Template talk:Set index article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:SIA)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Lists (Rated Template-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This template has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Tweaks[edit]

There is some talk on the Disambiguation Project talk page about this.

One concern is that this automatically includes the disambiguation category when set indexes are a parallel to disambiguation. One fix that I have suggested is to start a "Set Index" category.

Also I wonder about the wording: "This set index article page lists articles that share the same (or similar) name"

Perhaps a more accurate one would be: "This set index article page lists articles on the same topic that share the same (or similar) name." As this underlines the difference between a set index and a disambiguation page - these are on the same topic (e.g. mountains/ships) that share the same name.

Also there is a shortcut: WP:SETINDEX. It might be the section needs splitting off and the shortcut would keep links pointing to the right place. (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

To answer your questions:
  • The template is included in the disambiguation category because there is no other, more suitable, category for it. Note that Category:Set index articles has been previously deleted. If there is another category where this template fits, there shouldn't be a problem to re-categorizing it.
  • No objection to changing the wording and a link—both make perfect sense.
In all honesty, however, I started this template more as a subtle way of bringing the community's attention to the overly vague set index clause of the MOSDAB rather than a genuinely usable tool. Judging from the category deletion discussion, the wording is that vague intentionally, but the side effect of that vagueness is that many editors (including experienced ones) simply don't get what this set index thing is all about. Perhaps if the wording is edited so it becomes more obvious that set indices are supposed to be strictly topical, the understanding would improve. Further clarifying how a set index article containing a list of, say, hospitals or geographical locations is different from, correspondingly, {{Hospitaldis}} and {{Geodis}} dabs would do wonders for separating the concepts of dabs and set indices and would certainly improve the general public's comprehension of the differences. The way things are now, set index articles are going to increasingly be used as a work-around for MOSDAB's very "helpful" clause prohibiting the red links.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly - I have been trying to get clarification on the whole business for a bit: WT:D#Clarifying Set Index (and I see you've replied there. I suppose one of the issues is that when you try and create a set index (which is also about being focused on a specific topic) people tend to come along and merge it back into the disambiguation page, so it isn't just about formatting - it is also about creating a useful and tightly focused page. In some ways I see it like the work being done by the Anthroponymy Project who are often creating set indexes (although they also often expand into larger articles) which works to disambiguate but would be best working as a parallel to disambiguation to allow for flexibility in style (and I've also suggested one way to clearly define exceptions to WP:NAMB is to allow hatnotes to set indexes).
So at the moment I think it is being hampered by falling within disambiguation - I know we could open up WP:MOSDAB but I think the result of that would be a lot of disambiguation pages getting unnecessarily messy when most times they are best kept tight and focused and a strict MOSDAB helps keep them working. (Emperor (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
Speaking of Anthroponymy Project, it seems that the set index article concept tends to surface when names (not necessarily human) need to be listed on one page (either for the purpose of disambiguation, or as a list proper). If set index articles are going to be kept from the dabs, it may be worth looking into limiting their scope to names only. {{Geodis}} dabs and {{mountainindex}} sets alone could benefit from being converted into Toponymy indices.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts, SIA are more like disambiguation pages than they are like regular articles. I don't think it is a good idea to create nonce varieties of set index articles simply because of some disagreement with disambiguation style guidelines. That is, I don't really think that this template should be used very much, and should be avoided if at all possible. Both Ship Index and Mountain Index articles have active projects and have developed their own standards for formatting such pages. One-off set index articles, which essentially fill the same function as disambiguation pages, should not be orphaned from Category:Disambiguation, especially where there is no active project to maintain them. olderwiser 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That all good and reasonable, but take a good long look at a real life example. WP Russia is working on geographic coverage of Russian inhabited localities, and in the process a lot of red links turn up that require disambiguation (for reasons of efficient workflow, for benefit of the readers, because WP:NC:CITY#Russia requires it, or for something else). The impression I got from the ever so friendly MOSDAB crowd is that unless we paint those red links blue (even if it results in something nearly useless, like this example, which, in essence, is just a copy of what otherwise would be a red link description on the dab page), or unless we move them to a set index article and link to that from the dab, we can't pursue the project's goals in a manner that's most efficient and convenient for us. Indeed, it feels as if we are trying to build a house, but have to somehow meet an inane local ordinance prescribing to start building the house from the roof, then proceed with the electrical works, and only then do the foundation. The project has been around for years; I myself have been working on it for even longer than that (talk about project being active and supported!). However, unless this idiotic MOSDAB clause is restored to its previous state (or is otherwise made less restrictive), it is only a matter of time until we see SIAs (tagged with this template or not) starting to pop up on a massive scale. We don't have this problem yet because the red link clause is only currently enforced by a handful of zealots, but if things continue to stay the way they are, we are risking the dilution and disintegration of the whole disambiguation concept. All because someone can't stand red links on disambig pages? Charming... Note how the SIA issue had hardly ever turned up before the MOSDAB's red link clause was amended.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so if WP Russia wishes to define a standard for set index articles listing place names that share the same or similar names, I don't think anyone at WP Disambiguation would object (well, I shouldn't say that--it is always possible for someone raise an objection). My own objection to overuse of the bare SIA template is that it should not become too easy of an escape hatch for creating disambiguation that don't follow MOSDAB. IMO, the simplest solution would be for the project to create pages with links to the various place names -- thereby satisfying the overly literalistic interpreters of the redlink clause for MOSDAB -- and also providing a more certain indication that there is a fair likelihood that articles will in fact be created for the places. In defense of the redlink clause, unless there are links from other pages to a particular term, there is no readily available evidence that such a term will ever have an article created or that such a use for a term exists. I don't think disambiguation pages are the appropriate venue for WikiProjects to plant seeds for potential articles. olderwiser 11:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Creating articles (as opposed to WikiProject worklists) which would hold the red links is in the plans, but it is cost-prohibitive to do so now just to satisfy the MOSDAB literalists. With over 150,000 rural localities in Russia, and with hardly half of them having genuinly unique names (meaning a lot of disambiguation will be required to tell them apart), creating such "redlink-holders" (whether as articles or in WP namespace) would be one hell of a job, not to mention the fact that a complete list of all those 150K+ rural localities is not even available in public access in full (I'm working on it, though). That means that those holders will have to be periodically updated as data become available, but I see that as just a monkey job to keep MOSDABbers satisfied. The guidelines, MOSDAB included, are supposed to aid the organization and workflow of different WikiProjects, not to dictate how the WikiProject should organize said workflow, wouldn't you agree? Why should we be wasting hundreds of man-hours just because "red links on dab pages must have backlinks", when the validity of those red links in this case is so obvious?
All in all, however, I have hardly any objections to preventing the overuse of the SIA template, because my own interest in dabs/sets is mostly limited by the Russian geographic names. Such SIAs can easily be converted to something similar to {{surname}} (a {{toponym}}, perhaps?).
