Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

PRIMARYTOPIC vs NOTADICT

From time to time, including currently at Talk:Nosedive_(disambiguation), I see the following sentiment expressed in RM discussions: a relatively obscure topic should not be at its basename if the basename is a commonly known word even if we don't have a topic about that word (WP:NOTADICT) nor any other topic with that name. What some people seem to prefer in these cases is that a dab page be at the basename, with links to the article about the obscure topic and to an article that is ostensibly somewhat about the common word for which we have no specific article. I'm baffled by the propensity for sending users to dab pages, but maybe I dislike them more than most.

I'm wondering how others here feel about this issue, and whether some clarification at PRIMARYTOPIC wouldn't help. I know we already have Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Not_"what_first_comes_to_(your)_mind", but that doesn't seem to be enough, perhaps because the focus there seems to be to avoid personal bias regarding "what first comes to mind". --В²C ☎ 17:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  • A primary topic needs long term significance, not just pageviews and click bait. This is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it is an historiographical document. Here, as with the thread above more-so, you dislike the long term significance part, we know. Pageviews and click-counting statistics are interesting, illuminating, informing, but they cannot override long term significance. If there are no pageviews, log term significance works fine. If there is no long term significance, who cares?
The long term significance of a title is unquestionably impacted by the long term existence of a word, especially where topics are derivatively named from the word. There is nothing wrong with the WP:NOTADICT policy; Wikipedia should not attempt to host dictionary entries overlapping with the purpose of Wiktionary. However, readers cannot be expected to instinctively know the WP:NOTADICT policy and that mere simple definitions cannot have Wikipedia articles.
You may dislike dab pages more than average, but you have a point. I agree, readers should know when they are going unwantingly to a dab page. Similarly, readers wanting a dab page (it happens!) should know which is the dab page. The solution is to recognize that WP:MALPLACED was a randomly made up bad idea and should be overturned. Overturned one page at a time, not wholesale. If a page is a disambiguation page, it should *always* be suffixed with "(disambiguation)". This would make things so much easier using the "search" drop down menu that appears as you type, as well as urls that you may check before following, and mouse-over hovertext. I believe that there are number of other advantages, and no disadvantages. There is no primary topic for "nosedive", all topics derive from the word. The dab page should be at Nosedive (disambiguation), and nosedive should redirect to the disambiguation page. The disambiguation page is the natural place to find the wiktionary link, which suits perfectly the reader intent on going for the word.
The way to avoid personal bias is to look to the best quality sources, go to those sources, and see how they introduce the topic. Attempts to use the myriads of available statistics opens more doors for unconscious bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Perfect analysis by SmokeyJoe. I agree that having disambiguation pages at base names is a culprit of making them unintuitive; if they were unambiguously labeled as navigation pages, they would be more homogeneous and simpler to understand - after using the search box, no one is surprised to find a navigation page with links to existing articles; but I agree that it may feel weird to follow an entry to a base name in the preview results of the drop-down search box, and not find an article there. Diego (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Just a note re "malplaced". Currently, every dab page at the base title ought to have (and almost every one does have) a redirect from the corresponding title with "(disambiguation)". And if all primary topic dab pages were moved, then there would still be redirects at the base titles – in either case, if you type "X" in the search box then the drop-down suggestions will include both "X" and "X (disambiguation)". As for urls and mouse-over text of links, assuming these are within wikipedia, then they are already piped via the "(disambiguation)" redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
It's true that selecting the base title would still lead the user to the DAB page. But there's an important difference, which is that the target page would have a highly visible and huge header at the top saying ARTICLE TITLE (disambiguation), instead of the current DAB page title which is just ARTICLE TITLE. That alone should make it clear to the reader that they're not seeing an article about the topic. Diego (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you think this makes a difference? Given that dab pages have an immediately recognisable layout that visually differentiates them from the articles, I'm not sure readers who land on a dab page will need to see the title of the page to know that they're on a dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) P.S. And maybe, just maybe, it would also help if we changed MOS:DCAT to enforce placing the {{disambiguation}} template at the top, rather than the bottom of the page, so that it can actually be seen on long DAB pages. Diego (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I was writing the above P.S. comment and I edit-conflicted, and I think it somewhat answers your question. Of course it helps to make special pages as visually differentiated as possible. I remember this particular episode where there was a very high-profile ongoing event (I can't remember which one right now, something about American elections I think) and readers were coming in droves to the disambiguation page that came naturally from the search term. The DAB page started with a short paragraph describing the event; and the talk page was having comments like "why is there so few content about this event at Wikipedia?" (!) Many people were arriving to the page and not following through to any of the several linked articles, which had all the details about the topic in different years; they were thinking the DAB page was the actual, very short article.
Not all readers are as used to the layout as we are. In particular, I'm not so sure that there's a clear visual difference between DAB pages and list articles, not one that an untrained eye would spot at first glance. Consider this vs this as a quick example. Diego (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
A page that begins with a paragraph describing the event should probably be a broad concept article rather than a dab. Certes (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, probably. It didn't help to the thousands of readers we were having at that DAB page that particular morning, though, which had to use what we had right then. The point is that they definitely weren't noticing that the page was a disambiguation page rather than an article, so the distinction by layout alone is not that clear to many readers. Diego (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of it:Madonna or pl:Madonna? Certes (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Both have something that Madonna doesn't have: a message above the fold saying that it is a disambiguation page. I like that. Their visual design (and the icons they use) stand out a bit because it's different than ours, but we wouldn't have that problem (I mean, the icon at our DAB pages is a subtle grey). Diego (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I've made (and then reverted) this fast edit for comparison, to give us an idea how it would look with the template at the top. Or, we could have it like this, after the lead sentence with the most prominent articles. Diego (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A primary topic needs long term significance? How about Anne Hathaway, an example from WP:D? Long-term significance is a factor to consider, and one that I believe is implicitly and more than adequately accounted for in page view counts and by the Google test, but it's not the only consideration. I don't see why topics not covered on WP, like the dictionary meaning of nosedive, should be considered when determining whether a given title is ambiguous, much less for determining what the primary topic is for a given title. --В²C ☎ 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A primary topic needs long term significance? - No, but it needs that there's no other long-term-significant topic competing for primacy. Anne Hathaway is a case where consensus has determined that usage (what readers were looking for) was the main factor in determining the primary topic, and the historical significance of Shakespeare's wife was not enough to override that.
I don't see why topics not covered on WP, like the dictionary meaning of nosedive, should be considered - Because disambiguation (including primary topics) is all about navigation, i.e. leading readers to the content they're looking for, not about content structure; we have categories for that second purpose. To create effective navigation, you need to take into account what readers know, not just what content we have.
Sometimes a hint saying sorry, we don't have anything about that, but you might try the shop next door is as important to provide adequate service as breadcrumbs to existing content, as it prevents the patron from going around, lost; a good librarian should know when to guide users out and stop looking for something that is not here. Diego (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
That would make sense if we were talking about topics that users reasonably and regularly would seek here. But if we identify any topics like that, then we should create articles for them. This isn't the case of articles we should have but just haven't created yet, in which case your approach would make sense. We're talking about non-encyclopedic topics, like simple word definitions, that nobody would reasonably even look for here. Nobody is going to wonder what the history of a nosedive is. It doesn't belong here. It's not a topic. We can and should ignore it, as if it does not exist at all, because, for our intents and purposes, it doesn't exist. We should not clutter WP with dictionary content. That's the point of WP:NOTADICT. --В²C ☎ 07:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
How do you know what topics users "reasonably and regularly" would seek? A major problem is that we don't have good tools to understand how our readers use the website. Until you try it, you don't know whether a word has an associated article at Wikipedia or not (being a non-English native, I definitely had to look here what a "nosedive" is). Also, your reasoning would explain why we don't have an article, but not why we shouldn't make it easy finding an external link to a sister site. Diego (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

BTW, we do have the Descent a article which describes the history of nosedives, and I think it would be a much better target than the current obscure episode of a recent TV series. It certainly would have served me much better than the current PRIMARYTOPIC disposition, even though I'm a regular who fully understands how to navigate our website. I dread to think how a user with lesser knowledge of English, and who hadn't heard of the series, could have found about that content and understand the concept. Diego (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Diego Moya, you make some good points. But there is a hint saying “sorry, we don't have anything about that, but you might try the shop next door”: that’s what the {{Wiktionary}} template is for. It should be on any dab page where the ambiguous term is defined in Wiktionary. Then the dab page can concentrate on guiding readers to what Wikipedia has. — Gorthian (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was getting at. That's a good reason to place the DAB page at a prominent place more often than not, which is what Born2cycle wants to avoid. Arriving at a DAB page when looking for the bare word shows the Wiktionary link, while placing a PRIMARYTOPIC article does not, so it's much easier in the first case for the reader to find the definition of the word, or any article related to the meaning of the word but which is placed at an article with a different name (like the nosedive case). Diego (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Diego Moya:, the process to determine which topics users seek "reasonably and regularly" is not perfect but nothing novel. It's about the same as determining whether we should have an article about a topic, which WPians have been doing since WP launched. It's okay to leave pointers to external sources where appropriate, but we should not rearrange our titles to make it easier to find external sources at the cost of adding more clicks to users trying to get to topics we do cover, which is exactly what considering external uses in determining primary topic does. --В²C ☎ 19:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
-
Also, the page view stats at Descent (aeronautics)#dives are dwarfed Nosedive stats. All of the evidence indicates the interest in the episode is far higher than in any other use. --В²C ☎ 21:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
That's just if you consider exclusively "recent usage" as "all of the evidence". However if you consider content published in reliable sources (which is what we do to determine notability), the aviation maneuver is prevalent. The consensus is to consider all the information published over time and not just spikes of current trendiness, because mere transient popularity is not a good proxy of overall interest, and it's too prone to bias favoring a subset of readers that would leave all the rest out of the picture (in this case, spectators of the TV series, which is targeted at a very specific demografics of western technologically educated audiences). If you cater to that subset because they're currently actively looking for the chapter and temporarily appear higher in search trends, you're making a disservice to all the other classes of readers, who will be interested in the topic with the majority of historic coverage.
We determine which topics to cover by looking at what other people has written about in a reliable way, and then excluding all the sources that we dont't think are providing an encyclopedic treatment and choosing the subset of all that information that we want to cover. But readers care about finding information, they don't care about what we want or don't want to include in the project. If we only assess the types of content that we want to include in the encyclopedia for determining primary topics, we are distorting the amount of coverage by third parties by attending to just those that write in a style we can use, and we are re-arranging our articles in a way that is detrimental to what readers want to know about, by establishing navigation according to content curated to our interests, not those of the external world.
Therefore, of course we should make it easier to find such external content that exist but we've decided not to use, yet is probably as interesting to readers as what we happen to collect; it's only fair that, if we decide to exclude some types of information from our project, at least we let our users know about that decision and guide them to other places who do cover that information. Diego (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
-
That said, we can accomodate the fact that there's a significant amount of people looking for the series article. We do that by establishing that such high interest means that there's no primary topic, because two different concepts are competing for mindshare; therefore placing a useful disambiguation page that let readers find their way, instead of just having the historical concept at the base title, as would have happened without the spike of interest for the TV show. Diego (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

  • Born2cycle is back on his drive to minimize title length for frequently viewed articles. It has been his sole ambition for his entire Wikipedian career. It necessarily means doing away with "long term significance" in favor of usage as measured by page-views. It is entirely a misguided ambition, as it has no basis in making a better product for the readers, and it is at odds with the function of an encyclopedia, which is to collect all information and to organise it in a logical fashion.
With nosedive, he has cherry picked an extreme example of contrast between long term significance and page-views. One is the highly angled forward descent of an aircraft, covered both in a section of an aeronautical article and at Wiktionary, the other is a single episode of a popular TV show. Long term significance should trump because every fan of the TV episode knows what a nosedive is, the knowledge of the meaning of the word is a prerequisite to understand the them of the episode, but of the set of people interested in the aeronautical topic only a very small proportion would be fans of the TV series or otherwise interested in the single isolate episode.
Accordingly, I think we need to define "Primary Meaning" alongside "Primary Topic", where Primary Meaning includes generic concepts and common words regardless of there being a current article on the topic. It is important to prevent astonishment to the reader when they think they are following the generic meaning of a word and are taken to an unexpected niche, albeit high page view, article. "Primary Topic" should have an exclusion where the word that would be used as the title does not match the Primary Meaning of that word.
Further, as I have frequently noted in RM discussions, without objections except by those who argue that the rules include no mention of this, commercial topics should have to meet a higher bar to be afforded Primary Topic status. The driver for this is the importance of WP:NOTPROMOTION. Commercial products are typically named with a strategy of seeking a catchy name. Commercial topics also come along with insidious Search engine optimization tricks, increasingly if not already totally, automated tricks. Wikipedia should be resistant to this. Largely, largely undocumented, it already is. It has been explicitly consider in many cases. Windows passes, and Apple fails, for example. Nosedive should definitely fail. It is a commercial product, realized with a flurry of promotion, lead episode of a series that the Netflix needs to advertise to get subscriptions, and it surely has artificially boosted ghits, millions, which accompany a burst of low brow fan hype in popular media, nothing scholarly.
I also think User:Born2cycle needs to be topic banned to prevent continued relentless agitation at obscure articles, seeking to advance his battle for algorithmic titling decisions. It is disruption. It distracts other editors from doing useful things. It is not in the interested of improving the encyclopedia.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage with you, except to say you have grossly misrepresented my motivations and behavior and that commenting about such matters on a policy/guideline talk page here is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. --В²C ☎ 02:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I have studied Born2cycle's actions and articulated motivations for many years, and consider much, especially User:Born2cycle#Persistence_pays, to be unashamed disruption seeking to achieve an objective through wearing down everyone else. Perhaps there is a deeper motivation underlying the algorithmic titling and title minimisation objectives that I don't understand, but I have read his userpage and usersubpages, and don't find one. This is now quite topical, PRIMARYTOPIC vs NOTADICT is a worthy discussion point, all I posted applies. It needs a discussion here, but what it does not need is petty skirmishing in isolated RM discussions. We know he believes in "change at the article level contrary to guidelines", and I submit that such an approach, litigating titling policy opinions in isolated RMs on cherry picked articles is very disruptive to editors genuinely interested in those articles. These questions, IF they are important, should be approached through an RfC, not through RM skirmishes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see anything disruptive about B2C, they (like me) are obviously very interested in titles, consider this comment which is linked from their user page. However with NOTDICT, I'd consider if the subject is properly covered by WP under any title, not just a word than can be used to refer to that topic, for example Size doesn't really cover the concept of "Big" but Hurricane is an alternative word for Tropical cyclone. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you familiar with "big"? Have you read Talk:Big (film) & Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2012_June#Big_(film)? It was a lot of fuss, and precedent setting for a big film with big page views not being the Primary Meaning of "big". Born2cycle was not happy then, and in starting this thread he is still wanting to litigate exactly the same issue. After five years, an RfC is reasonable, but carrying the battles on endlessly in RM discussions at obscure articles is not, that would be disruptive to editors of those articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes I read the discussions a few years ago. The major problem was that WP doesn't really cover the concept of "Big". However since that an article on Size has been created which doesn't really cover it but is better than before. There are a number of other topic so I'd say disambiguation makes sense. As you noted Bell was opposed, though I think that is a clear PT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I did not start the Nosedive RM. I just weighed in like everyone else. Then I raised the larger issue on this much broader forum, merely using Nosedive as an example because it happens to be current and is the discussion which sparked me to raise this issue here. As my user page, FAQ and each of my comments on titles should make clear, my larger motivation is article title stability, the opposite of the disruption caused by having rules that are more ambiguous than necessary and creating pointless debate where none is warranted. A point of apparent difference I have with SmokeyJoe is that I reject the notion that more descriptive titles are helpful to users by any significant degree. The name of the topic is always enough for all intents and purposes of titles on WP, including for user needs, unless disambiguation is necessary. The moment you allow adding description beyond the name of the topic you're opening a can of worms, because there is no objective means by which to determine what is "descriptive enough". Allowing for term uses not covered on WP (or covered by an obscure section on a relatively rarely visited article and therefore a relatively rarely sought topic) in deciding primary topic to disambiguate the title of the clearly most likely sought topic is not helpful to users anyway. And the result of tolerance for unnecessary description/disambiguation in titles is the disruptive never-ending RM backlog. And, yes, changes on WP tend to be made one article at a time. For better or worse, WP works bottom up, not top down. If a consensus of participants agrees to move an article against guidelines, then it is moved, and that move itself, perhaps with a few other similar moves, becomes sufficient reason to update the guideline to better reflect actual consensus. Don't shoot the messenger. --В²C ☎ 16:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
B2C, if you read about Information scent, Tree testing and other topics in Information architecture, you'll learn that there are objective methods to assess whether titles are descriptive enough; namely by observing people read them and counting the number and types of errors they make when trying to navigate to their targets. It's a different thing that we don't have the tools to put those methods in practice... but I don't want to start a digression; just to point out that, according to the professional experts in how to properly lay out a website, they think that merely looking at the content you have is an awful practice, and you instead must look at what people intend to do with it (which quite often might involve looking for information that is not here at all). Diego (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I get all that. WP is unique for a number of reasons. First of all, our title decisions really amount to choosing between Just The Name and The Name (plus some description). Whichever one we choose for the title of the article, the other typically redirects to it. Another decision we make is whether to put one of several ambiguous topics at a given title, or put a dab page listing all of the ambiguous topics at that title. These are very specific contexts in which to consider how people react and respond. And we do have tools that provide considerable information about people's behavior. Page view counts tell us very accurately how often people are looking at one topic relative to others. The Google test, especially when the search is narrowed to en.wp, leverages the observational tools Google has to tell us which of our pages is mostly likely being sought for a given search term. The bottom line is that all of the tools we do have at our disposal tell us quite clearly that people searching for "nosedive" are overwhelmingly looking for the TV show episode. I've never even seen the show, much less that episode. I try to be as unbiased as I can in making title decisions, going as much as possible by what these tools tell us about actual user behavior. And there's no evidence, anywhere, that users are coming to WP to search for dictionary definitions. --В²C ☎ 18:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, we don't have no evidence that users want definitions because the tools we have are inadequate to provide such evidence. Neither Google nor page views can tell us anything about how many users search for a word looking for its meaning, arrive to a disambiguation page and then go to to Wiktionary to learn the word's meaning. Page views provide a measure of popularity exclusively, but as I've said, exclusively catering to what's trendy is a terrible way to design the navigation structure without also taking into consideration other elements defining the meaning and cultural context of the term. We're not a media company, we try to be an encyclopedia, and the treatment we give to people outside of the mainstream latest craze matters; it's not OK to offer a dreadful experience to those looking for the educational yet less popular topic.
I'll confess, I know first hand that people look for definitions at the encyclopedia, because that's something I often do myself, having found that Wikipedia is a very good tool for that purpose. I use the search bar for learning the meaning of English words that I've never encountered before; and I believe it's likely that other non-native English speakers will be interested in the same usage, as well as English elementary and secondary students. Wikipedia usually provides a very good first approach to concepts that are completely unknown, by placing them in context with categories or the introductory catchphrase "In FIELD X, a NAME is...", and then the lede proceeds to illustrate the concept with examples and usage notes (which you don't get in a dictionary).
When using the encyclopedia in this way, it's a really awful experience to find the target page hijacked by some obscure pop-culture item that I've never heard before, but which happens to be slightly more popular with people across the pond than all the other minutiae sharing the same name. It's understandable and even beneficial when the pop item is really a well known landmark of the English culture, i.e. when it's really the primary topic that people undoubtedly identifies with the term even if it's not its original meaning; but not for every random music album, TV episode, low-budget movie or cleaning product brand, which is getting a slightly higher attention than the rest because of its recentism. We already have a reputation of being disseminators of products for the contemporary media and technological conglomerates; let's make sure that the only popular items occupying the base names and displacing the meanings of English words are those that deserve it. Diego (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
"Deserve" is another idea that floats around primary topic discussions. Primary-topic-ness isn't an award to deserving topics; it's a navigation service to the readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
DAB pages are navigation services. PrimaryTopic status, where overzealously applied, is the opposite. Even when justified, it doesn’t help with navigation, google doesn’t rely on titles, people don’t type urls, wikilinks don’t care. PrimaryTopics, by removing clarity, precision, make the java search box autocomplete options more difficult. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
And of course no one is recommending overzealous application. Primary topic status is a navigation service too; when justified, it helps with navigation for the readership, which is why we do it. Putting readers at Earth (disambiguation) or Shakespeare (disambiguation) or Banana (disambiguation) instead of Earth, Shakespeare, or Banana would be the navigation disservice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I think everyone opposing at Talk:Nosedive (disambiguation) is overzealously pushing for a PrimaryTopic status of a narrowly popular topic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Right. And I thing everyone supporting there is overzealously pushing for removing the primary status from the topic that would best serve the encyclopedia readership in favor of treating Wikipedia like a dictionary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
So which is it that makes you think Nosedive (Black Mirror) has primary status: you don't think that Dive (aviation) is a topic identified by the ambiguous term "nosedive", or you don't think it has historical weight that makes it compete with the popularity of the TV episode? I'm not as interested in your opinion as I am in the policy ramifications of your position; what I get from your position is that apparently, the topic which correspond to the common meaning of a word has its significance somehow devalued because WP:NOTDICT would apply in some way. Diego (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
You've got it backwards. Its significance in primary topic determination is not inflated because of its common meaning as a dictionary word. That is irrelevant in primary topic determination. What is relevant, especially in the context of this discussion about navigation aids for our users, is likelihood of being sought by users searching with "nosedive". --В²C ☎ 16:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of words in disambiguation

