Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

→

Links to be included on abbreviation pages

We may need a section on what to include in particular on abbreviation lists. I've been using the same criterion that I use elsewhere: the linked page uses the dabbed term in relation to its (or its section's) topic -- nicely clear-cut. Not every page that has the title initials "HP" needs to be on HP (disambiguation), for instance, but Harry Potter can be. But see those pages' edit histories and Talk:HP (disambiguation) and Talk:Harry Potter. -- JHunterJ 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel like we can use previous Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability. I can see the concern that, for example, if "HP" was only used on fan and personal sites, it might not make sense to include on the page. However, if there are neutral sources that refer to it as such, it seems perfectly appropriate to include it. The example given of newspapers mentioning it as HP is exactly what I was thinking of. Those are verifiable, especially since we would consider them valid references for articles. It seems like usually common sense can dictate what should be on the pages; I'm sure most of us are able to tell things that could conceptually be abbreviated by various abbreviations. However, when there is disagreement about it, it seems that if there are verafiable sources referring to the article in question by that abbreviation, that should be reason enough to include it. -- Natalya 21:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Right; my point during the HP discussions is that Talk:Harry Potter editors can determine whether the article Harry Potter should say "HP", and the Talk: HP (disambiguation) editors can simply trust them to reach a consensus, which can be used to determine if the abbreviation is included on the dab. The dab editors don't need to vet every linked page. -- JHunterJ 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

True... but could there be situations where the editors of that page were overly biased in favor of including it, just because they wanted to get their page more attention? Not saying that that is the case now, or even that it often would be, but that possibility would make me somewhat leery of always resorting to that practice. Not to say that we will not get rational editors on both the disambiguation page and the article page who would look for appropriate citations... just that it could be fishy sometimes. A conversatoin between the two groups, perhaps, might lead to the most elegant solution. -- Natalya 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Very possibly on the bias. My philosophy on this, though, is: disambiguation pages aren't articles; they serve to disambiguate Wikipedia articles, even flawed Wikipedia articles. If the editors of a page are overly biased, then (unless and until that bias is identified and corrected) that article merits inclusion on the disambiguation page -- just like if someone creates a redirect HP (Harry Potter), the redirect should be included until it is RfDed, or if someone creates an article at HP (some distinguishing phrase for a non-notable topic), it should be included until AfDed. ... Besides, a conversation between the dab editors (of unspecified bias) and the hypothetically overly biased article editors is like to turn inelegant. -- JHunterJ 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

HP (disambiguation)

We could use some more eyes on HP (disambiguation) -- see Talk:HP (disambiguation) and Talk:Harry Potter for the train wreck over the inclusion of Harry Potter. -- JHunterJ 11:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of links on disambiguation pages

My attention has been drawn to the following:

Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. Including more than one link can confuse the reader; including no links at all makes the entry useless for further navigation...

This seems counter-intuitive to me. Here are two examples from HP (disambiguation).

The first is a two-liner:

HP Foods Limited, makers of HP Sauce.
- The originator of the sauce recipe named it HP after the British Houses of Parliament in Westminster.

Seems okay to me. Explains where the HP in HP Foods comes from, and where it originated, as well as providing three possible meanings of HP (the Houses of Parliament one is very much subsidiary because, outside the HP Sauce connection, the Houses of Parliament are hardly every referred to a HP).

Here's the second:

America West Airlines, (IATA code HP)

It's been suggested (using the above-quoted guideline as justification) that it's better to remove the link to IATA airline designator. To my mind that seems to rather miss the point that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on a wiki. I'd no idea what a IATA code was until I clicked the link.

Comments welcome. --Tony Sidaway 11:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

From MOS:DAB "These [dab] pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article". And when someone types in "HP", are they looking for the article Westminster? Are they looking for the article IATA airline designator? If the answer is no, then those terms shouldn't be linked. But I admit that abbreviations are not as clear-cut as other dabbable terms, because it can be argued that someone just wants to find out what the abbreviation stands for without wishing to read the article. But (IMO) unless an article specifically mentions that abbreviation, I remove/delink such entries as nonnotable from the disambiguation pages. Other websites like acronymfinder.com (or even wiktionary) exist for such purposes. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the first example, your argument only applies to the "Westminster" link, which should be unlinked. Someone typing in "HP" is likely to be looking for "HP Sauce" or "Houses of Parliament", and those should be linked, despite them being more than one link, and this is fairly common situation. —Centrx→talk • 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but your argument seems to miss the point that disambiguation pages aren't encyclopedia articles WP:D. If a reader were looking for America West Airlines by entering "HP" in the Go box, he would have already known what an IATA designator was. Extra links distract from the dabs purpose, which is not to deliver information encyclopedically, but to direct readers to sought encyclopedia articles. -- JHunterJ 11:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- What about "HP Foods" and "HP Sauce"; is this not the most logical way to organize related topics, on the same line, so that the reader can navigate more effectively to the article in which they are interested? —Centrx→talk • 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it likely that a reader looking for Houses of Parliament would type HP and land on this page? I doubt it, but if so, then there should be a new and separate entry for the Houses, not attached to HP Sauce. If not, there is no need to mention Parliament at all. In any case, the encyclopedic info about the origin of the name "HP Sauce" is in the article where it belongs, and has no right to be on a dab page. Things would be different if there were another HP Sauce that was served in the Hewlett-Packard cafeteria, but there ain't. Chris the speller 00:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If Houses of Parliament is referred to as "HP", that datum should be noted on Houses of Parliament. As far as the logic, how is

HP Foods Limited, makers of HP Sauce.

more effective than

? But the arrangement of those two entries is of smaller import than the deletion of valid entries. Somewhere in between the two is the unneeded wikilinking of non-HP articles, like IATA. -- JHunterJ 02:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone is searching for "HP", he may not know which is the product and which the company, or whether they are related. Sure, he could click on both links and read both articles/introductions, but the purpose of the disambiguation page--and the purpose of requiring only one link--is to send him to the one specific page he is looking for, without distractions, not to click on every link on the disambiguation page to decide which is relevant. We could have:

HP Foods, a food company that makes HP Sauce
HP Sauce, a sauce made by HP Foods

but that is redundant, and it would be more redundant and confusingly so if there were three or more related items, and the reader may simply click on the first link because its description implies that the unlinked HP Sauce is covered in the linked HP Foods article. That is, he may even be sent to the wrong article because of the guideline that was intended to prevent him from being sent to the wrong article. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd use

HP Sauce, a UK brand of brown sauce
- HP Foods, food manufacturer and former maker of HP Sauce

or something similar. That's what I meant by a sub-bullet. -- JHunterJ 11:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like either way would be fine here; both take creative usage of general disambiguating guidelines (either the indented bullets or the two links in one line), but in both cases it makes sense; it seems more of a case of personal preference rather than which is better. -- Natalya 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

These [dab] pages

I'd like to challenge the premise that "These [dab] pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article", and the assertion that "Including more than one link can confuse the reader".

Clearly it is possible to confuse the user by adding links. But in, I think, every case that I've seen of DAB pages with multiple links per line, the risk of confusion has been somewhere around zero. Why we would want to forego the opportunity to provide rich & useful additional links in DAB entries merely because of a narrow and dusty notion about what "DAB pages are for"? Surely existing policy on the general appropriateness of links (i.e. use common sense) would suffice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they tend not to be "rich & useful". Links about the topic of the article sought are rich & useful on the article sought. They are not useful in directing the reader to the article sought. Notions are not "narrow and dusty" just because you disagree with them. Using common sense would suffice, yes, and it's that common sense which has been captured in the premise you're challenging. -- JHunterJ 13:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So to turn around your reply: where links would be rich and useful, policy should not advise against posting them. But currently it does under the - to me- bogus argument that they maybe "confusing".

