Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

CC templates now redirect to {{disambig}}

Per the decision at the TfD discussion, all of the CC templates ({{2CC}}, {{3CC}}, {{4CC}}, and {{5CC}}) now redirect to {{disambig}}, and no longer need to be used. The guidelines will be updated accordingly. Thanks to everyone participated in the discussion - I know we all don't agree, but hopefully we will be benefiting disambiguation pages overall. -- Natalya 01:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see the TfD. Nor I suspect did many other Wikipedians who have an occasional amusement in spotting and including new TLAs. I think the TLA phenomenon is mildly entertaining, and there was value in having a specific disambig template which included a link to the TLA page, to alert other users to it. I hope you kept a log, so things can be changed back. Jheald 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue was less about character combinations being useful and more about the templates being used incorrectly on pages that contained more than just abbreviations. Sorry that you did not hear about the TfD; if there are issues you'd ever like to discuss, I'm sure you can bring them up at any of the various disambiguation talk pages. -- Natalya 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with disambiguation

I am trying to create an article on The Bisbee Deportation, which currently links to the article on the city of Bisbee. I was told that I first need to disambiguate(??) the pages. I am fairly lost, this is my first attempt at creating a new page. Can any one help?? Thanks malatesta 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Question answered here. TimR 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

New cleanup tag proposal

Some aspects of disambiguation cleanup are fairly mechanical and straightfoward (eg. removing extraneous links, standardizing punctuation). Other aspects of cleanup I feel require more caution and familiarity with the subject matter, particularly when deciding whether a given entry that has the shorter title in its name is often referred to as just the short title. As such, I occasionally find myself wanting to post something like a {{disambig-inclusion}} tag after performing the more obvious cleanup on a given page:

The point is that, I feel it's sometimes better to wait for someone with more expertise on a given entry to drop by, to make the call on whether an entry is often referred to by the shorter name, or whether a redlink is likely to be turned into a bluelink, etc. And it might be nice to not clutter up the main Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup with those, since otherwise the members of that category can be cleaned out rather quickly. Does anyone have objections or comments? --Interiot 21:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, for I agree with you that disambig-cleanup tags can be placed on disambiguation pages for a wide range of reasons, which may not be clear. I worry about how hard/consistant the usage of the different templates would be. Do you think it would be an issue? -- Natalya 01:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally spend some amount of time on the main cleanup category, so I can help ensure consistent usage. I was thinking the proposed tag should be used only when all of the basic formatting issues had been dealt with, and the only remaining issue is that some of the entries likely either need to be deleted or moved off to a separate list. If there's agreement to go that way, I don't know that the proposed text necessarily makes that clear, but the proposed new category could spell that out a little more... --Interiot 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a disambig-cleanup template with optional parameters that indicate what needs to be done, such as "style", "inclusion", or "split". --Smack (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requested

There seem to be multiple ways to disambig the same thing, so when dealing with 2 possible choices, is it better to use a disambig page, or place a notice at the top of the more popular page? For example, there's been a long-standing redirect to Freemasonry from Freemasons. however, now there's an article on a British electronica group Freemasons (band), and neither of the articles have anything to do with each other. As it stands, there is a dab link on the top of the Freemasonry article, but it looks sort of out of place. Is there a consistent method for situations like this? MSJapan 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a consistent method, and this is it. Imagine how many readers want to read about the fraternal organization, and how many readers want to read about the band. I imagine it's about 50 to 1. An article for a band that's not exactly earthshaking should not displace the article for the organization. A dab page is never needed for just 2 articles, as the WP:HATNOTE guideline states, in the section "Two articles with the same title". The WP:D guideline also states "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other ..., then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top". The Freemasonry situation is a good example of one of the FEW cases where this applies. Chris the speller 02:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since both Freemason and Freemasons redirect there, and there was an article for Freemason (horse), I went ahead and make a disambiguation page for the two, so the hatnote can be more generic now. older ≠ wiser 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sect 3.3.2: New example needed? Or should the text be changed?

This section begins by explaining how to deal with disambiguation where there is one article whose title is the primary meaning of a word or phrase, and this is all good stuff. Next, guidance is given how the disambiguation page should refer back to the primary article - by using an unambiguous article name which redirects to the primary article. The example given is that Rome (disambiguation) should not link back to Rome directly but should instead link to Rome, Italy which is a redirect to Rome. The reason given for doing this is "to assist future editors (and automated processes)".

In that particular case, a copyeditor took the admittedly clumsy sentence "[[Rome, Italy]], is the capital city of Italy, and formerly the seat of the Roman Empire."'' and changed it to ''"[[Rome]], is the capital city of [[Italy]], and formerly the seat of the [[Roman Empire]]. " I am reluctant to revert simply because the new text does read better.

Finding a new example, or using a hypothetical example, misses a larger point as to whether this guidance should be changed. I can't see how (using the example of Rome) the first version quoted in italics above helps future editors more than the second version. As for the vague "automated processes", they must be coping since a very unscientific trawl through a few dozen articles with "disambiguation" in their titles suggests that they very rarely employ this mechanism to link back to the primary article.