SmokeyJoe above makes an interesting point that I think merits being explored. When determining primary topic, often there are cases where either:

  • the base name is a common word with some well-known meaning (what SmokeyJoe calls "primary meaning"),
  • or the name of the topic with the most usage is a derivative from the topic with the most long-term significance.

As we often analyze these aspects in move discussions, I think we should acknowledge this fact and mention them in the guideline, adding them to the "aspects that editors commonly consider" (or at least the "Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic but are not considered absolute determining factors"); we already do this in a limited way for the second criterion. We could add some guidance on how they are used in discussions, and maybe explain the outcomes of when they've been found relevant, and how they affect decisions over what is the primary topic. Diego (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What would people say the primary meanings of Bell, Settle, Steep, Wells, Bury, Unlikely and Bray are? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, but as a non-native English speaker, they are immediately useful to me, and at first sight they seem well placed. Bell is an obvious primary topic, being the direct meaning of one of the 2000 most common English words. Those which are not nouns are difficult to make primary; so if they don't have an obvious primary topic, a disambiguation page allows me to learn their meaning and overlook the list of articles we have about the term. I particularly like how Unlikely, which doesn't have a disambiguation page, gets to have the Wiktionary link right there at the top, even if we are at article space (although it makes me wonder if the album is primary over the comic, since Jeffrey Brown (cartoonist) gets more daily visits; isn't that a WP:TWODAB situation?)
And contrast Bray (a disambiguation page) with Hee Haw. In the second case we have an article with many more visits than the other articles sharing the title, and for which we don't have an article covering the common meaning; that looks like a good candidate for primary topic, unless we find a section that covers that particular onomatopoeia elsewhere. Diego (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
"Primary meaning" is a neologism for a concept for which there is no direct bearing on primary topic determination. The primary topic for a term may or may not reflect the "primary meaning" of the term. To the extent that primary meaning influences how likely users are to be looking for that meaning when searching with a given term is already accounted for in normal primary topic determination. No special consideration for "primary meaning" needs to be given. I see no reason to clutter the section with words about this. --В²C ☎ 18:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
But the common meaning of a word surely has historical significance, which is one of the criteria for primary topic, right? The meaning of a word as it's understood in English has historical significance unless it's a neologism. Therefore, topics covered by Wikipedia that match the meaning of dictionary words are notable topics with long-term significance, and they shouldn't be dismissed from PT assessment merely because their meaning is also found in a dictionary. Diego (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The meaning has history, not historical significance (unless there's some encyclopedic coverage of the historical significance of etymology, philology, epistemology of the word. The topic of that meaning may or may not have historical significance, which is the criterion. Being a dictionary word is great for dictionaries, but Wikipedia is still not a dictionary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
And no one is suggesting that Wikipedia is a dictionary, so I still don't see how you want to make the WP:NOTDICT policy relevant to primary topic discussions. But as you've just agreed, if a meaning has a long-term history, the topic covered in Wikipedia which corresponds to that meaning may have historical significance, in special when it's a notable topic on its own; and we should assess how that history is relevant - because it makes long-term significance more likely than for topics which don't have such historicity. Diego (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
This is why I don't understand the point of long-term significance. The whole point of identifying primary topics is to arrange our titles in a manner that aids user navigation. If long-term significance causes us to send users to a page they're not seeking, we're hindering user navigation, aren't we? --В²C ☎ 01:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Is it? The point of long term significance is the logic of titles. A short title implies generic coverage. For example, Science should cover the general concept, not something very specific called "science", like Science (journal). The point of titles is not to aid navigation in the ways of search engines, simulating primitive search engine functionality will work to a point but will necessarily be limited like a primitive search engine, as well as producing bad titles. Fundamentally, a title is the biggest text at the top of the page that describes the content below. If users are being sent (by what) to a page they are not seeking, then most likely they are using a poor search engine, or title are misleading, or the disambiguation page should be more prominent. Disambiguation pages would be more prominent in search engines and other lists if all disambiguation pages were suffixed with "(disambiguation)" and ambiguous basenames redirected to disambiguation pages. WP:MALPLACED was and remains a mistake, as discussed previously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
WP Search works like this: You enter a term, click on Go, and, if there is an article (or dab page) with that title, it takes you there. The point of primary topics is to ensure that when users enter a term in that WP Search box and hit Go, that they're taken to the article about the topic they are most likely seeking, if the search term has one. If the search term has such a "most likely to be sought" topic, and we take them to an article about some other "historically significant" topic, or to a dab page, aren't we hindering the very user navigation we're trying to improve? If the topic they're most likely seeking is a TV episode, then it makes sense to have the name of that episode at the top of that article when we take them there, even if that title also corresponds to a common word or a topic with greater historical significance. The first few words of the intro handle that. --В²C ☎ 01:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
No, that is not how search works. Documentation is here: Help:Searching. I'm seeing the problem. In the default skin, there is a box containing the grey text "search Wikipedia", but it primaryily serves to autocomplete, not search. The autocomplete behaviors can be found in your account preferences under the (mistitled!) "search" tab. The Default (recommended) is: "Corrects up to two typos. Resolves close redirects"
This autocomplete is I understand a Java thing, which depending on device and connection, can be very slow and clunky. Often it is for me, so I rarely use it.
As you type, a list of possible matches drops down, initially quite a long list. Only at the very bottom, below a horizontal line, below the grey text "containing ..." can you, without explanation, invoke the real search.
I think this hiding / obscuring of the real search is really a bad idea.
But anyway, if you use the default autocomplete, it is better to have precise titles over most likely topics at basenames, because then the precise title will appear.
Nosedive, for example. If the episode were at "Nosedive (Black Mirror)", then that entry would appear in the list, even at the top or second I think. This would best serve all users. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
This is why I don't understand the point of long-term significance. The point is that we don't put an article at the base name merely because it gets more searches/it's more popular. It also needs to be the topic that is commonly associated with the term, with no other topic competing for the meaning, even if people are not actively seeking the other meanings at this time. That's why Madonna is a DAB, and consensus about this view is not going to change soon.
As for how this improves navigation: it's best for those seeking the historic meaning, it makes incoming wikilinks harder to miss the mark and easier to fix, and it doesn't hurt those looking for the popular topic as much as you say it does - these can nagivate it directly using Google or selecting the disambiguated title in the search box dropdown, which gives more hints as to which on of the several significant meanings is the one covered by the article. Diego (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I think there are hints of acceptance of the notion that Madonna should be moved to Madonna (disambiguation), and Madonna redirecting to it. This would mean the the unqualified "Madonna" no longer appears in the drop down list, "(disambiguation)" would be displayed in the title line (currently whitespace), and readers won't have to guess between "Madonna" and "Madonna (entertainer)" when they are looking for the singer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Dictionary words can impact PRIMARYTOPIC decisions

I think there is a a consensus that dictionary words *can* impact PRIMARYTOPIC decisions. NOTADICT is not a blanket rule for excluding dictionary meanings from consideration.

I think this soft wording is agreeable. Just because there is a dictionary word, it doesn't mean that there can't be a PrimaryTopic for a topic which is not the meaning of that word.

Examples from https://randomwordgenerator.com/

  • Many words are not extant topics, but are defined concepts with multiple uses and derivatives, and should be disambiguation pages, eg: refund, exception, circumstance, brilliance, loop, stall. For these, the appearance of a new popular creative work, like a song, or a book, should not easily displace the DAB page.

Cases where I might support a title change:

  • Examples of word searches that I found astonishing, I think they should be DAB pages, were collect, abridge,
  • Examples of DAB pages where I think there is a PrimaryTopic, or the DAB page should become a DABCONCEPT: conference

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

All kind of crazy shit can and does impact PRIMARYTOPIC decisions. What's important however is what should affect PRIMARYTOPIC decisions, which goes back to why we even have PRIMARYTOPIC, which is of course related to why we have disambiguation and how we choose our titles. I note that SmokeyJoe cites no policy or guideline basis for his wish that dictionary words impact PRIMARYTOPIC decisions.
It's important to distinguish dictionary words for which there are encyclopedic topics considered sufficiently notable to have an article on WP from those that don't have coverage on WP. Smokey's first list of examples (reddening, et al), are mostly of dictionary words with meanings that have WP-covered topics. There is no dispute that words with dictionary meanings covered on WP should be given due consideration per the two PT criteria just like any other use on WP, assuming they are even ambiguous.
Speaking of ambiguity, most of the words in his first list are not primary topics as he claims, as they are not even ambiguous (primary topic by definition applies to ambiguous terms). Regardless, even if a dictionary word is ambiguous with other notable uses, of course its use is considered in PT determination of that term. There is no dispute about that. The dispute is about whether the dictionary word should be given weight due to being a dictionary word. In other words, should we have a third PT criteria for that? Or should we just stick with the current two?
Further, Smokey claims "words are not extant topics, but are defined concepts with multiple uses and derivatives". What does this mean? Of course words are not topics. Words refer to topics. The literal word "key" is not a topic - it refers to a variety of topics, none of which are considered primary. "Key" is not a single "defined concept". There are several defined concepts (aka topics) to which key refers, and each of those is a separate use of "key".
The bottom line is that that dictionary-word meaning of a given ambiguous term is just another use to consider in deciding which if any one of them is primary. It should be given equal consideration under the two PT criteria relative to the other use or uses. We seem to have consensus about that. --В²C ☎ 17:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "I note that SmokeyJoe cites no policy or guideline basis for his wish that dictionary words impact PRIMARYTOPIC decisions."
I note again that you seem blinkered, limited, by the wording the text on this guideline, and that this guideline has some long standing logical flaws. As a consequence, your logic is flawed.
You admit that words with associated topics count for reasons for displacing a primary topic. Good. Now consider that a reasonable reader does not know the exact line between these words, and other word that may, but do not, have coverage somewhere in some article. It is even unreasonable to expect that readers know Wikipedia should not be used for looking words. It is more reasonable to have common words, for which there may be a multitude of associated topics and subtopics, to redirect to DAB pages that include all the covered topics and subtopics plus the consistently and prominently located Wiktionary box.
Dictionary words should be given weight according to the rationalizations of editors. The guideline should reflect what editors usually decide. The guideline should not be used to contain reasonable arguments not directly couched from the guideline. Guidelines are imperfect, and this guideline has serious logical flaws.
"The bottom line is that that dictionary-word meaning of a given ambiguous term is just another use to consider in deciding which if any one of them is primary."
To my surprise, this is completely agreeable. It implies that NOTDICT is not a reason to discount another's argument, which is the reason for this thread, because that is what you have been trying to do.
"It should be given equal consideration"
Cut "equal". Human judgement is needed on levels of consideration.
"under the two PT criteria"
This is a subtly flawed reading of the guideline and its intent. The guideline does not list the criteria exhaustively. There are undocumented criteria that should and frequently do swing discussions. These include: Whether the audience of one topic is aware of the other topic; Whether one topic is etymologically derived from the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Items only in other-language Wikipedias or Wikidata

I keep running across items that link to either a non-English Wikipedia (such as Alexander Nikolayevich Golitsyn [ru] on Alexander Golitsyn) or Wikidata. What do we do with these? Do the they require a blue link in English Wikipedia, like other red links? Leschnei (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