Common sense has not been distilled into the policy, IMO. Rather there is a - to me - dubious assertion that disambiguation pages "are not for exploration but only to help the user navigate to a specific article" which seems the antithesis of utility in hyperlinked environment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Compare Something wicked this way comes (phrase) (exploration, used to be the main dab page) to Something Wicked This Way Comes (new dab page). Compare Panthers (not cleaned-up dab page) to Panther (cleaned-up). Compare Dominion (old) to Dominion (disambiguation) (cleaned-up with new kipple). Which respective versions are (generally speaking) more helpful to you? "Common sense" is sometimes misleading. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So is a comparison where more than one variable has changed. Compare Something Wicked This Way Comes 1 and Something Wicked This Way Comes 2. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Having only one choice (the most likely one) is always less confusing than having more options. I could also ask why you didn't link the years, novel, album and all the other words that have wiki articles - someone may want to click those things afterall (not). When someone types in "Something Wicked This Way Comes", does he want to find out about the film or the actors in it, the novel or the writer of it, the album or the artist of it? If it is almost always the former, why link the latter? Does a reader need to click on the artist to realize that the related SWTWC page is not the one he wants, or vice versa? Have you ever helped out with Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, where any unnecessary link slows down the cleanup process?...
Having said that, there are examples where I'd say having extra links is neither absolutely helpful nor absolutely confusing; that is most often SONG by ARTIST on ALBUM, and FILM by DIRECTOR starring ACTOR. In the unusal case when someone really wants to use dab pages for exploration, the artist/actor/writer link is just one extra click away. You may also compare which of your examples looks "cleaner" (for lack of a better word, but maybe that's subjective). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Who on earth are these people who would be confused between Something Wicked This Way Comes and The Enid??? I find your argument incredible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When someone types in "Something Wicked This Way Comes", why does he want to have a link to the Enid (insert three question marks) – especially when this link will be just one more click away (in the desired article, likely in the first sentence). Also, don't mistake Including more than one link can confuse the reader with Including more than one link will confuse the reader. The current guideline is a tradeoff between easy rules, having little redundance and having nice-looking dab pages. Allowing more than one link worsens all three goals. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When someone uses a massively hyperlinked creation such as wikipedia, why would they wish to be presented with pages which do not make use of this facility? Links 'can, fullstop, confuse in any situation. For what reason would I not wish to click on the enid if that's my interest, having remembered SWTWC? For what reason would I wish to have to click to a new page and find the enid link there, rather than go from the DAB page? In my view, the advice we give in this respect is not appropriate - specifically These [dab] pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article. Rather, in my view These [dab] pages help the user navigate to a specific article, and can provide brief linked contextual information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Resetting the indent. I would say the additional links "slow down" rather than "confuse." If someone is focussed on getting a specific item from Wikipedia, then we want to streamline that process for them. I see this as the key distinguishing factor of the dab pages as currently defined and intended - get the user to the intended information quickly when there is some ambiguity in what they entered. This means balancing the help you give to each of the people looking for each of the different meanings. If you have extra bluelinks, it will take more time for them to scan the page to find what they are looking for - there is TOO MUCH information on the page for them. Yes, they would like it if the detail about their article were on that one page, but that would make it more difficult for someone else to find THEIR information about a different article.

If someone is just browsing Wikipedia for what information they can find, then speed is of less importance and the additional links you think are missing from the dab page are most likely in the first paragraph of the one link that IS there. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sub-dabs, letters, and symbols

I undid this addition to the guideline: "[See also can be used for] Links to other related disambiguation pages, for example T (symbol) from T (disambiguation)". I think that the letters and symbols still present a problem, but in the general case, there should not be both a "base name (disambiguation)" and a "base name (other disambiguating page)" on the Wikipedia; see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 25#Incomplete parenthetical disambiguations. -- JHunterJ 20:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just added that because I thought it was common practice, but if I was incorrect, I apologize. I do have to admit that I've been really struggling with pages like these:

And others, but those are a few of the messier ones that come to mind. Anyway, it was my understanding that they should be split out into "disambig" and "symbol" pages, but I'm honestly happy to handle it in whatever way makes the most sense. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I about disambig protocol could tackle one of those pages, clean it up, and then I'll emulate your technique on the rest of them? --El on ka 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that, if the (disambiguation) and (symbol), are both dab pages, they should be merged into a single dab page -- Y (disambiguation), for instance, covers both the symbolic and other uses of "y". Or the symbol page could be refactored as an article instead of a dab, and linked from the main section (not see also) of the (disambiguation) page -- but then it might be better merged with the (letter) or base name page. I could be wrong, though, and we might want to have separate (symbol) dabs, but I would make that a separate section of the MoS, and not use it as an example in the "See also" section instructions, since in the general case we do not want "sub-dabs". I will also take a crack on one of those pages to show how I'd merge it, but that won't be this weekend. Monday, probably. -- JHunterJ 13:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; we should definitly address the issue of "symbol" dab pages. It seems that it would be ideal to merge the two pages, but I could see those pages getting out of control. JHunterJ's plan of trying to see if they can be merged sounds like a good idea; if they cannot, then we can look at other options.

For merging, it seems like all the "Symbol" links can just go under their own section, just like when we section longer disambiguation pages by category. -- Natalya 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also the issue of how much should go on a "symbol" page, and how much should just get moved over to Wiktionary. For example, at T (symbol), do we really think it's likely that any Wikipedia editor is going to link T when they really mean Teaspoon, Tera, or Alberta? Or that they're going to link S when they mean Svedberg, Serine, or Entropy? I personally think that this goes way beyond even the "remote possibility". Granted, they might link some of it, like they might say S-type star when they mean Carbon star, but in my opinion, we should keep the disambig pages for their original intention, which is to provide a resource for those things that are likely to be linked, not simply anything that uses that abbreviation or symbol. --El on ka 17:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I have limited expertise, of those examples, I can see legitimate reasons for "S" to link to entropy, as it is often represented as such, and could easily be confused. This seems to go back to the issue brought up when there was discussion of whether "Harry Potter" should be linked to from HP; it seemed (at least here) that if there were reliable sources that referred to the article as such, then it should be linked. Otherwise, discretion could be used on which extraneous ones should be removed. -- Natalya 00:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a pass at C (disambiguation). Let me know if that helps or if it needs help. :-) -- JHunterJ 00:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks great! Very well organized - nice work. -- Natalya 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Should sequels be listed on a DAB page?

When the DAB page can refer to a movie which has sequels with a similar name, should all of the sequels be listed? For example, should Halloween (disambiguation) really list ever Halloween film, or should it just list the original film, its remake, and the film series article? -Joltman 18:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say only the first movie and the series article need to be linked; the others, if not removed outright, should be relegated to the "See also" section or the whole set moved beneath all the other entries known as just "Halloween". -- JHunterJ 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would make sense under the See also (it doesn't meet the criteria here), but I agree that only those films known as "Halloween" (i.e. without numbers, etc.) should be included, in addition to an article on the series. A better case could be made for topics missing an article on the series, but still I think a user is unlikely to intend to find the sequel when searching the first movie's title, or even if s/he is, s/he would expect to find a link to them from the first movie's article. Rigadoun (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there's already a Halloween (film series) I'd probably just list the first one + the film series link. Otherwise, I might try collapsing all the sequels into a single entry -- having multiple blue links on one line might be preferable than these 10+ entries. (But there's so many other marginal entires on this particular page -- songs, episodes of shows, etc. -- that I'm not sure it makes much difference.) Ewlyahoocom 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can or will

I think the bar for including redlinks needs to be will an article be written, rather than can an article be written. Anything can be written about, but what are the chances that it actually will be? I don't think we want dab pages with long lists of redlinks, which I've seen happen because of the wording in this style guide. Will is a slightly stricter bar that helps reduce the number of redlinks. Dreadstar † 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on your standpoint. For example, an article for a nonnotable character of a popular piece of fiction can and will likely be written, but it won't survive Speedy or AfD for very long (so does "can" imply notability for the article to remain?). On the other hand, it is often doubtful that a sufficiently notable person of the 1870s will have an article written about them in the near future, although it would survive AfD anytime and can thus be written. It really depends on the kind of dab page. (Compare Thumper with John Smith; you could even compare the real people section of John Smith with the fictional people section.) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote from the guideline, emphasis mine: "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term." Redlinks mean that no article exists, but I do think we should allow a certain limited number of redlinks for articles that we believe will exist in the near future. "Can" only implies that an article is capable of being written, not that one will exist in the near future. I think we should only allow for redlinks when an article is in process of being written. That better fits the purpose and definition of this guideline. Dreadstar † 17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I'm bringing this up is because I've seen several dab pages with many more redlinks than actual article links, and I've seen the editors who added those long lists of redlinks use the wording in this guideline to justify keeping redlinks on the pages...without ever intending to write the articles themselves or even knowing if anyone would write them. Perhaps even stronger wording about the number and quality of redlinks in dab pages is in order. Or maybe I'm the only one who's seen this problem...just my bad luck..;) Dreadstar † 18:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll bet that many of those "dab pages with many more redlinks than actual article links" probably come from the old lists of acronyms (and character combination) pages (see also here and here). Some redlinks I don't mind -- and it gives Wikipedia:Most wanted articles something to work off of -- but at this point in the project if those articles aren't going to at least be stubbed out it's probably going to be a long time before they get created. Redirects (+{{R with possibilities}}) are probably my favorite way to deal with redlinks, but it can take time to find a good redirect -- if one exists at all. Ewlyahoocom 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

...or in surname lists on dab pages. What I do in such a case is check for incoming links. If a redlink is used nowhere on wikipedia other than a dab page, it likely is nonnotable and doubtful that someone will create that article because he sees a redlink on a dab page. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've done very many dabs, but yes, a couple of them were indeed lists of surname redlinks, others were just links of article names that the editor who added them thought they could be articles. At the time I just wanted a little stronger wording than "can be written" - and I still think it's a good idea to tighten it up a bit. Perhaps we can change it to "can and will" as in:

"Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") should be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclpedia article can and will be written on the subject."