Finally, in defense of having red links on dab pages, there are actually plenty of ways of verifying whether those red links lead to valid terms or not. Quite often, a simple websearch would do it, but even if it fails, one can always post a question on the talk page, ask the person who added the red link directly, or make an inquiry to the WikiProject in the scope of which the term seems to fall. In absence of reply within a reasonable amount of time, the red links can be removed. Of course, that would require more work on the part of folks who clean the dab pages, but in the long run it benefits Wikipedia a lot more than a formalistic approach based on arbitrarily chosen technical criteria (such as the presence of backlinks).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The long-time, and some would argue sole, purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers differentiate between articles that might be confused. While tolerance for redlinks on disambiguation pages varies somewhat, they were never meant to be placeholders for redlinks that had no other reference within the English Wikipedia. You claim that creating such lists of places would be some sort of onerous task -- but it would seem to me the effort involved would be not much different from adding such links to disambiguation pages. And as a bonus, you would have to waster your time arguing with "MOSDAB literalists". olderwiser 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The effort would not be much different if the project focused on disambiguation pages, but this is not where the focus is. Creating lists of red links is an onerous task because all inhabited localities would have to be covered. As for the disambiguation pages, the project only adds the red links when a disambiguation page already exists and there is a collision of meanings, or if there is another good reason to create such a page (naming conventions being one of them). We don't routinely create the red-linked dabs on a mass scale; we only create them when there is an important reason. I am not arguing the red links case because I enjoy going on red-linked-dabs sprees every other day; I'm arguing it because quite often the MOSDAB literalists impede the project's progress when adding a red link or two is important. I hope you see the difference.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I can see where letting the different projects deal with their own set index pages would be attractive - I do quite a bit of editing within the Comics Project and given the fact that different publishers seem to name their characters in similar ways (so many superheroes so few words in the dictionary?) we use a lot of these sub-disambiguation pages which prove useful for sorting out confusion and would probably be best turned into set indexes as some of the formatting is already non-standard (e.g. Sandman (comics). I notice Captain Marvel has been tagged as requiring clean-up probably because other things have sneaked on the end of the comics listing) and being able to add in references would be useful (sometimes it even leads to the page breaking out into its own article: Thor (comics), so these can act as a stepping stone to a more detailed treatment). There are easily enough of these to warrant us taking that step.
However, other areas could probably benefit from this. Films often have similar names and we ran into a real problem with War of the Worlds films, which was solved using The War of the Worlds (film) and I was alerted to the existence of Set Indexes by the editor who removed the disambiguation footer [1]. Such focused disambiguation pages are clearly a solution to problems I've run into in various areas and this seemed like the ideal solution. However, the reason I first raised this on the disambiguation talk page was because there was no replacement footer or any real information on what you could or couldn't do on them.
Now the idea of taking the set indexes under the wing of the specific project seems attractive but I can see these being useful solutions for various projects and I can see:
a) Some projects only needing a few and coming up with guidelines for those few seems like re-inventing the wheel over and over again, when a unified set of simple guidelines and a general footer would avoid any problems.
b) The various projects all have their idea of what a set index should be and they diverge and evolve to the point that the general reader might end up running into ones run by different projects which work in different ways while essentially doing the same thing (which is by providing a focused way of differentiating between articles of the same name and on the same topic).
What I want to try and avoid is everyone going off and doing their own thing and then a year or so down the line people start having problems with them and momentum builds for the creation of a simple set of guidelines that would help keep them all working in the same direction, which could then entail everyone having to re-edit all the set indexes they created (or even having to scarp them altogether because they'd got into such a mess.
It needn't require anything drastic - one of the things that helps disambiguation pages work is because they are simple an standardised: people can get in, know how things work, find what they need and move on. So perhaps as long as we set out some simple guidelines (e.g. nested listed are fine, using references are OK, more than one link per item is OK within limits and red links are allowable; more than one sentence should probably be avoided) this would be the kind of thing that different projects could hang a more specific set of guidelines on (for example with that Sandman example the Comics Project would say that the extra links for each item could be the creators and the publisher - allowing people to jump straight from Sandman to Neil Gaiman or Vertigo). The template here could be made more flexible to allow the topic to be inserted and perhaps a more specific category (so the text could say: "This set index article page lists articles on [films/comics/books/ships/mountains] that share the same (or similar) name."
So nothing major - I think it is wise to leave it up to the special interest groups to work out the specifics (which works well as the pages are so topic-specific) but perhaps it'd work best if there were some broad guidelines set out and some flexibility in the template (otherwise everyone would be off making their own).
Anyway that is just my thinking - with a little bit of planning now we could head-off some larger problems down the line. However, it might not be a big deal. (Emperor (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
I couldn't agree with this more; it all makes perfect sense. So, here is a short summary (for people who wouldn't normally read through something "this long"), with a few clarifications of my own. Please feel free to edit or add to in case I missed or misunderstood anything:
  1. Set index articles are intended to list (and, as a side benefit, disambiguate between) the entities bearing the same name and belonging to the same concept type (comics, place names, ships, schools, hospitals, etc.).
  2. This template, with an addition of a parameter specifying the concept type, will be used as a footer for set index articles. SIAs using the template without a parameter would show a generic SIA message, and can later be sorted by folks specializing in cleanup not unlike stubs are being sorted right now.
  3. WikiProjects may create additional sets of rules dealing with SIAs which cover the same subjects those WikiProjects do.
How's this for a proposal draft?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems good to me - I'd give some general guidelines on formatting like:
  • A set index can deviate from WP:MOSDAB and include nested lists, red links, references (especially for red links) and more than one blue link per item. The description should still be kept brief. Much beyond this and the set index is developing into a full-blown article and either be trimmed back or let loose.
This could go in before the bit about the last item about projects as, for example, the Comics Project might want to specify that the extra blue links should be kept to publisher, creator, title, year in comics or major adversary.
That way the general formatting ideas are there, but it is flexible enough for the specific projects to produce a more refined set of guidelines that match their needs. They can then link this in from the relevant category (so picking comics as the parameter would add it to "Category: Set index on comics" (or "Comics set index" or some such), otherwise they go in the general category and can be cleaned up form there. The added advantage of having a set index category on which to hand the others is that the decision on whether to have them under Category: Disambiguation is an easy one to adjust as you need only edit the main category, i.e. that is a debate we can have another day (I'm fine with it being under there for the moment - can't hurt). (Emperor (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
This also seems ok to me. hike395 (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Any other thoughts/ideas? (Emperor (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
Guess not. Should we submit this as a proposal now?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Do we need to submit anything? Seems we have a reasonable consensus to get things moving along (the above, and the discussion on the disambiguation talk page, probably count as a proposal). If everyone is on the same page we can make the adjustments to the template and use a form of the above words to update the set index section and make it more general (as it is dire need of a rewrite). If there is any fine tuning to be done we can kick it around on the disambiguation talk page (or here if it relates specifically to the template). Of course, if it needs proposing then I'd say definitely go for it - it is certainly looking like we are in a position to move things forward, one way or the other. (Emperor (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
Well, to cut the red tape short, let's do it the way you are suggesting. If anyone happens to have an issue with this thread later on, I'm sure they'll let their grievances known. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't see a problem but if there are it'd fall under WP:BOLD and any issues raised should be fixable - it is basically taking what we currently have and making it more flexible and usable, which is never a bad thing. (Emperor (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

