Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page 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 and/or contribute to the discussion.


Baksan is a disambiguation page with only four entries. One is Baksan (town), and another is Baksan (inhabited locality) which itself is a disambiguation page containing Baksan (town). This is circular and I don't see any reason for Baksan (inhabited locality) to exist. The only other entry in Baksan (inhabited locality) is a red-link and the only article that references it is Baksan (town). I think I should merge Baksan (inhabited locality) into Baksan and propose Baksan (inhabited locality) be deleted.Mb66w (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Baksan (inhabited locality) calls itself a set index, not a dab page. Does this then entitle it to list a redlinked place such as Baksan (rural locality), which is not mentioned in the bluelinked article in its entry? If so, then there is some justification for this set index to exist. If not, then Baksan (inhabited locality) should be redirected to the dab page at Baksan (as I was about to do before I noticed it is labeled as a Set Index rather than a dab page). I've cleaned up the dab page a little. PamD 14:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that they should be merged. They way it's set up now is very confusing, especially since there aren't many places called "Baksan." By definition, the disambiguation page called "Baksan" should include everything known as "Baksan." Baksan (inhabited locality) is technically an WP:INCOMPDAB, even if it isn't labeled as such, and the best practice with those is to merge them with the parent dab. I'd be bold, but I'll give Ezhiki a chance to explain what's going on. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    • WikiProject Russia maintains set index articles on the inhabited localities in Russia of the same name. Redlinked entries are OK on such pages, as long as they can be verified (which is not difficult to do even in absence of a source; at any rate, upon request I would gladly source any entry the veracity of which is doubted). Some of those set indices are more developed than others (the Baksan one is pretty basic, yes; the more developed ones do not resemble incomplete dabs at all and have a more obvious list structure). The number of entries on such a set index does not matter, but note that even when there are only two entries, it is usually possible to dig up a historical entry or an alternative name of a different place. But I digress.
      Set indices with just two entries are not a typical scenario; usually there are dozens (and sometimes hundreds) of entries. Merging them all into a corresponding disambiguation page is seldom practical (in this regard, they are not unlike the set indices listing people by last/first name—the dab simply links to it, and that's that). I do agree that with just two entries, as is currently the case with Baksan, merging them in is possible, although the set index still needs to be retained as there would otherwise not be a place for redlinked entries which do not meet WP:DABRL. On the procedural side of things, note also that set index articles are outside of the WikiProject Disambiguation's scope and a decision to delete them should be made either by the associated WikiProject (in this case, WikiProject Russia) or by the community consensus (via a formal AfD).
      Another complication is the municipalities (Baksan Urban Okrug in this case). Baksan Urban Okrug is currently a redirect to Baksan (town), but it is nevertheless a separate, distinct entity (which includes an inhabited locality other than Baksan proper) which may have a separate article when enough material accumulates. And as a separate, although presently upmerged entity, it deserves its own entry on the corresponding disambiguation, which is why it was included there in the first place. But having that entry, of course, makes yet another link to Baksan (town) redundant, as it is already listed on the corresponding set index (which is linked to). So the setup ends up being sort of circular, but it nevertheless works well in practice: readers looking for a municipality can get to the appropriate article from the disambiguation page, and readers looking for the town can get to it either from the municipality's entry on the disambiguation page, or from the set index. Hope this helps clarify things a bit; please ping me if there are any further questions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 22, 2016; 19:11 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act request to disambiguate[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 23#Freedom of Information Act regarding whether to turn the redirect Freedom of Information Act into a disambiguation page. Mz7 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Primary topic for Marc García?[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Marc García#WP:Primary topic?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Difficult disambiguation[edit]

I was working on Cowboys and Indians and am not sure of the best way to handle the last two links. The first is in Sweet Betsy from Pike - this is a reference to the 1965 album. The second is in Eric Frein - this is a reference to the "make believe game". Neither has a BLUE link nor even a RED link, so how do I fix these two articles? I don't think it makes sense to add red links in the dab page because I doubt the articles would ever be written. Mb66w (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I delinked the album. The band is already linked. The album doesn't seem particular notable. If it were likely that an article was to be written, it could be redlines, but I see nothing worth writing about at present. The game link is more problematic. I'm not even sure the entry on the dab page is warranted as the term is not mentioned in the linked articles (although it perhaps could be with an appropriate citation. olderwiser 13:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I sent the second one to wikt:cowboys and Indians. This is the dicdef sense, although we could theoretically have an article on the topic. bd2412 T 15:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016[edit] (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported change reverted[edit]

Back in June the following statement was added to the opening of this page[1]:

Disambiguation may also be applied to a title that inherently lacks precision and would be likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified, even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles.