Dreadstar † 19:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be "will", and within a month or so, otherwise it's an invite to redlink city. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As a hardcore eventualist, I think "can" is the correct word. There's nothing wrong with redlinks, so long as they're not overdone. My criteria is that there needs to be at least some other article that links to the term (and the article needs to be in reasonably decent shape -- i.e., not a hack job only recently thrown together by the same editor that added the term to the dab page. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And, to that end, I think the note "Redlinks should usually not be the only link in a given entry;" should be tightened up to "A redlink should not be the only link in a given entry;" -- there's no need for both "should" and "usually" in the guideline. -- JHunterJ 12:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, using can and will is the same as saying will (because of course if it "will" than surely it "can"). Certainly, in either case, no redlink should appear on a dab page without a corresponding blue link. A redlink with no blue link is useless to the seeker. I therefore heartily agree that we should tighten up the guidelines as proposed by JHunterJ. -- SlackerMom (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good one: First National Bank [1]. Anyone care to take a crack at it? Ewlyahoocom 04:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -- JHunterJ 17:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

More on redlinks

Sometimes there is a question whether the "entry word" in an entry should be redlinked or not linked at all. For instance, from Sephiroth:

Sephiroth (Tales of the Abyss), the ten ancient devices used in order to support the Outer Lands in Tales of the Abyss

vs.

Sephiroth, the ten ancient devices used in order to support the Outer Lands in Tales of the Abyss

Both entries have a single blue link, which is good. I usually click through the proposed redlink and see "What links here" -- if anything else links to it (and preferably the blue-linked article in particular), then I'll also include the redlink on the dab; if the only thing that would use the redlink is the dab, I opt in favor of no link for the "entry word". I was considering making the suggestion in the guidelines. Thoughts? -- JHunterJ 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'd probably prefer the creation of a redirect ("with possibilities" if necessary) to make the redlink blue. But maybe that's just my coward's way out. Ewlyahoocom 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do the same (checking for incoming links etc.). But if you add this to the guidelines, you might want to elaborate on how to find and use Whatlinkshere. It took me two months as a newbie to realize the potential of the toolbox (and I still don't use it much unless I have to). – sgeureka ^t•c 02:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a reasonable rule of thumb. You could just add a link to Help:What links here in lieu of explaining it anew. I think the converse is a reasonable guideline, too: a link that seems like it should have an article written reasonably soon (that is, one to be redlinked) should have other oncoming links, and they should be added from relevant articles per Wikipedia:Build the web. Rigadoun (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted WP:MOSDAB#Red links based on this discussion. -- JHunterJ 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary links to foreign-language words

I just cleaned up Gelb, and it had an entry "the German word for yellow". True enough, but I changed it to a wiktionarypar, mainly so you, my esteemed colleagues, can easily observe what's over there. I have seen quite a number of wiktionary links to entries like this, where there are only definitions of foreign-language words. My tendency is to remove them from dab pages, but perhaps we need a guideline. I suggest that we discourage wiktionary links where they only lead to foreign-language definitions. And I don't think we needed the original entry "the German word for yellow", as a speaker of German who wants to know about the color yellow should be entering "gelb" in de.wikipedia.org, not in the English WP. Any thoughts? Chris the speller 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on whether there are people with that surname on the dab page (someone may actually want to know what the surname means and where it comes from). I'm not sure what to say about surname-less dab pages. I just think that some drive-by wikipedian will add the translation to the dab page again anyway, especially such popular ones, so I wouldn't bother(?). – sgeureka ^t•c 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the English Wikipedia article (Yellow in this case) doesn't serve to disambiguate the term ("Gelb" doesn't appear on the article), then yes, it should be deleted. I think the existing disambiguation guidelines cover this, but I'm all for making them clearer since there are may editors who don't read all the nuances I see in them (and I don't blame them). If a surname-full dab page reaches the point where it's covering the meaning and other info about a surname, the dab info and surname article should be split into two pages. -- JHunterJ 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a dab page that has onomastic info about a surname or given name, (or which has more than a handful of people) deserves to have that stuff moved to a surname or given name article (which I did for this article because it had 6 people already, with many more existing articles yet to be listed). In this case, I assume that the name has something to do with "yellow", maybe yellow hair or yellow teeth, but I don't know it for a fact, and don't care to dig up references. I have gotten to this point by moving surname blather off hundreds of dab pages, having found most of them by looking for one-word pages that use hndis. The question about wiktionary links to foreign-language words remains, and I have seen quite a few of them, but feel that they clutter up disambig pages, and that it's not the mission of WP to be a German-English or Italian-English dictionary. If I'm wrong, please tell me now. Chris the speller 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What question remains? Include a link to Yellow on Gelb? No. Include a link to (English) wiktionary through Wikitionarypar on Gelb? Yes. -- JHunterJ 04:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The question about linking to a (supposedly English) dictionary from an English encyclopedia page even when there is no English definition of that term. I don't know why Wiktionary has foreign terms defined in it, but don't care, either, as I have very little use or respect for it. You say yes, but don't say why. I say why is anyone searching for a completely foreign word in WP, and why should we add clutter to WP to accommodate them? Following Sgeureka's lead, I propose the acronym DBWE (drive-by Wikipedia editor) for the type of person who sees "gelb" , thinks "that's the German word for yellow" and feels compelled to add it, even though "Gelb" is not a candidate for a WP article title about colors, except in the German WP. I try not to forget the true reason for dab pages. Chris the speller 06:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to add the wiktionary template, that's fine, but I think it's the right thing to add when removing dictionary defs from a dab. And if another editor has already added a wiktionary template, certainly don't remove it just because it has no English content. Perhaps there could be a separate Wiktionary template for use when the target Wiktionary entries have no English definitions. I don't think clutter is an issue unless there's a TOCRight template as well, then it can start looking a little funny. -- JHunterJ 11:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:acronyms question

I came across Category:acronyms on a dab page today. It's a fairly well populated category, although I have never come across it in the past. MOS:DAB#Categories currently only refers to name categories, so I don't really know what to do. I also ask because HOS would allow for redlinks as an acronym page. As a disambiguation page however, it shouldn't, and I've previously always deleted the masses of redlinks without incoming links. Opinions? I don't want to "harm" other projects. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit: It seems this category is usually applied to articles whose subject is widely known by the acronym, like DINKY. But I'd still like others' input about whether to remove all redlinked term without incoming links, even though they are/were sourced. (My take: Wikipedia is not Google, therefore delete them.) – sgeureka ^t•c 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not see a WikiProject for acronyms identified with the category. In any event, complete lists of acronym definitions should be left to Wiktionary, and yes, I agree that the redlinks (and no-links) should be removed from the acronym dab pages here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, wouldn't have thought of transwiki'ing the list. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid using wikilinks