Update[edit]

Seeing there is no further activity, I went ahead with another small step and added a parameter to the template, which would allow for categorization into "Set indices on..." categories. For example, {{SIA|Russian inhabited localities}} would categorize the set index article into the Category:Set indices on Russian inhabited localities. I categorized that cat under Category:Set indices on Russia and put that one into Category:Disambiguation, but such scheme is not a requirement of this template. Any categories generated by the new parameter will need to be created by the participants of the WikiProject under scope of which the set index falls.

In absence of a parameter, the template categorizes the set into Category:Disambiguation as before (I did not want to re-create Category:Set index articles without further input).

Please let me know if there are any further suggestions or if you see any problems with this approach.

An example of this template used with a parameter is available at Abzakovo.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Some quick suggestions:
  • We create a new category Category:Set indices and make it a child of Category:Disambiguation.
  • We adjust the wording - it is currently:
    • "This set index article page lists articles that share the same (or similar) name" - which isn't actually accurate so the first adjustment would be to something like:
    • "This set index article page lists articles on the same topic that share the same (or similar) name" - but those with better understanding of the structure could make it reflect the actul set index so it could say:
    • "This set index article page lists articles on Russian inhabited localities that share the same (or similar) name" - basically:
    • "This set index article page lists articles on X that share the same (or similar) name" - where X = films, comics, Russian inhabited localities, mountains, ships, songs, albums, bands, etc. and it can default to "the same topic".
Anyway great start - I'll go and sort this out for a few examples in comics and pop them back in here. (Emperor (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC))
Alright, I changed the wording and created Category:Set indices. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Great work, thanks! hike395 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Let's hope it'll hold :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I've made a start: Sandman (comics).
Just one thing - my using bold was only to show the area that needed changing, it wasn't to suggest they needed bolding. It probably works if it is seamlessly integrated into the text, so we can lose the bold.
Next step is to let the Mountains and Ships folks know and see if they want to tweak anything there. I'll be thrashing out formatting guidelines with the comics project. I'll check around to see which projects would benefit and drop them a note. (Emperor (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC))
I think boldface adds an extra emphasis as to the index topic, but I have no strong feeling either way, so I'll have it removed per your suggestion.
As for letting the projects know, if you could do that, I'd much appreciate the effort—I myself don't quite have the time to do that. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've dropped a note into the Film Project talk page and one onto the Ship index category (where I noticed this had come up a while ago). Mountains have already upgraded and I've fixed all the comics SI that fell into the main category (as well as starting discussion on nailing down a Comics Project style guide to deal with the projects specific needs). I'll check around to see which projects have enough specific disambiguation pages to warrant a disambiguation category for their talk page header and drop them a note (as I did with film) as they are the ones with enough articles that it'd be in the projects interest to devise guidelines for them. I'll also have a word with the Anthroponymy Project as the pages they tag with their footer banner (e.g. Pike (surname)) are essentially name specific set indices and they might want to also link in under the general SI structure. (Emperor (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Parameters[edit]

Some days ago I was asked to fix some technical problems with the disambig and set index message boxes. I ended up making the {{dmbox}}. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Disambig and setindex meta-template and the sections before that.

I noticed that Ezhiki added several parameters to the {{SIA}} template some day ago. I disagree with those additions so I reverted them. Here's why:

1: Adding a second name for the first parameter is confusing. That usually causes problems later on since you get stuck with supporting both parameters "forever". This template used a first unnamed parameter to feed the name of the type of set index article, so the template can categorise the page accordingly. And that parameter was already deployed and used on many pages. Ezhiki added the parameter named "type" for the same purpose.

2: Adding an image parameter can be nice. But I advice against adding it with two parameters like "image" and "px", since that is less flexible. Then you can't handle cases like the {{shipindex}} box which has two images on the left side. If you instead let your image parameter take an image with the usual wiki notation like "image = [[Image:Some image.svg|40px]]" then it can handle any object on the left side, even two images. That is why we do like that with the mboxes like {{ambox}}.