My suggestion is that this guidance (using an unambiguous redirect route from the disambiguation article back to the primary article) should be dropped. It is not followed in practice, and the justification behind it, of helping future editors and bots, does not appear to stand up to scrutiny. Tt 225 13:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is useful to in some way treat the primary topic of a dab page with some special status and I agree that the current guideline text is not followed often. Maybe this is an opportunity to consider revising the Template:Disambig syntax to include an optional piped parameter 'topic1' which would place the primary topic into a special context. For instance, instead of a sentence, as used for Rome (disambiguation) it could be treated like several other cross-reference types in Wikipedia, as for instance, for placement at the top of the article

Primary Use of "Rome": Rome, capital city of Italy, and formerly the seat of the Roman Empire

The syntax of the revised template would be something like {{disambig | topic1= | topic1description= }} where {{disambig | Rome | capital city of Italy, and formerly seat of the Roman Empire}} would produce the text shown above. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why one link per line? (section 5 - Individual entries)

This has probably been asked before, but I'm too lazy to go through 20 archives: why only one link per line? If it's the reason I would assume (for maximum clarity, so people only click on the item in question, then click on the "outer topic" if they need more help); this should be made explicit in the section Disambiguation pages. (Of course, it should be made clear whatever the reason is). $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries has a little more explanation around the whys as well as the hows. older ≠ wiser 02:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Check it, I was just there like seconds ago, and have inserted the phrase in this article. Thanks anyway… $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 03:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, this is one of the flip-points between the 'navigation vs. exploration' philosophy of dab page use. The 'Navigation' use case, which is the viewpoint coloring most of the current Style guidelines, benefits from one-link-per-line in the same way that a signpost benefits from well demarcated destinations; having one arrow pointing at three closely spaced destinations is more difficult to parse than having three arrows each pointing at a single destination. The 'Exploration' use case, in which dab pages are viewed as launchpads for exploration via association-driven walks through wikilinks, benefits from many-links-per-line.

There hasn't been much controversy over this matter for some time. One of the more recent disagreements was in October 2006 (this was the terminal diff, and this is the associated discussion) which brought up the notion of adding a supporting link to a more comprehensive article than the dab-target article. There are links at the top of the referenced discussion to other discussions in August 2005, December 2005 and March 2006. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new wording of otheruses template

Template talk:Otheruses#"For other articles, see X (disambiguation)."—discuss there. Thanks. Punctured Bicycle 01:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary topic

See Talk:State university (disambiguation)#Survey - in opposition to the move. Two questions.

Firstly, is this really what Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic means in this case? When it says When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other, can this mean When there is a local meaning in the USA (which contains the majority of English Wikipedia editors), which seems to be the interpretation here?

Secondly, is it what the guideline should say? Even if this interpretation is rejected, perhaps the wording can be clarified. If the interpretation is accepted, is this the way we want Wikipedia to work? Obviously, I don't think so. But I'm seeking other comments.

These two questions are IMO independent... you could consistently answer the pair four different ways on a yes/no basis.

I think the other case referred to is University of Wisconsin, and there are similar issues... most (not all - Dekimasu of course being a case in point!) editors of UW articles come from the USA (or even from Wisconsin), so the question there is, should US usage (or, some have argued, Wisconsin usage) be sufficient to establish a primary topic? (I don't think I've been involved in a third relevant discussion.) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) (2nd nomination) for some of the most recent (of many) views expressed on the UW redirect. Andrewa 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dekimasu has confirmed that the other case is the UW redirect and disambiguation, as I guessed above. See User talk:Dekimasu#Disambiguation - Primary topic. There's been a lot said about the UW case, and I think that the state university case is probably simpler, and a better place to start. But there are relevant points made in the UW discussion if you dig for them. Andrewa 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lists of people

I'm investigating what to do with lists of people in disambiguation pages. Please see the discussion here. --Smack (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:VPP#Lists of names. --Smack (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguating persons without articles

Are edits like this, which add a hatnote to a list of persons appropriate disambiguation? There is no additional information in the list beyond the person's name. It seems to me that this is not needed -- there are many people who may happen to share the same name and are not disambiguated. Thoughts? older ≠ wiser 14:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that many people will search for the name and will be looking for the person that is hatnoted and can then go to that article. Therefore it should be added to obvoid 1. dissapointment and 2. confusion.--Vintagekits 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No comment on the need for the hatnote, but an alternative implementation: could create Francis Dodds (Irish republican) as a redirect to List of members of the Irish Republican Army#D 3 and update the hatnote on Francis H. Dodds again with a link to the redirect. -- JHunterJ 15:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with JHunterJ that that is a better hatnote. older ≠ wiser 15:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you carry out the same operation on the Michael Hughes page.--Vintagekits 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, unfortunately having Michael Hughes (Irish republican) redirect to List of members of the Irish Republican Army#H 3, which contains a link to Michael Hughes (Irish republican) creates circular references. So sadly the hatnote can't directly link to the redirect. older ≠ wiser 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Francis Dodds would have had the same problem, except the new hat note version uses a capital R in "Irish Republican" while the list of members uses a lowercase r in "Irish republican"... -- JHunterJ 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation and proper nouns

Hi. I've been closing move requests over at WP:RM, and I'm looking at Talk:Dark Horse (disambiguation)#Requested move, where three different people have proposed three different solutions. I suspect this type of question has been dealt with before, so I'm asking here.