I notice this has been raised several times already, but I'd like to state for once, that I agree with the notion that the restriction "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link." and its rationale "Including more than one link can confuse the reader" (i) seem counter-intuitive as per the general wiki architecture, and (ii) assumes rather easily confused readers, to say the least. Anyone knows how a wiki works by now. If links are relevant, e.g. links to a parent subject, I believe such a link is warranted. Couldn't the guideline advise to bold the primary link per line, and to make it the first link in the line? |dorftrottel |humor me 14:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(i) has some merit, but the consensus regarding the purpose of a disambiguation page is that it is not a destination article -- that is, most links to a disambiguation page are intended to be links to some other article. (ii) is somewhat condescending. Do you have some reliable source to support the claim that "Anyone knows how a wiki works by now"? A perusal of Wikipedia:Helpdesk should quickly dispel that misconception. While consensus can change, the consensus of editors who spend time cleaning up disambiguation pages and mistaken links to them is that "one blue link" per entry is a sound practice. In any case excessive bolding is one of the worst things that can be done to disambiguation pages (or to lists in general). older ≠ wiser 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am apparently not the only editor who cringes when he sees the suggestion to bold the primary link on each line; that is a sea change in the style of a dab page. The prohibition is more about speed than stupidity; with more than one blue link, the reader has to switch from a vertical search to a horizontal search, and then choose between finer differences of meaning. In the very few cases where two blue links could really be useful, break the rule (even if it didn't already give latitude with "in almost every case"), and then add an invisible comment explaining why that entry is better with multiple links. That's not too much to ask for these very rare cases. If you think that more than one out of 500 entries needs this treatment, then I suspect that you are not trying hard enough to create two separate entries for slightly different meanings. I have created or cleaned up many thousands of entries, and I can't remember one where I thought two links were needed. Chris the speller (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Condescending? I find the current assumption that readers are easily confused somewhat condescending. But ok, I just wanted my opinion to be heard once. Nevermind. |dorftrottel |humor me 16:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not handling "stupidity" we are talking about here, but providing a page that is streamlined for navigation purposes. Yes, many readers would be able to sort through more than one link, but this will slow down even the most brilliant readers. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What tells you the majority of readers isn't at all interested in breadth? Not arguing either way (what do I know?), but you appear to make that fairly strong assumption in your reasoning. |dorftrottel |humor me 17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't make that assumption: I do assume a significant number of people are interested in getting to a particular article quickly and appreciate a quick pass through a necessary dab page. I also assume those interested in breadth are not in such a hurry and don't mind clicking through to articles to get fuller breadth. Most of the breadth you speak about is still available, only in the various articles, not the dab page. I appreciate you questioning this - I find it useful to articulate it occasionally to make sure it makes sense and that I (we) are not being pedantic and doctrinaire. I still believe the current approach makes sense. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguated page should be expected have links to the parent subject, and readers looking for the page are probably not looking for the parent subject in particular (otherwise they wouldn't be at the disambiguation page). So the link serves no purpose on the dab. The dab should disambiguate articles, not become a Wikipedia article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok all. As I said, I just wanted to state my opinion once. So, I take it I should go and remove one of the links from the line that reads

Malcolm in the Middle, an American television series and its title character, Malcolm

from the Malcolm disambig page. Which one should be removed? And should there be two lines for the two links? How would that improve overview and streamlining? |dorftrottel |humor me 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead with:

Malcolm in the Middle, an American television series
Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle), the title character of the series

I think it helps as one scans down the list to see a single link per line and if the "blue" text looks close, they read the rest. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. |dorftrottel |humor me 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to ruffle feathers, but the link to the TV show is about as useless as wing-tip fuel tanks on a glider. As far as I know, the show is generally referred to as "Malcolm in the Middle", not just "Malcolm", so it does not belong on the page, per WP:D#Lists. And anyone looking for a TV show that has a Malcolm character would probably not miss the next entry anyway, and the article about the character has a link to the series article right in its opening line. Chris the speller (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Very correct of you. |dorftrottel |humor me 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, this TV show is in fact called just Malcolm in some parts of the world (check the interwikis). Although I don't live in the English speaking world, I use EN wikipedia as my main wiki, and I sometimes have no clue what a TV show is called in its original version. Having it appear on the dab page is then very convenient to me. The same goes for example with Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide on Ned. Just something to consider. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if it's outside of the English-speaking world (i.e. a foreign name) it doesn't really belong here. That's why there is interwiki links. However, if the English name has different English variations in certain parts of the world, then by all means include them. Rocket000 (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if there are places where it's generally called "Malcolm", then include it, preferably with an invisible comment noting that reason. Chris the speller (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Another example: Adriatic (disambiguation), which contains the line

The fictional starship Adriatic, from Battlestar Galactica 2004

I don't mind either way, but please understand that I do not intend to remove the imo plausible link to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). All in all, the manual of style is a good thing (and necessary), but applying these guidelines strictly and indiscriminately is certainly idiotic. |dorftrottel |talk 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's plausible, but plausibility is not a sufficient reason to add an entry; likelihood is sufficient. Why would anyone who wanted to read about Battlestar Galactica enter "Adriatic" and hit the <Go> button? Why wouldn't they enter "Battlestar Galactica"? Even in the plausible but unlikely case that they wanted to read about the TV series which featured a spaceship named "Adriatic" but couldn't remember the name of the series, they could enter "Adriatic", follow the link to the spaceship, hit the <Home> key on their browser, and the name of the series is right there. Wikipedia dab pages are not there to cater to every possible case of reader confusion or forgetfulness, nor are they a place for editors to dump every scrap of information that comes to mind, no matter how helpful they want to be. The Adriatic dab page is there to provide paths to articles that might be referred to as "Adriatic", and the TV series is not called that. Most editors see the need to draw the line somewhere on what goes on a dab page, and this is where the line was drawn by consensus. Chris the speller (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what would Wikipedia be without its one truly reliable gauging mechanism which magically never errs on anything, consensus. Incidentally, my opinion differs significantly from yours on this. I hope you're not seriously saying that "because of consensus" and "the need to draw the line somewhere" you are fighting for "clean" dab pages. But it's none of my business. |dorftrottel |talk 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to be snide. I cleaned up the entry on Adriatic, since I agree with the points made by Chris the speller, and they're in line with the guidelines. Why would the link to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) be needed by someone on the Adriatic dab page? -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that WP pages need a certain uniformity so as not to appear unprofessional. That level of uniformity for dab pages was settled by consensus before I came on the scene, and I read and understood the style guide. I determined that I can contribute within that framework. I might have (probably would have) come up with something very different if I were doing it all myself, but it's not my encyclopedia, and it works by consensus. This does not stop anyone who has their own ideas from building their own encyclopedia on their own computer. Chris the speller (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I as a reader would welcome that link, but my reading pattern probably isn't that of the average person. I'm of the type who would argue that every term that has an article should be linked exactly once in every page where it appears. Chris the speller, I do believe guidelines are very important, esp. the MOS, but this particular subguideline (as opposed to e.g. WP:WAF) seems like a weird place to exclusively focus your efforts on (which you don't do), when there's so much more important work to do as far as professional appearance is concerned. A link "too much" on a dab page ranks very low as far as potential to degrade the professional appearance of Wikipedia goes. ~~JHunterJ~~Chris the speller: "This does not stop anyone who has their own ideas from building their own encyclopedia on their own computer." — So should I, in your opinion, leave Wikipedia because I don't agree with current MOS:DAB consensus regarding wikilinks? At least that's what I can't help but read into your comment. So let me just add, consensus how to handle wikilinks in dab pages is not a very deep thing, and it should orient itself on current practice. And since so many dab pages I come across contain more than one link per line, maybe consensus isn't really against those additional links after all. You see: Consensus includes the actual practice "out there", not only (or even predominantly) what a straw poll or some such decides on a MOS subguideline established by the style police. |dorftrottel |talk 08:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't leave WP just because you disagree with the style guidelines, but you shouldn't make edits that conflict with the WP guidelines just because you don't agree with them. But the place to make any edits you want in your own style is in your own encyclopedia. The consensus I have talked about is the consensus that brought this guideline to its current state; what's "out there", if different from the guideline, is what we (who read and understand the guideline) would be bringing into alignment with the guideline if we were not spending a lot of time on this talk page in discussions such as this. Chris the speller (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"the mess "out there" is not consensus, just ignorance" — Listen, I think I do know where you're coming from, it's just not "my" area of special interest. But ideas like "ignorance", "unwashed masses" or "Eternal September" are indeed familiar to me in other areas. |dorftrottel |talk 12:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The "unwashed masses" are not what worry me; a lot of people who each make one or two additions in good faith, in the general style of what they see on the page, are doing a lot of good. A smaller number of people who hammer away at WP every day without bothering to find out what the real goal is, or who find out but set their own sytle anyway, they worry me. I enjoyed reading the Eternal September article, by the way. Thanks. Chris the speller (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Telling from your last 500 contributions, it seems like you don't cleanup disambiguation a lot, if at all. While there is nothing wrong with that, it is somehow weird that you tell "the regulars" that all they have been doing is not necessarily based on consensus and therefore needs to be challenged. However, I did not see the point of some of the things in this MOS until my first month of extensive dab editing was over, and the only changes I later offered were some minor MOS modifications in the (sur)name area. Why would other newbie dabbers know what's best for this dab MOS without going through this learning curve as well ("learning and understanding by doing")? No offense intended. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I first stumbled upon this guideline a few days ago. It never occured to me that this could be a place for regulars. How many things are there to decide now that the guideline is in place, as compared to other, more content-related MOS-subguidelines? Seems to be primarily maintenance of the status quo, with the random adjustment every once in a while. In the meantime, different dab pages may require so vastly different layouts that more than some basic issues cannot possibly be prescribed.