I have updated this template to use the {{dmbox}}, which handles the layout and the non-triggering of the {{disambig editintro}} message when editing pages with this template on.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, David. I have nothing against this re-design, since mine was more of a quick experiment than anything. I am, however, still wondering why we would want to keep {{mountainindex}} and {{shipindex}} as separately coded templates instead of simply routing them via {{SIA}} and then running a bot to replace all instances of {{mountainindex}} and {{shipindex}} with {{SIA|mountains}} and {{SIA|ships}}. The concept of set indices is confusing to uninvolved editors as it is; there is no need to introduce further complications by creating separate templates for mountains and ships (but not for comics or whatever else SIA is now handling). I'd appreciate your further insight on that. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I should probably clarify that I don't have that much of a point of view on the text content of the disambig and set index boxes. I am merely a template programmer that was asked (by Quiddity) to solve one technical problem and ended up doing more than I was asked...
But I do have some general points of view on templates:
1: As I said above, if you should have an image parameter it is more flexible (and usually in the long run causes much less problems) to let the image parameter take full wiki notation. But if you are going to centralise all the set index templates to the {{SIA}} templates then you do need to have the "image" parameter. I just reverted it immediately (well, after thinking for a day) so that people wouldn't start to use the image parameter the way you made it.
2: But if some area wants to use another image then it will be really messy if every instance of that template should have to feed the image when placed in the articles. Then you can not change the image in a central location and it makes it complex to place that template in articles. Then you better make a template for that case. (But sure, such a template could perhaps call {{SIA}} in turn.)
3: Another problem is that the {{mountainindex}} and {{shipindex}} templates already have a first unnamed parameter used for category sort order. While the {{SIA}} has no support for that, instead it uses the first unnamed parameter to set the name of the category to use. So as it is now if you call {{SIA}} from {{mountainindex}} and {{shipindex}} you break them. So you first have to decide if you are going to drop that option, or instead perhaps implement that option in {{SIA}} too, and in that case how to implement that option. (But I advice against dropping that option, since then most of the 2935 ships will be sorted under only "USS" and "HMS".)
4: The next issue is that when you centralise like you do you are not centralising the layout, since that was already done by the "notice" and "disambig" CSS classes before, and the {{dmbox}} now. But rather you are centralising the text content. Which is a whole other thing. This means you are enforcing the exact central text formulation on the {{mountainindex}} and {{shipindex}} boxes. Have you asked the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships people if they want that change of the text in "their" set index boxes? (I copied a little of the text from their boxes to the {{SIA}} so the difference now is not that big, but it was bigger when you did the centralising.) But there still are some differences, and there is a difference in how the "internal link" link in that text looks and works. And as I pointed out, there is a difference with the parameter for the category sort order.
My experience is that centralising the text content of a template usually is a bad idea. For among others the kind of reasons I just explained. (It sometimes also causes grammar problems when inserting certain more complex names.) Centralising the categorising also often causes problems, and it does in this case.
So I suggest you do not centralise the {{mountainindex}} and {{shipindex}} boxes. At least not until you have discussed it with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships people, and have figured out what to do with the parameters, and cleaned up all the old parameter usage (and that is a lot of work). But look at what you are centralising: Two sentences in two templates! That's a lot of work for exactly what gain?
5: But I am not suggesting that you remove the first parameter from {{SIA}}, since for those projects that think that the text in {{SIA}} is fine then that is perhaps a convenient option. Although it probably would be better if the comics and the few other specialised areas that use the {{SIA}} with that parameter get their own templates. Since as it is now the template does not indicate if you spell for instance "comics" wrong, instead it just creates a new category automatically!
Sorry if I sound negativistic. I don't mean too. This just is more complex than it first looks like.
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, David, for a thorough reply. My problem with re-designing the template was mainly with the fact that I failed to see that {{mountainindex}} already uses first unnamed parameter for a purpose incompatible with that of the first unnamed parameter of {{SIA}}. The whole {{SIA}} thing for me was only a quick fix in the first place, and since merging {{mountainindex}} (and, ultimately, other specialized templates of this nature) into it seemed straightforward and trivial, that was exactly what I did. I can now see that there is indeed a lot more to all this than I thought, so I'd be happy to leave further tweaking of this template in your capable hands (as my interest in this template is purely utilitarian anyway). Thanks again for detailed explanations and providing me with an opportunity to learn something new. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dab integration[edit]

I kind of liked this approach. It enables to integrate what would otherwise be a very short SIA (no more than, say, two or three entries) into a dab article, or combine SIAs on different topics into one SIA. What would you folks say if the current wording of {{SIA}} is changed to something resembling that of {{shipindex}}; i.e. "This article includes a set index on [this and that]...", which works both when a set is integrated into a dab and when it is a stand-alone SIA?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would advise against this: right now, SIAs are cleanly separate from dabs and from each other, because they are list articles about a single subject, not general list articles, nor dabs. If the template mixes them up, then we run the risk of a backlash amongst dab purists, who would try to eliminate SIA entirely (the concept was somewhat controversial when introduced). hike395 (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, in order to eliminate it they'll have to eliminate the SIA clause from MOSDAB and then deal with hordes of people who'll need some way of adding valid red links to the dab pages (a practice which MOSDAB currently limits quite severely). My point, however, was more in line with the practices used for human names. While articles on first and last names are normally supposed to be separate, such entries are routinely integrated into dabs when there are only a few entries (e.g., creating a separate Fooysky (surname) article and linking to it from the Fooysky dab is quite pointless when only one or two people with this last name have articles in Wikipedia). SIAs could be done the same way—if you have a dab page with a variety of entries, two of which are, say, mountain-related, do you really want to create a brand-new SIA listing just those two mountains? Indeed, one can say that the surname articles are nothing more than SIAs themselves.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
But the Anthroponymy WikiProject don't (as far as I've seen) add their footer to general disambiguation pages that happen to contain human names. They work to split off those that can make a standalone article and then tag them. As these pages are essentially set indexes (which can morph into full blown articles - as can set indices, e.g. Thor (comics)) we can work along the same lines and removing human names and topic connected links (to set indices) can really help to make a disambiguation page usable again (as a lot are really bloated). (Emperor (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC))
As far as I understand it that example isn't a set index - it is a disambiguation page pure and simple. On large disambiguation pages I could see this becoming a mess as there could ultimately be half a dozen different footers added.
There may be better solutions - when I brought this up at the Comics Project I was asked about the possibility of integrating this with a disambiguation page and came up with some solution:
  • Just have the disambiguation page as a holder for links to set indices which would be under the control of the various projects and hooked into their own structure (that way people would usually not have to visit the main disambiguation page unless they got really lost or were looking for something not covered. If they wanted X in films they either be able to find it straight of (by searching "x films" or they'd find the set index) and then there could be miscellaneous other pages that aren't enough to make a set index.
  • We could transclude the set indices into the disambiguation page - wrap all but the list in noinclude tags and it'd work, although the variations in formatting (especially in relation to mountains which use coloured tables) could make the page a visual eyesore.
  • A hybrid approach. We have some kind of template like {{setindex|Hitman (films)}} This would then create a link to the set index (as in the first point above) but would also include a show/hide button which could then display the transcluded set index. Formatting would be less of an issue as the show/hide would set it apart from the main content of the page.
I think the first and third seem the most workable as they are just really an extension of what we have an could result in a disambiguation page which is a lot easier to use as long pages become unwieldy see e.g. Nemesis which would work well as half a dozen set index links (books, music, games, comics films, etc. as well as a dozen or so miscellaneous links. (Emperor (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC))
This is certainly some food for thought. You bring up some quite valid points. I'll keep an eye on that discussion for a while. So far, option one appeals to me the best, although option three seems a workable solution as well. Any plans to move this discussion from the Comics project to broader audience any time soon? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite possibly - the discussion was really to sort out the fine-tuning of styling for comics set indices and that is a bit of a tangent. I thought it worth noting here as it is a broader issue that ultimately impacts on WP:MOSDAB. I noticed when Pike (surname) was split off the link on Pike was quite a way down the page (under "other uses") and I'd suggest it'd better to have them at the top of the page as it is clearly a large enough subject to require splitting off (and other topic areas have their own section) but that may be a one-off case. (Emperor (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC))
Emperor's Choice #1 is what I've been doing for WikiProject Mountains (see, e.g., Olympus and List of peaks named Olympus. I think this is very clean and keeps a clear distinction between SIAs and dabs. hike395 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, to me it looks that Olympus and List of peaks named Olympus have quite a bit of duplication between them. Could you, please, explain the reasoning behind such approach? I was thinking about adopting #1 myself for Russian places, but I'd much prefer to have no duplication between the SIAs and the dabs. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants and example of Emperor's Choice #2 see Yellowjacket (disambiguation) which now transcludes Yellowjacket (comics) and I think it works OK but seems to slightly go against WP:MOSDAB but I think some tweaking and refinement should make it work OK like that. (Emperor (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC))
You might want to run this by MOSDAB folks before implementing this on a larger scale. I'd do it myself, but they'll quarter me as soon as they hear me uttering "MOSDAB exception" :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Welllllllllll I'm not suggesting we do it that way, just pointing out an example of Emperor's Choice #2 in the wild. I suspect it will get removed quite quickly. (Emperor (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Shared reporting with ((disambig))[edit]