The article dark horse is the primary topic, and is not a proper noun. All of the other topics are proper nouns.

I seem to recall that we don't like to disambiguate by case alone, so we wouldn't want to have the disambiguation page at Dark Horse, but it seems silly to have it at Dark horse (disambiguation) when people looking at it are likely to be looking for one of the proper noun uses (else why would they have typed it in with caps?). Also, if we don't have the dab page at Dark Horse, where should that redirect, to dark horse or to the dab page?

What do people here think about this case? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the requester for the Dark Horse move; my problem with the current set up is that the "name" page Dark Horse redirects to Dark Horse (disambiguation), which should never be needed. The other solutions are:

1. Dark horse remains the base name, Dark horse (disambiguation) becomes the dab page, and the capitalized versions redirect to those.
2. as above, but Dark Horse redirects to Dark horse (disambiguation) instead of Dark horse
3. Dark Horse becomes a separate base name dabs for proper names with no obvious primary topic, and Dark Horse (disambiguation) redirects to it.

I proposed the last solution, but I had no strong preference for it over the others. -- JHunterJ 11:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you reach the same people over here as over there. Stemonitis didn't choose the option I did when he closed the move request, but I can live with it. Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anytime a dab situation arises with case sensitivity we should act as if there is no case. The situation as exists now is just wrong. SchmuckyTheCat 00:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Children of the Sun

Could someone who works on disambiguation look at Children of the Sun: the second-level disambiguation about Thorpe seems really weird. - Jmabel | Talk 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

fixed with a page move. SchmuckyTheCat 00:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Disambiguation pages aren't articles

I have created a new proposal, hoping to garner support for the declassification of disambiguation pages from article status. Please contribute at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages aren't articles, thanks :) — Jack · talk · 16:49, Sunday, 15 April 2007

Not to be confused with...

While not technically a disambiguation page, would it be appropriate to include a section on disambiguation lines for people who might be confused by two people who are different, but have similar backgrounds and names? (For example, someone thoughtfully disambiguated Rudolf Hess and Rudolf Hoess and I just did Daniel Keyes and Daniel Keys Moran.) Orville Eastland 00:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• And I did it again for Al Jaffe and Al Jaffee Orville Eastland 02:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Curve vs. Curves

Can a third party please look at the discussion surrounding Curve (disambiguation) and Curves (recently moved to Curves (disambiguation). It's my contention that these are duplicate articles and the two plural forms should redirect to the singular dab page and primary topic curve, but an editor is reverting to keep them as separate pages. I can't see any benefit from a usability or navigational standpoint to having separate dab pages, because I can't see how the two pages could evolve into distinct entities - the two pages are intrinsically redundant as far as I can see. Related discussion at Talk:Curves (disambiguation). --Muchness

Proposal to delete Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages

You may wish to comment at: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages. CarolGray 18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu

There's some discussion on the talk page about whether Ubuntu (Linux distribution) should be the main article. That is the linux distribution is moved to Ubuntu and a new Ubuntu (disambiguation) page made for the other entries. Mahanga^Talk 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

One liner plus one article

For Picnic Day, there are two separate things that the term refers to. However, I wanted to expand on UC Davis's Picnic day, and the current page isn't really disambiguous. I was wondering what the correct protocol for this kind of situation is. Nguyenmdk 09:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is currently a two-stub article, although not tagged as such. Unless there are really no more "picnic days" in the world worthy of WP, and assuming the one-liner could also be expanded, and considering there's already one (but only one) incoming link for each stub, then it's not fair to leave any of the two current stubs on this page and it's not much trouble to move the content. So I suggest you spin each stub to their own article, turn Picnic Day into a pure dab page, and fix the two incoming links. --maf (talk-cont) 15:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

kwh

I searched out kwh to find a def for kilowatt hour. The link goes to a disambiguation page with kilowatt hours and a redlink to a company. Now, I don't know the policy about this (and I can't seem to find it on this page) but it seems like we shouldn't have to have a disambiguation page when one link is to a page that exists and the other is to one that doesn't, right? I would appreciate any guidance in the matter. --Helm.ers 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with your analysis. Dabs should disambiguate articles (plural).-- JHunterJ 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you both. Google it, for instance, and it's right up there in the top ten results (even higher, if you take out the Wikipedia links!).

Redlinks in disambig pages are valid when it is thought by an editor that encouragement should be engendered for someone to create an article, thus making it a bluelink in the future. It may be that the generator of the redlink cannot write the article themselves because of conflict of interest. This could, I suppose, be viewed as a form of spamming, but can you prove that was the reason for adding the redlink (and no web URL is included after all)?

So to expand your example, the KWH Group (in a quote from their website's History page): "As a business, the KWH Group goes right back to the 1920s and 30s. The Group proper was ­formed in 1984." There is thus a good chance of historical notability.

And there are in fact two results for that company. KWH Pipe Canada is part of the Group, but stands up in the search results of its own accord.