Also, I have no intentions whatsoever of becoming a "regular dabber", ever. And I've been at WP long enough to know that everytime a guideline/policy regular employs the word "consensus" (as opposed to e.g. "explanation", "reasoning", and "compromise") to respond to a differing view... God kills a kitten. Consensus is found through editing out there, not through groupthink in here. And as far as I can see (which probably isn't that far), actual consensus appears to possibly defy the strength and validity of consensus as reflected in the guideline, not to mention the usage of that buzzword as an argumentative sledgehammer against users with a valid differing opinion. It doesn't require an insider to recognise this.

However, I can live with the reasoning that readers are looking for a particular article, and don't need possibly distracting convenience links. But it isn't a rebuttal by any stretch of imagination of my contradicting reasoning (based on likewise valid logic, if I may say so), that on every mainspace page, exactly one instance of each term with an according article should have a link. While I understand the need for a status quo for dab pages, I'm confident my opinion is not utterly underinformed. |dorftrottel |talk 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely underinformed....it is common enough merit an FAQ type of response -- which may explain some of what you describe as groupthink. While I may be misunderstanding your argument that on every mainspace page, exactly one instance of each term with an according article should have a link -- that is not supported by the manual of style page Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. older ≠ wiser 15:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'd just find it a lot more logically compelling to do that, but it's my own private reasoning only. |dorftrottel |talk 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fewer dab pages with just given names and surnames

It's not just your imagination. There are fewer, about 1800 fewer. I took it seriously where it says "Pages only listing persons with certain given names or surnames who are not widely known by these parts of their name otherwise are not disambiguation pages". Today I finished a 6-month-and-5-day effort, from Glenda to Sandra, from Barker to Winkler, following one-word pages in the category: "Lists of ambiguous human names", changing from hndis templates to the surname template (1494) or given name template (295). Along the way, I split many dab pages onto new surname articles (395) or given-name articles (133). This cleaned up dab pages so that CorHomo could process them, allowing it to disambiguate 1,986 links. I only got yelled at a couple of times. This is not just to brag, but to encourage all editors; you can get a lot done if you just keep chipping away. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. Thanks! I've been chipping along too, although without the statistics (but my numbers would be much lower anyway). -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is AWESOME! Way to go. I am encouraged, since "chipping away" is my only option. (And I've come to feel that you have to get "yelled at" once in a while to be sure you're making a difference!) SlackerMom (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Order of entries

I notice that the order of entries is recommended to be "most used at the top" etc. It seems to me that this creates a possibility of pov creeping in ... who decides which is most used? what are the criteria? etc. I know there are some guidelines in the section but I am still dubious ... would it not be better to stick to alphabetical order, splitting into sections for larger lists? There would then be no possibility of pov. See MS and its talk page for the sort of difficulties that can arise. Abtract (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This has come up before. It's only POV in the sense that the good judgment of editors is required; that is, the same judgment exercised in every other article. An alphabetical list is only rarely helpful; if there are a few major uses and a bunch of minor ones, it greatly helps to move the major ones to the top, where they'll be used by 95% of readers. SnowFire (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

mmm I'm not convinced (alphabetical lists are completely nuetral and are widely used throughout wp) but thanks. Abtract (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting case at AFD

Here is an interesting case at AFD involving a disambiguation page that disambiguates foreign language (non-latin) characters. I've voiced my opinion there, so I won't repeat it here, but I think it raises interesting questions for disambiguation on WP:EN. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of non-notable entries when they have lost their popularity?

The longer wikipedia lives, the more things wind up on dab pages that have a short burst of major popularity but are then forgotten after some months/years, and it becomes unlikely that they are still search terms. I'm specifically referring to fictional characters by given name (Zelda) and television episodes (Point of no return (disambiguation), but also songs (Money (disambiguation)).

While songs rarely get their own article for long, it was common practice to create and keep articles about non-notable characters and episodes (WP:FICT and WP:N). But there are current efforts to cut down on such characters and episodes by merging them into List of characters in XXX and List of XXX episodes. So in the end, none of these three groups will have articles on their own for long, but are still likely search terms for a while. Can we agree on a clause to eliminate these things when popularity has waned unless there is proof to do otherwise (song was a single, non-notable fictional character was in the main cast, episode was the 100th episode or was a season opener/finale)? I sometimes have the feeling that disambiguation pages are used as trivia dropping places for what has been called XXX in popular culture. What do others think? – sgeureka ^t•c 16:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't be sorry to see some of the juvenile fancruft go, but many of these terms have a rdr to an anchor in the "List of characters in XXX" page. The right way to clean this up is to go through an RFD, and if the rdr gets deleted, then the entry can be removed from the dab page, but being unpoplar is not grounds for an RFD. Even if it were, how could you measure disuse? Even if the Wikimedia software could count and report "hits" on the link to the rdr, there would be hits from editors clicking through just to see if it's notable. You would have to rely on a consensus of editors who patrol the RFDs, and after all that work, one diehard fan would put it back in. You may be overestimating the potential of these fans to let go. Good luck. Chris the speller (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, assuming that there is no article on the subject itself... my general rule is that the topic should be prominently mentioned in the linked article, or stand a good chance of having a prominent discussion eventually. For instance, on the Zelda page you linked, the "a codename used by someone else in fiction" example is clearly silly. As for "the maid of Katinka van de Velde," that seems entirely too minor a character - I don't see it coming up at all in a CTRL-F of Wilbur Smith. Even for characters that did come up, ideally they should be *major* characters, i.e. ones worthy of their own heading in a list article. The other rule is that the more common the name, the stricter the requirements. Someone named just "Harry" in fiction better be really important to the associated work to merit a mention; a name like Kluragara might have a bit more leeway, since it's more likely that's what was actually meant.

Don't see a problem with linking to songs or episodes, though, in general. For modern music, I think the line is that there should be an article on the associated album or single - if a musician is so minor as to only merit an article on themselves and not their works, then it's not a good link (and it's certainly not a good link if the band/musician has no article!). SnowFire (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to both) I accept that. But what about keeping fictional characters on disambiguation pages when there is a separate "given names" pages? To take my example from above, Zelda / Zelda, I moved all fictional characters but Princess Zelda and Hilda and Zelda to Zelda (given name) because all others seemed to me like "look, I know another person called Zelda and put it on the dab page", just like what happens with real people called "Zelda". Should I reinsert all fictional characters back on the dab page? – sgeureka ^t•c 09:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If the article (or a redirect to the article) has the form "Zelda (disambiguating phrase)", then yes, I'd say it should go on the disambiguation page (and possibly on the name page too). If it's a two-named character (first and last names) with no such title or redirect title, then no, I'd say it shouldn't be on the dab, and if another editor insists, I'd relegate it to the See also section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments could be made that I should create these redirect titles, like I just did for (real-world) Zelda (poet) now redirecting Zelda Schneersohn Mishkovsky. If I won't, fans could create these redirects very easily, which is already happening for minor characters in really popular fictional works (Bernard (Lost), Janus (Stargate)), and therefore demand an appearance on dab pages. Five years from now (if it hasn't already happened), no one will remember these characters anymore, but their redirect will still exists (if no-one takes them to RfD), and they would therefore have to be included on the dab pages forever. That's where I'm coming from, but maybe the tendency I perceive will only really become a problem in a few years. I'll use your suggestion and common sense in the meantime. Thanks. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you know enough about the dabbed subjects to identify the needed redirect, sure. If you happen to be cleaning up a dab and you don't know the target well enough, I'ld leave it to the fans. I wasn't suggesting that the lack of a redirect right now should prohibit someone (dab editor or topic fan) from creating it in the future (and returning it to the dab if it was deleted). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

External links?

I'm puzzling over the external links (embedded citations, if you will) in the page Gathering of Eagles (disambiguation). The guideline says nothing about them (it would be nice if it did); my sense is that they're not supposed to be there, but I'm not sure if that is the norm. Other opinions? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

MOS:DAB#Individual entries says, External links should rarely, if ever, be given entries in disambiguation pages. Including them as comments or on a talk page is a way to mention URLs that might be helpful in the future. I cleaned up the mentioned page accordingly. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. It didn't answer my question; perhaps I was unclear. The page I pointed to had an entry of this form:

[[Wikilink to article]] - brief explanation [external link].

The text you quote, I believe, refers to entries of this form:

[URL External page] - brief explanation.

