005 collection The Turning

might be transformed into:

A reader clicking on the redirect, reasonably expecting there is an article about the story arrives at an article about a collection of stories with a different title and in which the only information about the "Small Mercies" story is that is the list of the stories. I suggest the former is preferable to the latter. older ≠ wiser 17:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think redirects on dab pages are good when they transparently take the reader to content that is specific to the ambiguous term, but are not good when the linked content is not directly about that term.--Srleffler (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

DAB-page entries for chemical-element symbols

Every chemical element has a one- or two-letter symbol that is only sometimes an obvious initialism of the actual name of the element. Each element is at a page of its actual name, and there is a full set of redirects from the symbols (with parenthetical disambiguation). How should the entry for the element be written on the disambiguation page for its symbol? I see a few variations of wording, and I am not sure how to apply MOS:DABREDIR and MOS:DABINITIALS. For example, we have:

and Gold's lede includes "Au" as a bold term. The Au DAB page has:

  • Gold, symbol Au (from Latin aurum), a chemical element

Most have similar phrasing, but most do not have derivation. Is it appropriate to have derivation when it is not an obvious English shortened form? Would either of these two be a better MOS by virtue of having the DAB-term at the start of the phrase?

  1. Au (element), the symbol for gold
  2. Au, the symbol for the chemical element gold

DMacks (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

For my part, I think I would do * Au, the symbol for the chemical element [[gold]]. Etymological information belongs in the article, and doing [[Au (element)]] confusingly implies this is a separate article from the one at Gold.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with SMcCandlish. Double sharp (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Either 1 or 2 would be OK, although I'd recommend 2 as it would be somewhat unusual to create a link using Au (element). That is, if someone is fixing dab links to this page -- the link would normally use 'gold' rather than the redirect. older ≠ wiser 13:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
None of those. The correct dab page text would be:
  • Gold, chemical symbol Au
Dab page entries should have the link first and should link to the actual article where possible. The ambiguous term is the least useful piece of information for the reader; there is no reason to put that at the start of the line here. You could drop the "Au" altogether, but some editors may need it to understand why the entry is included. Dab page entries should contain only the information needed for the reader to determine whether the link is to the topic they want. No additional information. --Srleffler (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Not in this case. The link in this case does not match the title of the disambiguation page. That, the page is not disambiguating the term gold. In such cases the link goes in the description. older ≠ wiser 18:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I disagree specifically with what you have written. Dab page entries should, wherever possible, start with the link to the article that covers the ambiguous term. Making every line start with the ambiguous term even when it is not the link is not helpful to the reader. The reader is not looking for the ambiguous term...that is what got them to the dab page. They want the article. --Srleffler (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Then you disagree with WP:MOSDAB. That's fine, just make it clear that it's your opinion and not guidance (should be this or that). I suppose there might be a quibble over whether Au is an variation of the term being disambiguated. I don't agree that it is always for the best to start the line with a link; especially where the link takes the reader to something unlike what the link advertises itself to be. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Concur with Bkonrad on this. I nearly always start the DAB entry with the name/term that is (or is a variant of) the disambiguation page's base name, and often the link is not on that term. Some examples from Tartan (disambiguation) are illustrative:
  • Tartan, a metonym standing in for 'Scottish' (as in "tartan politics", "tartan television", "tartan humour", etc.)
  • ...
  • Tartan, tartane, or tartana, a type of ship
  • Tartans, students and sports teams of Carnegie Mellon University
  • ...
  • FBgn0010452 also known as tartan, trn, or CG11280, a gene partly responsible for eye development in Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies; capitalized Tartan or Trn refers to a protein controlled by this gene.
In the last case, which is very unusual, I did not start with "* Tartan ...", because this entry has to distinguish between "tartan" lowercase and "Tartan" capitalized closely-related terms in the same fly-genetics context. (I suppose one could rewrite it to lead with the protein, but this would not be helpful because almost all literature on the subject is focused on the gene, with the associated protein being a side matter.) As for other entries: We have no use at all for a "Tartan (metonym)" redirect for the first, because it's an extremely unlikely search term. Doing "* Tartane, tartan, or tartana ..." on the second could be confusing, and look like something that belongs in "See also" or at very least should be at the end of the list as a variant spelling, despite being one of the more common meanings and better toward the top. The university case would not be managable any other way, since we'd need rather dumb redirects like "Tartan (student)" and "Tartan (college sports)" or something, and then have to misleadingly pick one or the other when the term refers to both. The idea that disambiguation page entries must start with a linked term is simply untenable and is certainly not reflected in actual