That's a fundamental change to the definition of disambiguation on WP, and I see no discussion about this change, which was quickly obscured by a series of additional edits. I suspect nobody noticed. This new definition adds all kinds of ambiguity to title discussions. For example, it is being used to Oppose RM's like the current one at Talk:Nothing Has Changed (album). Accordingly, I've removed it[2]. It should not be restored unless evidence of consensus support for such a fundamental change can be established. --В²C 17:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"Born2cycle doesn't like it" doesn't equate to "unsupported". Seven to eight months of stability indicates support, as does WP:RM performing moves pursuant to that wording both before it was added and since. It was added because is reflects actual consensus practice on WP. See WP:POLICY: Our policies and guidelines exist to codify actual best practices, not try to force new practices or thwart existing ones that consensus actually uses. It is not a "fundamental change" to anything, other than making this page accurate reflect what we use disambiguation for.

The principal form of the disambiguation in cases like this is WP:NATURAL; if you're concerned that people are going to do a lot of unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation on this basis (which is not actually happening), I guess that's something we can talk about. But absent a showing of an actual problem, the last 3/4 of a years' stable version of the wording should remain. This wording was added for the very, exact reason that certain editors do not seem to understand what the word "disambiguation" means and how it applies here. It mean "making unambiguous" not "distinguishing between two or more present and accounted-for things"; WP just happens to to apply it to the latter sub-case 99% of the time. Not 100%. The result of the failure to recognize that the unusual case exists has result in a truly tedious amount of wasted breath at repeat nominations at RM. It's a stupid and pointless productivity drain, permanently forestalled by one simple clarification, which has worked well since last June.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused why this change would be necessary. Could you provide an example or two of an article title that would benefit from this clarification? -- Tavix (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Guidelines require affirmative support. Otherwise, anyone could post a page with any set of rules they want and call it a guideline, without any community input, and if no one else noticed the page, it would thereby become a guideline. bd2412 T 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's get this straight. B2C is deleting guideline material to WP:WIN an RM because someone is citing it incorrectly? Seriosly? And you're going to editwar to support that behavior, without being able to articulate anything better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Really? Have you even read WP:CONSENSUS and [{WP:POLICY]]], and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Guidelines codify actual practice. Material that has stood unopposed for months and is actually used in practice has consensus unless and until proven otherwise. When something is being used in RM after RM, three editors in one page forming a WP:FACTION to undo something they don't even understand do not magically form a changed consensus, that's a local, false consensus. I don't have time to deal with this right now, but will return to it later. I've already outlined just a handful of the actual RM cases this is based on, so I'll just copy that diff URL [3]. The ironic and ridiculous thing about this is I actually supported B2C's position in the RM that's triggered this silly "consensus only exists when I understand and like the outcome" rebellion; the reliance on this provision in the guideline for the rationale against the move was wrong. We do not delete guideline wording when people mis-cite it, we tell them they're mis-citing it. Come on, people. You all know better than this.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The statement should have been deleted the first time it was noticed. So far as I know that's exactly what happened. The fact that you think this is about "winning" says much about you and nothing about anyone else. The notion that a WP title that is not ambiguous with any other title on WP can never-the-less be "ambiguous" and be subject to WP:DISAMBIGUATION (whether natural or parenthetic - that's beside the point) is a view held by a minority of WP editors; not a majority, and certainly not by a community-wide WP:CONSENSUS. Just because this minority manages to cobble together a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in an occasional obscure RM discussion does not establish WP:CONSENSUS for this view. --В²C 21:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I have a big pile of RMs demonstrating that under the conditions outlined, it's entirely routine for consensus to disambiguate titles like "Algerian Arab", "Blue Grey", "British White", etc., etc., etc. I have proof, you have an assertion. This dumb Bowie case is irrelevant. One editor using a guidleline line-item incorrectly doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the guideline. And it's process violative go delete something from any part of WP:POLICY just because someone tries to use it against you in a process in a way you don't agree with.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Sounds like a list of titles that need to be fixed. I best most if not all got relatively little attention and squeaked in under the radar. --В²C 22:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)By the way, I appreciate your !vote in support of the Nothing Has Changed (album)Nothing Has Changed move [4], however it exemplifies the problem with the statement in question here. You "don't think this case is really a good application of the 'naturally ambiguous' clause in the guideline", but who is to say someone else won't think it is a good application? What is "good" anyway? To your credit, you support your view with some reasoning, but, again, it's not reasoning that has consensus support. And the statement here in the guideline does not imply the clarifications you make in your RM !vote comment anyway; it's far more open to interpretation than you seem to think it is. In particular, the phrase "inherently lacks precision" can arguably apply to almost any title. But I see no reason to disambiguate titles that "inherently lack precision" even when interpreted narrowly; if it's the most WP:COMMONNAME for that topic used in WP:RS, and there is no other WP article that uses that name, it should be the title. Once you start making exceptions to that, you open Pandora's box, and endless RM discussions. --В²C 22:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording as inserted would support the tendency of some editors to add "(film)" or "(album)" to numerous non-ambiguous titles. I regularly move stubs with those unnecessary disambiguations to their base titles. Almost any title of an artistic work could be claimed to be "likely to confuse readers if not clarified", and we don't want to go down that road. PamD 23:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So adjust the wording to clarify that this is not the intent, nor desirable. I've been here ten+ years, and I've never before encountered a case of this sort of 'this wording is not 100% perfect, and someone cited it in a poorly interpreted way, it 'every trace of it must be erased now, now, now, and process be damned, and no I and my three buddies won't even contemplate spending 2 minutes trying to think of a clarification' behavior. What Twilight Zone is this? I agree that adding "(film)" or whatever is not a road we want traveled, and is why I just !voted against that idea at the Bowie album RM, and explained clearly why this provision doesn't apply. That RM will proceed as we all expect. There is no emergency. WP:DONTPANIC.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Above, I see: if you're concerned that people are going to do a lot of unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation on this basis (which is not actually happening)
Here are some moves made within the last 4 days:

Lock Down -> Lock Down (Stooshe song) ("Lock Down", in theory, could be mistaken for "Lockdown", but irrespective of that, there are no other songs called "Lock Down" with articles (there are other songs of the same name on the disambiguation page, all without articles))
I Met a Girl -> I Met a Girl (William Michael Morgan song) (this is the only article with the name "I Met a Girl"; there are two other songs (without articles) on the disambiguation page) This is a bad entry - I Met a Girl (William Michael Morgan song) is only a redirect. edited -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 00:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Jeanny -> Jeanny (song) (redirect still in place; there are three people with articles that have the first name Jeanny, but there is nothing, besides the song, none solely as "Jeanny")
Sing Song -> Sing Song (EP) (three songs named "Sing Song" exist on the disambiguation page, but no items with articles, besides the EP, are known solely as "Sing Song")
Remain -> Remain (José González song) (songs, albums and a book on the disambiguation page, but no items with articles, besides the song, are known solely as "Remain")
The Constant Lover -> The Constant Lover (EP) (songs and a play on the disambiguation page, but no items with articles, besides the EP, are known solely as "The Constant Lover")
Larry May -> Larry May (footballer) (this move was reverted, as there are no other people named "Larry May" with articles)

These are just the ones I found in 20 minutes of looking. I see them every day. I think that these moves are a misreading of the guideline's sentence at the top of this section, but to say that unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation moves aren't happening is incorrect. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 00:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The text in question should be stricken because its addition never achieved consenus either or at dozens of related RMs before or after it was inserted. You don't get rewarded for slipping one past the goalie in this case. Calidum T|C 00:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Again, just fix the wording to discourage such pointless parenthetical moves. How hard can this be?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It is certainly incumbent on those participating in this discussion to remember that no matter what edits are made to the page over the course of this discussion, in the absence of consensus in favor of the controversial change, we revert to the version prior to that change. bd2412 T 00:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Thing is, from my perspective, the deletion is the controversial part. A handful of editors freaking out for no reason, as if they don't know that the sentence in question can be edited to be clearer, is not a real controversy, it's histrionic WP:DRAMA. You don't get to come along 3/4 of a year later and say something doesn't have consensus just because you weren't paying attention months and months ago, and a minor problem has been identified that is easily resolved. We're supposed to just fix things, and be bold about it. No one has to seek permission first before recording a recurrent, stable consensus in a guideline. We're expected to codify such things, per WP:POLICY's entire intent.