Finally, the page you need to look at is here. It backs me up fully on the "possibility of an article" front for redlinks, and we would assess their notability in the same way as we would any existing article. Personally, unless a listed subject is patently ridiculous, I tend to leave well alone. I prefer to assume that someone somewhere had a good reason for inserting the link, albeit not to an existing page.

It is unfortunate in this case, as 'kwh' (kilowatt hour) is a universal standard, and really deserves a standalone abbreviation redirect. If Wiki search was case-sensitive, the problem would be solved, as capitalisation would redirect to the Group (when it gets an article), and lower case to kilowatt hour.

Best wishes. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style backs you up for including redlinks on necessary disambiguation pages. It does not speak to creating disambiguation pages for them though. "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic." There are no article titles conflicting that need resolution here. But even if the manual of style is expanded to cover this situation, KWH should be moved to KWH (disambiguation) and a new KWH redirect to Watt-hour (along with the kwh and kWh redirects) should be created. -- JHunterJ 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I was addressing only the basic guideline re: allowing redlinks in disambig, which appeared to cause concern. If you have the answer and a consensus, you are at liberty to carry out what you propose. And you can call my response consensual as I just said "Agree". :) Good luck. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Carried out, and fixed up the dab bluelink on the redlink line. I think it looks good now. :-) -- JHunterJ 20:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was in agreement with JHunterJ until he relented on the pro-redlink argument. a) Even if they were two bluelinks, it would still be stupid to dab them from a dedicated page, and not from tophat dabs; in this case, I would have put a tophat dab on Watt-hour directly to the article mentioning the company, and would leave the dab page orphan until a third or fourth link showed up; b) ever since I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles within the ever-expanding WP universe, I lowered even more my tolerance to redlinks, which I always disliked. I think it is definitely time to do away with redlinks on dabs. See Talk:Fyodorov for a similar discussion taken to the limit (of my patience, that is). --maf (talk-cont) 21:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Maf, I didn't change my mind or relent on my argument. I implemented an uncontroversial fix to part of the problem (KWH should go to Watt-hour). I still think the dab doesn't need to exist. If you (or anyone else) want to AfD it, I'll vote for it, but I don't need to be on the spearhead. :-) -- JHunterJ 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why AfD it? Leave it orphan, won't harm anyone but the orphanage patrol. Kumbaya! --maf (talk-cont) 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ships

The links under the header List of Ships don't lead anywhere informative. ALTON .ıl 07:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They moved the page and neglected to check and handle "What links here". People have been keelhauled for less, but because they were in international waters, they can get away with this. I have updated the links; thanks for pointing this out. Chris the speller 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Always create (disambiguation) redirect?

Is "This "(disambiguation)" redirect page should always be created for the Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages listing." true? Such a redirect (which was not linked from the disambiguation page list) was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 1#HIPC (disambiguation) (a redirect to HIPC)), and if they are not required, the "always" note should be removed or reworded. -- JHunterJ 11:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

At one time I felt compelled to create such redirects, and the guidelines seem clear, but it seems silly to create those that do not have an immediate use; we'd have a redirect for every dab page. I now only create the rdr if there is a need for an article (or a See also section of a dab page) to link to the ambiguous meaning. I would be happy with some qualification to that guideline, but maybe there's something I've missed. That phrase "created for the Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages listing" might need to be fixed. Are we really doing it for the listing, or for readers, or for future editors? I think it is to allow for a semiautomatic generation of that list (when and by whom?), which serves only to hold links to the redirects in order to prevent them from appearing on a list of orphaned pages, and they wouldn't appear as orphaned pages if they weren't created (perhaps needlessly) in the first place. I think this is where I got on, so I'm getting off before I get dizzy. Chris the speller 15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Should disambiguation pages ever be redirects?

I just created 2 of these, and I don't know if they should be deleted. The way, the truth, and the light 19:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be asking 2 questions. Yes, pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title should usually be redirects to the disambiguation page without the qualifier, the exception occurring when the natural article title is a "primary topic" or obvious primary meaning, as in "China", where meanings other than the country are disambiguated on "China (disambiguation)". As for your implied question about deletion of the redirect pages, "Las Vegas, New Mexico (disambiguation)" seems unnecessary, and if it's bothering you, nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. It looks like your other one was "Watch List (disambiguation)"; it should not have been changed to a rdr, as it contained useful disambiguaton entries, but it was in totally the wrong place. By doing so, you also created a double redirect, and so (in an ideal world) should have fixed that. BTW, "Watchlist" should be moved to "Watchlist (World Wide Web)", and then "Watchlist" should be made into to a dab page, more or less like the one you wiped out. If you don't feel confident about it, one of the editors who watch this talk page will be glad to fix it. Chris the speller 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes suggested to the 'watchlist' articles. This should be an improvement. As for the other, I just pointed it at Las Vegas, New Mexico. The way, the truth, and the light 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing disambiguation non-articles from index list articles

We've had a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) about list articles about a set of items that have the same name. I'd like to add the following material to WP:DAB#What not to include, to reflect this discussion:

---

Set index articles

A set index article is a list article about a set of items that share the same (or similar) name. It is different from a disambiguation navigation page, and should not share the same formatting nor be considered a true disambiguation page:

• A disambiguation page has links to a heterogeneous set of concepts. It is purely for navigation, not information, and should have minimal formatting and follow the strict set of rules at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).
• A set index article describe a single set of concepts. For example, Dodge Charger describes a set of cars, List of peaks named Signal Mountain describes a set of mountain peaks, or USS Enterprise describes a set of ships. A set index articles is both for information and for navigation: just like a normal list article, it can have metadata and extra information about each entry. A set index article can be entertaining and informative by itself, can help editors find redlinks to create articles on notable entries, and finally can also help readers navigate between articles that have similar names. A set index article should not be restricted by WP:MOSDAB as it currently stands, but instead should follow the relevant style described in Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).