practice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with all of your examples except Tartane. Since the linked article could have been titled "Tartan" (ie. the article is about the topic with the ambiguous name) the dab page entry should begin with the title of that article, linked. --Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Except it couldn't've been titled that way (e.g. as Tartan (ship)) because that would have failed WP:COMMONNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Bkonrad: I do argue that Gold is "a variation of the term being disambiguated". The article directly covers the topic that could be identified by the ambiguous title, so the dab entry should start with the link to that article. I did not mean to imply that we should always start dab entries with a link, but rather that we should always start them with a link when the link goes to an article that is directly about the topic with the ambiguous title. I'm sorry that I wasn't sufficiently clear about this distinction.--Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
"Gold" isn't a variation of the term "Au". It's an alternative term for one meaning of the term "Au". That difference is subtle but important. Variations will generally consist of A followed by U in either case with optional punctuation, spacing, diacritics, etc. Certes (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look at it closer I see that the guideline says "In most cases the title of the target article will be an expansion or variation of the term being disambiguated" [emphasis mine] That doesn't fit what I was thinking. I agree that my opinion is not in agreement with the current guidelines. I'm about 13 years out of date—my approach was per the guideline until mid-2010.--Srleffler (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps we agree on the chemical element text suggested by the current guidelines, but you disagree with those guidelines in a way that's not specific to elements? Certes (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to see this from the perspective of a typical Wikipedia user. If I'm looking for "Gold", then I've typed that in and I'm already at the article Gold. But if I'm curious about or puzzled by a reference to an element referred to as "Au", then the link Au (element) is the bingo. So I'd choose option 1. —ShelfSkewed Talk 18:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
MOS:DABREDIR seems to suggest option 1 above: Au (element), the symbol for gold. Option 2 isn't wrong, in that it takes the reader to the right place in a transparent way, which is more important than blindly applying bureaucratic rules. Creating and linking via a redirect like Au (element symbol) might be a minor improvement but rather pedantic: we have plenty of useful redirects with qualifiers less accurate than "(element)" is here. Certes (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it would be bureaucratic to do option 1, because "Au (element)" is not going to make sense to nearly as many readers as "Gold", and linking that redirect (as I said earlier) gives a strong impression that it is not the same article as Gold but is a separate page about an element in chemistry or about the symbol for it. Srleffler's idea is unhelpful because it starts with "Gold" instead of "Au".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
My logic is similar to ShelfSkewed's, above: The reader has encountered a reference to an element referred to as "Au" and is scanning down the list on the dab page looking for the article on this substance. What is most useful to them? Fifty lines that all start with "Au"? How does that help? It's much better if the reader can scan down the list and the first thing on each line is a meaning of the ambiguous term. A reader looking for a substance will quickly spot "Gold" on the list.--Srleffler (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Does our hypothetical reader know that Au means gold? If they did then they probably wouldn't be here; they'd have typed in "gold". They're looking for Au, and presumably know it's an element. That particular word may not have come to mind – maybe they're thinking "Au atom" or similar – but a dab entry for Au (element) will contain enough information for them to pick it out even if it doesn't mention atoms. Certes (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm open to that argument in this case. Au (element) might be more recognizable than Gold to some readers.--Srleffler (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
It's also helpful in another regard: lots and lots of our DAB pages (including that one in particular) cover things with alternative capitalization (especially acronyms/initialisms mingled in with non-abbreviation strings) and other alternative spellings (accented characters, etc.), as well as partial title matches that are in the main list because they are sometimes also referred to by the bare word alone, yet their DAB entry leads with the longer term. It is a great aid to visual scanning to lead with "* Au ...", for someone who knows they are looking for "Au" in particular, not "AU" or ".au" or "Aú" or "A.U." or "A.U" or "Aletheia University" or ....  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"MoS:dab" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MoS:dab has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 2 § MoS:dab until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Should the existence of an article for the entry topic be a factor in WP:DABORDER #4?

Right now, we recommend sorting by similarity to the base title (with some detail on what that means), then alpha or chrono as appropriate. There's no mention of putting MOS:DABMENTION entries below ones where there's an actual article for the ambiguously named topic. But in the wild, that's actually done quite often (e.g. Difference), and is probably to readers' benefit: people are more likely to be looking for topics that are notable enough for an article than those that aren't. The downside is maintenance when new articles are created; one hopes that whoever updates a dab with a new link also moves said entry up, but that doesn't always happen.