I intend apply an error reporting system to {{SIA}} that reports when an invalid parameter is fed to it. This system will be similar to the one we just applied to {{disambig}} and will share the category where it reports errors with {{disambig}}. We have used similar error reporting to good effect for a long time in other templates, like for instance {{ambox}} etc. We might also end up slightly changing how the first parameter to {{SIA}} works.

If anyone wants to know more see the discussion over at Template talk:Disambig#Shared error reporting with ((SIA)) and the sections before that.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hidden category All disambiguation pages[edit]

This discussion has been moved to Template talk:Dmbox#Category:All disambiguation pages. Please continue the discussion there. --David Göthberg (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the following from WP:SETINDEX:

A set index article is not considered a disambiguation page, and need not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages.

shouldn't the SIA template not add the hidden category Category:All disambiguation pages? I use this category in many of my toolserver scripts that identify orphans and dab pages with links, and it looks like SIAs are being miscategorized. --JaGatalk 06:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JaGa: it doesn't make sense to add SIAs to a global disambiguation category. —hike395 (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Template talk:Dmbox#Category:All disambiguation pages since it concerns all the disambig, set index and name message boxes. And technically this is handled by the {{dmbox}} meta-template. Please continue the discussion there. --David Göthberg (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Set index image[edit]

We are planning to change the default set index icon, thus the icon used in this template will change. See discussion and examples at Template talk:Dmbox#Set index image.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

broke?[edit]

I think something broke over the summer, several Category:Set indices subcategories seem to have gotten emptied. I investigated one page, and it still had it's SIA template on it, but didn't categorize as specified... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My fault - that must have happened when I fixed the code to prevent the weird double and redlinked categorization that was happening. A side-effect is that any categories that aren't explicitly mentioned in the template won't get filled. If you find any more of these, you can put them into the template in the obvious way - if it turns out there's a lot of them, we can think about recoding so that they're handled automatically.--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think I filled in the remaining ones. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Add back the second sentence[edit]

In February 2009 Barrylb removed the text that said "If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article, if one exists.". As far as I can see he did it without discussing it first. But I think that text is useful, so I want to add it back. As a compromise, this time let's use small text for it, just like {{disambig}} currently does. So I want to change this:

To this:

Or perhaps for that sentence use font-size 88%, which is between normal text size and <small>. That's the standard size we use for text in small message boxes such as right-aligned talkpage message boxes. Like this:

Size comparison: Some text. Some text. Some text. (small, 88%, normal)