We have links to other projects in articles so I don't generally see why not on DAB pages. However maybe we should restrict to times when the missing article is notable, but I don't see why WP:DABMENTION can't be used also. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
No per WP:DABSISTER Disambiguation descriptions should not be created for subjects whose only articles are on pages of sister projects... and WP:WRITEITFIRST. Comment out or create a stub is what I'd do. Widefox; talk 22:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Curiously, MOS:WTLINK seems to allow sister project links for dictionary defs, which I don't think I've seen. I suggest we remove it from MOSDAB as wiktionary links seems to cover it. Widefox; talk 22:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Crouch, Swale and Widefox, WP:DABSISTER is what I was looking for but, for some reason, couldn't find. Leschnei (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
You mean, you haven't memorised WP:MOS??? I'm shocked, shocked!
Anyway, WP:MOS is inconsistent. MOS:DABOTHERLANG says, "For foreign-language terms, be sure an article exists or could be written for the word or phrase in question" (emphasis added). That implies that a DAB page entry is OK even if there isn't a WP:DABMENTION. (That guideline wording is feeble. (1) There are any number of articles on non-English Wikipedias which wouldn't survive WP:AFD if translated. (2) There are very many more non-English topics which wouldn't survive AFD in the home language. Articles could be written about any of them; whether they'd survive more than 7 days is another matter.)
IMO, WP:DABSISTER is incomplete, and WP:DABOTHERLANG is wrong. Both should be subject to WP:DABMENTION. (1) If a DAB page entry passes WP:DABMENTION, then an {{ill}} link adds information and helps other readers and editors, which is what we're here for. Among other things, it helps editors unify redlinks. (I cannot be alone in having turned redlinks into redirects to existing articles.) Alexander Nikolayevich Golitsyn [ru] is a good example. (2) If it doesn't, it points to no useful information in English Wikipedia, and should be commented out (better than deletion: it proposes a title). (I've probably broken that rule myself during multilingual searches, but plead WP:IAR.)
Wiktionary links on DAB pages should always go through {{wikt}}: any sort of piped soft link on a DAB page is just what we don't need; they're bad enough in articles. Narky Blert (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes could be written isn't helpful and should be removed and replaced with WP:WRITEITFIRST, which is helpful. The full quote of MOS:DABOTHERLANG helps, as it qualifies ...Usually this means that the term has been at least partially adopted into English or is used by specialists. which implies it has to have relevance in English for en.WP. Practically, we should try to eliminate these grey areas so that editorial/notability judgement is minimised/eliminated from dabs and kept appropriately at the articles subject to WP:V etc by yes requiring a DABMENTION.
Regarding Alexander Golitsyn, I'd consider the Alexander Nikolayevich Golitsyn entry failing WP:DABRED, but easily solved by linking to House of Golitsyn which serves readers better than sending them to a sister project. Fundamentally, we must prioritise en.WP content over sisters to avoid WP:CFORK. Until a stub exists we just don't need the creep of judgement into dabs, together with the fundamental of WP:D reasonably likely. Widefox; talk 10:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. It usually comes down to some version of 'strict adherence to the "rules" (such as they are) taking a back seat to what is best for the reader'. I should write that on the back of my hand whenever I sit down for a bit of editing. Leschnei (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Generally MOSDAB (and WP:D) seem very handy for strict adherence which is aligned with readers. Widefox; talk 13:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the "{{ill}}; see [bluelink]" format to a redirect. Readers get the same information; and the article, being a redlink, is more likely to get written,
Deliberately writing a stub article when there's more information in another language feels like a cop-out. I've done it a couple of times; once because there were two bad links to a DAB page and the three corresponding articles in other Wikipedias were in languages which Google Translate doesn't understand. I did what I could by approximating to Russian.
Nevertheless, there is one Wikipedia which consists almost entirely of stub articles, and I applaud its editors. There are only two Wikipedias with over 5M articles, and Cebuano is one of them.
The list of Wikipedias statistics makes for some startling reading if you look at it closely. I know of one language with 830k speakers which has no Wikipedia at all (Mizo).
As for Wikidata, I consider it pestilential. Quality control is minimal, to put it mildly. DABlink problems in Wikipedia caused by blindly importing information from Wikidata are among the most difficult to solve. I know of only one editor who is able to tackle them, and it isn't me. In addition, I've had Interwiki links reverted because a Wikidata editor was unable to transliterate between the Roman and Cyrillic alphabets; and also on the ground that a WP:DAB in one language was not the same as a WP:SIA in another; even though the information overlap was huge, and despite the fact that every Wikipedia is entitled to set its own DAB and SIA rules. <sounding off /> Narky Blert (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe that DABSISTER should be updated to support using {{ill}} for topics that would meet notability requirements for en-wiki. The template was created in 2013, while DABSISTER dates from 2004, when the risk would have been an interwiki bluelink to a foreign language and no redlink. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
No - the crux is that notability question. For clearly notable a stub is easy, anything else editors should be able to WP:V in En.WP in English as that's easiest. En.WP is in a privileged position with sources, editors, readers hence articles. Those fundamentals aren't going anywhere to need DABSISTER changing, WP:WRITEITFIRST is the easiest for en.WP. This may be most clearcut with WP:BLPs and medical topics. Widefox; talk 12:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Another factor is language translation - mobile is half of our views AFAIR. Translation is possible from browsers (but will transfer users into the WP app if installed), but not the mobile app which can only switch to a sister. So, given an EN.WP stub, the sister is easily switchable, but the non English article is not translatable. Widefox; talk 11:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Cleaning up a page today, I ran across an {{ill}} entry. I found WP:DABSISTER, which left open (at least to me) the question of whether "sister projects" included other-language Wikipedias. The description on WP:SISTER also left that unclear.
This discussion seems to be in favor of not linking to other languages, so I've edited DABSISTER to reflect that.
Would it make sense to put a warning/recommendation in the {{ill}} doc against using it on dab pages?--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with including entries for articles that we don't have here but which other language wikipedias do. The purpose of a dab page is to guide readers to the content they're looking for and it's largely immaterial if the only relevant content might happen to be in German. Of course, this is subject to the obvious requirements that the topic be notable by the English wikipedia standards and that the language in question is relevant to the topic and likely to be understood by at least some interested readers: Spanish link for an article about a Mexican writer – good, Cebuano link for a Polish village – not good. – Uanfala (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, there's something wrong with including entries here that aren't covered here. The purpose of a disambiguation page is not to guide readers to the content that they're looking for anywhere, otherwise we'd have external links on disambiguation pages. The purpose of an English Wikipedia disambiguation page is to disambiguate topics on English Wikipedia that could have had the ambiguous title as their article title. The obvious requirement of the topic being notable by English Wikipedia standards is met by being on English Wikipedia. Disambiguation pages are not the place to host the debate over which topics not on English Wikipedia could be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ignore DABSISTER? A thread at WP:APO led me to cleanup a bunch of foreign-language DAB entries at Zbigniew per DABSISTER. However, it was restored with edit summary of "DABSISTER is often ignored in practice". Is that the case?—Bagumba (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Zbigniew is not a disambiguation page, but an Wikipedia:Anthroponymy list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
To answer the question, though, no, DABSISTER is not ignored on disambiguation pages, and where it is, if the page is cleaned up to observe DABSISTER, the correction shouldn't be reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Doh! You're absolutely right on the DAB vs. APO distinction.—Bagumba (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Ignoring WP:DABSISTER has not been my experience either. If it is to be "ignored", I'd like to see an RfC confirm that. Either way, I've reverted per WP:APOENTRIES. WP:DABSISTER may be hazy when it comes to APO pages, but WP:APOENTRIES is not. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
APOENTRIES has nothing to say about interwiki links. – Uanfala (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Having an interwiki link after a redlink doesn't make it not a redlink, and APOENTRIES is instructive on redlinks: However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles. I think a good solution would be to put the redlink list on Talk:Zbigniew, see which ones could be translated into English, and readd as they are created. -- Tavix (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The redlink section of APOENTRIES addresses the issue of editors adding redlink-only entries for the purpose of keeping track of missing articles. This essay has nothing to say about the situations where there is an actual blue link – and an interwiki link is a blue link. It's there for readers, not for editors. And for the record, the style followed for lists of people might on some points differ from the style for dab pages, but I don't see any reason why general disambiguation guidelines (like DABSISTER) shouldn't be relevant. The issue is not that DABSISTER doesn't apply to surname lists, it is that it shouldn't apply at all. – Uanfala (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It should (and does) apply to disambiguation pages, because disambiguation pages are the solution for the technical problem of navigating to multiple topics from a single title. If the topic isn't on English Wikipedia, there's no technical problem to navigate to it. DABSISTER doesn't apply to non-dab pages because it's part of the consensus guidelines on disambiguation pages. No, an interwiki link is not a blue link, any more than google.com is a blue link. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion notice - Talk:BTS/Archive 2#Requested move 8 December 2018

Hey there! I'm AngusWOOF. There is a move discussion at Talk:BTS/Archive 2#Requested move 8 December 2018 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings).AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Hole.

I have proposed to move the disambiguation page, Hole to make way for Draft:Hole to become the primary topic. Please have a look. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Avenger disambiguation pages

What would be the best way to handle Avenger (Avenged redirects here), The Avenger and The Avengers (Avengers redirects here)? Seems there is overlapping here. --Gonnym (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I would vote for one complete disambiguation page, even though it would be long, rather than three incomplete, overlapping pages. It would be easier for the reader to find the article that they want and easier for editors to keep up-to-date. Leschnei (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Overlap is OK. Separate pages for singular and plural are easier for the reader, since readers looking for "Avengers" aren't looking for things on "Avenger" typically. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
My problem isn't with overlap but, rather, with the way the pages go out of date because editors don't realize that there are similar pages. So a new 'The Avenger' entry is put on Avenger but not on The Avenger, and the reader goes to The Avenger and doesn't find the new entry. Leschnei (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow, this is a mess. My thoughts:
  1. Consider splitting 'Avenged' out. There aren't many entries, but it's a poor match for 'Avenger'.
  2. Combine everything into one page 'Avenger' and see what it looks like.
  3. Move WP:PTMs into see-also. E.g. The Courageous Avenger should not be in main body.
  4. Get rid of some of the free association see-also cruft. If a reader types 'avenger' into the search box, it's unlikely they were looking for (say) Reprisal or Retorsion.
  5. If the combined page looks to big, consider splitting into 'Avenger' and 'Avengers'. Singular and plural are much better defining qualifiers than presence or absence of a definite article. The latter get added or dropped in imprecise speech and writing pretty much at random. Narky Blert (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the moving of the PTMs to the see-also, would that mean all entries in Avenger#Aviation? --Gonnym (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: What would you do with these:

Aviation
Other media
Vehicles
Film
Television

Seems a bit much to place all these in the see also section --Gonnym (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Use broad-brush commonsense, and ask how likely it is that something might be referred to simply as 'Avenger'. That includes all the vehicles (I ride/drive/fly an Avenger), and also Avenger Field. I can't imagine anyone referring to any of the films as 'Avenger'; WP:PTMs of that sort should be in the see-also section, to help readers who only half-know a title. Narky Blert (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, so it should be done now. If anyone has any issues, just fix away in the disambiguation page. Thanks for all the comments. --Gonnym (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
That looks a distinct improvement. I don't think the page is overlarge – it's broken down nicely into manageable sections. Narky Blert (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Definitely a big improvement. Leschnei (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of redlinked football players added to disambiguation pages lately. Frequently the only mention elsewhere in WP is in a navbox. An example is Travis Wilson (American football, born 1993) in Travis Wilson (disambiguation). A search for pages that link to Travis generates a list of ~15 articles, all of which share Template:Utah Utes quarterback navbox. My feeling is that these links should be removed from disambiguation pages until the players have another article about them or are described/listed in an article, but I wanted to make sure that there hasn't been a discussion and consensus somewhere that I missed. Leschnei (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That one's especially problematic because the navbox isn't used on any over-arching topic, just on individual players. If the navbox were included on, say, Utah Utes football, that'd be a minimally acceptable entry. That redlink was just added, so perhaps the IP is going to stub it out. But it could be even more minimally entered as:
-- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not too fussed about properly-qualified redlinks, wherever they occur. Someone might write the article. If it gets torpedoed below the waterline for lack of notability, sooner or later the redlinks will get taken off.
I'm commenting mainly because Travis Wilson (American football, born 1993) is a badly-qualified link. The primary disambiguation term for American football players is the position they play, only secondary their birthyear. The redlink should be Travis Wilson (quarterback). Narky Blert (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

In Ben Nevis (disambiguation) (and other pages, I'm sure), entries have been added using {{Annotated link}}. It seems a convenient shortcut for adding items with their descriptions, but the format of the entry is wrong,

  • Nevis Radio – Community radio station in Fort William, Scotland

Instead of

  • Nevis Radio, community radio station in Fort William, Scotland

I'm not sure how to deal with this - is there a way to alter the template parameters to achieve the desired format, or do we just remove the template and copyedit? Or is this the new normal? Leschnei (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove the template and copyedit per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Images and templates. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Disagree with the removal. Not only was that part of the MoS added before short description was a thing, it also does not prohibit the use of templates. One of the points of the short description is the reuse-ability of it and this is one of the places where it should be used. @Leschnei: you should ask on the templates talk page to add an optional parameter to upper-case the first letter lowercase. That shouldn't be too hard. --Gonnym (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It discourages the use of templates. It may predate short descriptions, so it could certainly be proposed as a change in the guidelines, but it hasn't been. The first letter would need to be lowercased, an article ("a" or "an") added, and a comma instead of the dash. And there's no reason at all for the description of the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I've asked the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Short descriptions because there was no traffic at the template talk page. We'll see if anyone has a good idea.
Good point about the disambiguation page entry. Why would anyone use this short description - anywhere? Leschnei (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
My point is - if a text is going to be added to an entry, then that text would be the same as the short description text. If it is the same, then there is no reason not to actually use the same one instead of re-creating it. --Gonnym (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
That's sensible, but modifying the template to determine the appropriate article (a/an/the) won't be trivial, and might not even be possible. It may require an additional parameter. —swpbT go beyond 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Already made it possible, wasn't hard. Examples at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Short descriptions. --Gonnym (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
With an extra parameter, as I said. To me, that makes it a tougher sell. —swpbT go beyond 18:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Why should it match the short description rather than the lead sentence? What if two short descriptions use different structure for the same type of entry (e.g., songs)? What if someone includes links in the description? What if the entry link needs to be piped for formatting? Instead of watching a disambiguation page, editors will need to watch the page and every entry's page. Etc., etc., etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Which is better:
  • ? (Lost) – episode of Lost (S2 E21)
  • "?" (Lost), an episode of Lost
? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation entries never match the lead sentence, that's just nonsense. The short description is designed to be the user-facing entry to the article - it appears in search results, it appears on mobile and there is no reason for it not to appear on disambiguation pages, which are the same exact thing. If there are links, those should be removed as they shouldn't also be in short descriptions per Wikipedia:Short description#Content. If the style is not the same, then either WP:FIXIT or overwrite it with your custom style. If it needs styling and you are using {{Annotated link}} then you're in luck as you have |2= for that.
And to your question -
{{Annotated link|? (Lost)|"?" (''Lost'')}} -> "?" (Lost) – episode of Lost (S2 E21)
or even better {{Television episode disambiguation description|name=? (Lost) }} -> "?" (Lost), error: no short description text in: Infobox television episode in ? (Lost) --Gonnym (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I match descriptions to the lead much of the time. That description of the Lost episode it too verbose. That's the nonsense we'll have to look forward to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I love how editors like you keep on finding new reasons to oppose when they are continuously debunked. But let's continue then. How is Queen of Hearts (TV play), a 1985 BBC TV play the same as Queen of Hearts is a television play, written by Paula Milne, directed by Tim King,[1] and produced by Brenda Reid.? or Queen of hearts, a card in a standard 52-card deck the same as The queen is a playing card with a picture of a woman on it. Also, FYI, the episode disambiguation was agreed by WP:CONSENSUS, unlike your solo crusade. --Gonnym (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
You keep on finding reasons to push your pet template, despite the continuous debunking. Where's that consensus you speak of? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Cool it about 1000 degrees, J. Smell some flowers. Gonnym is right that you're solo here, so have a little humility. —swpbT go beyond 19:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Cool it, S. G is the one introducing the insults. And no, I'm not standing alone. There's that whole consensus at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Images and templates. Adding considerations to some ill-considered idea is what the discussion is for, and I don't enjoy being snidely insulted for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what I expected. —swpbT go beyond 20:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Exactly what insults? Care to strike that? --Gonnym (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Go ahead and strike your "nonsense" and "editors like you" comments then. But I would still like to know where the consensus discussion you mentioned took place. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should retain the standard formatting used for at least a dozen years for disambiguation page entries, but that aside, it seems to me that the short descriptions do not necessarily uniquely identify the contents of the articles being disambiguated. This would depend on the individual short descriptions, of course. But if used indiscriminately, I fear that it might kill the usefulness of something along the lines of AT&T (disambiguation) that seeks to distinguish AT&T from AT&T Corporation from AT&T Communications from AT&T Mobility from AT&T Wireless Services from AT&T Broadband etc. etc. There may be better examples, since this is one that just came to mind. But many, if not all, disambiguation pages require a human touch. And I am bemused by the idea that JHunterJ is the only one who would be opposed to using the template. Dekimasuよ! 20:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
In disputes about disambiguation page descriptions, this would also force the discussion to decentralize by involving edits to text at each target article. These are navigational aids, so it would be unfortunate to involve the mainspace. By the way, what happens if an article that is called by this template is moved? Do we get text on the disambiguation page stating that the intended target is a redirect, until someone notices and fixes it? Dekimasuよ! 20:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
And the history of what text has been displayed on the disambiguation page would be lost too, it seems. Dekimasuよ! 21:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that using this template shortcut is a bad idea, and will result in short descriptions that are not necessarily appropriately disambiguating. We have had long experience with articles templates causing trouble for disambiguation, and this is no exception. The practice should be expressly prohibited. bd2412 T 20:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with JHunterJ. Standard practice is that the description should either literally or briefly paraphrase the lead of the article. And the potential for inconsistency in structure of the short descriptions (as well as the additional arcane details of working with short description argue strongly against transcluding them on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What on earth is the point of these templates? Why would you assume a short description would be appropriate for a dab page, have you seen the state of some of them? —Xezbeth (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I really have no idea what some of your arguments are. If a short description is bad then either fix it so it will be good, or override it manually in the disambiguation page. This isn't a life or death situation which requires precision. Also, if you oppose the idea of short description then that is entirely a different situation which seems is too late now, as it's it already shown in other places on the site. So how exactly are the search results and actual page less important than a disambiguation page? There is really no point in having different texts in a place where one can accomplish the same thing. --Gonnym (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    We're in agreement. Override them in the disambiguation page. Or in other words, "Remove the template and copyedit per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Images and templates." Just because you declare that precision isn't required doesn't make it so. I have no opposition to the idea of a short description. We're opposed to putting disambiguation page content in the article space. So continue to use the short description in other places on the site. If you really don't want to have those different texts, code up something that will pull the appropriate content from the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    I would go a little bit beyond saying override them; since the existing format of the template conflicts with the longstanding formatting for disambiguation pages, we should just prohibit this usage. bd2412 T 22:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yuck, deprecate if not prohibit the use of {{annotated link}} on DAB pages. For the first time, I today ran across a DAB page which contained two such links. Not only did they violate the fundamental style guideline in MOS:DABENTRY, they were verbose, and (most importantly) were misleading verging on plain wrong. I rewrote both without the template. Narky Blert (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe that we now have a clear consensus that annotated link templates should not be used on disambiguation pages, based on the following:
      They contain formatting that is not in line with the long-established formatting for disambiguation entries at MOS:DAB.
      The text of the descriptions is frequently not optimal for disambiguation pages, as it may be neither distinguishing nor succinct.
      They would remove control of the text from the disambiguation page itself, and allow disambiguation pages to be modified without appearing in the edit history of the page itself, or in notifications relating to the page.
    • Let me know if this sums it up correctly. bd2412 T 00:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
      • BD2412, Looks accurate to me. The formatting would be fixable, but the other reasons, particularly the third, are more compelling. Sometimes what looks like a good idea turns out to have hidden flaws. Sometimes they can be fixed, other times not worth the complications. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, looks correct, and good for inclusion in WP:DAB. Dekimasuよ! 21:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't think adding a mention of annotated links to the guidelines will be anything but instruction creep: as far as I'm aware, there have only been two editors using them on dab pages, and they've both participated in this discussion and agreed to stop, and there appears to be only a single dab page that currently uses annotated links [1]. But more broadly speaking, I wouldn't want to preempt people from coming across the template and playing around with it on dab pages: maybe someone will come up with a creative solution to its problems? And there isn't much potential for harm either: in the worst case scenario, annotated links can be automatically converted back using autosubsting. – Uanfala (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Bullet 1 is incorrect, as can be seen from the earlier part of the conversation and to save you time, the sandbox version. #2 is subjective, what one thinks is not good enough, another might not agree. Also, since SD are governed by consensus like any piece of content, they'd eventually even out to where they need to be. #3 is the only real issue here, but to me Uanfala's argument below is much stronger then some strange desire to hold "power" over a disambiguation page. --Gonnym (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Bullet 2 is not all that subjective; whether short descriptions are distinguishing or not is verifiable. At heart, short descriptions are intended to describe the basic topic of the article without regard for the existence of other topics. Disambiguation page entries are intended to distinguish topics from one another. Their goals are often at cross-purposes. Let's avoid the possibility of edit wars taking place on article pages because they are disrupting smooth navigation elsewhere. Dekimasuよ! 02:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is an example of how useless these are. Before I reverted the addition of the template, the disambiguation page Classification of minerals (which I have since DABCONCEPTed) literally said:

Classification of minerals may refer to:

  • This is worse than having no description at all, as the duplication of material lends the impression that there is no difference between the items. Sure, these could be adjusted on the article pages, but they could be adjusted right back with no notice to anyone watching the disambiguation page, and the adjustment would likely be something redundant to the name of the link. bd2412 T 02:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • We can play the game of "find a bad" entry and we will both have numerous examples. As an example, here is a random example I accidentally encountered:
I find these pretty bad. What does "UPN" mean? A better descriptive word would be the country. Another has 2 links. The episode ones also don't offer that much - "1967". What I don't like is blanket statements. Are there bad SD? Yes. Are there good SD that don't fit on disambiguation pages? Yes. Does that mean that all SD are bad AND don't fit on disambiguation pages? No. Just as there can be good and bad regular ones. The real solution is two-fold. The first, make sure that the templates using SD on disambiguation pages are correctly styled. The second is to fix the short description itself (when a bad one is encountered), which would help not only the disambiguation pages, but also all other places which use it. And in cases where the SD is good but just not belong on a disambiguation page, overwrite it with a normal one. --Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. It is likely that editors who are not familiar with MOS:DAB will add occasional annotated links for new articles. Just fix them, and while you are at it, consider whether the short description should be improved as well, as a good short description should be both distinguishing and succinct. Anyone can do it, and Dab project members should be better than average due to plenty of practice. I have added advice in the template's talk page not to use it on disambiguation pages, so you can direct them there if you want. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Those are both good ideas User:Pbsouthwood, thanks. Leschnei (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I really don't want us to be jumping to "obvious" decisions here. Yes, in its current state, the annotated link template creates formatting that is unpalatable to us, and yes, there is the more fundamental issue that sometimes the short description isn't the best one to use in the immediate context of a given dab page. But there are fundamental disadvantages to our current approach too, and if we zoomed out a bit and imagined we were in the early days of wikipedia, that short descriptions existed then, and that we were to decide how to go about creating dab pages, then it's far from immediately clear what that decision should be.
    You see, the main problem with having the descpriptions be on the dab page itself is that they're not visible to editors of the article concerned. This means two things: 1) the description is more likely to be created by a DAB editor or a page curator, who's unlikely to be familiar with the subject, and hence it isn't necessarily an accurate representation of the article; 2) the description reflects a certain version of the article, and as the article changes ovet time, the description can get out of date: the subject of a biography might change careers, an article might get rewritten and its topic redefined, or its definition might get more carefully worded. So the description on a dab page might become outdated with time, whereas the short description is almost guaranteed to stay in sync as it appears at the top of the given article. I know these problems aren't very visible to us here, because we can't track them and it's not really the kind of stuff we concern ourselves with in the DAB wikiproject, but speaking about my topic area (languages and linguistics), I can say that this is a major problem of its dab pages.
    The formatting issues of annotated links are ultimately surmountable (if not in a completely trivial way), and issues with a specific short description being too verbose for a dab page is not a problem with short descriptions, but with the short description concerned: as pointed out above, these must be succinct too. Given that both types of descriptions serve the same purpose, it will be perfectly reasonable to suppose the use of annotated links could be the default option (in order to reduce redundancy and to keep descriptions in sync with articles), which could then be overriden if there is a concrete need to optimise this description in the context of a specific dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    The "concrete need" is to keep dab content on dab pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I correct inaccurate or misleading shorthand descriptions on DAB pages all the time, usually when I have been faced with and have solved a DABfixing problem. I had never been certain about the value of short descriptions, but became convinced of their uselessness when I found an Italian Catholic parish priest described as a presbyter (an obscure word, and very inaccurate in context). Narky Blert (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The "concrete need" is to keep dab content on dab pages That's ironic, especially as short descriptions were foisted upon us because of a lack of local control over content, in this case Wikidata, arguing that it was better to have short descriptions on the local pages. Now tne short description advocates want to make DAB pages vulnerable to the same problems that they were trying to solve before. - BilCat (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Turrini: DAB or SIA?

@Xezbeth: and I disagree about the nature of Turrini. It would be great if other editors could weigh in. Paradoctor (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Dab - It's not an article about the topic of Turrini (the surname) - e.g. an article would have (referenced) facts such as the origin of the surname, what percentage of Italians have that surname. Functionally, it's a dab page. IMO all/most dab-style "SIA"s should be dabs. DexDor (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Haven't I had this argument with you before? It is not a dab page. There is no ambiguity, only a surname. 11803 Turrini is a partial title match at best, and is a tiny entry in a massive list. Even if we pretend it's ambiguous, that's only two topics. Still no need for a dab page. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
"this argument" Trying to build consensus by soliciting outside opinions.
"partial title match" So are the people articles, and they are there for the same reason: they can "plausibly be referred to by" "Turrini", in all cases.
11803 Turrini is not a person, so if the page really was a set index, it wouldn't belong there. Of course, we could have both a dab and a set index, but seeing as the persons have nothing in common except their last name, what would be the point in that? An additional set index would make sense only if it contained more information on each entry than bare disambiguation phrases. Paradoctor (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Not a dab. It's an anthroponymy list article, like countless others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
My brief research into the name suggests that it is one of many similar sounding variations associated with Turin, itself derived from the Taurini people, with variations including Torri, Torre, and Della Torre. Turrini is a rare variation, so sources are scarce, but I think at best an article can be made on the surname family, with all variations of people with the surname merged into it. bd2412 T 21:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the interesting question is whether adding an asteroid in the "see also" section of a {{surname}} article causes it to break the SIA rules. For another example, see Bulgakov. This does seem to be a "nose of the camel" to get SIAs to grow to look like dabs.
The whole point of WP:SIA was to allow list articles to be created with extra information and metadata about the list entries (per Paradoctor's comment). It doesn't seem like Turrini (as it currently stands) provides that extra information, so I wouldn't be sad if it were converted into a DAB. OTOH, if BD2412 or other editors want to turn this into a proper list article with interesting background information, I think it would make a fine SIA. —hike395 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why we don't include the asteroid in the main list incorporated into a line reading:
  • Diego Turrini, an Italian astrophysicist and planetologist for whom the minor planet 11803 Turrini is named
So long as it is not a disambiguation page, that formulation is permissible. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412: That's an excellent idea! The eponymous asteroid then becomes the interesting fact/metadata. —hike395 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I made a hatnote at the SIA Guillermina:
For the minor planet, see 3649 Guillermina.
I'm not aware of any rule against this. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that is reasonable, but we could also find out whether the asteroid was named for a specific Guillermina. Some asteroid names are compacted names or multiple names, so it might not be. bd2412 T 05:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412: From es:(3649) Guillermina: "Fue nombrado Guillermina en homenaje a “Guillermina Martín de Cesco” esposa del astrónomo argentino Carlos Cesco Ulrrico y madre del astrónomo Mario Reynaldo Cesco."
"It was named after Guillermina Martín de Cesco, wife of Argentine astronomer Carlos Ulrrico Cesco and mother of astronomer es:Mario Reynaldo Cesco." (I had to repair a redlink in eswiki to get her husband's name right.)
So, an interesting fact (I've added a citation to List of minor planets: 3001–4000), but a non-notable namesake. Narky Blert (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • My twopenn'orth. I've seen similar. IMO, if the only non-surname-match is e.g. a link to a minor planet in a list page, it's a {{surname}} article. If there is even one article with the same name which is not a surname, e.g. an inhabited place, it's a {{dab|surname}} page. Narky Blert (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I have to disagree. It is still possible for the primary topic of the page to be the surname. Consider Johnson. In that case, the page should be a surname page. If there is a single ambiguous sense, it should be hatnoted. If there are multiple ambiguous senses, they should be placed on a separate "Foo (disambiguation)" page. bd2412 T 02:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't disagree with that. I was thinking only of list-type pages where there is no substantial text. As another example, I offer David, where the PTOPIC for a given name, surname, placename, and so on, is a specific individual. Narky Blert (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
        • To me, that raises another question. Should we bother having a page at all where the only function of the page is to list a handful of people who coincidentally share a surname about which nothing of note has been said? I find sources for Turrini, but not particularly good ones. bd2412 T 21:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have made a stab at beginning Wikipedia:Surname index articles to provide guidance on how these pages should be structured and how they should function. Since there is some overlap with this project, help in capturing our ongoing practices (and other perspectives) would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: Patronymics are a trap for the unwary not only in Iceland. They are also used in some Indian cultures. I recently discovered that Indian chess prodigy Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa was known as Praggnanandhaa R. (the qualifier 'R.' being the initial letter of his father's name) until he became famous enough to be known in chess (and possibly other) circles simply as Praggnanandhaa. Narky Blert (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Tropical storm SIAs proposed for deletion

It looks like at least some members of the WikiProject for tropical storms are no longer interested in the SIAs for individual storm names (many of which used to be disambiguation pages before that styling was thought to be too restrictive). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typhoon Unding. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

What to do with the Thot page

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Thot#Thot. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Colored transit lines

I've seen attempts to apply MOS:DABMENTION to some of the following "<Color> Line" disambiguation pages as it pertains to public transit routes. Many use a specific color on maps, but don't explicitly state this term on the target pages. In several cases, the only reference to a color is the background color used in the infobox of that page. JHunterJ, Boleyn, and Wtshymanski have all removed transit lines that fail DABMENTION, only to have them creep back in over time. The argument is that people refer to these transit lines by these names because those are the colors shown on maps.

Are these acceptable exceptions to the DABMENTION guideline? Would a better compromise be to break off transportation lines as separate SIAs?

And, for completeness:

To be clear, Pink Line (CTA) is obviously appropriate, and Barcelona Metro line 8 makes reference to it being a "pink line", which I think is acceptable. But the article Line 8 (Madrid Metro) does not contain the word "pink" (even the infobox template uses a hexidecimal code, not the word pink). Per WP:DABMENTION it should be removed from the Pink Line DAB, or a reference to the alternate name ("Pink Line") should be added to the target article. Thoughts? Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If the argument is that people refer to these names, what's the obstacle to passing MOS:DABMENTION by adding that information to the article before adding it to the disambiguation page? No exception is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
That's not my argument, the obstacle is the railfan editors who keep restoring these entries without modifying the target articles (see an old discussion I had at Talk:Red Line, or the revision summary here). Would breaking these off to SIAs be a compromise? Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If disambiguation isn't needed for non-rail-line topics, that's a solution. Of course, whatever's preventing them from adding the information to the articles might also prevent them from adding the information to the list articles. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I thought there was a little more leeway on list articles. Well, let me draft some specifics and maybe we can review them. I started this thread because I wanted to make sure my interpretation of the guideline was in line with the DAB community (that an implied mention - if you can call it that - isn't good enough). It appears at least you and I agree. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
A good suggestion is to see if there are any reliable sources that say something like the following:

This line's color is officially named "crimson", so it doesn't belong on the Red Line page.

Have you done this with any line so far?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh? To add the information to the encyclopedia, you need a reliable source that says something like "the line's color is officially "red", so it is commonly called the "Red Line"". Then that could be added to the line's article and the line could be added to the disambiguation page. You do not need a reliable source that says something doesn't belong on a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I haven't done that. To be sure, I'm inclined to believe you, that the lines are referred to by the color names as shown on the DABs. I just want the articles to confirm that explicitly, as Barcelona Metro line 8 does. Note that "pink line" is not even sourced at that article or mentioned in any of its external links - which I think is fine (I don't feel this is a contentious claim), but may concern others. If the onus is on me to modify the target articles by adding something like "usually referred to as the pink line", I can start working through them. But if editors there are going to require a source, I honestly don't care to spend my time digging those up (many are in foreign languages) and will continue with the status quo. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The onus is on the editors adding the entries to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
While I agree, I'm willing to do it if it means a more permanent solution. Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think an SIA is a good compromise. The list would then be of "transportation lines called <pink> line, or colloquially known as <pink> line because they are shown as that colour on maps." One could then include entries for lines not actually called <pink> line, and if it isn't explicitly stated in the target article that the line is known as <pink> line, that would be a problem tackled by a {{citation needed}} (or similar) tag on the list entry, and not removal of the entry from the list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Can you show me an SIA page in Wikipedia?? Please write (in your user namespace) an SIA on the phrase "green line" to show what your proposed SIA would do to the Green Line list. Georgia guy (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I doubt that an SIA is appropriate, because there is no unifying characteristic of all "Pink Lines" (other than the name–which is the shared quality that results in a dab page) that distinguishes them from all other train lines. Dekimasuよ! 14:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Oh, the unifying characteristic is the very fact they are train lines. I still don't see it since there is no underlying reason why the different train lines share the name. Dekimasuよ! 14:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
For a SIA, there's no need for an underlying reason why the different train lines need to share the same name. We have SIAs for mountains that share the same name, and plants that share the same common name, and those don't necessarily have underlying reasons. I think that Shhhnotsoloud's suggestion is a good one. —hike395 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
There is also a pile of SIAs on places in Russia which coincidentally share a name, and they're an infernal nuisance. Just about every one I've fallen across has had one or several bad links in which needed disambiguating. Example: Vostok (inhabited locality) lists 16 places in Russia whose name means 'east'. There was a bad link to that page from Total S.A., which I've just removed: Total Vostok isn't based in a place called Vostok; Total Vostok is the name of the company (with offices in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Rostov-on-don, Yekaterinburg and Kazan). At one time, the link was to Vostok and someone had tagged it {{dn}}. Another editor (who has been around for six years, has made several thousand edits, and has a dozen WP:GAs to their credit) had 'solved' that problem by linking to the SIA and removing the tag. The useless link had therefore lain unnoticed for over a year.
Apart from country and name, those places have nothing in common. From WP:SIA, "Being a set of a specific type means that the members of the set have some characteristic in common, in addition to their similarity of name" (emphasis in the original). For me, merely being somewhere in Russia doesn't cut it. An SIA could be written listing all the places in USA called Springfield, and it would be equally dangerous.
I do not think identity of train line names is enough to make them "of a specific type". Quoting WP:SIA again, "every entry in a list of earthquakes might include the word "earthquake," but that alone does not mean that the list is an SIA".
I'd wager that placename, mountain, plant, ship, album title, and other SIAs all suffer from exactly the same problem of bad links. It's bad for the encyclopaedia. Narky Blert (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think that looks good. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do not use "(blah)" for set index articles. Use "List of Xs named Y" (e.g., List of train lines named Green Line), per the set index naming conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@JHunterJ: WP:SIA gives as examples both Dodge Charger and List of peaks named Signal. There are hundreds of given name, surname, and ship indexes just called "(blah)". List of transportation lines named Red Line is far more unwieldy (and not as obvious when searching) as Red Line (transportation), and not a strictly correct title. In my example below, Central Line is not called "Red Line", not always known as "the red line" but it is a line that on maps is always red. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The fact that List of transportation lines named Red Line would be on the same topic as what is proposed makes it much clearer that this may run afoul of WP:NOTDIR and/or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Dekimasuよ! 08:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
There are hundreds of ship indexes just called "blah". When they are not at the base name, though, they are called "List of ships named blah", not "blah (ship)". The "(blah)" in my request was to avoid using a qualifier after the base name for set indexes. Anthroponymy articles do use "(surname)", "(given name)", and "(name)", but potentially they are articles about the name that include lists. For new sets of SIAs that are lists, we'd be better off following the SIA general naming conventions and list naming conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dekimasu and Narky Blert here. Colored transit lines are not the kind of "set" that merits a SIA. (What is the common characteristic shared by the Blue Line (MBTA) and Blue Line (Delhi Metro) that distinguishes them from the Green Line (MBTA) and Green Line (Delhi Metro)?) There is an unfortunate tendency for editors, acting in good faith, when they come upon a page that is difficult to format in accordance with the disambiguation guidelines, or with incoming links that are difficult to resolve, to conclude that the problem can be avoided by a recasting the disambiguation page as a SIA instead. This does not solve problems, but rather sweeps them under the rug. As Narky correctly observes, this leads to a lot of incorrect links and is bad for the encyclopedia and its readers. Also, in response to hike395, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If there are many other pages incorrectly characterized as SIAs, that just means we have more work to do. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is how to inform a user looking for a transportation line known as <colour> but not called <colour>. Let's say I've been to London, travelled on the red-coloured underground line, but can't remember its name. I'm looking for Central Line but don't know it. Article Central Line does not use "red line", but the infobox says it's colour red. Do we:
(a) ignore disambiguation page rules and include Central Line as an entry at Red Line;
(b) have an SIA Red Line (transportation) (for transportation lines called or known as "Red Line";
(c) have a List article List of transportation lines known as Red Line;
(d) do nothing and fail to solve the problem
(a) is contrary to guidelines but current practice. I'm proposing (b). @JHunterJ: says (c). @R'n'B: you're not (d) surely? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I think JHunterJ's primary argument was actually: it's either called Red Line or not called it. If it's called it, there should be a way to cite that fact in the Central Line article, in which case it can be on the dab. Dekimasuよ! 09:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Dekimasuよ! 09:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
That's my view as well. If the Central Line is "known as" the Red Line, that fact ought to be in the article about it. Just because a transit line is shown as a particular color on system maps does not mean it is "known as" that color; New York subways being a prime example (no one, literally, ever calls the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line the "Red Line" despite it being marked by a red line on subway maps; and despite this encyclopedia incorrectly listing it on the Red Line disambiguation page). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been participating in discussions about SIAs since the original discussion in 2007. The interpretation of WP:SIA by Dekimasu and Narky Blert is new to this discussion. That is, AFAIK, there's never been a significance threshold applied to items "of a specific type" before.

The original intent of SIAs was to allow list articles be about items of the same type (ships, cars, mountains, comics) with the same name, without being forced to follow the strict rules at MOS:DAB. The 2007 consensus (supported by editors from various WikiProjects) was that adding additional type-related facts and metadata was helpful to our readers and encyclopedic. For example, SIAs about mountains show their location and elevation (see List of peaks named Signal).