In short, I wasn't referring to an external link given an entry, I was referring to an external link added to a valid entry (Thank you for cleaning it up, but I'm still concerned about the absence of advice in the guideline, or perhaps the lack of clarity. A wording change seems in order.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the link I gave applies to both kinds of entries, and I've never seen any regular dab editor leave external links after a cleanup. If someone feels the external link is important, they can start a stub and give the external link there. For everything else, I always use the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google rationale. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I strengthened the note on external links to cover both entries and descriptions. -- JHunterJ 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Using TOCright

For the second time recently I've noticed that an editor removed a TOCright template from a dab page, with the comment that it's unattractive or unnecessarydiff. Personally, I like TOCright on dab pages because it uses otherwise wasted white space and makes the actual content more accessible by pushing it closer to the top. But I suppose I shouldn't go around adding the template to pages I clean up, or reverting edits that remove it, just because I happen to like it. The topic was discussed a bit here last year--see this discussion about long lists, which generally seemed to favor the use of the template on dab pages--but I still thought I'd ask how others feel about TOCright and the circumstances under which it should or shouldn't be used. --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, thank you for notifying me on my talk page to come visit here. To be honest, when it comes to forcing tables of contents, I prefer only to do so when it is completely necessary, for example, when there is an image in the way of the left hand side of the page, where otherwise there would be no practical need to do so. To encourage whitespace, for me at least, encourages the reader to read in a straight line downwards, rather than telling them to click right at the top of the article. To be honest, it makes little difference, but there are times when I think it is necessary and times when it is less so. It's only very occasionally I make these edits, but I will exercise better judgment in future. Bobo . 21:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I also have a tendency to prefer TOC's only on long lists, feeling them an unnecessary distraction on a short list. In fact, I often follow the MOS format here which doesn't generate the TOC at all. I admit I've never thought of the vertical line argument, which is interesting, but I think I still prefer to use TOCright (I dislike excess scrolling). I'm afraid I do things all the time "just because I happen to like it". It hasn't gotten me in too much trouble yet! SlackerMom (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, ShelfSkewed, I love {{TOCright}} exactly for your reasons. In this particular case, I would definately add it back. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also a huge fan of using TOCright on disambiguation pages. Regarding a specific point made by Bobo192, dab pages are not exactly articles, but rather navigational pages. Very few persons "read" a disambiguation page from top to bottom -- there is very little in the way of linear continuity in any case. Considering that the ideal for a good disambiguation page is to help a reader find the article they intended to find as quickly as possible, having a large chunk of useless white space at the top doesn't really help. older ≠ wiser 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Count me as another person who likes using {{tocright}}. Especially on pages where the TOC takes up as much room as the actual list, it's much cleaner to move it to the side, so that the reader can actually get at the list. :) --El on ka 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of consensus, if another editor objects to {{TOCright}}, consider __NOTOC__ too. But when a TOC is needed on a dab, I too prefer pushing it right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think older ≠ wiser is right on the mark. I also think that on dab pages that are long enough to require sections instead of bolded headers (more than about a screenful), we have a better chance of having the entry being sought on the first screen if the TOC is on the right. I'm not keen on dispensing with the TOC, as there are likely to be sections starting on subsequent screens, and the reader should be given a chance to jump to the right section, rather than paging forward to look for it. Chris the speller (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I generally don't like sections on dab pages, so I like TOC on dab pages even less. (On some long articles, TOCRight can be OK but unfortunately -- on my computer at least -- it screws up some of the formatting: the section edit links ("[edit]") get shifted around as to make the unusable.) Ewlyahoocom (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of "Red links" section

The "Red links" section is pretty messed up. Logically it does not work (Killer (Swiss band) is no more likely an actual title than Killer (metal band), Killer (heavy metal band) or something more specific like Killer (speed metal band) or Killer (thrash band), ergo the what-links-here test does not work in actual practice for a very large number of potential article names that themselves require disambiguation in their names). Perhaps even more importantly, WP:MOSDAB is in direct conflict with WP:REDLINK, which is clear that redlinks should remain if it is plausible to write a legitimate article for it; they therefore should not be de-linked on article pages. Similarly, the very well accepted maxim that redlinks encourage article creation also militates against WP:MOSDAB's seemingly out-of-nowhere "rule" that a redlink should only be added to a dab page if it is also redlinked from other articles. This at least has the effect of a sotto voce attempt to discourage article creation, because in more cases than could possibly be counted, the only easy way to determine whether an article exists or is needed is via examining the relevant dab page, if the topic in question has a name that could be ambiguous with other topics; the implication to many editors is "if it isn't listed at this dab page, then don't create it". This is not an appropriate role for dab pages or MOSDAB. Also, without the redlink, the inference of some other editors will be that the missing article may well exist somewhere, under a name the person has not thought to look under yet.

Proposed replacement

With numerous other minor clarifications.

====Red links====

A link to a non-existent article (a "[[Wikipedia:Red link|red link]]") should only be included on a disambiguation page when the topic is [[Wikipedia:Notability|notable]], i.e., could plausibly sustain a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliably]] [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|sourced]] article. There is no need to brainstorm all occurrences of the disambiguation page title and create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics.

If other articles also include this red link, that is usually a good indication that the topic qualifies, though absence of such links is not a reliable indicator of lack of notability. You can use "Show preview" to see the entry with the red link, click through it, and then use "What links here" to see if any other articles use the red link. ''(See [[Help:What links here]] for more information.)'' This technique is not always helpful, especially with red links that have disambiguated names themselves – the subject of [[Example (Canadian band)]] might be red-linked, or even be an extant article, at [[Example (metal band)]] or some other article name.

In contrast to normal entries, which are usually one link each, red links should not be the ''only'' link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, especially one that also red-links the topic in question or at least mentions it, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information.

If the entry is unlikely to ever have an article about it, then do not red-link it, and instead link only to an article about whatever class the topic is a member of. It is permissible but not necessary to link to the topic's specific section at the target article, if one exists (do this in the link to the named main article, instead of creating a piped title link).</nowik> <nowiki>A contrived example:

:{| style="border: 1px solid black" width=100% |- |'''Badminton''' may refer to: * [[Badminton]], a racquet sport related to tennis * [[Badminton (band)]], a British rock group * The badminton, a [[Flying disc techniques#The badminton|flying disc technique]] * <s>[[Flying disc techniques#The badminton|The badminton]], a flying disc technique</s> * Badminton, a type of [[noodle]] |}

In this example, the sport already has an article, the band may be appropriate for a future article, the flying disc technique probably would not (but is linked to a section that, in our hypothetical example, does already exist at the main article on such techniques), the struck example (which would not actually appear on the disambiguation page) shows how ''not'' to link to sections, and the noodle is neither notable enough for its own article nor linked to anything more specific than the article about noodles.

A rendered (un-nowikied) copy is at User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox for the duration of this discussion.

The struck example might be too redundant.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no conflict with WP:MOSDAB and WP:REDLINK, since disambiguation pages aren't articles. Disambiguation pages disambiguate other articles, and if no article uses the red link, then the dab shouldn't either. I disagree with your conclusions that Wikipedia article creation will suffer through the omission of redlinks on dabs when those redlinks are not used anywhere else in the encyclopedia; if the topic is article-worthy, then another article should link to it (or it can be requested through the article request process). Disambiguation pages are not topics-for-article-creation-ideas pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite all the effort you put into this proposal, I cannot support it. I agree with JHunterJ, and I'd add that, since WP is so "old" now, most notable topics already have an article, or are linked from somewhere. If a topic isn't, then it's probably so obscure that the dab editor would not be able to judge its true notability anyway. Rather the opposite is true: the number of incoming links suggests the topic's notability. Someone once said it's unlikely that someone will start an article just because he sees a redlink on a disambigation page. In my experience, it happens much more often that people add non-notable stuff to dab pages (think of all the XXX (band)s). There needs to be a way to get rid of that, even at the risk that a notable (yet obscure) redlink gets removed. Common sense is often helpful in such situations. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "most notable topics have an article, or are linked from somewhere." I routinely run into highly notable topics, especially in the areas of history and archaeology, where certain things are neither stubbed nor linked. There's also the issue of foreign spellings (Arabic names are particularly bad), where even reputable history books can't agree on consistent spelling, so that makes it difficult to determine if something is being linked to. I've spent hours just making redirects, trying to make sense of certain medieval Turkish monarchs. :) --El on ka 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Transliterations aside for the moment: in the case of notable history and archaeology topics, I would expect there are existing articles (instead of dabs) that the redlinks can be added to first, right? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of why the current wording of MOSDAB is a bad idea. A bot created the article Kresty (and numerous other); however, it turned out that there is not one but four places by this name in Pskov Oblast alone, and the information in the article was insufficient to determine which one of the four it was. Someone suggested creating a dab page listing all four localities instead, but that currently contradicts the red links clause of MOSDAB (all four places are very minor and are not mentioned in any of the articles). Without the dab, however, it is possible this article will be created again by a different uninformed reader and there is no guarantee that this re-created article would not have a horrible mix of information on four different places labeled as one locality. I had an unpleasant experience of cleaning up such messes before, and it is not a task I am looking forward to repeating.