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with restoring the sentence. olderwiser 17:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree; SIAs are not disambigs, they are articles, and as such might be legitimate link targets. If an instruction is needed, the language needs to be tweaked to acknowledge that links to SIAs are not by default in need of changing. "If an internal link led you here and one of the other articles would be a better target, you may wish to change the link to point directly to that article.", for instance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Set index articles often serve the same function as disambiguation pages. While in some cases there might be legitimate links to a SIA, in most cases where there is a more accurate specific link on the page the link should be disambiguated. I've no problem with the proposed clarification, although I think the conditionals in you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article, if one exists seem adequate to address to possibility that not every link to a SIA must be corrected. olderwiser 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is JHunterJ's suggested sentence as it would appear in the box:
Your sentence is slightly long. And I agree with Bkonrad that the old sentence is good enough. But the old sentence does sound slightly like it is wrong to link to the set index article. Below is my try at a shorter but softer sentence. Although my sentence is not as clear as JHunterJ's:
I think I mostly prefer my short version, then the old version, then JHunterJ's long version. But all three are pretty okay for me.
--David Göthberg (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Bkonrad, set index articles that are used as disambiguation pages should be fixed so that they are disambiguation pages (and the SIA tag replaced with a dag tag). Davidgothberg, perhaps add "incorrectly" before "led"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Nearly every SIA page also functions as a disambiguation page, so I really don't know what you mean by fixing them. olderwiser 20:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Dabs aren't articles, SIAs aren't dabs. I know some editors who have been unhappy with having "their" disambiguation pages cleaned up have instead created disambiguation pages and tried to hide them under the SIA umbrella, but that's not what it's there for. If there's a set of things that need to be indexed for some reason, then a set index article, a kind of list, can be used. If there's some ambiguity among articles, whether they are in the same set or not, then a disambiguation page (separate from the SIA, if any) needs to resolve that ambiguity. In most cases where the SIA exists simply to be a disambiguation page without following the disambiguation style guides, then the SIA can then be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
JHunterJ, simply saying that disambiguation pages aren't articles and set index pages aren't disambiguation pages is disingenuous. For the majority of SIAs, the primary purpose is to provide a list of similarly named entities, some of which may have articles and some of which might not, and sometimes with additional information and sometimes not. In cases where a more specific article exists, the function of the SIA is to disambiguate. The statement that where the SIA exists simply to be a disambiguation page without following the disambiguation style guides, then the SIA can then be deleted would entail deleting a fairly large number of SIAs. Either your interpretation of SIAs is not widely shared, or if is is consensus, then perhaps a cleanup campaign needs to begin on mislabeled SIAs. olderwiser 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
My statement is completely ingenuous. If they are SIAs, then they are valid link targets. If they are not valid link targets, then they aren't SIAs. The A in SIA stands for article, and claiming they're really SIDs is disingenuous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The statement is useless, if not disingenuous, if it bears no relation to actual practice regarding SIAs. olderwiser 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Which is a pretty big if. WP:SIA still indicates that these articles are informational list articles as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what if you're referring to. If a guideline does not match actual practice, it is often an indication that the guideline is irrelevant or that there is no consensus for it. olderwiser 17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Since I have no indication that the practice is out of line with the guidelines, I assume the guidelines are true. If you have other indications, you might try to get the guidelines to reflect practice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Evidence is plentiful in just about all branches of the SIA category tree. I don't particularly care what the guideline says, except when people start to sanctimoniously quote it. olderwiser 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Reading that set index articles are articles isn't sanctimonious, and watch it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
What one calls them is besides the point if they are functionally similar to disambiguation pages. olderwiser 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion seems to be drifting away from the topic at hand (the exact contents of the SIA template), and also seems to be generating hard feelings. Perhaps we should re-focus on content of the template? Or, perhaps, take a break for a couple of days? There's no rush. —hike395 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest a compromise? Most SIAs are unambiguous (e.g., List of peaks named Glass). No one would ever mistakenly link to them. Some SIAs have ambiguous names (e.g., Granite Peak). How about adding a parameter to SIA ("ambiguous"?), where the box defaults to no extra sentence, but if the parameter is there, the extra sentence is added? —hike395 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hike395, in my surveys of the SIA categories, pages with unambiguous titles like List of XXXX are the exception rather than the rule. Given the present state of SIAs, it would be more accurate to have it default to ambiguous, with an option to suppress the line in the exceptional cases where the SIA title is genuinely unambiguous. olderwiser 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
If the present state of SIAs is to have them actually be SIDs, then they need to be cleaned up. I don't pay any attention to SIAs, because I assume that they are not disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll defer to Bkonrad's experience. For articles with {{mountainindex}}, I have tried to use List of XXX more. My suggestion probably doesn't work if that isn't the majority case. —hike395 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hike395, for what it's worth, the set indices on mountains are among the more consistently organized (if not titled). Set indices seem to have taken on a life of their own, without much in the way of oversight or general standards, after being seen as a way to escape what is perceived as the inflexibility of disambiguation page format. Back when set indices were first being discussed, I suggested that set indices should be limited to active Wikiprojects that would propose and maintain standards for organizing the pages. However, now there are set indices for a wide range of subjects, many without any corresponding project, and some seem to be one-off creations rather than groupings of similar types of pages. olderwiser 22:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Having SIAs owned by WikiProjects was certainly what I had in mind when I proposed SIAs. Should we go back to WT:D and propose limiting them? JHunterJ: do you think that is a good idea? —hike395 (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like it might help. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
older ≠ wiser and hike395: I don't think we have a WikiProject for every possible subject in the world. And WikiProjects don't "own" pages, instead WikiProjects are just work-groups of editors interested in a certain area, and a WikiProject page supplies some services like a central place to discuss articles and templates on a certain subject. Saying that we should not be allowed to make set index articles on subjects that don't have a corresponding WikiProject is like saying "Articles on subject X is not allowed since we have no WikiProject covering that area, so such articles would not be properly maintained".
JHunterJ: You don't seem to understand what set index articles are and how they are used. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles says "A set index article is meant for information as well as navigation" and points to the example USS Enterprise. The "as well as navigation" part means that they to some extent also serve as disambiguation. Pages like USS Enterprise attracts links that better should go directly to articles for a specific USS Enterprise such as the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) or the starship USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A). Reworking USS Enterprise to a disambig page would be bad since then it wouldn't be allowed to have the additional information that makes it so useful. And making a separate disambig page which simply lists all those ships wouldn't be useful since the set index article already serves the purpose of disambiguation.
Another example is the set index article List of peaks named Signal Mountain and the disambig page Signal Mountain. The set index article lists extra information about the mountains and also lists mountains for which we don't have articles. Having two pages like this seems to be what you JHunterJ prefer and is according to the current guidelines. Unfortunately to get the whole picture a user has to look at both the disambig page and the list article, which I find silly. And it is time-wasting for us with slow connections or slow computers to have to load two pages. And having them as two pages makes maintenance harder, as you can see they are both incomplete and each hold data that the other misses. And as a user I don't know to type in "List of peaks named Signal Mountain", I just type in "Signal Mountain", so finding the list is harder. I would rather have that full list at the pagename "Signal Mountain", with the addition "See also Signal Mountain, Tennessee, a town in Hamilton County, Tennessee",
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe I understand what WP:SIA. Set index articles are for information as well as navigation, which means they are articles and valid link targets. Just like any other article and valid link target, it is possible to link to them correctly as an article and incorrectly when intending a different article. I just don't want to have the note on the template imply that any links to it need to be fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes and this is exactly why I removed the sentence in the first place. It gave the impression that something needed fixing, and created confusion about the meaning of a set index article. Perhaps the only small change I would make now is with the link to article which I would change to set index article. That would help to contribute to user understanding without signifying something is wrong. Barrylb (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Most links to a SIA are incorrect and should be repaired. It is a disservice to readers and editors to pretend otherwise. olderwiser 00:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion here seems to be split. So I added back the sentence since that is what it used to have, and that is what the other set index message boxes have, and the sentence was removed without discussion. But it now has smaller text so it is not as prominent. And I added code that hides that sentence when the pagename starts with "List", since such pages are not likely to get unintentional links.
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The switch on "List" was clever. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Later: I just copied over the same wording and logic to {{mountainindex}}. Now I'm noticed a problem. Look, e.g., at List of peaks named Stone Mountain. The template tells us that the article is a list of mountains with the same name. Wouldn't a user say "So what?". There's no action for them to take. If the article starts with "List", shouldn't the whole dmbox go away? —hike395 (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No, the {{mountainindex}} box should still be visible and still use {{dmbox}}. Since it still says and does several things: It says the page is a set index article, thus also saying it is not a disambig page and not a normal article. And it links to an explanation about set index articles. And it uses {{dmbox}} that adds Category:All set index articles when it is used as a set index box. And {{dmbox}} also adds the CSS id "setindexbox" so javascript can detect that the page is a set index article.
--David Göthberg (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove Category:Article Feedback Blacklist[edit]

Hi. Please undo this edit. The article feedback tool is now opt-in per-article. The blacklist category is no longer necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, fair play. Removed the category myself in this edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 January 2014[edit]