The point of SIAs being about the same type of object is that a list article can objectively compare them. All mountains have elevations, for example. All train lines have length and locations and ridership. Items in a DAB can be of any time as long as they share the same name, so DAB articles don't make sense as list articles.

To me, train lines are objects of "a specific type", are comparable, and are perfectly legitimate subjects of list articles. I believe that a SIA named Red Line (transportation) (or List of transportation lines known as Red Line) would be legitimate. I would note that the SIA guidelines, as currently written, would recommend List of train lines named Red, which is a bit more WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE.

Hope this helps. —hike395 (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hike395: I like the idea that because SIAs are always list articles, 'List of' titles are ideal. It works well if Fizbuz is a DAB page which includes a link to List of widgets called Fizbuz. It works badly if there is no DAB page, and Fizbut redirects to List of widgets called Fizbuz.
My principal (and principled) objection to SIAs is on practical not aesthetic grounds. It is that they, exactly like WP:PTOPICs, accumulate bad links-in which cannot easily be found and are rarely fixed. That is bad for the encyclopaedia.
Vostok (inhabited locality), which I posted above, is a case in point. When I first fell across it, I tried to clean it up – but, working by eyeball alone, I missed one.
I have an idea which might flag those bad links-in for correction. I think it looks straightforward and practical. However, its implementation would need the services of one or more editors experienced in bots and templates, and I lack the energy to learn those skills.
I recently set out a closely-related proposal at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Where next? part 1 of 2 – intentional links to DAB pages (SIAs would be #3 of 2...). If any editor would be willing to do the dirty implementation work, I would be happy to lay out my idea for finding bad links-in to SIAs (and to name pages, my original #2 of 2) as a formal detailed specification. Narky Blert (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: Perhaps we should take this discussion to WT:SIA? We're not really answering Hoof Hearted's original question. —hike395 (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Shhhnotsoloud:. (c) is "have an SIA List of transportation lines known as Red Line (for transportation lines called or known as "Red Line"). It's the same as (b), only better titled. SIAs are list articles. List of train lines named Red Line is also workable. List of train lines named Red seems wrong to me; nobody calls the "Central Line" in London "Red" but rather "Red Line", AFAICT. Red Line (transportation) should be for an article about a single topic that could have been titled "Red Line" except that it turned out not to be the primary topic for "Red Line" and so needed a qualifier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the original discussion was about lists of items (like mountains) that as yet lacked their own stubs but could be expanded into articles in the future (the SIA types were to be supported actively by WikiProjects to make sure they didn't run rampant; we probably wouldn't give WikiProjects as much control over things contraindicated by other guidelines if the rules were being made today). However, the references for the train lines already have their own articles, in which MOS:DABMENTION either is met, or presumably can be. Dekimasuよ! 16:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Addendum, I apparently did express similar objections in June 2007. Dekimasuよ! 16:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Quoting: "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. [emphasis added] 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)
Or, I suppose there is an option (e) to strictly enforce MOS:DABMENTION, convince other editors that this guideline has merit, and police these pages regularly. I can live with any of these options, and am more interested in what the community consensus is. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Bad guidance in the {{One other topic}} template

Please join discussion at Template_talk:One_other_topic#Encourages_partial_title_matches about the guidance in the {{One other topic}} template which encourages partial name matches.

As per the Disambiguation Dos and Don'ts, editors are not supposed to "include every article containing the title." The template basically guides editors to do just that. Coastside (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Maku people vs Maku language

Maku people is a complicated list of South American languages (as pointed out by Narky Blert). Neither this page nor Maku really disambiguates the term Maku people. I have made a cleaned up version of the list (it's currently sitting here in draft form) and intended to put it at Maku language (currently a redirect to Maku people). The question that I am pondering is - what to do with Maku people and its many people-related redirects. I haven't found a better target and redirecting them all to Maku language is only small improvement over the current situation. Any suggestions would be welcome. Leschnei (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I tagged Maku people as {{dab-cleanup}} because I didn't have the first idea where to begin. I suspect that anthropologists may use different names for the various ethnic groups other than the names given by outsiders to them or the languages they speak.
It might be worth inviting opinions from members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics. Narky Blert (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Good idea, thanks. Leschnei (talk)
  • I don't see anything particularly troubling here. It happens sometimes that one name would be applied to various ethnic or linguistic groups and the wikipedia page that covers it will need to provide a bit more context than generally expected of a dab page and so be a bit of an article, but still serve mostly to direct readers to relevant other articles and so will have some of the layout of a dab page. Pahari language is another specimen of this type. If people are uneasy about this page having the {{Disambiguation}} template without conforming to the MOS, then one solution is to remove that template and possibly rename the page to Maku (demonym) or something similar. – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that, as it stands, Maku people isn't a disambiguation page at all. I would simply remove the disambiguation tag, add an appropriate category, and tag it as unreferenced. I don't think there's any need to rename/move the page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

When primary topic has no article and secondary topic does

A little uncertain how to handle this case of what appears to be a missing DAB, and a primary topic that has no article, while a secondary topic does: I was reading this article about Russell Henderson, one of two people convicted in the killing of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. I searched for the name 'Russell Henderson' here, which landed me on the page about the jazz musician.

The convict is clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name; the first search results are all about him, and you have to scan past several dozen results before finding anything about the jazz musician, with assorted obits, junior tennis players, and others coming up before the musician. The primary topic is probably also WP:BIO1E as the convict is known only for this, although other details of his life have started to achieve media notice since, including even a news story about his mother's accidental death; so possibly he even rates a standalone, non-BIO1E article now.

Given that the secondary topic has an article, and the primary topic, does not, I'm a little unsure how to name things, but I'm thinking this:

  1. Move article about jazz player to Russell Henderson (musician) or Russell Audley Henderson, leaving no redirect behind
  2. Create redirect Russell Henderson (with "possibilities") and target to Matthew Shepard#Murder. (one NYT article gives "A." as a middle initial for the murderer, so that's not helpful, and news articles very rarely use the initial)
  3. Add hatnote at the musician page, {{About|jazz musician|hate crime convict|Russell Henderson}}
  4. Create Russell Henderson (disambiguation) with the two entries above

Comments? Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I would treat it as no primary topic WP:NOPRIMARY and create a human name disambiguation page and use template {{hndis}} . Just because one person is currently more newsworthy doesn't mean he's necessarily the primary topic. Move the current page to a qualified title (musician) and then create a new article with a qualified title (convict). Make the disambiguation page the base page with no (disambiguation) qualifier. Finally create a redirect of the (disambiguation) page to the dab page. Also, before the move, it's probably appropriate to place a move notice on the page to allow for discussion (see WP:RM#CM) Coastside (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; this is now in progress. The requested move page is here. The (convict) redirect has been created, and hatnote added to the musician page, which still retains its original name pending the outcome of the Requested move. A disambig page has been created, temporarily under the name Russell Henderson (disambiguation) until the move request completes. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Should hatnotes be on disambiguation pages?

It seems that hatnotes should not be placed on disambiguation pages themselves. However, I sometimes see it happen. Per MOS:DABSEEALSO, terms confused with Title or any misspellings that inadvertently got you to Title should be placed in the See also section. This makes sense to me. When a reader types in Title and ends up at a disambiguation page, they have no reason to believe yet that they made a misspelling. They will proceed down the disambiguation page looking for their page of interest. When they don't find it, they will have reached the See also at the bottom and start looking for alternatives there.

This is in contrast to an article, when a reader reads the first sentence or two of the lead and knows already that they are not in the right place. In that case, a hatnote is essential to see and quickly navigate (as opposed to being forced to scroll to See also).

I propose the following addition at Wikipedia:Disambiguation § Hatnotes, which I was asked to discuss after my bold edit was reverted. Proposed addition:

Hatnotes are not placed on disambiguation pages, which are considered to be non-article pages. Instead, terms which may be confused and likely misspellings of the title are placed in the disambiguation page's See also section.

—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • It does make sense to put hatnotes on dab pages. Guidance on that can be found at WP:DLINKS. Readers may find themselves on dab pages when they are looking for topics that are different from the dab title and mistakenly find themselves at the dab page. The hat note is meant to facilitate finding the right page in such situations. Coastside (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Coastside: WP:DLINKS refers to hatnotes on "articles": Therefore, any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article using one or more of the templates shown below. Moreover, none of the examples in that section are for hatnotes on disambiguation pages. MOS:DAB says: dabs are not articles: Disambiguation pages (abbreviated often as dab pages or simply DAB or DABs) are non-article pages ... Thus, I attempted to make the distinction of articles vs. non-articles in my proposal. I believe this is consistent with MOS:DABSEEALSO.—Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You're, right. Sorry if I muddied the waters. Coastside (talk)
  • Yes, it's usually best to place such terms in the "See also" section of the dab page and that's what is normally done. However, I'd be weary of adding explicit guidance on this issue because on the one hand, hatnotes (in the rare instances where you could see one) aren't really harmful, and on the other, there are situations where a hatnote could be helpful to readers. One such situation is where there are separate dab pages for capitalisation variants. For example, a reader who arrives at Do looking for, say, "that CIA thingy" might spend some time browsing through the page before reaching the "See also" right at the bottom and realising that there's another dab page at DO, which is more likely to list what they're looking for. A hatnote could have spared them the effort. Overall, I think I'm more inclined to have the guidelines say where such entries should go (as they already do) and fall short of giving advice on where they should not be placed, leaving the matter to editors' common sense. – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above comment. While it's true that in most cases hatnotes aren't needed on dab pages (and in most cases there aren't any), there are unusual situations where a hatnote might be useful to readers. We need to be wary of instruction creep, which can be more harmful overall than an occasional misplaced hatnote. Station1 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose hatnote ban. Another example is selfreferences like at COI and AFD. The project links would be oddly placed among article links. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The Torrence example is explained because it is a disambiguation page with a name-holder list. The idea is that the See also section is how the dab page is handled, and the hat note is because the page behaves like and article page. I think this example is unfortunate, and I even think the anthroponymy standard page should be changed, because it is misleading (and confusing). The right way to handle this is to change the page from a dab page to a surname index article, and then treat it as an article page. The hat note would be appropriate, and there would be no need for the See also. In short, the problem isn't withe the hat note, it's that the page is not really a dab page. The other examples are with names, and I agree they were handled inappropriately with hatnotes. These surnames should be either the primary topic or listed as and entry on the dab page. This is how other names are handled on dab page (see for example Murphy (disambiguation) and Smith). I do agree with you that the general guidance would be helpful since normally the hat note would be best handled a different way. Coastside (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see this version of Torrance as being a problem at all. If that hatnote were to be used on an article because some minority might reasonably be confused by the spelling, I don't see a logical difference just because that same title happens to lead to a dab page. Don't get me wrong; if an editor prefers to move Torrence to a See Also section, that's a matter of editorial judgment and I have no issue with that; hatnotes can be overused. It's just that if there is no real problem being caused, there's no reason to encourage or prohibit the practice with a guideline, even if it's just a guideline. WP evolves when editors are free to do what they think best; consensus by actual practice wins out in the end. Station1 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I've noticed various dab pages that have a hot note with the {{Distinguish}} template, and it seems helpful. When it's likely someone might arrive on the wrong dab page based on confusion over spelling, this can be helpful. For example, I noticed that in the dab page for Sidney, there is a hat note that says "Not to be confused with Sydney". Do you think this is inappropriate? How do you think this should be handled? Coastside (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Coastside: That's a common sense exception for a primary topic whose spelling alone is generally distinguishing (though a fuller hatnote saying it's the city in Australia is less presumptuous). The key point is that a see also is still there for the other Sydney's if the reader did not recognize early that they had misspelled. I get that some are wary of restrictive guidelines, so I'll think about a softer wording which still provides guidance for see also's for dabs if I pursue this further.—Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I came across an MOS guideline that actually says to do this. MOS:DABSEEALSO includes the following: "When appropriate, place easily confused terms in a hatnote." Coastside (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Coastside: Yeah, it's consistent with what I was saying about Sidney too, and a missing use case from my original proposal, which was trying to address why some dabs had a hatnote but no see also entry. Per MOS:DABSEEALSO, I think we can all agree that hatnotes can be appropriate, but should not be placed in lieu of a see also entry e.g. in the event the reader doesn't figure out until the end of the page that they were "confused". A hatnote, when appropriate, can coexist with a corresponding see also entry.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The 2DABPRIMARY essay

I've recently come across the WP:2DABPRIMARY essay. It argues the view that if there's an ambiguous title and two (not more) articles contending for it, then whatever articles gets the more page views should be moved to that primary title. This contradicts WP:TWODABS, and as far as I remember, any previous proposals to this effect have been strongly rejected. But then it was cited in a recent RM (in which one of the articles got 57% of the views) and it seemed to garner quite a lot of support. I find that surprising, but the essay also appears to have been cited in quite a few other RM dicussions already, so I'm wondering, is this the new normal now? – Uanfala (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Primary topic discussions are basically done case by case, so if commenters want to cite the essay to get their point across, that's fine. I don't think it enjoys consensus to the level that any guidelines should be changed. Dekimasuよ! 03:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no contradiction: TWODABS applies to cases with no primary topic, while 2DABPRIMARY applies to cases where there is a primary topic. - BilCat (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I see a contradiction in so far as 2DABPRIMARY effectively rules out a situation in which there is no primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Not really. It just makes the case that with two pages, the criteria for determining a primary topic need not be as strict, as User:SMcCandlish points out in the essay. - BilCat (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
User:BilCat, I don't think SMcCandlish wrote the essay, and in fact most of the essay appears to describe a big however exception to the quoted statement of SMcCandlish. older ≠ wiser 09:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the page or my being quoted in it (that I recall). I find the argument pretty compelling, though, for cases of stable page-view statistics. It's pretty simple math. However (as my own quoted material points out) the argument fails when the page-views are not stable, e.g. due to a temporary spike in popularity/notoriety, which would end up having us moving stuff around all the time on the basis of what was getting more page views this week or even this day, and we're obviously not going to do that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
It is only an essay, and it makes a weak argument that where there are exactly two ambiguous pages, primary topic should be whichever topic gets a bare majority of page views. I don't think there is consensus for that as a rule (though to be fair there isn't strong enough consensus to the contrary to write guidelines to bar it). Hence, the essay expressing position held by some editors. older ≠ wiser 03:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
My comment just above illustrates one of the reasons it can't be a rule (or cause a change to the rules). The argument the essay makes is pretty good, at least statistically, but only for cases where page-views are not in flux.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that 2DAB dab pages are usually of little benefit and negligible cost. Dealing with them is much more likely to be a net negative. I think advice should be:
Don't create 2DAB pages without good reason.
Don't seek to move or delete 2DAB pages without very good reason.
An example of of a myriad 2DAB pages are the Nth parallel DABS, 33rd parallel, for example. I am not sure they were worth someone's time to create, but volunteers should not be telling other volunteers how to spend their time. I am sure that invoking deletion of RM community processes to undo them is an example of a net negative. Please do ot create busywork in community processes. Please do not nominate them for deletion unless you have a rationale that overcomes WP:ATD.
The sort of rare case where a 2DAB page is justified is where two separate large groups of readers each think their topic should be PRIMARYTOPIC, each being obvious to the existence of the other. The Conversation, movie vs academics' media outlet, is such an example, ignoring some other entries (although here the solution is The Conversation --> Conversation (disambiguation)). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I would add that "volunteers should not be telling other volunteers how to spend their time" is invalid for any case in which the volunteer being instructed is doing things that make work for others – either unnecessary work for other volunteers, or impediments for readers. The latter point is the basis of the essay. The former point is just how WP operates; we spend a quite a bit time and effort collectively managing other editors' editing, when there's a sensible reason to do so and what the editor in question is doing isn't so sensible. Creating an F-load of two-dab pages is one example. Trying to kill all 2DAB pages is another. That is, SJ is correct that being a pain in either direction is undesirable, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether volunteers should be critical of other volunteers. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Completely sure what you said, but I think I agree. Regarding creations of F-loads, this is not a 2DAB specific issue, I think it is better approached from the WP:MEATBOT angle. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The essay makes a good point, and in my opinion could go even further. See its talk page Wikipedia_talk:Primary_topics_in_WP:TWODABS_situations. I agree it probably is not the new normal, at least not yet. —В²C ☎ 17:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The overall message I would take away from this conversation and the observations that led to it is that seeking to rigidly enforce one-size-fits-all solutions (to things that are not really problems) is a mistake. If you want, you can think of the essay under examination (which I wasn't aware of until today) as encapsulating one particular WP:IAR rationale against the usually but not always applicable and useful WP:TWODABS rule. It is a real rule (a WP:GUIDELINE), but all rules on WP may have exceptions, besides the legal ones imposed on us externally by the WP:OFFICE staff. The job of essays is to record well-articulated arguments for such things, so that people do not have to tediously re-type and re-read them in 100 or 1000 discussions. To ask whether they "trump" a guideline or other rule is meaningless and a misunderstanding of what WP essays are and mean and why we have them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Does TVA have a primary topic?