Bottom line: Should we suggest sorting this way, as is often done, or leave it alone? And if yes, what priority should that have with respect to the other sorting criteria? —swpbT • beyond • mutual 18:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should just suggest that the person editing the disambiguation page makes up a redirect for the mentioned topic. That's the best context to be able to decide which disambiguation marker to use. If a newbie sees that e.g. The Difference (Matchbox Twenty song) exists, they will naturally try to edit that, and won't be tempted to start editing The Difference (song) or Difference by Matchbox Twenty or The Difference (2002 song) etc, which would lead to more maintenance work. --Joy (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
That's a great solution for e.g. songs redirecting to albums or artists, and probably many other situations, but there are some situations where the relationship between the mentioned topic and the article that mentions it is less obvious, and a redirect could leave readers wondering "why did I end up here?" In that case, I'd probably leave a red link or no link to a disambiguated title, and keep the blue link later in the entry, but that leaves the question (to me anyway) of where such entries should be placed. —swpbT • beyond • mutual 19:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I really recognize that use case, can you post an example of some sort so it becomes clearer? The closest I can think of is e.g. airport codes, where we might not want the first link in the entry "XYZW (ICAO code), the code for Foo International Airport" at Xyzw because it's... too contrived? --Joy (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I would generally write that entry as "Foo International Airport (ICAO code XYZW)". But anyway, I think it's generally recognized, as Bkonrad notes below, that it's not always appropriate to create a redirect when the real target is in the description. —swpbT • beyond • mutual 12:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this page should not make any recommendations about whether to create redirects in such cases. Several projects have naming conventions and notability guidelines and have routine issues with editors who mechanistically create redirects for unnotable topics (for example songs, minor characters or episodes). older ≠ wiser 11:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
But if the redirect is for a non-notable topic, why should it really be listed in the disambiguation page? Either something is a legitimate search term and a source of ambiguity, or it is not - what's the middle ground? --Joy (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Notability is generally not considered in whether to include a item on a disambiguation page. There is some vague agreement that subjects mentioned once only in passing in an article that is mostly unrelated to the subject don't need disambiguation (for example, a person mentioned once in an article about an event or another person altogether). But where to draw the line is unclear as entries that satisfy WP:DABMENTION are generally accepted as entries on dab pages.
But specifically regarding redirects, I think it can be confusing and even misleading to have a redirect from a very specific subject to some other article unless that subject has some independent notability and might have potential to exist a standalone article (or at least be a topic that readers are likely to search for). In such cases, I think it is better for the link to be in the description to make it clear 1) that there is no separate article on the topic and 2) what the actual topic of the linked article is. older ≠ wiser 12:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I see what you're saying but I still think it leads to too little clarity in composing disambiguation pages. Redirects are navigational aids, they don't need to have independent notability - we actually have a tag {{R with possibilities}} for such redirects and otherwise it's clearly optional. If a topic is coherent and worthy of a mention in navigation, it's worthy of a redirect; if it's not, if it's not even worthy of a red link, then it shouldn't be in navigation at all, we can just let full text search handle any such inquiries. --Joy (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
That has been the subject of considerable discussions in the past. However, dab guidelines currently say very little regarding the role of notability. Red links advises to avoid adding red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. WP:DAB mentions notability in regards to determining a primary topic. WP:DABMENTION is the main guidance entries for topics that do not have their own article. Using a redirect is offered as an option there -- but I'm not sure it is appropriate for this page to provide recommendations about when to create such redirects -- especially where subject-matter projects may have their own guidelines for such redirects.
BTW, a redirect tagged as {{R with possibilities}} would be a good candidate for using the redirect on a dab page. However, this would generally not be applicable for many redirects concerning episodes of barely notable series or minor characters or songs that have no significance other than that they were part of an album. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
What's the problem with redirects from songs, minor characters, or episodes, if they're properly named and mentioned in the target? Redirects are dirt cheap and don't really need maintenance. —swpbT • beyond • mutual 12:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
These do often require maintenance as the 'container' target of the redirects are frequently the subject of repeated moves and or deletions due to notability concerns. older ≠ wiser 12:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
But double redirects and orphaned redirects are taken care of by bots. Is there any human workload there? —swpbT • beyond • mutual 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there a bot that removes dab entries for an orphaned redirects? I think there might be one that de-links such redirects, but that subsequently does require some additional manual update to the dab page to fix or remove the now unlinked entry. Particularly for minor characters, less so for episodes or songs, the actual content may often be removed from the container article and as such, while the redirect might still exist, it now fails WP:DABMENTION. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
We should always have these redirects point to named anchors, that way bots can easily detect if the destination goes missing. I mean it's not like it's so much harder than for the bot to grep the destination article text for the exact same string and see it missing, but still. --Joy (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any bots that function in the way you describe. And in any case, I don't see how such a bot would be able to remediate the disambiguation pages on which the redirect appears. older ≠ wiser 14:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
A bot can traverse the entire list of links on a disambiguation page, recurse into each of the destination pages and look for the named anchor. If it fails to find it, it can post a message on the talk page of the disambiguation page to say it's gone. I think I've seen one bot do something like that, I think it's the one linked from {{broken anchors}}. --Joy (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly might be possible, but even so, there would still be some "human workload" as result which is what swpb had asked about. older ≠ wiser 14:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