Sometimes, there will be a disambiguation navigation page and a set index article with a similar name. For example, there is some topic XXXX which consists of concepts of type YYYY plus other meanings. In this case, the disambiguation navigation page should be named XXXX, and the set index article be named List of YYYY named XXXX. Alternatively, if the meaning YYYY is very dominant, then the set index article should be named XXXX, and the disambiguation navigation page be named XXXX (disambiguation). Whether to use this alternative follows the guidelines for naming disambiguation articles.

---

This is a generalization of (and a replacement for) the "list of ships" exception to disambiguation. If there isn't any more discussion, I'll add it to this page. Thanks! hike395 13:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add this to the guidelines. Thanks! hike395 13:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rigid rules or flexible guidelines?

An edit has blanked the "Lancashire (disambiguation)” page and #redirect it to the Lancashire the page. This editor cites the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guidelines for removing this disambiguation page.
I agree with editor the list was too long and I curtailed the list, but the editor was adamant that there was no reason for the disambiguation page.
In the editors own words "not a single thing in this list is an alternative meaning for "Lancashire", this is things associated with it, something quite different - no need for disambiguation".
Yet there is disambiguation with the name Lancashire.
The uncurtailed page: Lancashire (disambiguation).
and the curtailed page: Lancashire (disambiguation),
The Yorkshire (disambiguation) page has not only other alternative meaning for Yorkshire, but other Yorkshire links. The same with Norfolk (disambiguation), Cheshire (disambiguation), Cornwall (disambiguation) and many other pages which add links about those counties.
Are these "guidelines" meant to be so rigid that they are treated as rules, as if they were written in stone, or are these "guidelines" more flexible and allows some interpretation? Cwb61 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The disagreement is not just about rigid versus flexible, it's about right versus wrong. It's easy to imagine sentences like "I was out of cheddar, so I offered him Lancashire instead" or "They were cheering wildly for the Nighthawks, while I sat silently holding a Lancashire pennant". Of course "Lancashire" can be used to refer to things other than the county, and the disambiguation page can help the reader in such cases. The editor who nuked the page does not understand the guidelines, which simply do not prescribe wiping out this page. Even if the guidelines did suggest that, it would help readers to have the page, so that is enough reason to break the rules. After that, the next step would have been to correct the guidelines. Chris the speller 21:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree that Lancashire (disambiguation) was an appropriate disambiguation page and redirecting it was an overly narrow and rigid interpretation of the guideline. older ≠ wiser 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments, the curtailed version is a legitimate and useful dab page. --Muchness 01:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

UNCC

Could an admin come check out UNCC's talk page and help resolve the issue? Thanks, Ironman5247 17:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugly arguments

Some editors with experience in disambig practice might want to take part in the RfC at Talk:Halo 3. There appears to be a bit of an ugly fight developing over whether to include a disambig link to some 9 inch Nails album (the albums evidently are sometimes called by the Halo 3 code name). From what I can tell, there should be a disambig link but a lot of Halo fans appear to be very defensive and seem to think it's ruining the article (which doesn't make sense to me) or it's advertising (it's possible but it seems to me to be a legitimate disambig link). I've tried to explain my view but given the level of emotion on both sides, several more neutral voices might help. Nil Einne 10:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

spam and non notable entries

I've cleaned up disambiguation pages by deleting spam, example 1 2. It would be helpful if I could point to a page that says entries in disambiguation pages must be notable. Does that sound like good policy? Does such a page exist? If not should we add it to this page? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it exists. WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks   However, I fear you may have trimmed too thoroughly. Heiner Brand has two incoming links from other articles, and Benno Friedrich Brand has one incoming link. Editors who are experienced in dab-page cleanup would generally not remove such red links. Chris the speller 02:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's Cabin AfD

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Tom's Cabin (disambiguation). Could other editors familiar with the disambiguation concept please weigh in. Thanks. -- JHunterJ 10:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

ALF (disambiguation)

Need expert opinions on ALF (disambiguation). Please comment here. —Viriditas | Talk 08:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

DAB status

Hi, I'm in the process of editing a wikiproject banner, for categorizing I want to know if disambiguations are pages or articles? --Andersmusician $ 04:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguations are pages, not articles. These have one of 3 templates: disambig, hndis, or geodis. They are pages used for navigation, as are redirects, and not places to store encyclopedic information sought by readers. Similar, but distinct, are "set index" articles that use a different template, such as the shipindex template. They do a fair amount of disambiguation, but they are articles about a set of similar things, and are meant to also contain encyclopedic information. Chris the speller 15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheffield

Similar problems with the Sheffield (disambiguation) article -- primary topic in this case. Would another editor kindly take a look? Thanks. -- JHunterJ 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

disagreement about linking to dictionary DABs

First of all, it's a pain in the ass having to {{wiktionary}} everything that otherwise simply linking to a DAB page that has a basic definition PLUS a link to Wiktionary suffices in accomplishing. Second, the DAB page can lead to other meanings that may not require the user to leave Wikipedia anyway. I hate interwiki browsing. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 10:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Eep, editing properly is frequently a pain in that part of the anatomy, but take heart; usually there's no need to link to Wiktionary. Unless you feel that a typical reader will need a dictionary definition to understand the meaning of a word, there may be no need to link it at all. See my comments here for more on this. --Steven J. Anderson 11:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply there. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is overlinking a good thing. Linking the name of an episode of a TV show, "Science Detectives", so that it shows in blue as "Science Detectives", is actually counterproductive. It encourages the reader to think that clicking on the link will lead to a description of the episode in question. Links need to make sense within the context. There is no need to make links for the sake of making links. Dekimasuよ! 11:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, right. And yet there are numerous category:glossaries and DAB pages with basic dictionary definitions. Puh-leaze...that guideline argument cop out gets old. See my reply to Steve, too, Dek. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are being disruptive, Eep². Please stop. -- JHunterJ 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your wiktatorlike application of your personal interpretation of WP:DAB is causing the disruption, JHunter et al. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 10:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The editor advocating tossing a few guidelines and reverting four editors in the process is more likely to be the one using a personal interpretation. Dekimasuよ! 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXT is a guideline. A guideline is a page that shows evidence of general applicability and consensus, but need not apply to each individual page. When many editors change a page to conform to the guideline, it is a signal that the guideline does reflect consensus at the page in question. WP:WINAD is a policy. Many of the articles in Category:Glossaries do appear, in my eyes, to be inappropriate. Dekimasuよ! 00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See set index article. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 10:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, it is "different than a disambiguation", so not what we're discussing here. -- JHunterJ 10:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are. You can have your anal-specific articles on "(disambiguation)" pages but set index articles are to be left alone and can include links to articles with the word/phrase in them. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 11:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. A disambiguation page does not have to have "(disambiguation)" in the title. It's marked by {{disambig}} at the bottom of the page, as at Mystery or Lost in Time (to name a few of the links you keep replacing). And the fact that there are index articles still doesn't mean that they should be linked out of context. If you're trying to say that the glossary pages are set index articles, I don't agree with that either. Dekimasuよ! 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I see you've made Template:Setindexarticle today and applied it to the disambiguation pages in this dispute - even the ones that do clearly have "(disambiguation)" in the title. There is no indication that any of the dab pages you've applied the template to are, in fact, set index articles. In fact, it's quite clear that they do not "describe a single set of concepts", nor do they describe the unrelated concepts. For that matter, the text of your template is incorrect, because set index articles are not a special subset of disambiguation pages - they are not disambiguation pages at all. Please step back for a moment and discuss your changes before continuing to edit against consensus. Dekimasuよ! 12:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, are you seriously this dense/clueless? A "Set index articles" section is ON the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page--duh! Mystery is a single set of concepts--related to mystery! Duh (again)! Perhaps a class in set theory would help you and your clueless brethren grasp this, apparently, complex topic. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A "Set index articles" section is on the guideline for disambiguation, but under the large section "What not to include". It is mentioned there to point out that such an article is NOT a dab page. And there is little to be gained by trying to insult the intelligence of editors who can figure that out just by reading the guideline. Chris the speller 15:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As before, insulting people is not going to convince them to change their minds. Maybe I am dense. If you can explain the conceptual connection between "Mystery (album), an album by Vanilla Fudge" and "Mystery (seduction guru) aka Erik Von Markovik, creator of the Mystery Method of seduction", I will withdraw my objections. Dekimasuよ! 12:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the connection is the word "mystery". See link for more details on what a relationship is. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The above comment pretty much shows the disconnect here. The point of a disambiguation page is to list topics that are connected only (or principally) by having a common title. The point of a set index is to list topics that have closely related content, not just a common title. The distinction between those two concepts seems pretty clear to me, and I don't see why you seem unwilling to accept it. --Russ (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The actions of recent reversions to my edits shows the hypocracy of what you wrote above. My attempts at creating disambiguation pages that link articles only connected by having a common title are not boding well. Mystery is one example that was moved to Mystery (disambiguation) and unsorted (I previously had various sections for music, television, film, literature, people, etc). This is what disambiguation is. Consensus needs to either change or all of the admins need to actually understand what it means--BEFORE even becoming admins--cuz they don't all do as of now... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I drafted the "index set" guidelines (with lots of help with others). I certainly am not the definitive authority, but I certainly didn't intend Mystery (as it currently stands) to fall under the "index set" exception. It's clearly heterogeneous. Examples of index sets would be a List of books named Mystery or a List of peaks named Mystery or a List of cars named Mystery. If editors think that the guideline could be made more clear, I would welcome feedback. Thanks! hike395 16:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And what about a Lists of lists related to "mystery"? At what point does it become silly to not just create an overall list that includes all of these things and simply call it "Mystery"? Good god, people, this isn't theoretical physics (but you may want to brush up on set theory)... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't occupy the same article space as the disambiguation page as Mystery (disambiguation), fine. If you think it's encyclopedic, you can create List of articles related to mystery or Mystery (set index) or whatever to co-exist alongside the actual disambiguation page, although I expect the list wouldn't survive an AfD. And you still need to brush up on your civility. Set theory isn't really all that relevant to Wikipedia disambiguation. -- JHunterJ 14:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does: "[Set theory] encompasses the everyday notions, introduced in primary school, often as Venn diagrams, of collections of objects, and the elements of, and membership in, such collections". I tire of your incivil reference to WP:CIVIL, by the way. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is take a look at the entire guideline. These exceptions were designed for homogeneous concepts external to Wikipedia, like cars, mountains, and ships. A hypothetical List of articles related to "mystery" would be a list of items about Wikipedia itself, which would violate our guidelines against self-reference and really should be a pure navigation-only dab page. If you are using the specific language in the exception to substitute a list article for a typical dab page, you're not following the consensus that we reached when we wrote the guideline. If other editors agree, I can update the guideline to specifically state that the index set exception is designed to be narrow and not replace a typical dab page. hike395 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, so what? By that screwy logic, no article should have a table of contents and say goodbye to categories. Gimme a freakin' break. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to have further clarification. There is an ongoing deletion debate related to Band (music) in which several users are arguing that the page, a dab as constituted, is a set index article. It seems to me that it is a possible location for a set index article, but isn't an article at all right now. Some other users have pegged Musical ensemble as a possible redirect target and it seems to me that Musical ensemble is closer to being a set index article. Others are arguing that the links to Band (music) should just be added to Band. It's kind of an important question because there are over 10,000 links to the page. Dekimasuよ! 09:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Setindexarticle}} and Category:Set index articles for deletion