See: Talk:TVA#Requested move 2 February 2019 --В²C ☎ 22:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing dab redirects to name pages

Please join the discussion about whether to delete redirects from pages with (disambiguation) qualifer to name pages: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#Removing_dab_redirects_to_name_pages Coastside (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Jew gold

I'm tempted to nominate Jew gold for deletion. I have removed the external references that had collected on the page and listed the only 2 mentions that I could find, both quite minor: Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow and Shtick Shift. There must be older uses of the term, but they're not in Wikipedia and I don't know enough about it to add them. Any thoughts? Leschnei (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I would support a deletion of both Jew gold and Jewgold on the basis that their presence impedes the use of the search function for what the user might be looking for. I don't think the 2 entries on the dab page are notable enough references to justify either a dab page entry or a redirect of their own. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote for Buggy (automobile)

Should Buggy (automobile)'s hatnote be to the disambiguation page Buggy or to specific entries still ambiguous to automobile? The guideline WP:NAMB seems to discourage a hatnote back to the general disambiguation page when the article itself already has a disambiguator in the title, e.g. (automobile). However, it seems reasonable to include a hatnote to specific entries that could still be ambiguous with automobiles. Buggy (automobile) previously had a hatnote to only Radio-controlled car. Are there other terms that should be in the hatnote that are ambiguous with automobile? Should the hatnote just be back to the general dab? Input is appreciated.—Bagumba (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The hatnote, if any, should point solely to radio-controlled car, since that is the only thing on the dab page that reasonably could be confused with "buggy (automobile)", and even that is debatable. I might even put it in the See Also section. Station1 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Bagumba and myself have been discussing this already at User talk:Stepho-wrs#Hatnote. Also, for the record, the original hatnote was to the disambiguation page Buggy, Bagumba changed it to the very specific Radio-controlled car and I reverted it back to the previous norm.
For myself, I would never have associated buggy with radio control cars. If I was at the Buggy (automobile) article then I would probably be interested in other vehicles, which might include Horse drawn buggy, Gravity racer or Kite buggy. I might even be looking for a clown buggy. A radio control car is not an automobile, so I would be less likely to be wanting that article. The point is that a radio control buggy is only one particular topic out of many that the reader might be interested in. We are not mind readers and our readers are interested in many different things according to their own unique background. Why are we trying to force them into one particular topic that they may not be interested in?  Stepho  talk  21:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Someone might associate "buggy" with radio-controlled cars (so it's appropriate for a dab page listing at "buggy"), but I agree that because a radio-controlled car is not an automobile it's unlikely someone would confuse "buggy (automobile)" with radio-controlled cars (which is why a hatnote is unnecessary). Hatnotes are for people who are on the wrong article. For things "that the reader might be interested in", like other buggies that are not automobiles, the See Also section is more appropriate. Station1 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If the disambiguator used in an article's title is still a bit ambiguous and could – with some reasonable stretching – be seen as relevant to other entitites, then a hatnote is definitely helpful. I wouldn't want to worry too much about whether the other buggies are technically speaking automobiles, what is relevant here is that a reader may imagine they could be (you know, that's why we have "Not to be confused with ..." hatnotes all over the place). Of course, if a user arrived at the article via the dab page then linking back to it isn't helpful, but users could have also gotten there via other means – via the search results or the search box drop-down suggestions – and we should cater to them too. Just one point though: it will be helpful to make the relevance of the hatnote clearer, with something like "For other vehicles known as "buggy", see Buggy (disambiguation)". – Uanfala (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked the hatnote wording as Uanfala suggested. From everyone's input, there's varying opinion that automobile can be confused with a toy/model radio-controlled automobile, or it could be mistaken for any other vehicle. I honestly didn't see how a horse-drawn buggy could be an autombile, but I can respect the vehicle premise now. Buggy is the top Goggle search result, not buggy (automobile), so my inclination was that a hatnote to the general dab was overkill for a non-ambiguous title. However, most of the "Buggy" entries do not use parenthetical disambiguation, so I can also accept that someone might incorrectly arrive from the autocompletion results on the search bar, when the closest title they find might be "buggy (automobile)". I think this is the rare non-ambiguous title that is not a Google top search result where a hatnote to the general dab can be OK, esp if we don't agree on one or two automobile-like entries for the hatnote. Thanks everyone for your input.—Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me.  Stepho  talk  12:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A question on a a proper name closely matching a disambig page name

There is a video game that is due out soon called "Satisfactory". There are no pages for this word on WP, though it is a dictionary entry. We do have a page for satisfaction which is clearly closely related term to the dictionary definition.

I am trying to figure out if, should the game article be created, it be placed at Satisfactory (with a hat note to satisfaction) or at Satisfactory (video game) and make Satisfactory a redirect to satisfaction and add appropriate language to that current disambig page, or some other solution involving disamb, hatnotes, and the like. It just feels weird that searching on "satisfactory" comes up with a video game without any pointers to any other use of the word. --Masem (t) 18:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd place it at the base name, yep. WP:NOT#DICT. But your proposal to make the base name a redirect is certainly workable too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd start out at the base name with a hatnote to the DAB page. If someone makes a serious claim that the video game isn't the primary topic, then that can be handled separately at that time. I do note that Satisfactory has been deleted twice, but as a non-admin, I can't see if they're related to the current video game, but the 2018 deletion may well be. JHunterJ is an admin, so perhaps he can take a look? - BilCat (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

DABNAME, words and acronyms

WP:DABNAME, the guideline about choosing the article title of a dab page, lists a number of guiding principles, the first of which is:

I thought that it was intuitively clear what this was saying: a non-acronym is preferred to an acronym. But if you think about it, technically this sentence doesn't say that. In fact, it doesn't say anything: the acronym ARM is just as much a word as arm. Now, what is the actual intended meaning of this sentence, and is there a better way to put it? – Uanfala (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm guilty of slavishly following poorly drafted advice. Clearly we don't want a dab called ABBEYDALE, even though it's not a word. On the other hand, TI is well named despite ti being a word. I suppose we should use mixed case whenever many[weasel words] of the uses we're distinguishing use mixed case, and all-caps when nearly all[clarify] of those uses are all-caps. There's also the less dramatic question of sentence case vs. title case.
Agreed. And possibly split to different dabs for differing casings when there is little "cross ambiguity" for the different casings. Readers looking for "Arm" and "ARM" are typically looking for different things. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Excited

Currently Excited is a redirect to the DAB page Excitation, and there is a DAB page at Excited (disambiguation). Can I fix this by simply putting the disambiguation contents at Excited and redirecting Excited (disambiguation) to it, or do I need to go through a series of deletion/moves? Leschnei (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Leschnei: Because Excited currently redirects elsewhere, you'd need to ask an admin or page mover to move Excited (disambiguation) to Excited. One way to do that is to raise a technical request following the guidance at the end of WP:MALPLACED. However, I'm not sure that's a good idea. "Excited" usually means "in a state of excitation", and there's a good case for that being its primary topic, in which case the current primary redirect is correct. Certes (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done. The previous redirect wasn't a primary redirect since the target was another dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me of primary redirect Certes; I haven't looked at that in a while. And thanks for taking care of the move JHunterJ. Leschnei (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Two entries for dab - delete or retain?

If there are only two entries in a disambiguation page, then should that page be deleted and replaced with a hatnote? See Henry Moskowitz. Mitchumch (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: Only if one of the two is a primary topic. The activist has more mentions but neither man seems particularly prominent. WP:2DABS explains more fully, with examples. Certes (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Servants of the People (disambiguation)

A disambiguation page Servants of the People (disambiguation) has been created, but there is no article titled Servants of the People. I discussed this briefly with the page creator Kirotsi on his talk page and he agrees that it needs to be changed. My question is, which route would be better - Servants of the People or Servant of the People (disambiguation) as the DAB page? I initially thought that hatnotes would be sufficient, but there is also Servants of the People Society. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Leschnei (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

What's the primary topic for "Servants of the People"? If there isn't one, put the disambiguation page at the base name. If there is one (Servants of the People Society?), redirect the base name to it and put a hatnote on that target pointing to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
There's Servant of the People (a Ukrainian television program), Servant of the People (political party), and Servants of the People Society. There is no Servants of the People. Leschnei (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

RM discussion about temporally specific disambiguators like "(defunct)"

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:KCTY (defunct)#Defunct television station disambiguator changes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Argh. This has WP:TALKFORKed into Talk:KAPY-LP (defunct)#Defunct radio station disambiguator changes, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:TALKFORKed again! See Talk:KCLA_(defunct)#Defunct_radio_and_TV_station_disambiguator_changes_(consolidated) --В²C ☎ 20:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Bike Week

This dab page has three entries. I think that Bike Week (Bicycle Week) has a clunky and unnecessary disambiguator and should be at the base name, with the dab page being at Bike Week (disambiguation). Any concerns? MB 03:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Use WP:RM to propose the moves of Bike Week to Bike Week (disambiguation) and Bike Week (Bicycle Week) to Bike Week. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done MB 22:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

DAB pages called 'The Ambiguous Thing'

Should DAB page The Ambiguous Thing be DEFAULTSORTed as 'Ambiguous Thing, The'? My feeling is that it should. However, with so many of them, I wouldn't want to edit the ones I keep falling across in User:DPL bot reports unless it's agreed to be a good idea. Narky Blert (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's a good idea. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Seconded. older ≠ wiser 13:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I also agree. bd2412 T 14:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree. This is point 3 at WP:SORTKEY which I assume also applies to dab pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest, without the leading punctuation. A reader looking at an ordered list or a category would expect to find those sorted into the alphabet, not somewhere away from it. Narky Blert (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Done, cheers! bd2412 T 13:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. DAB pages whose names begin 'A' or 'An', e.g. A Bridge Too Far, are very much less common than 'The'. They're probably best dealt with by hand, because there's a risk of accidentally catching e.g. Indian films where 'a' or 'an' is a word in a local language and not the English indefinite article. The same applies to definite and indefinite articles in languages other than English, e.g. French Le/La/L'/Les. Narky Blert (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Additional comment. Examples where 'an' must be the first word in the sortkey: An die ferne Geliebte (German), An Ruzi (Chinese), and An Dương Vương (Vietnamese). None of those is a DAB page, but the principle stands. Narky Blert (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Schools named "Attucks"

Any suggestions for how to sort out the articles Attucks High School, Crispus Attucks High School, and Attucks School? Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 22:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Those three are in Hopkinsville, Kentucky; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Vinita, Oklahoma, and are all notable schools or buildings (we know they are notable in part because each is separately listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places).
And Attucks Elementary School is a redirect to Missouri's Kansas City Public Schools, where there is a row for "Crispus Attucks Elementary School - 2400 Prospect Avenue". And the Crispus Attucks article's mentions a few more schools, including Attucks Middle School in Sunnyside, Houston, Texas; Crispus Attucks Elementary School in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn; and Crispus Attucks Elementary School in East St. Louis, Illinois. There are probably more which can be mentioned in a list, whether or not they justify separate articles. I thought there were list-articles like "List of schools named for Lincoln" but that is a redlink. I do see that List of educational institutions named after presidents of the United States exists.
These schools are all named for Crispus Attucks. User:Zagalejo and me are not sure what is current practice for disambiguating or listing these. Do we create a List of schools named for Crispus Attucks? --Doncram (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, somewhat similar is situation of schools named after Clara Barton, for which Clara Barton School is disambiguation page (which i created back in2016). It includes a "see also" type link to Schools named for Clara Barton which is a redirect to a list within the Clara Barton article. I think doing similar now would be okay/good. Unless there are other suggestions, i may proceed to create Crispus Attucks School to serve as a disambiguation page, and rename the Oklahoma one so that Attucks School could redirect to the disambiguation, and expand a section within the Crispus Attucks article. Sound okay? Thanks for listening. :) --Doncram (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
There's currently no need to move any of the three articles Attucks High School, Crispus Attucks High School, and Attucks School (or the redirect Attucks Elementary School). A SIA List of schools named after Crispus Attucks (a la List of schools named after Francis Xavier) or a disambiguation page Attucks School (disambiguation) or Crispus Attucks School could be hatnoted or "See also"ed from each (including Attucks School). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Attucks High School seems like a plausible search term for Crispus Attucks High School in Indianapolis. Note the title of this recent book. Zagalejo^^^ 00:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hatnotes can handle getting readers where they want to be, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hatnotes would certainly help, and for the time being, I'll just go ahead and add a few. But when it comes to schools named after historical figures, it's helpful to have one nicely organized starting point. The school in Hopkinsville has also been referred to as "Crispus Attucks High School" ([7], [8], [9], etc.) Now, it's possible that that was never the "official" name of the school, but it would be natural for people to assume that Crispus was part of the name. Zagalejo^^^ 01:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The relevant report is so massive, and some of the problems so time-consuming or needing thought (DAB pages with a list of names + a corresponding (name) page, badly formatted DAB pages (especially pipes, and multiple links on one line), pages with malformed qualifiers, WP:PTOPICs buried somewhere in a (disambiguation) page rather than at the top, duplicate entries (sometimes as redirects), redlinks corresponding to an existing page, and so on), that I've adopted the approach of cherry-picking some of the easy-looking stuff when I'm in the mood for cherry-picking some easy-looking stuff. The report also throws up a few WP:PTMs which IMO probably shouldn't be on the DAB page (e.g. Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and Poly).

Plenty of work for any DABfixer at a loose end; feel free to join in. At least the list should only grow slowly, so even small efforts should help cut it down. Narky Blert (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

If you find any PTMs that shouldn't be there, you can list them on this page – that's not going to affect anything at the moment, but I'm hoping to persuade Dispenser, who created and maintains the report, to start excluding them. – Uanfala (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. But as you say, no urgency with the size of the report as it is. Narky Blert (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

There should be a criteria for relative prominence

In the past I've taken out a few disambigs at the top of articles that were somewhat like the examples below. I was reverted, with the indications being that if someone was searching for the obscure meaning of the term, that guidlines suggest and allow it a disambig at the top of any article which is so-titled. I did not pursue further, so there are no debates on this.

So, let's say that I invent a strain of marijuana and name it "earth", and manage to get it mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Does that mean that at the top of the Earth article, I get to put "for "Earth" the marijuana product, see (the article which lists it)". ? I used the "earth" article to dramatize, but we have that exact situation at the Girl Scout Cookie article. Somebody has a strain of marijuana named "Girl Scout Cookies", and so it gets advertised at the top of the Girl Scout Cookie article. As I understand it, because somebody might punch in "Girl Scout Cookies" looking for the strain of marijuana, guidlines in essence suggest and allow it a(disambig) listing at the top of the Girl Scout Cookies article. My guess is that I can just try taking it out, so what to do on this particular case is not why I'm here. But, I've been there before and got reverted. I think that the guidline should state that if the disambig meaning is immensely less common than the meaning of the article, there should be no disambig statement for it. Or, if the disambig meaning has no stand-alone article, it should not be there. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the use of the {{for}} or {{about}} templates. Ultimately, yes, readers who land on a primary-topic page must be given a way to navigate to the non-primary topic or topics, if any. That might be a hatnote to a disambiguation page, or a hatnote to a specific page (or two, or even three). The guideline definitely should not state anything like "for very rare usages, give the reader seeking them no way to get there from the primary topic". If there's a topic that you feel should not be findable in the encyclopedia, use WP:AFD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
JHunterJ is certainly right when the article linked in the hatnote has a non-trivial mention of the subtopic. However, as List of names for cannabis#Controversial strain names says little more than that Girl Scout Cookies exist, there may be a case for removing this hatnote per WP:TRHAT. Certes (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The cannabis strain is cited in secondary sources, so isn't WP:TRHAT trivial usage or dictionary definition of term. (And it's a separate topic, not a subtopic. The cannabis strain is not a type of cookie.)-- JHunterJ (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I suppose if one wanted to test it, would Girl Scout Cookies (cannabis strain) survive an RfD? I think it would. (edit: I was expecting to find that a red link.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Could also create a full disambiguation page with the cannabis strain and the songs by Ted Nugent from Love Grenade and by Blaze Foley. FWIW, the cannabis strain may have some minor degree of notoriety (While Randall Roberts of the Los Angeles Times said it sounded "like she vaped a gram of Girl Scout Cookies before her vocal take". quoted in High by the Beach -- although it's not completely clear if he meant the cookies in an comically metaphorical sense or the cannabis strain. older ≠ wiser 14:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Excellent idea!  Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion regarding the Genderqueer article

Hi, all. I left a message at Wikipedia talk:Article titles about moving this article: Talk:Genderqueer#Requested move 1 May 2019. But, given the disambiguation aspect of the discussion, it has occurred to me that leaving a note about the move discussion here might also be beneficial. One issue of discussion is WP:NOUN. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

shipindex vs dab?

I recently cleaned up USS Holly to match MOS:DAB style. My edit was reverted by User:Llammakey, saying that it's a list, not a dab page. It sure looks like a dab page to me. The initial creation of the page back in 2008 even says, disambiguation of US ships named "Holly". I have no problem with Llammakey's revert (WP:BRD and all that), I'm just trying to understand what's the accepted best practice here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Llammakey said "SI pages are NOT dab pages, they are list pages". SI means Wikipedia:Set index articles. They are indeed lists and not disambiguation pages. For this example, see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Index pages which is linked on "list of ships" at the bottom of USS Holly. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:SHIPS have a WP:CONSENSUS guideline that lists of ships are WP:SIA pages not WP:DAB pages. This works well most of the time: navies don't reuse a name until an earlier ship has been removed from the navy list.
It works less well when there are two ships with the identical name fighting on opposite sides in the same battle, e.g. HMS Swiftsure (1787) and HMS Swiftsure (1804) at the Battle of Trafalgar.
In my experience, SIAs inevitably collect bad links-in, but who am I to argue? Narky Blert (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Feedback sought for proposed article-to-DBA/SIA conversion at Allopathic medicine

Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Allopathic medicine#Make this page a disambiguation page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologize for the ping if it's unwanted, but we could still use opinions at this discussion. Pinging top ten editors at WT:D: @JHunterJ, Born2cycle, Bkonrad, BD2412, SmokeyJoe, Diego Moya, Andrewa, PamD, Kotniski, and SMcCandlish: Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

An RM relying on PRIMARYTOPIC

This RM could use some input from primary topic experts:

--В²C ☎ 23:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ayman Joumaa

Ayman Joumaa and Ayman Joumaa (disambiguation) need to be rearranged. Currently Ayman Joumaa (disambiguation) is the DAB page and Ayman Joumaa redirects to Ayman Zakaria Joumaa. I would like to put the DAB page at Ayman Joumaa and redirect Ayman Joumaa (disambiguation) to that page. Can I simply over-write the current contents or do I need to go through a series of moves? Leschnei (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Edited to ping Bachounda who has been editing these pages. Leschnei (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You would need the series of moves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, just the one move, of the disambiguation page to the base name (overwriting the redirect). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Leschnei and thaks for pinging me, indeed the two people are known in Lebanon, I looked in politics but I could not find, I decided to redirect Ayman Joumaa to Ayman Zakaria Joumaa. --Bachounda (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I've only carried out moves to new names. How does it work when the name being moved to already exists? Leschnei (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
A technical request at WP:RM/TR -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll make the request Leschnei (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Another place to post in cases like these, but only in the specific case where FizBuz points to FizBuz (disambiguation) rather than the other way round, with no other complications, is WP:MALPLACED.
I didn't know about WP:MALPLACED - thanks for that. Leschnei (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
It is never a good idea to overwrite, which messes up (or can even lose) page history. It is always best to go through technical moves. Narky Blert (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought that that was probably the case but wanted to be sure. Thanks for confirming. Leschnei (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This is apparently a contested move since the redirect was already in existence. The request has been moved to Talk:Ayman Joumaa (disambiguation) for discussion, if you'd care to weigh in. Leschnei (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Formal equality

Please discuss at Talk:Gender_equality#Is_formal_equality_the_same_term_or_should_it_have_its_own_article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on ignoring article title policy for NYC Subway stations

There is currently an RfC to discuss whether ignoring WP:PRECISION for NYC Subway station articles would improve the encyclopedia at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)/NYC Subway RfC -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Primary topics of numbers/years

There is a discussion at Talk:911 (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 June 2019 where it seems to have been suggested that due to prior RFCs (or similar) that the article shouldn't be disambiguated. While we can probably give the consideration of consistency for borderline cases I didn't think that generally be award primary topic status to topics even if similar ones do, see User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation#Background even if similar pages are disambiguated (although that point is the reverse it still applies here that is to say 911 probably required disambiguation even if similar ones don't). It seems that a rule that numbers from 101 to 999 is quite an arbitrary rule and will result in readers ending up on the wrong article, but then 739 doesn't have any other articles with that name (739 (number) is just a redirect to 700 (number)) and thus is one that should probably be at the base name even if not all are. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of [[Category:Disambiguation pages]] and Template:Disambiguation for multiple disambiguation subcategories

Hi, Category:Mathematics disambiguation pages states that :

Pages in this category are classified as Disambiguation Pages as they relate groups of articles that might otherwise be confused by having the same title. Each of the articles here has been affixed with {{mathdab}} or {{disambiguation|math}}.