To editors Joy and Bkonrad: This thread has gotten a bit side-tracked. To get back to the central question: assuming there are some entries where a redirect or redlink is not appropriate, so the only link in the entry is in the description, should we say anything about where to place such entries with respect to ones with a link up front? —swpbT • beyond • mutual 14:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No, because the existence of the link is not actually necessarily indicative of anything, since you can see the apparent inconsistency in how we add or don't add links. --Joy (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
For this specific question, in the past I think I had advocated for not making a distinction between whether an article exists or not with regards to order. Others, I think for example, JHunterJ, had advocated for making such distinctions. Personally, I no longer have any strong opinion on that particular aspect of organization. Or to be clearer, I don't generally make changes in how lists are organize based on that criteria -- if the list has separated the non-articles to the bottom, I generally leave it that way, and the same if the list is fully organized by alphabetical order or chronological order. I think I still have a preference for using alpha or chrono order without regard to article/redirect existence as I think such a list is easier to parse. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I typically assume that the existence of an article corresponds to a higher likelihood of being the article sought, so falls under "should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article", in addition to being easier to scan leading blue links at the front then scan descriptions with link for entries that don't have a blue link at the front. But if the reader would be better assisted in some cases with another arrangement, that should be the priority. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This discussion reminded me that I had proposed changing the wording in this section a few months ago. The only response at that time was supportive, so I have boldly done what the supporter suggested (which was not quite the same as my proposal.) If this change is acceptable, it may make the question in this section moot.

For reference, the wording I proposed was "Within each group or section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. Articles that are more likely to be the reader's target should be listed above those on more obscure topics. Other methods such as chronological ordering may be used where appropriate. Alphabetical ordering should be used when no other method is suitable. Entries may also be organized by similarity to the ambiguous title."