      The kinds of cases that this wording (perhaps imperfectly) actually addresses are real and legitimate, and codifying that repeated RM consensus is legitimate. If there turns out to be some unintended but resolvable side effect of the exact wording, we just tweak it, we don't act like cats with firecrackers tied to our tails. This is really the most exaggerated and game-playing panic I've seen on WP in so long I can't even remember. B2c's "you sneaked that by", "you sneaked this in" nonsense is farcically implausible; it's just denialism. There is no "sneaking" on a hugely watchlisted guideline, and there is no sneaking in a years-long string of RMs (in a controversial RM area, at that). Please. This sudden pretense that all the rest of WP who participate in RM are wrong and 4 editors at this page somehow trump all prior decisions is WP:FALSECONSENSUS at its worst.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

      • Do you disagree with the proposition that guidelines can only be created by consensus in a discussion? bd2412 T 03:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
        • I disagree. It certainly wasn't how things were written to start with. If imposed as a standard later, it serves to entrench the old versions in stone. Consensus is rarely found by discussion, usually it requires experiment, compromise, alteration of the scope and question. Formalized discussions tend to define a single question at the start, thwarting any consensus-finding process. I would agree that a guideline can only be affirmed by consensus. I would also like to return to notion that guidelines are not rules intending to be binding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Tony1 just restored the controversial statement again[5] (and Calidum reverted that). There are now at least five editors who have expressed opposition to inclusion of the controversial statement:

  1. Born2cycle
  2. BD2412
  3. PamD
  4. Calidum
  5. Tavix

Clearly, the inclusion of this statement is controversial and does not have consensus support. And SMcCandlish has essentially conceded that it is problematic and needs refining. I think it's beyond merely problematic, but at least get consensus support for a revised version before restoring. --В²C 01:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: I'd be in that list too, although my comment wasn't that obvious. I could be in favor of a rewrite as I can see some value in it. -- Tavix (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please remove me from the list. I expressed no opinion either way. I merely showed that moves are being made that suggest a misreading of the guideline. To me, there are some cases where the guideline is valid (the examples that SMcCandlish listed at 21:55 UTC all appear to me to be good moves). -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 01:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I misunderstood. Replaced Niceguyedc with Tavix on the list. Niceguyedc, for the record, what is your position on whether the statement in question should be in or out? --В²C 03:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You need to organise a properly conducted RFC if you want to get your way. Please see the guidelines for RFCs first, though. Tony (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
And it would be a lot less melodramatic to specifically identify what is seen as the exact nature of the wording problem, then we see about fixing it. If consensus cannot resolve the issue through the normal and reasoned approach of rewriting, then RfC it. There is no need to fire up a bureaucratic process if a regular one will suffice.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The B2C theory of algorithmic naming requires that every title be the shortest possibly title that doesn't conflict with another title. The WP:CRITERIA of precision and recognizability have zero value in his scheme, as his long-term modification of those sections has shown since 2009. This is how it has always been with him: ambiguity is good, disambiguation is bad. Thank you for objecting. I'm with you. I doubt that there could be a consensus to roll back your reasonable clarifications from last June that essentially just say that B2C does not always get his way when it comes to a discussion among editors. As a specific example, WP:USPLACE is a consensus that he has fought for years, because in many cases the state could be omitted without a title conflict. Yet most editors value the fact that including the state name make the title recognizable as a US city name. SMcCandlish's edit simply recognizes that this happens. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I must say, however, that US cities–states require some editorial judgment, which could be built into the advice to editors: who, in this day, wants the slightly absurd "New York, New York"? There's a third-party list of well-known US city-names; I've seen it linked to years ago from a discussion. Tony (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Dick Lyon's description of my views is very wrong. For my actual views, please see my user page, my FAQ (User:Born2cycle/FAQ), and my edit history. The statement in question goes far beyond "simply recognizes that this happens", does not apply to the USPLACE situations at all (unique US city names do not inherently lack precision - no one disputes the need to disambiguate the ambiguous ones), and I have not been involved in a USPLACE discussion in years. But when you don't have a position based on solid reasoning, I suppose resorting to ad hominem attacks based on straw man and red herring arguments is to be expected. --В²C 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

rfc draft[edit]

It has been suggested above to have an rfc. I'll post it, but want to make sure we present this in a fair way. So this section is for the collaborative editing of the rfc. I'll start, but please feel free to edit it as you see fit. --В²C 22:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Back in June the following statement was added to the opening of this page[6]:

Disambiguation may also be applied to a title that inherently lacks precision and would be likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified, even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles.

There is some disagreement about it. Should the statement remain, be removed, or be modified? Please indicate your position and reasoning below.


rfc draft discussion[edit]