Now, I have just added a number of disambiguation pages to subcategories of Category:Disambiguation pages by using the category tool (i.e. adding "[[Category:X disambiguation pages]]" to the source of disambiguation page), and not by adding parameters to the generic disambiguation template. My question is: For disambiguation pages that can be included in multiple disambiguation pages categories, is there a policy on using :

"{{Disambiguation|Parameter-A}} + {{Disambiguation|Parameter-B}} + ....",

versus

"[[Category:A disambiguation pages]] + [[Category:B disambiguation pages]] + ..." ?

If no, what good reasons are there to use multiple {{Disambiguation|Parameter-X}} over mulitple [[Category:X disambiguation pages]], or vice-versa ? Thanks in advance, Fa suisse (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You can use {{disambiguation|parameter-a|parameter-b|...}}. There should not be multiple disambiguation templates on a page, because that produces multiple blocks of text. I don't know that there's guidance on using the parameter over the category, although I certainly find the parameters easier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Placing category tags directly on dab pages should be avoided for consistency, to discourage the addition of incorrect category tags to dab pages and to discourage creation of unnecessary categories for dab pages (many such categories have been deleted e.g. because they duplicated a talk page category). DexDor (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
It is often necessary with the hn parameter, because the sort key there needs to be different than for the rest of the dab cats. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
All of {{dab|surname}}, {{dab|given name}} and {{hndis}} pages can be special cases.
  1. If there's a parameter, use it! and stack them as suggested above. It makes for cleaner-looking and (probably) more portable code.
  2. On a DAB page which has the surname or given name parameter or both, it can be a good idea to add Category:Surnames of Ruritanian origin or the like. That populates categories.
  3. {{dab}} pages should never have separate {{surname}} or {{given name}} tags. The documentation on the latter two is absolutely clear: use the parameters! but anthroponymists will keep doing it.
  4. {{hndis}} takes a sortkey as parameter; e.g. {{hndis|Doe, John}}. Use it! A separate - or, worse, a duplicate - sortkey is a really bad idea. It's unnecessary, and there's always the risk that in future an editor will come along and change one but not the other.
  5. There is at least one DAB category which has no dedicated parameter, which has to be added separately: Category:Language and nationality disambiguation pages.
  6. {{hndis}}, {{mathdab}} and the like should only be used on 'pure' pages. One exception poisons the well, and {{dab|hndis}} or {{dab|math}} should be used instead. The reverse is also true: if it's a 'pure' page, use the more specific tag.
  7. In very rare cases, separate {{dab}} and {{hndis}} tags are needed because they need different sortkeys. As a totally spurious example:
would need both {{dab}} and {{hndis|Riley, Slugger}} tags.
My concepts are probably all around in WP:MOS somewhere; though I wouldn't bank on it, nor on guidance in one place not being contradicted in another. However, they satisfy my ideas of simplicity and tidiness. Narky Blert (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
As for case #7 – not that I have encountered anything of this kind – wouldn't it be better to have {{Dab}} [[Category:Human name disambiguation pages|Williams, Jonathan]] so that the we don't have two templates each adding a visual tag on the page? – Uanfala (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
That looks a good way of doing it, and I like it. However, I'm not sure I've ever seen a dab/hndis page categorised like that; certainly no more than one or two. It looks as if it should be straightforward to write a bot to standardise everything.
That style is recommended, in slightly vague terms, in the {{dab}} documentation, thus: "{{Disambiguation|human name}}: for Category:Human name disambiguation pages (note that you must instead add the category separately if it needs a different sort key)". It does not say (as IMO it should) that {{Disambiguation|human name}} should only be used when the hndis part is a mononym.
That isn't in complete agreement with the {{hndis}} documentation, which says: "For a disambiguation page containing both human names and other entries, do not use the {{hndis}} template. Instead, use: {{Disambiguation|human name}}"; without saying anything about sortkeys. Narky Blert (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I do come across those in the wild, and that is how I clean them. I'd definitely be on board if a template coder wanted to make the hn parameter take an optional value, e.g. {{disambiguation|hn=Haig, Douglas}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Coincidentally enough, another example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
A related issue is title and name DAB pages, e.g. Count Meout.
  1. These should never be classified as {{hndis}}.
  2. They should never have a sortkey. The title is part of the name, not a forename.
Imagine a DAB page:
then {{dab|tndis}} does the job perfectly. However, if the DAB page did not include the ship, you would still have to categorise it as {{dab|tndis}}; because if you put it into Category:Title and name disambiguation pages alone, a senior editor is likely to come along and turn it into the unnecessarily complicated double-tag. We lack a {{tndis}} template. Narky Blert (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Surely typing an extra 4 characters "dab|" isn't much hardship.
A lot of the above discussion is about ensuring that dab pages have the correct sortkey (i.e. sorted by surname rather than by forename), but does any editor really use these categories in a way that needs them to be sorted like that? DexDor (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

President

Editors who watch this page may be interested in Talk:President (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 June 2019. Certes (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Place name PTM clarity

Following a discussion at Talk:Stratford:

I propose the wording of WP:PTM is slightly extended to be made more explicit about how we include place names that have non-generics for example hyphenation "-on-river" "-upon-river" "-in-forest" "-on-the-forest" (sic) e.g. Henley-on-Thames and Henley-in-Arden (a forest) Henley Stratford-upon-Avon (and Stratford-atte-Bow, Stratford-sub-Castle, Stratford-on-Slaney) is correctly included in Stratford, Stow-on-the-Wold (unsure if "wold" being either a generic "forest" or the specific Cotswold) in Stow. Is there, in fact, a general rule that all hyphenated place named are typically known by the leading specific? (Kingston upon Hull is a counterexample of being known as solely "Hull", but it isn't hyphenated). Thoughts? More examples? Widefox; talk 10:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say that hyphenated place named are typically known by the leading specific. For example, road signs to Newcastle-under-Lyme show simply "Newcastle" despite the better-known alternatives. Even Hull has Kingston Communications. Exceptions probably occur where the first word alone would be confusing – adjacent villages Foo-on-the-hill and Foo-in-the-vale, or if a similarly named distant place is much more famous – but I can't think of good counterexamples. Certes (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I would leave it to the articles (or topic projects) to indicate names that their topic is known as, rather than presuming the Disambiguation Project would "authoritate" a general rule within a topic space. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that's my point Certes - adjacent Foo-on-the-hill and Foo-in-the-vale seem no different from our PTM example North Carolina (South Carolina). A non-adjacent (but in the same county) example in this dab are: Stratford St Andrew and Stratford St. Mary "given its name because Suffolk has two Stratfords".
It isn't just hyphenated, Kingston upon Thames, Kingston On Murray, South Australia, Napton on the Hill, Newcastle upon Tyne (just like Newcastle-under-Lyme above) follows the rule, as opposed to the (I believe highly exceptional) Kingston upon Hull.
JHunterJ, yes there's merit in avoiding WP:CREEP but we already have place name guidance, but the point is many of these articles don't bold their shortened version or it may even be considered local usage (and that's something I ponder), and may/or may not use or describe the shortened name. If it's a general rule that saves a lot of time checking, especially hamlets etc which are stubs. Curiously, Kingston upon Hull is listed at Kingston, which I presume is incorrect, as an exception to this rule. Widefox; talk 15:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the reader is probably better served if we keep the PTMs in the same sequence as the single names, especially in a page where there is a geographical arrangement, as at Stratford. If they think the place is called "Stratford" and have an idea which county it is in, that's where they will look. And the reader is who we're trying to help by creating the dab page. PamD 18:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, can't that argument be made for including PTMs generally? I'm not proposing that, only proposing an easy rule/example that the cutoff should presume place name PTMs that are hyphenated (or similar spelled without the hyphen above) are known as their leading specific, which appears to be the case with all examples above. Further reading of Stony Stratford, it's close to Fenny Stratford and Old Stratford. As close to each other they need disambiguating maybe with hatnotes on each, but can anyone say if they're known as "Stratford" or should be included here? I presumed not, and put them in the see also. I wouldn't want to relax PTMs much (we only have People as the major exception), as generally they decrease signal to noise and a simple rule of none is difficult enough, but this is about the presumption that they aren't PTM. Widefox; talk 18:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
All places that include Stratford in the name generally should be included but generally WP:DABORDER should be followed since they aren't full matches. In the case of Stony Stratford the "Stony" is the generic part and the "Stratford" the specific part, similar to Newcastle upon Tyne (It is entirely proper to include such place names in disambiguation pages with the specific title. In the case of Kingston upon Hull that falls under the exceptional case where its ambiguous with the generic term (Hull) unlike "Tyne" for Newcastle upon Tyne or "Thames" for Henley-on-Thames. However some like Priory Green probably shouldn't be included at either the "Priory" or "Green" DAB page since even "Priory" is pretty generic in this case however Melton Mowbray is listed at both the Melton and Mowbray DAB pages because even the last name isn't that descriptive but more specific. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Any places that aren't full matches should be in the See also section or excluded. Any places that are synonyms with hyphenated qualifiers IMO should be sorted as if they were titled just "Stratford" without any hyphenated qualifiers, since that's how the reader is seeking them. Any things that are compound words where the extra words are generics but not just added for qualification could be sorted after the main, but for sorting geographic topics, the country-then-subdivision-then-topic name sorting seems to be preferred to the more generic advice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The guideline says that in cases of specific names its entirely proper to include them which seems to say that they can go in the "main" section (but obviously would usually be included after those called just by the name). For example Great Canfield (where "Great" was formerly disambiguation but is now part of the name) should be at the Canfield DAB page but not at the Great DAB page but as noted {{Lookfrom|Great}} is included to find such titles. See User:Crouch, Swale/Levels of ambiguity for other examples. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there can or should be any bright-line rule. We must always remember that DAB pages are intended for readers who don't know precisely what they are looking for; if they did, they wouldn't be reading the DAB page. Whatever gets them quickly and accurately to an article does the job.
For example, from my personal knowledge, Stony Stratford is always called by its full name. Great Ayton and Fenny Drayton are commonly called by their full names, but also as Ayton and Drayton respectively. Little Ayton, however, is always called by its full name. Stanford Dingley is always known by its full name, never as Stanford. None need or should be on any DAB page except the less specific one - most certainly not on e.g. Great, as Crouch, Swale has rightly pointed out. Narky Blert (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
So Great Ayton would be on the Ayton dab page and sorted as if its title were Ayton, since that's what the person who reaches the page looking for the topic would be looking for the topic as. That's all I'm saying. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with last two posts of JHunterJ. So, this is specifically about places that have had (these types of) qualifiers added at some point, in this example to "Stratford" (a common old toponym, thus having many examples over ages where the name has morphed). So the presence of the qualifier directly asserts that it is ambiguous and should be included in the body of the dab. Correct? Widefox; talk 22:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The guideline at PTM is quite clear that its normal to include them even if they're not commonly known by the name but they should be sorted according to how ambiguous they are, as can be seen the Ayton DAB page sorts them by alpha order/ambiguity in the "places" section. Great Ayton should indeed be sorted as a PTM just like Little Ayton. Similarly even if Stanford Dingley is hardly even called just "Stanford" its still a specific name for that places (and like Mekton Mowbray since there isn't a general topic with that name its also specific for "Dingley"). However when taking into account the primary topic for "Stanford" then Stanford Dingley would not be much of a competitor for just "Stanford" but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. The idea of PTM is to prevent generic names from being included there (or PTMs of topics already on the DAB page). I think JHJ is forming a bit too much of a line between a partial match that is sometimes known by the shorter name (that apparently should be treated as a full match) and a partial match that is rarely known by its full name (that apparently should be excluded). The guideline says that PTMs for "specific" PTM matches are "entirely proper" but per WP:DABORDER they should go after the full matches not excluded entirely or treated as full matches. AFAIK the main purpose of the "see also" section is to include those that have a slightly different name (such as Stanford and Stamford) rather than for PTMs but I suppose its OK to put the PTMs in the see also. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, and perhaps I disagree with the guideline's phrasing. One thing: nothing in the disambiguation list is a PTM, even if the title is part of a longer phrase. It's either ambiguous (and so not a PTM) or a PTM (and so in the See also section or in a name-holder stopgap section after the ambiguous entries); I do not make it that much of a line, rather WP:PTM does. But the second thing: the WP:DABORDER is a recommended order, and when another order is more appropriate, we use the more-appropriate order. In the case of places, the country-subdivision-topic sort order is invariably more appropriate. In that ordering, the things-with-more-words-but-still-title-matches (not PTMs) should be sorted as if the reader were looking for them by the ambiguous title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. PTMs don't go into a dab unless in the see also, with the exception of People in the section before the see also. I looked at Ayton and that's a dab that needs cleanup, outside of this topic...sweep, sweep, done. Widefox; talk 19:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
So now Ayton is cleaned, a-b sort isn't the most useful for the reader, but as JHunterJ detailed, best per geo subdivisions. Widefox; talk 21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: rename PRIMARYTOPIC to MOSTSOUGHTTOPIC

Until a few years ago the sole purpose of PRIMARYTOPIC was to arrange articles by titles in a manner that made the articles most likely to be sought the easiest (fewest clicks) ones to find. As such, the only criteria associated with it was the usage criteria:

  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

The idea is that anyone searching with, say, "wish you were here" is most likely looking for the Pink Floyd album, and so that's where they should be taken. However, some editors felt "primary" implied some level of relative long-term importance, and, after much discussion, the long-term significance criteria was added so that there was policy basis for taking relative importance under consideration when deciding on primary topic. However, this leads to conflicting guidance in situations where the two criteria indicate different titles. Should we help readers get to the Pink Floyd album because that's what the vast majority are seeking, or should we put a dab page at Wish You Were Here and make everyone go through all that even though the vast majority is looking for the album?