I've nominated these for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 30 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30. Short rationale, set index pages are an exceptional use warranted for specific types of articles. I don't think there is a good reason to have generic exceptions. older ≠ wiser 01:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Oh and about your removal of links to common words, I think they are necessary because, it seems, some people have trouble understanding what a set and concept are and why a set index article exists. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 14:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You called creating a list for things with the word "darker" in the title "idiotic and moronic", then created List of titles with "Darker" in them and marked it as a set index article. If that's the kind of generic exception you want, then please note that Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Creation and application of this template as an end-around to the directive against linking to dabs for definitions of plain English words verges on WP:POINT. Dekimasuよ! 15:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm not the one who came up with the idea of an "index set article" in the first place. I'm simply putting that pre-existing guideline into action since no one else has. <shrug> Oh and "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries" an the list doensn't fall under any of the current "consensus"-approved examples. Try again. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 18:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of "index set article" exemption?

How can we define a clear, logical exemption to WP:MOSDAB for legitimate list articles such as Dodge Charger, List of peaks named Signal Mountain, and USS Enterprise, while keeping the vast majority of dab pages in their current form? I'm open to suggestions.

A possible ugly solution is to simply exclude list articles about cars, mountains, and ships. Another possibility is to limit the index set articles to be about a single noun, as opposed to abstract concepts like "things with 'darker' in their names". A third possibility is to assume that the vast majority of editors will do the right thing, and we shouldn't have instruction creep.

Thoughts? hike395 04:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that an official designation as a "set index article" is strictly necessary for Dodge Charger or USS Enterprise to work outside of the disambiguation system. Being set up as a parent article with several subarticles would seem to work just as well, in the same way that, say, Star Wars applies to an entire continuum of films, games, and fiction. As long as there is a reasonably apparent method by which the contents can be organized (timeline of cars, serial numbers of spaceships), that seems fine to me.

The mountain examples are quite different cases, because they don't necessarily share a common history, etymology, brand, et cetera. I think we should restrict the discussion to that type of article, and at this point the consensus view seems to be that strong/explicit WikiProject support is the main criterion for allowing an exception. In general, though, it seems like the well-intentioned section here has caused confusion instead of preventing it, so maybe guarding against instruction creep and removing the section (while the individual WikiProjects maintain the individual pages individually) is a better solution...? Dekimasuよ! 06:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You better remove, oh, every article about a name, then (like Palmer--and, for that matter, Palm) since they tend to have lists of articles with that name in them--how is that any different than List of things with "Darker" in them (which can be viewed at Talk:Darker (disambiguation), incidentally)? What if "Darker" is a last name--does that suddenly make such a list acceptable? Hypocracy, anyone? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue against removing the section: we've already seen two cases of conflict between well-meaning groups of editors without the guidance. The first conflict was between WikiProject Disambiguation editors and WikiProject Ships over ship set articles like USS Enterprise. The second was between dab editors and WikiProject Mountains over the mountain list articles. I was involved in the latter, and it was frustrating --- we've had these useful mountain list articles for years with no one complaining, but then all of a sudden, dab editors with robots were coming in and enforcing WP:MOSDAB on the pages we had worked on. If we remove the guidance from the page, I know what will happen --- I will probably face a never-ending onslaught of editors that will change the mountain list articles without looking at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains.