--Srleffler (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that these aren't really some known standards, but just using the terms like intended, likely and obscure, which are harder to measure and decide upon and could lead to disputes. The similarity part is also vague - as all entries on a disambiguation page actually have to be ambiguous with the term described, and multiple terms can redirect to the same disambiguation list, it's often impossible to decide what are these levels of similarity, while anything that is merely similar needs to go to the see also section anyway. --Joy (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, most of our guidelines use fairly subjective "leave room for editorial discretion" language like this instead of being written in absolutes, because they are guidelines not policies, and editors tend to get up in arms when guidelines are worded very restrictively ("WP:CREEP!", etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Ironically WP:CREEP argues against bloated pages, yet here we are arguing how to sort disambiguation lists that are inherently bloated when sorting is such a concern :) --Joy (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I am proposing that the ordering of items on dab pages needs to be somewhat subjective, because there is no benefit in using an absolute, objective ordering that does not serve the purpose of the page, which is to help the reader find the article they were looking for, when they do not know the correct title of the article. Putting obviously more common topics ahead of obviously obscure ones improves the utility of the page. That there are entries in between with no obvious ordering is not a problem—any ordering will be fine. Editors can disagree over the exact ordering; it's OK. We will find consensus, as usual.--Srleffler (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
But that's an idealistic view of how readers approach navigation. Why would we assume that e.g. people aren't more comfortable with alphabetic sorting for all but the most popular of items? When we get into the weeds, one person's common easily becomes another person's borderline obscure. Besides, consensus would be built by the average editor, which may or may not match what the average reader wants. --Joy (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Further, the reader has generally no idea at all which subject is a bit more popular than another one (only in cases of a really overwhelming difference, as at Michael Jackson (disambiguation), so ordering them by popularity will just appear as completely random ordering to anyone not privy to the popularity stats (which may change radically over time anyway). And "there is no benefit in using an absolute, objective ordering" isn't accurate, since a fixed order would at least become predictable to longer-term readers, just as our fairly consistent parenthetical disambiguation strings become predictable, our article titling patterns become predictable, our section ordering mostly becomes preditable, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
For a dab page, random ordering would be just as good as alphabetization. If a reader has ended up on a dab page, they do not know the title of the article they are looking for. Ordering the entries alphabetically by title is sorting the list by the one thing you can be absolutely sure that the reader does not know. Even an approximate ordering by likelihood will be much better than alphabetization. Put obviously more common articles at the top and obscure ones at the bottom. Put bigger things before smaller ones (countries > states > cities > towns; bands > albums > songs). Anything that doesn't have a clear ordering can be put in any order; it doesn't matter. Absent any better ordering, even ordering entries by when they were added to the list will be better than alphabetization.--Srleffler (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know that's useful for most use cases. Imagine you're a person who read something about a small town of Foobarbaz on the border of two US states, and want to look that up. You encounter a list of a dozen items sorted by population size, but it doesn't actually say that size in the caption. Do you really benefit from the sorting? Or, you know you're looking for a person with the common surname of Foobarbaz who's a less well-known musician, but can't remember the exact given name, but you'll know it when you see it again - how does sorting by popularity help - how do you gauge how much of the top of the list can you skip over? You're going to try Ctrl+F or just look over everything until you find the right person anyway. --Joy (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
You have to consider the bigger picture. Of all of the users who end up on the Foobarbaz dab page, more of them will be looking for the country of Foobarbaz than for the small town of Foobarbaz. By listing the former above the latter you reduce the search time for the larger population of users. The presumption is exactly what is in your last sentence: most readers will need to look over everything in the section to find what they are looking for. The best we can do is put the more likely choices first, so that the larger number of users find what they are looking for quicker.--Srleffler (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The problem here is that you're guessing on what constitutes "more" and "larger". It's easy enough for the top of the list, but how to decide between what's #4 and what's #6 on the list without some of the readers just becoming frustrated by a seemingly random list? --Joy (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
No, not guessing. If there's ten items on the list, in most cases it will be clear which are the top three and which are the bottom three or four. How to decide what's #4 and what's #6 is it doesn't matter. Any ordering you like is fine there. A random list is better than a list ordered by the one thing the reader does not know. --Srleffler (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
"A random list is better than a list ordered by the one thing the reader does not know" clearly is not correct, since for the end reader there is no discernable difference, but for editors the latter is more maintainable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
"Maintainable" is a pointless fixation here. It bothers some editors not to have a fixed, objective order to impose; it worries them that some other editor will change the order. If the order is not helpful, there is no reason to impose it. If different editors order the list differently, so what? Whether the list's order is "maintainable" is irrelevant.--Srleffler (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