I would like to add "automobiles" as a group of set indices, linking to Category:Set indices on automobiles, so that one could simply write {{SIA|automobiles}} and have the page added to this category tree. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  11:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)  Donehike395 (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that was FAST! Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 January 2014[edit]

I would like to add "animalia" as a group of set indices, linking to Category:Set indices on animalia, so that one could simply write {{SIA|animalia}} and have the page added to this category tree. Thanks. I have created the category (blue ink above) and edited four future members with the amended template. --Bejnar (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. LittleMountain5 22:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, very much. --Bejnar (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Promotion and use in Wikipedia[edit]

I performed my first Wikipedia edit in June 2005. I have done over 19,000 undeleted edits, placing me well within the top 4000 editors of Wikipedia. Until a week ago, I was unaware of this template or any concept of set index articles in Wikipedia. I learned of it when Rkitko edited Aranella fimbriata, replacing {{Species Latin name disambiguation}} with {{SIA|plants}}. Five days later, BD2412 edited Potassium feldspar, replacing {{disambig}} with {{SIA}}.

I had no idea. I suspect that most other Wikipedia editors, even those who frequently work on disambiguation articles, are not aware of set index articles. For example, compare the 8 pages in Category:Set indices on plants with the 45 pages in Category:Species Latin name disambiguation pages, over half of which seem to qualify as {{SIA|plants}}.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages and Wikipedia:Disambiguation both have "Set index articles" headings, so that is not the specific reason for the lack of awareness and use of {{SIA}}. Perhaps these sections could be improved in some way. One way to create more more awareness is simply to use {{SIA}} more. Perhaps there could be other ways to promote it. But before I do, is this even correct? Specifically, were Rkitko's edit and BD2412's edits correct? If so, I will campaign for {{SIA}} by using it whenever appropriate. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A set index is appropriate wherever the titles listed on the page are related by field or concept, in a way that they could be referred to collectively under that title. In the case of a closely related group of plants, or a chemically similar group of rocks, it is possible to refer to the entire set collectively by that name (the Aranella fimbriatas, the various kinds of Potassium feldspar) in a way that it is not possible to refer to something truly ambiguous (e.g., Seal, Battery, Mercury, Phoenix, John Smith, Jefferson County). That is really the distinction at issue with set indexes. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, BD2412. I inspected the 178 members of Category:Plant common name disambiguation pages, and these are the articles that list nothing but plants:
Should these pages be edited to replace {{disambig|plants}} or [[Category:Plant common name disambiguation pages]] with {{plant common name}}?
Category:Set indices on plants includes 8 pages, all of which are quasi-disambiguation pages listing plants only, but the category description explains "but some redirects may be included to allow easy access to disambiguation pages (Template:Disambiguation) that are not only about plants." Is this consistent with the concept of set index? —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Anomalocaris, if you have questions specific to plants, the good folks at WP:PLANTS would be happy to answer any questions you have. Specifically, I think Plantdrew has worked on these kinds of articles in the past. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
If something looks like a disambiguation page, but contains only plants, it is indeed a set index article. The nice thing about SIAs is that they do not have to conform to the strict formatting requirements of a dab page: they are (implicitly) list articles. If you wish, you can put all sorts of relevant and interesting information about members of the set. One example I'm particularly proud of is Greasewood. —hike395 (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been responsible for the placement of {{plant common name}} on most of the articles that use that template. Whenever I come across disambiguations that include several plants referred to by a common name, I add {{plant common name}} if the only use of the term is as a common name for plants, or use {{disambig|plants}} if there is at least one non-plant meaning for the term. If I'd found them first, I would've tagged the 12 plant only articles/dabs Anomalocaris lists above as plant common name SIAs.
Ultimately, I think readers searching for the common name of a plant will be better served by pages that aren't bound by WP:MOSDAB. If I'm feeling ambitious, I add a few phrases to the the SIA for each plant describing the range or obvious morphological characters (e.g. flower color) that might help a reader find the article they want. Sometimes I have added photos (as in Greasewood), which I think are often more helpful to the reader than any text description, and which are not at all appropriate by MOSDAB. SIAs for plant common names can serve the reader better, but it is unfortunate that the tools to check DABs for incoming links aren't available to SIAs (almost all links to plant common name SIAs should probably be disambiguated, but there may not enough context to figure out which plant species is intended).
I haven't worked much on the plant articles/DABs with ambiguous scientific names (i.e. those with {{Species Latin name disambiguation}} or {{SIA|plants}}), but effectively disambiguating these for the reader for those might require a little more description and explanation than allowed by MOSDAB. Converting all of these from {{Species Latin name disambiguation}} ao {{SIA|plants}} seems reasonable, but I'm thinking Category:Set indices on plants should perhaps be a container category with the ambiguous scientific names in a subcategory like Category:Set indices on plants by scientific name. Plantdrew (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Plantdrew's addition of a gallery to Greasewood is what made it wonderful for me: it's a nice self-contained mini-article for people who want to figure out the scientific name from the common name. Thanks, Plantdrew! —hike395 (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I strongly support the use of SIAs rather than DABs where appropriate for the reasons others have noted here – MOSDAB is far too restrictive in what it allows on a DAB page. Plantdrew has indeed done a great job in publicizing SIAs and showing how they can be used. We now need to do more work on making particular SIAs more useful, by adding more description and/or images. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I am not sure this is documented anywhere, but the original intent for the set indices was for them to be WikiProject-specific. There are multiple concepts which can be presented in a form of a set index instead of a disambiguation page (of the examples above, Jefferson County stands out in particular); however, they should not be converted unless a WikiProject initiative to do so exists. What my point is, if WikiProject Plants wants to promote set indices for plants, that's great, but it would help if they establish a set of guidelines (however rudimentary) for what such set indices can/should include and look like. Doing so would help you to maintain consistent approach, as well as serve as a guideline for others who may want to jump in later. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 27, 2014; 12:10 (UTC)
Regarding "photos ... not at all appropriate by MOSDAB" (earlier comment) - have you read Mos:dab#Images_and_templates ? Removing the dab tag from a page means that it's no longer "protected" from inlinks (e.g. by DPLbot). What advantage is there in retagging a dab as a SIA ? This page should be (just) for discussing changes to this template. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Orange_Emperor. DexDor (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Re "the original intent for the set indices was for them to be WikiProject-specific" - see, for example, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_30#Category:Set_index_articles. DexDor (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Template edit request[edit]

