Template talk:Only two dabs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Only-two-dabs)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.


The discussion which led to the creation of this template can be found here Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote/Archive_3#Trivial_hatnote_links. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding entries or removing DABs[edit]

Currently, this template's focus seems to be on adding entries to the DAB page, however in my experience DAB pages tend to suffer far more from over-zealous adding of WP:DABNOT entries. "Helping" with a DAB page is rarely searching for new entries, since that often just expands the page with irrelevant cruft.

Further, the wording is wrong about deletion – in some circumstances (namely where the title doesn't contain "(disambiguation)" the correct action would be to replace the DAB page with a redirect, not delete it.

Thus I propose changing from this...

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. Please help by editing the page to expand it with additional topics to which the title can refer. If no other topics can be found within a reasonable time, the disambiguation page may be deleted.
Also consider adding the {{look from}} and {{in title}} templates to assist searches for the term in other articles' titles.

...to this...

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. If there are no other topics to which this title can refer, this page may be deleted or replaced with a redirect to the primary topic.
If a reader may come to this page when looking for some other article, please add that article to this page. Also consider adding {{look from}} and {{in title}} templates to assist searches for the term in other articles' titles.

Any thoughts or objections?

me_and 10:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; the problem that led to the genesis of this template was very serious topics like Sexual harassment being hatnoted with trivial "See also Sexual harassment (The Office episode" which several, including myself, found distracting. This template was a sort of compromise, to allow two-dab dab pages, and give other editors time to expand them. I don't think it's a question of cruft, it's a question of whether there are legitimate other disambiguators that can be used here. I'm fine with the "may be deleted or replaced with a redirect to the primary topic" bit, but its a bit of an edge case, because if there was a determined primary topic, it should already be at the non dab'd title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I've seen a few cases where there's a primary topic, and a disambiguation page at a similar name. For example Sephiroth used to disambiguate between Sephirot and Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), before it was replaced with a redirect. (Everyone was clear that there was a primary topic, but there was a lot of discussion about which was the primary topic...)
The reason I'm interested is ASOS; this disambiguates between Automated Surface Observing System and ASOS.com. I believe the latter is clearly the primary topic, and as such ASOS should redirect to ASOS.com with a hat note to Automated Surface Observing System. There's currently discussion about whether that's the right thing to do, but in any case, I'd like to flag on the DAB page that its current state is (probably) temporary. This template would be the obvious one to use but I think currently has the wrong focus.
That all being said, I agree that the current wording is entirely appropriate and sensible for the cases you're talking about, and that it's useful to have this template for those cases.
I think the two situations about are sufficiently different that trying to use the same template for them doesn't really make sense. And the case I'm talking about is probably sufficiently rare that it's not worth making a template for at all. So I think it'll just be a case of living with the current situation and doing nothing.
me_and 17:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
In that case, I don't think you need the template frankly. It is optional - I'd just do the hatnote. This template really was intended as a compromise solution in those cases where a "trivial" redirect in the hat was considered less optimal for the reader.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


I think this template has a problem. It says that one subject is the primary and the other secondary? Is there any reason to assume this is always the case? Debresser (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Yes. It's because the disambiguation page is at divine soul (disambiguation) and not divine soul, it is assumed that divine soul is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That can be changed, but it would require a couple page moves. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I asked a general question.
Regarding that article. This edit, with the edit summary "moved Divine soul to Divine soul (disambiguation): There is a primary topic" seems to agree with you. I also think that "Divine soul" is the primary topic, and would be fine with whatever change is needed. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It was easier to explain with an example, but this would be the case with any such disambiguation. Cheers, -- Tavix (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
But it doesn't always have to be so. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. -- Tavix (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
(ec) @Debresser:, what is the problem you see with this template? The use case is limited, almost by definition. If there is more than one topic other than the primary topic, the template is not applicable. Similarly, if there are only two topics with neither as primary topic, the template doesn't apply. Perhaps the template name is a little misleading in the latter case, but I've no ideas for a better name. In cases where there is no primary topic, there is no fundamental concern with the disambiguation page. An issue only arises when there is a primary topic and only one other ambiguous topic. Such cases can be addressed by a hatnote and the existence of a separate disambiguation page is questionable. olderwiser 21:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed the misleading name in the case there is no primary topic which is what I perceive as problematic with this template, or more precisely with its title. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)