Needless to say, I fully and whole-heartedly support SMcCandlish's proposal above. Considering the fact that the current revision of this MOSDAB's clause was decided by only four editors who, to the best of my knowledge, did not advertise the proposal outside this talk page (here), I'd say we should revert to the original wording of the "Red links" clause and then decide on whether the changes are necessary and, if so, what kind of changes. This guideline affects too many things for it to be edited so hastily and without broader input.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kresty seems to me to be a candidate for a set index article. Which would take care of the concerns mentioned. Taemyr (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I support SMcCandlish's proposal as well. If a topic is notable enough that someone is likely to be looking for an article on it, the red link alerts them to the fact that that article hasn't been written yet. --Russ (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

correct application of MOS:DAB?

Are the following acceptable cleanup/format edits per MOS:DAB? Just asking for a bit input to learn.[2], [3] I dorftrottel I talk I 12:00, December 13, 2007

Looks good. The only two (extremely minor) things are Savo can refer to: can be tweaked to Savo may refer to:, and one of the two extra newlines for Savonia at the end can be removed. Edit: There also shouldn't be punctuation at the end of each entry. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, adjusted accordingly. I dorftrottel I talk I 12:31, December 13, 2007

And I restored Savonia (historical province) since its article indicated that it is also known as just Savo. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, noted. Thanks to you as well. I dorftrottel I talk I 17:11, December 13, 2007

Nationality / Citizenship

Wikipedia:MOSDAB#People does not give any suggestions for mentioning nationality or citizenship in dab page entries. ( Wikipedia_talk:Citizenship_and_nationality ). Given that these tend to be very contentious topics, do we want to develop any recommendations? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My $0.02. Mention it if it is useful in disambiguating the person. Don't mention it, especially if it is contentious, if isn't necessary to distinguish it from another person. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For {{hndis}} pages, I prefer to include both nationality/citizenship and birth/death years, even if there is only one, say, John Smith (politician). But Wikipedia talk:Citizenship and nationality doesn't appear to mention "disambiguation", and I haven't found any contentiousness when I've added them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't recall the issue of nationality / citizenship causing problems specifically on disamb pages, but the issue is frequently a problem on Wikipedia - for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_10#Nationalities , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_10#Putting_.22Jewish.22_back_in_the_opening_sentence , etc, etc, etc, etc, ad delirium. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a really interesting point, Wikipedia:MOSDAB#People does hint at country of origin with their examples of "London based" and "Ohio senator", but does not mention country of nationality. In editing name DAB pages I have also frequently relied on date and nationality to disambig, especially with given name DABs. - AKeen (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

MS

Would someone (else) kindly take a look at MS please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing people with that surname or given name, or not?

The MOS seems to state fairly clearly that, for example, a disambiguation page for "Cherry" should include a link for a celebrity commonly called simply Cherry, but should not include a link to Mary Cherry or Cherry Jones. (I'm pulling this out of the air; I have no idea if there's a Cherry dab page or what's on it if there is.) But under Categories, it says it's acceptable to add the Given Name or Surname categories if the dab page includes a list of people. But a list of people with that surname or given name isn't supposed to be included! Is the cause for my confusion clear? Personally, I'm more inclined to allow a short list of people with that surname or given name (I move it to its own article if it's too long) than I'm inclined to put a disambig page in the name categories; it seems to me that those categories should be limited to actual articles about the name. Propaniac (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, lists of name holders can be spun off from dab pages when the lists get "long enough", but while the lists are short, it's okay to keep them in the dab page. We shold probably clarify the guideline on that point. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What JHunterJ said. The decision to give surnames and given names their own pages was only really made in 2007 (I believe) and has made considerable progress since. The current MOS is kind of a remnant of the progress. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm really looking for clarification on is the name category thing; if the page does include people with that word as their given name or surname, along with other meanings of that word, should it be included in the name categories, or is that guidance now obsolete? Propaniac (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been using the guidance here, which seems to indicate that pages which contain only lists of names are not dab pages, therefore can be categorized. If it is truly a dab page, which just happens to include names, it's my understanding that it shouldn't be categorized. (I could be wrong, of course.) Does that help any? SlackerMom (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's been my interpretation, too, but since I did notice this contradiction when I went to double-check the MOS yesterday on the matter, I wanted to check whether I've been in the wrong. (On a similar note, I noticed recently that the "given name" template refers to "this disambiguation page", which should probably be changed since nothing else seems to classify them as dab pages.) Propaniac (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Propaniac, here's a made-up example for explanation: The dab page Miller (disambiguation) has {{disambig}} because it's obviously dab page. If it had two guys called Harry C. Miller and Andrew B. Miller on it, the category Category:Surnames (or the template {{surname}})}} would be added, until there are so many people with this surname (usually five to ten) that Miller (surname) can be started. At that point, the extra category (or template) would be moved with the name section to the new page, and the dab page would only be (auto)categorized per its {{disambig}} template. Same for the given names. Now, the page John Miller is a human name disambiguation page ({{hndis}}). It doesn't need any other categories because it's neither a surname page, nor a given name page, nor a general dab page. Does this answer your question?

Also, Propaniac, what do you mean with I noticed recently that the "given name" template refers to "this disambiguation page"? I found no such link or references. Also, given name pages are not disambiguation pages and do not fall under the scope of this guideline (any longer). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that does answer my question, Sgeureka. Thanks for the clarification, and to all who have participated in this discussion.

And what I should have said is that the surname template, not the given-name one, refers to the page being a dab page ("If an internal link for a specific person referred you to this disambiguation page..."). I mentioned it on the Talk page of the template when I noticed it in December, but I was (probably too) wary of making any changes myself to such a widely-used template. Propaniac (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'll fix it in a minute. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

With that settled, I have a follow-up question about an issue I've run into before and again recently: A couple months ago I worked on Ransom (disambiguation) and moved a dozen names (including 3 fictional) to a new Ransom (surname) page. Recently another editor removed the fictional characters from the surname page and returned them to the dab page. It's just three names, so no big deal, but none of these characters, as far as I can tell, are commonly known as just "Ransom". Do they belong on the dab page? Is there some reason they shouldn't be on the surname page? --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no clearcut answer unless you're really sure that none of those fictional characters are known by that name. When I move names to their own page, I leave all fictional characters on the dab page because I usually don't know them. That way, when someone from e.g. WP:DPWL comes by to fix the incoming links, he doesn't need to reinsert the characters. Then there is the issue with search terms and that fans usually add the names to the dab pages anyway. Just do what you think is best. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable. I still wonder why the names were removed from the surname page. The editor who did it looks to be involved with WikiProject Anthroponymy, so perhaps I'll ask over there if this is the current consensus. --ShelfSkewed Talk 03:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Should {{disambigProject}} be added to the talk page?

I'm wondering if it is necessary. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's acceptable but not mandatory. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's not mandatory like you say, then why this template exists? I think it should be deleted if there's not MoS saying it should be added. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The template exists because it may be used, and if it were deleted it would be very hard indeed to use. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The MoS in general is not applicable to talk pages and as such the fact that it is not mentioned in the MoS is irrelevant. Whether the template is of any value or not is another matter. If you want to pursue deleting it, you'll need to take it up at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. older ≠ wiser 03:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I just saw the template and I only wanted to know if it was necessary. I see there's no MoS that says so, thus I suggested the template should be deleted if there's no official use to it.