There are advantages in having a list where an editor can see easily where a particular entry would be found, if present. PamD 13:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree. It will help the editor to see if an entry they want to add is already on the list, for example. I am not adverse to alphabetization when there is not a better ordering. My argument is that in many cases there is a better order, for at least part of a list. --Srleffler (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to see some evidence for such bold assertions, that it will be clear which is which, or that any order is fine for readers. An alphabetically sorted list, or a list sorted by e.g. listed years of birth or something else that is in the caption, is at the very least apparent and predictable to the average reader. I would not underestimate the amount of reader frustration if we started intentionally randomizing lists, or in turn editor frustration over edit wars over "I think this criterion makes my topic go 2 spots higher!". --Joy (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Joy: Not idealistic, but pragmatic. It's not about assuming that readers aren't comfortable with alphabetic ordering. Rather, we know for certain that the reader does not know the title of the article they want, so sorting alphabetically by that title is pretty much the least useful way possible for ordering the list. Yes, the ordering editors arrive at by consensus may not be ideal for the readers, but it will be better than what you get by blindly alphabetizing the list. Just moving the most likely 10% of the entries to the top and the most obscure 10% to the bottom and leaving the rest of the list unsorted will be better than alphabetizing for nearly every reader.--Srleffler (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Think of the use cases where the reader remembers vaguely what they're looking for but doesn't have it exactly, for example you know you're looking for a person who you know the surname for, but can't remember if it's a Kirsten or a Kristen or a Kirstie or a Katherine or a Karen or a Corinne or something like that - alphabetic sorting actually helps there because it shortens the search time. --Joy (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
In most such cases, alphabetizing by the title the Wikipedia article happens to have is not going to help. You have a point, though, with half-remembered names. Alphabetizing by people's first name on a dab page for the family name is not a bad idea.--Srleffler (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@SrlefflerSrleffler I think the statement f a reader has ended up on a dab page, they do not know the title of the article they are looking for is not accurate. Entries on a disambiguation page are ambiguous and they could all have the same title. If a reader did not know the title of an article, they would not even know to look at the disambiguation page. What you seem to be assuming is that readers know nothing else about the article other than the title which has very different implications and I think rather unlikely. For the most part, the parenthetical portions (or other disambiguating aspects) of the title generally should not be surprising and are meant to help readers distinguish one article from another. Granted, not all titles are equally effective at this -- but in the abstract, this is a very bizarre discussion. There needs to be some illustrative examples of where one type of sorting might be better than another. older ≠ wiser 22:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The reader may not know the title in advance but may guess it from a glance at the dab. In such cases, alphabetical order is useful. For example, someone landing on Springfield#United States will soon notice that the options are called "Springfield, state" and ordered by state, and can then pick the relevant town quickly from a couple of screenfuls of alternatives. Certes (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@Certes: Note that the entries at Springfield#United States are not ordered alphabetically by the Wikipedia article title. They are sorted alphabetically by the name of the state, regardless of the actual title of the article. So, for example, Springfield, Albemarle County, Virginia follows Springfield, Virginia near the end of the list, rather than coming at the start of the list, before Springfield, Arkansas. This is a good example of what I am proposing: Someone thought through how to order this list rather than just blindly alphabetizing by whatever the article title happened to be. Alphabetizing by state makes sense, because someone looking for a town named Springfield likely knows that.--Srleffler (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@older: My thinking comes from exactly what you wrote: "Entries on a disambiguation page are ambiguous and they could all have the same title." The reader knows what they are looking for. What they do not know is the title of the actual Wikipedia article for the specific ambiguous meaning they want. I presume the reader will scan down the list looking for the correct entry based on the parenthetical portion and the description. Sorting the list alphabetically doesn't help, because the reader doesn't know the title until they see it. Putting the more likely options first does help, because more users will find what they are looking for early in the list, without having to look over all the options.--Srleffler (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
"Putting the more likely options first does help" is only true when the most likely options or a couple of more likely options are much, much more likely. If one option is, say, 43% likely and another is 38% likely (how would we determine that?), the average reader has no way of knowing that, so the order will just seem jumbled.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
In most cases it's pretty clear. On a dab page there will usually be some entries that are clearly more likely and some that are clearly more obscure topics. If not, the list should probably be ordered some other way. I'm not arguing for anything so fine as distinguishing between 43% likely and 38% likely. I'm arguing that in most cases there are a small number of entries that are clearly more common than the rest and some that are clearly more obscure. Separating the former from the latter is not rocket science.--Srleffler (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is another sidebar from the original question, but looking closely again at MOS:DABORDER, I find a couple of points of confusion in item #4: That point purportedly concerns ordering within each section -- but the examples given would not typically be part of the same section -- how is it the order implied based on similarity to the ambiguous title supposed to be applied within a section when the examples provided are not illustrative of meaningful differences that would occur within a single section?
Somewhat less significantly, Moss, Monterey County, California has been renamed to Moss Landing, California and the entry on the dab page no longer illustrates the principle of ordering here. older ≠ wiser 14:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve nomenclatural confusion between split long lists and parenthentically disambiguated page names

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (lists)#Fixing disambiguation confusion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a discussion about band names as parenthetical disambiguators

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#WP:THEBAND in article titles, where the original poster wrote:

So the possibilities seem to be:

  • Option A: Strength (The Alarm album)
  • Option B: Strength (the Alarm album)
  • Option C: Strength (Alarm album)

What do we do?

The wise users of this page may have some ideas. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages/Archive_44&oldid=1220722442"