One possibility (which I don't much like) is to move all "index set articles" to start with "List of", to flag that they are really stand-alone list articles. i.e., USS Enterprise would have to move to List of ships named USS Enterprise, and Dodge Charger would have to move to List of cars named Dodge Charger. This would obey the current manual of style, but seems really clunky --- there isn't any other "Dodge Charger" than a car, so why put in all of those extra words into the title?

There must be some rational way of letting articles such as USS Enterprise, Dodge Charger, Calderón, and Brown Peak exist wihtout having them be forced into WP:MOSDAB. hike395 09:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is: it's called getting rid of the overly anal rules. Consensus can (and should) change. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus" is what most editors agree upon. It doesn't have to change just because you disagree with almost everyone else. --Russ (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, consensus shouldn't change because I disagree with almost everyone else, but because almost everyone else doesn't appear to truly understand what disambiguation is and how it can be resolved--it ain't by deleting content created to help alleviate disambiguation... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Piped links vs. linking to redirects?

Why are pipe links bad but redirects OK? They're pretty much the same thing, except when you hover over it. -Indolences 10:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pipe links are often used when the redirect doesn't exist, to try to gain merit for borderline entries. Linking to pipes has two other small effects: the "redirected from X" note at the top of the linked page, helping mitigate surprise, and showing how pages are linked through "What links here", which can sometimes be useful. -- JHunterJ 12:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding ALF, Alf, primary topic, and appropriate disambiguation standards

A LAME edit war, in which I have gotten involved against my better judgment, raises some issues relevant to disambiguation. Your comments are welcome at Talk:ALF#Request for Comment regarding ALF, Alf, primary topic, and appropriate disambiguation standards. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

naming and linking

OK, I don't know if this has been covered before (probably, but I don't feel like searching for it), but disambiguation (dab) pages need some serious work. In doing a lot of dab editing, recently, it seems most of them are poorly laid out with no sections, all thrown in some blanket list, and including many links to concatenated-named articles (which I don't mind, despite contradicting WP:MOSDAB guidelines...

As an example:

1. A page about John Emerson should be by default (not John Emerson (disambiguation), which I just created because of this problem) a dab since, obviously, more than 1 person can (and do) have that name.
2. Each person named "John Emerson" (whether they have a middle name or that is their first and middle name), should have a link to the root "John Emerson" page (currently "John Emerson (disambiguation)").
3. That root dab page should then have links to dab pages about the first and last name (John (name) and Emerson (surname) in this case). Granted, if "Emerson" is the person's middle name, that could be a reason to also link to Emerson but such a link should be on the "Emerson (surname)" page anyway, so I digress...
4. Emerson (surname) should have links to root name dab pages (like John Emerson--currently, again, John Emerson (disambiguation)) and not each individual person with "Emerson" in their name (unless no such dab page exists for the root name).

∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 22:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not all the dab pages are conistent with WP:MOSDAB. We fix them as we find them. I've number your items to make it easier to talk about them. Items 1 and 2 are just normal dab cleanup that I have discovered several of us seem to enjoy doing. The (name) and (surname) are (to me) less important. They are not dab pages - they are not the primary method of navigating to the article you are looking for. Maybe if someone can only remember "John something" or "something Emerson," it would help. But if those pages didn't exist (or were incomplete), most people would be able to find their article fairly quickly. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? Not everyone searches the same way you think they do. By providing multiple ways, Wikipedia becomes more user-friendly. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: #1: Unless there is a primary-topic John Emerson, a la Kevin Smith. Then that entry will be at the base name, with a hatnote to the dab, which then will list the non-primary name holders. The basename Talk page Talk:John Emerson would be the place to determine whether a particular article or the dab page should be at the base name. In Emerson's case, I'd agree that the dab should be at the base name. -- JHunterJ 10:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What determines which person gets the base name? That's bias, to me. No one should have the root name if more than 2 people have the same name. Obviously Hillary Clinton would probably retain the base name since I can't think of another "Hillary Clinton" off-hand, but as soon as one surfaces--BAM! Her page name should be changed (perhaps to Hillary Rodham Clinton, which the former page redirects to anyway, incidentally--but the base name should be the dab if another "Hillary Clinton" surfaces). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As with everything else, consensus determines it. And no, if some new Hillary Clinton manages to get to the 2008 Olympics and get a bronze medal, the Hillary Clinton redirect should most definitely not be changed to a dab; the hypothetical new entry would be disambiguated like Hillary Clinton (gymnast) and (if there were yet a third, say Hillary Clinton (spaghetti sauce brand), a new page Hillary Clinton (disambiguation) could be created, and linked by otheruses from the primary topic. If you want to call any consensus that you disagree with "bias", I suppose we'll have to muddle on with that bias. -- JHunterJ 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Eep, JHunter is right. The person who gets the "base name" is the person who is decided on by consensus. If consensus a dab page is in order then there you go. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)