  • Disambiguation may also be applied to a title that inherently lacks precision and would be likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified, even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles.
Definite support. Precision is important, and specifically important to prevent mis-recognition. This concept is current, of avoid likely mis-recognition, is currently missing. Note the word "may", it does not assert even that it should be done, and to reject the sentence with "may" is to assert that it may not be done, which is a far more extreme position. The lack of technical titling conflict negating any justification for increased precision is an extreme position. I believe that the sentence relates to articles such as British White. Paint? Sheep? Articles where the title is technically unambiguous but fails to inform as to what, even very broadly, the topic is about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Whether this is good policy or not, we make policy by consensus, not by unilateral addition. bd2412 T 00:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sensible additions are made one at a time. "we make policy by consensus" errs on statusquoism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Sensible additions are still made through a process of discussion and consensus. Any one of us could, right this moment, unilaterally make a change that we think is sensible. Whether that change becomes the rule should not hinge on whether it slips under the radar. A truly sensible proposition should prevail in discussion. bd2412 T 04:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
      • This page is watched by many with an intense interest in its details. Yet you think this "slipped in under the radar"? Seems like a stretch. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Every unilateral change is thought to be sensible. Are you proposing that every non-minor edit should be flagged on the talk page? Anyway, what is not sensible about the statement? If it has been said above, a summary of the merits (or lack of) would be nice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
        • I would suggest the you all reread remedy 1.2 of the "article titles and capitalisation" ArbCom case. It reads:
All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
If editors followed the good practice set by this remedy, we would not have problems like this here. RGloucester 22:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I completely agree. My objection is not to the language per se, but to the means by which it was added to the page. That said, however, it is not at all clear to me that this language requires the creation of a disambiguation pages at the bare page name, rather than that name redirecting to a more "precise" page name. bd2412 T 12:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Guys, this is NOT the RFC. This is a draft up for discussion (how it's worded - clearly? fairly? BEFORE the RFC (and discussion) starts. --В²C 01:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Well here's my 2p: on the merits I can see both sides of the issue, but this is a huge huge huge change. It could easily be taken to authorize the renaming of tens of thousands of articles, for one thing. For another thing, if the current wording ("Disambiguation may also be applied to a title that inherently lacks precision and would be likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified, even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles", this absolutely knocks for six one of the Five Virtues of Titles (namely, Conciseness) mandated in WP:TITLE. I mean, look at WP:PRECISION which is also part of that policy (not an essay, not a guideline, not a suggestion). The current wording in this guideline completely opposes that. If you're going to keep this text you must make major changes to WP:TITLE or else were going to have a real can of worms down the road, here. We have to have a centralized RfC which includes WP:TITLE (and maybe other pages for all I know). This is going to take some time and effort to develop... let's not rush, here. Herostratus (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking closer at WP:TITLE... this doesn't seem so far from the goal (whether desired or not) as it seems... WP:TITLE already says "Bothell is already precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title." and some other things like that.... so you're really halfway there already.

I was thinking of maybe adding something like this to the end of the opening paragraph of WP:PRECISION" "...On the other hand, Horowitz would not be precise enough to identify unambiguously the famous classical pianist Vladimir Horowitz, and Six Corners is not precise enough to immediately indicate to the reader what the entity is (a small town, a neighborhood, a concept in geometry, a corporation, or whatever) so Six Corners (Chicago shopping district) should be used instead." This'd help clarify with an example? Is this a good example? (Maybe Six Corners, Chicago is better?)

On the other hand, WP:PRECISION also has an example "Energy is not precise enough to unambiguously indicate the physical property (see Energy (disambiguation)). However, it is preferred over "Energy (physics)", as it is more concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people (see Primary topic, and the conciseness and recognizability criteria)."

So... you'd really have to pry Conciseness loose as one of the Five Virtues, I think... Conciseness is IMO the least of the Five Virtues but it is one of them, and there would be some resistance... so I dunno. Herostratus (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Conciseness is very important. What is written is actually good. It only goes wrong when people mistake conciseness for brevity. On precision, a concept equally important to concision, not that you'd guess from counting its repeated use on this page, a big logical problem is its weak and circular definition "Precision: Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. " --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Herostratus, as SmokeyJoe indicates, "concise" doesn't mean "short". The change in the text that's being discussed does not eliminate conciseness as an important criterion at all. Omnedon (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
"Concise" don't necessarily mean "short", I agree. But all things being equal it certainly strongly implies it; I would bet that you seldom hear an editor say "I made your article longer and more concise", although it's possible. And that's how most people take it I think. Herostratus (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
You know that I never suggested it meant "longer". What it means is: as short as possible while still being comprehensive or conveying a complete idea. "Short" is only part of the concept. It is not mere brevity. Omnedon (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I wonder whether the RFC should also invite discussion about whether WP:D is the most appropriate place to address this issue. Some editors (well, at least me) may be of the opinion that even if making some titles more detailed to avoid possible confusion is justified, that is not "disambiguation"; if the title is not ambiguous, making it more specific does not "disambiguate" it, but simply makes it clearer, or more specific, or whatever terminology you want to use. To me, that is a guideline that (if we have consensus for it), belongs on WP:AT but not on WP:D. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)