I've long believed that if PRIMARYTOPIC was named something else, without the term "primary", then people wouldn't be so hung up on putting what they believe to be the "most important" article at the basename of the title. Therefore, in order to resolve these conflicts in a consistent fashion, and to help our users by arranging our articles so that articles most likely to be sought with a given term are where those terms lead, I hereby propose:

  1. Rename PRIMARYTOPIC to MOSTSOUGHTTOPIC
  2. Remove the long-term significance criteria

--В²C ☎ 01:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose What is "most-sought" is variable with time, meaning that a change to bring the most-sought topic to the principle page may have to be undone in the future. Long-term importance must be a key guiding principle in selecting the topic. eg: We did not move Avatar away from the religious context in the midst of the Avatar film popularity. This is particularly true of contemporary topics which can quickly wane from the spotlight. --Masem (t) 01:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This is an encyclopaedia. Relative notability is not a popularity contest, nor is long-term significance. Compare Apple and Apple Inc. - pageview stats here. It is blindingly obvious that the fruit is the WP:PTOPIC, even if the company gets four times the page views.
WP:PTOPICs inevitably acquire bad links in which are unlikely ever to get found and fixed. They degrade the encyclopaedia. There is a runnable argument that WP:PTOPICs should be done away with altogether.
This proposal looks like an attempt to reopen the discussion at Talk:Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)#Requested move 14 May 2019 which was closed on 23 May 2019 as 'no consensus'. Narky Blert (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for two reasons. First, it would introduce instability into the encyclopedia. Imagine some flash-in-the-pan music sensation writes a song called "Djibouti", or some tech company releases a new phone called the "Pineapple". All of a sudden, these new uses are swamping the country and the fruit in page views, and we have to move the articles, only to have inevitably have to move them back once the song and the phone fade from public interest. Second, because even if the song and the phone in this case had enduring popularity, the country and the fruit will always have been more important to the broader web of topics in the encyclopedia. Primary topic titles should give greater weight to historical significance, with scientific and natural history topics getting the first order of precedence, followed by topics from human history and geography, with popular culture topics tending to go last. bd2412 T 03:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Masem, Narky Blert and BD2412 above. There may be other reasons too, but these are overwhelmingly sufficient. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not a name, it's just a shortcut to a section of a guideline. WP:PRIMARYUSAGE also redirects there and can be used just as easily. If anyone wants to create WP:MOSTSOUGHTTOPIC and start using it in the hope it catches on, I don't see anything wrong with that. Station1 (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the above. If anything, the trend has been towards increasing the importance of long-term topics vs common usage, and rightly so because we're an encyclopedia not a popculture directory. Each case is a balancing act between the two principles, and the system is working well as is. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per article stability. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Titles should reflect long term significance, not an attempt to optimize poor behaviours of the “go” box that supplanted the search box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 08:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as stated but the proposer makes good and important points. We should prioritise a topic which is likely to remain most sought on a long-term basis, or at the very least not put some other topic at the base name just because it's "more encyclopedic". If there is a conflict between what academia understands by the term and a popular use which is likely to last 10+ years then a dab is indicated. Certes (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as proposed, I'd say that the long-term significance can be useful for people looking for a topic and discovering that its named after another topic, for avoiding surprise (since sending people to the singer when searching for "Pink" would surprise people) and for link stability. I'd point out that B2C often calls it the "historical importance" criteria when its not necessarily, a topic can be younger and still have more long-term significance such as New York. I also don't see the benefit in sending at least 1/3% of the readers onto the wrong page and having to load that, work find the hatnote and select what they want. If the DAB is at the base name then everyone can find what they want easily. I would support something like generally getting at least 90% as I pointed out here. Getting only 2 thirds is too low for a PT unless WP:2DABPRIMARY is in play or we're leaving an long stable article at the base name to avoid breaking external links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The problem isn't the rule; the problem is how people interpret it. See Talk:Overwatch_(video_game) for a recent example. Calidum 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's a great example. The split is 50/50, exemplifying how useless our guidance is. When both sides often have reasonable arguments based on the same policy, that indicates the policy is giving lousy conflicting guidance. It paves the way for JDLI arguments for either side rationalized as policy-based. As to interpretation, that's the point of the name change. Hopefully people won't be as apt to interpret "MOSTSOUGHT" as "most important" as they are with "PRIMARY". But this proposal looks to be going down in flames so the JDLI tug-o-wars are doomed to continue. --В²C ☎ 00:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      For Overwatch, the game is MOSTSOUGHT today but is it likely to remain so in, say, 2029? The answer isn't obvious and perhaps editors are split 50/50. Certes (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      I see no problem with moving articles in ten years in accordance with shifts in user interests. —В²C ☎ 05:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      I do, for sure. One of the objectives of Wikipedia is to be freely and readily forkable to other formats, such as most simply an offline electronic copy or a printed version. These are already somewhat common, although few would seek to print the entire thing. Swapping titles around according to fickle things like current popularity of a game, like overwatch, or a entertainment product, like Four of Diamonds, makes Wikipedia have difficulties with its mirrors and archives and other forks, and all for no good purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      We move articles for many reasons... what better reason can there be than to improve user experience by ensuring they’re taken to the article they are most likely seeking with a given search term? —В²C ☎ 06:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      Compromising on a good title, for the ostensible benefit of a hack to make the "Go" box work better, does NOT improve the reader experience. A better article improves the reader experience. A worse title makes the article worse. An over-brief title makes the article worse. Hatnotes at the top of the article, required to reduce the damage of an imprecise and mis-recognized title, makes the article worse.
      Articles get renamed when they have a bad title and a better title is available. Re-titlining an old page carries costs. Multiple re-titling has amplified costs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      We're not talking about better or worse titles, much less articles. We're talking about an ambiguous term which alone would be an excellent title for any of its uses, except for the technical limitation of WP using the title within the URL and thus requiring titles to be unique. Disambiguation decisions about whether a title of, say, a film titled "Foo", which is much more likely to be sought than any other topic named "Foo", and more likely than all other uses of "Foo", should be Foo (film) or just Foo, and thus whether the Foo dab page is at Foo or Foo (disambiguation) accordingly, generally do not affect how "good" any of the affected titles are, and certainly do not affect how "good" the respective articles are. Making WP work better for users by moving titles is the best reason to change a title. That was the original point of PRIMARYTOPIC, and, because that sense is often neglected I believe largely because of the "primary" misnomer implying "most important", I think it should be renamed to MOSTSOUGHTTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 16:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      How often should titles be moved according to this principle? If some band decides to call themselves "Wombat", and it gets more views than the marsupial for a week, do we move the articles around for that week, and then move them back? bd2412 T 21:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We changed the criteria for a reason, which has been explicated well already. In short: treating it like a popularity contest would mean we'd be moving articles and changing redirects all the time, because what is most-sought this week is not what will be next week; and that ENC/NOT interaction: WP is an encyclopedia not a Web index or a search engine or a social networking platform; lasting encyclopedic significance matters a lot. Third, even if we did undo the additional criterion, we wouldn't rename the policy section and shortcut to something people don't use and aren't likely to use; the underlying principle would still remain primary topic, if there were one criterion or three criteria, or whatever. 50.78.103.6 (talk) (SMcCandlish on public WiFi) 20:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Oppose per above. SemiHypercube 18:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Long-term significance must be taken into account. See for example Talk:Fingering (music)#Requested move 30 October 2015 and Talk:Fingering (sexual act)#Requested move 27 May 2016. — JFG talk 05:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Primary Topic has always been about the most important topic.[[10]] That is what primary means - first in importance. It was never meant to be about the most sought after topic. Its purpose was to prevent readers being taken to articles such as Pink and Apple because that would be a surprise even to the people searching for those articles. The page view criterion was added only as a suggested way to determine the most important subject.[[11]] A handful of people were confused about this and now seem to think its all about what's the most popular. It isn't and the biggest indicator of all is that it's called Primary Topic and not Most Sought After Topic.--Ykraps (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I certainly agree that there are issues, but I'm not sure whether this proposal would help. It has benefits, but as it stands, so far there's no support above as far as I can see.

As many know, I have long thought that the whole idea of primary topic is past its use by date. It's on my back burner, but I am occasionally gathering concrete examples of its failings at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios, and new examples, and/or discussion of those already there, is more than welcome, as is more general discussion at User talk:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC.

We cannot return to the past. Once we discouraged all personal attacks, and there's been no consensus to change that policy, but now they are widely tolerated. Once we explicitly focused on reader benefit, and I'm old-fashioned enough to think we still should and even that we do, but it's gone from the policy (by consensus). Many more examples could be cited. Andrewa (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I think the ultimate criterion is not "most sought topic", but "topic most likely to be sought given title phrase". The two are usually the same, but sometimes they're not, and I think the long-term significance criterion is useful precisely because it helps explain the cases where they differ. Crouch, Swale's "Pink" example is a good one. The article on the singer surely gets more views than the colour, but as a reader, I'd be very surprised if I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink and saw the singer. Maybe just because I've internalized the long-term significance criterion and incorporated it into my expectations? But I think an average reader not familiar with policy would have the same expectations (and would intuitively know to search for something like "Pink singer", or at least expect to have to follow a hatnote if they don't).

A related factor: I think it's generally better for a PTOPIC to have wide recognizability, even if it involves a tradeoff in pageview stats (and this is often true of long-term significance winners). e.g. I assume 1989 (album) gets way more views than 1989. But everyone knows what the year 1989 is. A user looking for the album who lands at the article about the year will easily understand what's going on. On the other hand, even though the article gets relatively high traffic, there are lots of poor souls not familiar with the masterpiece of synthpop that is 1989 (album). Someone searching for the year who lands at the album (and isn't familiar with it), is going to have a brief 'wtf' moment. So yeah, long-term significance per se is not that compelling a reason for choosing a ptopic, but I think it can be useful when considered in reference to the principle of least astonishment. Colin M (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Place of the disambiguation page when there is only one blue-linked article (redux)

I have removed the paragraph regarding disambiguation pages where there is only one extant article on Wikipedia, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_44#Place of the disambiguation page when there is only one blue-linked article. It looks to me like that passage was added without there being a consensus for it at the discussion. Several editors opined that a better system would be to have a disambiguation page available through a hatnote, but place the single topic at the base name, which in my experience matches what happens in most RMs on this subject already. See for example Talk:Norton, Worcestershire. Happy to hear other opinions on this, though.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I have added this paragraph back. Having been there for four years, I guess it now has incumbency, so let's discuss here instead. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I copy-edited the language to avoid "choosing" and "preferring" phrasing, since the idea that primary topic is an award to be sought gets into some other issues, but I think the concept is sound (and I hope I haven't changed it with the copy edits): multiple topics on Wikipedia mean ambiguity, and being mentions (with redlinks) on other articles wouldn't preclude primaryness. The language could be changed to indicate that that is also a rare case, but that would have little effect in discussions, since each individual case is always the rare case when supporting that position. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    But we do need an example that better fits the situation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with removing it. It's an excessive amount of advice for something that should only occur rarely and transiently. It could be condensed to a single bullet under Determining a primary topic: "When a disambiguation page lists only one existing article (ie, all other suggested articles are red-linked), the existing article does not automatically become the primary topic."--Trystan (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should remove the rule altogether (no objections to moving to "Determining a primary topic" per above). A topic isn't NN simply because Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on it. Obviously there is the argument that readers can only find out about 1 topic if there is only 1 blue link which is arguably not useful but then having the DAB at the base name encourages the other topics to be created and prevents incoming links from being broken later when a move is needed. If a topic is not notable and doesn't have a separate article then AFAIK the only notable article is at the base name (or the less specific disambiguator). WP:DABSONG says for example that disambigation (or further disambiguation) isn't needed if other songs don't have separate articles (but obviously assuming that they aren't notable, not just haven't been written about yet). But as noted the one near Evesham is likely notable since its in the Domeaday Book and was a parish. However the current parish is "Norton and Lenchwick" which appears to be a rename from simply "Norton" so its possible that there shouldn't be separate articles on both the village and parish due to the overlap not that the village isn't notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Inevitably, I can't think of a specific example. However, I have fixed links to DAB pages where English WP listed e.g. only a few minor sportspeople and actors, but there was a well-sourced article several pages long in the home language about a major e.g. political, military or creative figure. Russian is a common case: I've seen articles with translations into all sorts of languages but not (yet) English. It seems possible that some such articles translated into English would have a claim to be the English PTOPIC on the enduring significance ground.
The article about the PTOPIC may not have been written yet.
As a related example, within living memory in the West the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, if it was known of at all, was thought of as a 1939 border skirmish between Japan and the USSR. It was actually a decisive Soviet defensive victory, and Japan never dared attack the USSR again. Narky Blert (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Mexican combo radio stations, parenthetical disambiguators

I'm writing this here because I'm looking for encyclopedic input on a unique set of circumstances. I do have to explain a bit of how we got here, though.

In 1994, the Mexican Secretariat of Communications and Transportation authorized FM combo frequencies to 83 AM radio stations in the country that had claimed financial difficulty. This one-time, never-repeated giveaway resulted in assignment of FM call letters that matched the AM station, but with "XH" substituting "XE" as is practice for FM radio stations.

In some cases, this was OK. For instance, XEMEX-AM added XHMEX-FM. However, the SCT assigned matches even if they conflicted with an existing FM station. Thus, the SCT authorized XHLZ-FM to XELZ-AM even though a station XHLZ-FM already existed. They did this 21 times, with one case being mitigated by a callsign change by the combo station. (See User:Raymie/Mexican double callsigns.) Subsequently, another eight double callsigns have been issued by various clerical and timing errors in the Mexican government, for a total of 28 double callsigns. When I began editing Mexican radio articles on Wikipedia, I moved all of the articles corresponding to the "Combos of '94" to their FM page titles, as the FM is now considered the primary outlet for these stations (and 15 of them have surrendered their AMs completely).

Most of the stations have parenthetically disambiguated article titles, except for some where the article already existed and one obvious PRIMARYTOPIC case. These are:

In one case, the article title is not parenthetical because the other station is a low-powered repeater of a state network:

  • XHCHI-FM (Chihuahua), which has a hatnote

Another station has a redirect case for a similar reason:

I also had given some city disambiguators, and I'm wondering if those should be states to match the rest:

My questions would be as follows:

  • Should the four "singletons" (XHHIT, XHOX, XHTY, XHVG) be moved to parenthetically disambiguated titles?
  • Should XHLC-FM (Guadalajara) and XHSU-FM (Mexicali) be moved to state disambiguators?

Thanks for putting up with me and this confusing situation. Raymie (t • c) 06:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I know Raymie is aware, but for others, the naming convention is located at WP:NCBC#North America, for reference.
I would disambiguate all, and leave disambiguation pages at the primaries of all. As for 2nd question, I think its fine to leave them at Guadalajara/Mexicali as those are capitals of the respective states. I presume sources associate them more with the city name than the state. -- Netoholic @ 06:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Netoholic: There is now a formal RM for this at Talk:XHHIT-FM#Requested move 16 July 2019. Raymie (t • c) 02:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wilson Hall or Hall, Wilson

Wilson Hall contains mostly buildings and 2 people. It had the template {{hndis|Hall, Wilson}}. I replaced it with {{disambiguation|human name}}. My question is, how should it be sorted - 'Wilson Hall' for the buildings or 'Hall, Wilson' for the people? Is it possible to do both? (Parents should consider the convenience of Wikipedia editors when naming children.) Leschnei (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Leschnei: The documentation of Template:Human name disambiguation says to use it when the page has only human names, so using the generic {{disambiguation}} looks correct.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree, this should be sorted as "Wilson Hall". bd2412 T 03:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The relevant guidelines aren't as clear as they might be. See Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Use of Category:Disambiguation pages and Template:Disambiguation for multiple disambiguation subcategories, a discussion from last month. These rare mixed dab/hndis pages should be both tagged {{dab}} and placed in Category:Human name disambiguation pages, to allow for the different sortkeys. (That discussion explains why that method is better than tagging as both {{dab}} and {{hndis}}: it reduces clutter at the foot of the page.) I've now done that with Wilson Hall.
Geographers are another class of people who should take more care before thoughtlessly choosing names. See e.g. James Lake (disambiguation) (which until just now was categorised as hndis, with no geodis element). Narky Blert (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all. I read Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Use of Category:Disambiguation pages and Template:Disambiguation for multiple disambiguation subcategories but it didn't occur to me to put a sortkey as a parameter for Category:Human name disambiguation pages. Something new to remember. Leschnei (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed disambiguation category.

Somewhat in parallel with Category:Redirects from Greek letter organization letters, I'd like to propose a category and would like suggestions on names. A typical example is Delta Phi Epsilon which is a dab page between

  • Delta Phi Epsilon (professional), the professional foreign service fraternity and sorority
  • Delta Phi Epsilon (social), a National Panhellenic Conference affiliated social sorority

Current potential members in the category include

The "Maybe" entries are ones where the dab page disamiguates between a Greek Letter Organization (fraternity/sorority/honor society, etc) and something unrelated (such as Acacia being both a Greek Letter Organization and a tree. Thank youNaraht (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Comparisons

I presume that such a category would end up as a subcat of Category:Disambiguation_pages. I'm going to assume that this category gets to about 20 pages (and no subcats of that), when I find all of the appropriate articles. The other subcats to Category:Disambiguation_pages that have less than 100 pages in them are Tech and Engineering at 3 pages, Music Disambiguation at 4 pages, Date and Time Disambiguation at 26, Template Disambigiation at 33 pages, Case Law Disambiguation at 51 pages and Flight Number Disambiguation at 65 pages.Naraht (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Article space descriptive shortcut redirects to articles with parenthetically disambiguated titles

If anyone can come up with a shorter name for this concept, please share! But for now I'm using, Article space descriptive shortcut redirects to articles with parenthetically disambiguated titles. What I mean by that is, for example, Alabama band, which has existed as a redirect to Alabama (band) for over ten years.

The utility of such redirects should be obvious, but just in case, I'll spell it out: parenthesis are relatively annoying to type. Most of us can type letters and spaces and shift for caps with touch typing, but when it comes to typing digits, or the special symbols above them, we have to stop and look down. It's a pain, relatively speaking. A first world pain, to be sure, but hey, disambiguation is all about making our articles easier to find, and typing Alabama band is significantly easier than typing Alabama (band). Hey, I was able to do that without looking down. Huh. I did not realize that, but still, I did mistype the ) the first time; it's more prone to error and I stand by my point for all those who can't find () without looking down.

Anyway:

  1. Do we have any kind of guidelines for Article space descriptive shortcut redirects to articles with parenthetically disambiguated titles?
  2. For any parenthetically disambiguated title Name (disambiguation) should we have a redirect to it without the parens, Name disambiguation? --В²C ☎ 16:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I sometimes make use of these, for the reason you describe, and am always glad when they exist. I'm not aware of any guidelines about them. I wasn't even able to find a redirect template for them at WP:TMR. {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} seems like it could kind of apply: Use this rcat to tag a title that incorrectly disambiguates a subject due to a typographical error, a format that does not follow Wikipedia convention or a previous editorial misconception. In practice, it seems like it's rarely used for this purpose, and the catch-all {{R from modification}} is typically how these redirects are tagged. Re #2: Sometimes? For short, predictable disambiguators like (song), (film), (poet), I'd say these redirects are likely to be useful. For obscure or compound disambiguators like (Swedish news programme), (1922 automobile), (politician, born 1952), etc. it seems unlikely readers will ever stumble on them naturally via search. Also, of course, there are some rare cases where stripping the parentheses from a disambiguated title actually creates a new primary topic. e.g. Fight (song) vs. Fight song. So any kind of automated mass creation seems like a bad idea. Colin M (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For all an unsuspecting reader might know, the Alabama band was a gang of outlaws who terrorised that peace-loving state in the mid 19th century. Non-standard redirects both create ambiguity and clutter up the search box. If someone types 'Alabama' into the search box and sees both 'Alabama band' and 'Alabama (band)', how are they supposed to guess that they're the same thing?
"Alabama Song" is about a song with that exact title. Alabama song redirects there, even though there are other songs titled "Alabama"; including the official state song.
Detective film is a genre; but Detective (film) is ambiguous, because there are several films titled Detective. Narky Blert (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. I search Wikipedia using my browser's address bar (with a custom search prefix), so I'm not that familiar with the features of the in-page search bar. Is there any way to categorize a redirect so that it doesn't show up in search suggestions? I notice that Alabama band does exist as a redirect, but when I type any prefix of "Alabama band" into the search bar (up to and including the full phrase), the redirect doesn't show up as a search suggestion (the top suggestion is "Alabama (band)"). Any idea why this is? Maybe because the redirect gets so few hits, it gets ranked low by the algorithm? Colin M (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_50&oldid=1210356807"