Could someone please add "mathematics" to the types of set index articles, linking to Category:Set indices on mathematics. Thanks, r.e.b. (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done --- what sort of math articles do you think are SIAs and not dabs? They would have to be math concepts or theories with the same name but multiple meanings. —hike395 (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Category:Set indices on mathematics now has a few examples of such math articles if you want to see what they are like. r.e.b. (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice. I think Irreducibility (mathematics) is a good example of an SIA. —hike395 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 March 2016[edit]

I would like to add "rivers" as a group of set indices, linking to Category:Set indices on rivers, so that one could simply write {{SIA|rivers}} and have the page added to this category. Thanks and cheers LittleWink (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. If you need any help, let me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Really? Sandboxing such a small change? Anyways, I applied my edit request to the sandbox. LittleWink (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
plus Added. Sorry, not familiar with this template. Safer this way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Apologies for my mistake, but the 'mathematics' code vanished from this template. Can you re-insert that, see the sandbox. LittleWink (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Added it back — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Current template makes it unnecessarily difficult to add new sort keys[edit]

Will someone please generate revised code that allows this template to place articles with {{set index article|<ARBITRARY_KEY>}} into [[:Category:Set indices on <ARBITRARY_KEY>]]? The SIA category tree is woefully underpopulated, because right now, automatically adding SIA's to a new category requires either developing and requesting an edit to this protected template, or creating a whole new template. —swpbT 14:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Add DISAMBIG[edit]

Per mw:Extension:Disambiguator#Usage, please add __DISAMBIG__ somewhere in the template text so that the pages are correctly identified as disambiguation pages. I've checked Special:ExpandTemplates and the current revision of this template is not including the required magic word. Nemo 14:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Wikipedia:Set index articles does say that this template is used on pages that are not disambiguations. Now, I do think there could be a difference between a disambiguation in this sense and a disambiguation in this sense but I'd like a second opinion - also whether other templates need to be altered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, set index pages are deliberately not considered as disambiguation pages. olderwiser 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely; SIAs are much more flexible in their formats than disambiguation pages, allowing images, multiple wikilinks per line if appropriate, etc. They are a subset of list articles, not a subset of disambiguation pages. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

add ancient Greece and ancient Rome[edit]

There are many set indices about people from ancient Greece and Rome incorrectly added to the sub-categories of Category:Articles about multiple people. I propose two new switches, "ancient Greece" and "ancient Rome", to add articles to the respective categories Category:Set indices on ancient Greece and Category:Set indices on ancient Rome (to be created). Thanks. --Azertus (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Would these categories be used just for people? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I imagine people would comprise the lion's share of the articles in this category, but there may be exceptions. Are you thinking of using Greeks/Romans in the name instead? I haven't yet encountered an article that belonged here and wasn't a person, but maybe we shouldn't needlessly narrow the scope of the category? --Azertus (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking that perhaps the category should be narrower, but I don't have a strong opinion. However, I see that "Greek mythology" already exists as a possibility, adding to Category:Set indices on Greek mythology. So I'd like to be clear how the "ancient Greece" category would be distinguished. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. It seems like there's some dispute about the category tree created by this move. Feel free to discuss further, but I'm going to close this until a consensus about exactly which categories are going to be added/removed/etc. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead The difference should be that ancient Greeks/Greece are historical figures, while the other are mythological subjects. In the articles I moved from Category:Articles about multiple people the difference has always been clear, with the exception of two where the article covered multiple mythological figures and at least one historical person. In those cases the article can manually be added to a second set index category (if at all), in addition to the one provided by the template. Those two are currently in Category:Set indices on ancient Greece. As an aside, I already created that category because I mistakenly assumed this edit request had gone through (and I forgot that I manually added the category to those articles).

To verify the need for these keys, refer to the difference between Category:Articles about multiple people in ancient Rome and Category:Articles about multiple people in ancient Greece‎. I've cleaned out all set indices from the latter category, leaving only "articles about multiple people", while the former is still full of articles that are really set indices. --Azertus (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Azertus: I haven't disputed the value of these keys, just what the categories created by them should be called. If a category is called "Set indices on ancient Greece", it would reasonably be expected to include Greek mythology as well. Surely the category should be "Set indices on historical figures in ancient Greece" or something like that? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense! I think your suggestion is spot-on. Do we wait for further input? --Azertus (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Do I reopen the edit-request for the switches "ancient Greece" and "ancient Rome" with the respective categories "Set indices on historical figures in ancient Greece" and "Set indices on historical figures in ancient Rome"? --Azertus (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Primefac: Discussion has gone stale; would you agree to create the switches as detailed above? --Azertus (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Azertus, just to double-check: are the #switch lines going to be ancient Greece and ancient Rome, OR historical figures in ancient Greece and historical...Rome? Primefac (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Primefac: the former. The short terms as switch with the full description in the category name. Thanks! --Azertus (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Done Primefac (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you forgot to include {{{1}}}s, which caused these categories to show up on unrelated pages. Hopefully fixed now. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 5, 2016; 19:44 (UTC)

Saints switch[edit]

I've requested some input from the folks over at WP:SNT about possibly adding a Saints switch to the template. --Azertus (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I've got the impression Talk pages for WikiProjects aren't that well-monitored. Are there any objections/thoughts on here about adding a switch saints (or Saints?) to place articles in the category Set indices on Saints? There's a bunch of articles (about 10) that could use the switch currently in Wikipedia disambig or set index box parameter needs fixing. --Azertus (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Switch aliases[edit]

Could we add some aliases for the switch "animalia"? The following ones I've found in the wild: insects, fish, birds. We can fix those when we encounter them, but due to similar switches on related templates (e.g. "fish" for {{Disambiguation}}) editors will keep confusing those. Seems like a simple, non-controversial fix? Thanks. --Azertus (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I think most of the cases where the animalia switch is being used with this template should be changed to use the {{Animal common name}} template instead. And that template could perhaps take switches for different kinds of animals. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Concur. It's better to be more precise than to make imprecision easier.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that's a better solution! --Azertus (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 April 2017[edit]

Change [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles|article]] to [[Wikipedia:Set index article|article]]

Reason: "Set index article" provides more depth, and the initial "Disambiguation" of the link part can be misleading to someone who just hovers over it with their mouse. It also would not be left at the mercy of the section title, because if the section is renamed the link won't take people to the section but the top of the page. This would be bad and misleading since the page is named "Disambiguation", defeating the whole point of the section, which is to say that set indices ≠ disambiguations! Sending readers to the page averts this risk. Thus, my suggestion would be better. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Done They're both guidelines, so I don't see a problem; the rationale is also reasonable. Izno (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)