It is not my job to nominate it. Thanks for the reply. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nobody's job to nominate it. Then again it's nobody's job to talk about it here either, but that hasn't stopped a couple of us. As it happens, somebody else (who's job it also wasn't) took the opportunity: Wikipedia:TFD#Template:DisambigProject -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know it was nominated, that's why I said it wasn't my job. And somehow I feel you're making rude statementes. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 00:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with the notion that something that isn't mandatory should be deleted. It's really ok to have optional things lying around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given name pages as separate from dab pages

The question of deletability of given-name pages has surfaced again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica (given name). This often has an indirect effect on how we manage dab pages, so I thought I would alert people here. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

TOC right

I haved removed this statement for two reasons. First, it is self-evident and applies to all pages equally so it is unecessary here. Second, TOC right can lead to an inelegant dab page and gains nothing (imho); having the statement here can "encourage" some editors to use toc right without really thinking it through and, in general, it is not preferred (which is why it is non-standard). Abtract (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. Firstly, guidelines should not be written in a manner which assumes too much knowledge on the part of the reader; I certainly wasn't aware of the option to neaten the layout of disambiguation pages until I read it here. And it's stated what the purpose of {{TOCright}} is in this context – to eliminate white space from the page when dealing with longer lists – so I don't see there's any problem with "encouragement". --Sturm 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with including this information. I've added a link to the section of the help page where editors can find more information about when (on other pages) this is and isn't appropriate. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent; it makes a lot more sense now. Abtract (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this all pretty contrary to the previous consensus (see similar discussion above). I think TOCRight is nearly standard for long dab pages and we should discuss further before discouraging it on this page. I think it prevents scrolling, speeds finding the target article and is useful. Why is it not preferred for dab pages again? I don't see that being discussed. That its non-standard isn't an argument. Standards should have motivations and the motivations for dab pages are different than those for article pages. (John User:Jwy talk) 07:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are motivations different? Surely the toc has the same purpose be it a dab page or not ... to enable readers to go speedily to the section they need; presumably it is standard on the left because that is the way an english speaker's eye will naturally travel, plus the fact that a right toc tend to look inelegant (imho), there may well be other reasons. Personally I don't see why a dab page is any different to any other page in this instance, certainly not sufficiently different to encourage toc right. As to why toc right is becoming more popular on dab pages, surely it is because this part of the mos previously contained words that tended to encourage it; that's what I want to change. Abtract (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental difference between a dab page and an article is that a dab page is a navigation aid (and only a navigational aid). This can seem like an irony at first but think of it like this: the goal of a dab page is to get the reader to the correct page as fast as possible, like a dab page is open for a matter of seconds. Keeping the page as vertically short as possible (i.e. preventing scrolling) is an important part of this; this is the rationale for TOCright. As for why we don't want the reader's eye to travel over the TOC, well, we want it to go straight to the links; if he can't find it on the first screen, he'll look around and see the table of contents and use it to quickly find his target. TOCright is clearly visible and will naturally be used if the correct link isn't immediately apparent in the main list. Neonumbers (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand the purpose of dab page but I don't agree that having the toc on the right is helpful. It looks inelegant and this is never helpful per se; it is easy to miss because the eye goes down not way out to the right. The point of the toc is to aid navigation on any article and dabs are no different indeed the toc is arguably more important on a dab than a normal article because on a dab page a reader is always looking for just one line and that's what the toc does, it helps find the right place in a long list. Personally I see no justification for toc right on dab pages and I certainly do not think they should be the preferred method. I am happy to see them allowed but not encouraged. Abtract (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, I think you are the only one here with this opinion. You keep saying that TOCright is not "elegant", but that is not a sufficient argument to discourage its use on dab pages (besides which I feel it improves the elegance of most dab pages). My last edit to the guideline was intended merely to smooth out the grammar, but my opinion is that the use of TOCright should be encouraged on longer lists. Shortening the dab page and making it easier to see in one look (i.e. less scrolling) is a good thing. I realize this has been stated before and I understand why you disagree, but I don't think your view overrides the previous (nor the current) consensus. I will edit this guideline again to see if I can make it reflect that consensus. We may need to hammer it out a bit, if I don't get it quite right. (Abtract, I know you have read the previous conversation about this, because I have directed you to it in the past, so I know it's no surprise to you that your view is not accepted by all. Changing guidelines usually requires a lot more discussion than editing articles.) SlackerMom (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The lack of elegance is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find the TOC on the left with in a disambiguation page where the entire right hand portion of the page is white space to be a visual abomination. But subjective opinions about elegance won't get us very far. What is more compelling considerations of usability (which currently I find the arguments for TOCright more compelling than not). older ≠ wiser 14:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I understand that elegance (and indeed readability) is in the eye of the beholder but what I do not understand is why toc right should be preferred on a dab page yet toc left is the standard elsewhere throughout wikipedia. Abtract (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TOCright creates no extra scroll space, and TOCleft disrupts the vertical alignment of dab links. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference between Dab's and proper articles is that dab's is a list of short entries. This creates a lot of whitespace and a situation where narrow text columns. Compare with articles where we should have longer prose. Taemyr (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kugel (disambiguation)

It has become rare that I don't know what to do with disambiguation pages, but Kugel (disambiguation) is giving me a headache. I already transwikied the dictdefs to wikt:kugel (see also wikt:Kugel), but now the dab page would be empty. But redirecting it back to Kugel and leave it to do deal with it is also not perfect because there are a handful of wikipedia pages directly linking to the dab page to explain the word. What would others do in this case? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Messy, I agree. :) I took a look and edited it to what I thought it should be. For the pages that are linking to it, I removed most of them, unless they actually had information in the article about the Kugel, such as Friendship ball did. Does that cover things sufficiently do you think? --El on ka 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of this first, but see my comments.

Kugel is a traditional Jewish baked dish.

Kugel may also refer to:

Kugel, a Yiddish/German loanword which originally meant "ball" or "globe" - etymology, dictdef, shouldn't be included per MOS:DAB#Linking to Wiktionary
Kugel ball, a sculpture consisting of a large granite ball that floats on a thin film of water -- shouldn't be included because of MOS:DAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created
Kugel, a slang term amongst South African Jews, for an overly materialistic and excessively groomed young woman --shouldn't be included because it is just an anchor in the already linked kugel
Kugel, a traditional house ornament made of glass, sometimes known as a Friendship ball --probably right, I am unfamiliar with this term

Friendship ball also still links to Kugel (disambiguation), but I am reluctant to do anything before I know what's the right procedure. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the "right procedure", but I think this page looks pretty good. I'd probably remove the slang usage, since it links to a section of the main article, but I think the other links should stay. SlackerMom (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Tables within dab pages

I've been seeing an increasing number of pages (such as Live (album) and Greatest Hits Live) which are categorised (or tagged) as Disambiguation, but appear almost entirely in tabled format, rather than standard bulleted lists. My guess, is that they are either incorrectly formatted, or incorrectly categorised (tagged/templated).

Perhaps this manual should clearly address the use or misuse of tables as such. WikHead (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that making a table from some consistent dab entries is a valid departure from the guidelines, if there's consensus to use it on the page. They probably still need to stick to one blue link per table row. But Live (album) should be merged into Live (disambiguation) (or moved to List of albums titled Live, as described on the dab page, if the consensus is to make it a list article instead). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See also List of albums titled Greatest Hits, from which I just removed the dab tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though lists and dabs have a great deal in common but adopt a different style. I would be in favour of keeping the dab tag (these do afterall disambiguate) and making reference to this fact in the mos here. Abtract (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this:

Where there are multiple uses of the same title within a similar field, a list format may be adopted instead of the bullet approach, for example Live (album) ? Abtract (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JHunterJ, and assert that a page that begins "List of" should never be a dab page. However, I see advantages to keeping Live (album) as a dab page, but it might help to add a note to it, perhaps as an invisible comment, that it is a very unusual case, where departure from the MoS:DP format is helpful to the readers and therefore justified. Chris the speller (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. The Singles Collection is very clearly a dab page ... but List of albums titled Greatest Hits isn't? Surely they both serve two related but distinct purposes; to help readers navigate to a half-remembered title (dab); and to help readers who are interested in this sort of single (or album) and want to trawl through a list (list). Neither use is pre-eminent in wp terms so such articles should be tagged as both; why not? Of course this wouldn't apply to all lists (not for example List of cathedrals in England) because many lists serve no dab purpose; but those that do are dab pages whatever we may decide here. imhoAbtract (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Presently, if one types "greatest hits" into the search box, one gets Greatest hits, a general article on this cultural phenomenom, with a hatnote at the top which points towards the list of albums of this title. But how likely is it that someone would type in "greatest hits" and not, say, "abba greatest hits" when they want that specific album? Disambiguation is about getting people where they want to go; if a page doesn't actively serve that purpose, then it needn't be categorised as such. Sturm 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One very significant difference between a dab page and a list page is that a list page can more easily accommodate/tolerate redlinks better than can a dab page. A primary objective for list pages is completeness. For disambiguation pages, the primary purpose is helping readers find existing articles (or at the least identify articles containing information on the subject). A list page can also more easily accommodate the inclusion of additional information that would be considered extraneous on a dab page. older ≠ wiser 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points, Sturm and older ≠ wiser. More precisely, the purpose of a dab page is to resolve conflicts where more than one article could have the same name. Multiple albums have the title The Singles Collection, so it needs a dab page, but there is only one article whose title could be "List of albums titled Greatest Hits"; it is simply a list. Having a lot of links to articles doesn't make a page a dab page. Not that there wouldn't be advantages to moving it to Greatest Hits (album) after separating all encyclopedic content to Greatest hits (and removing "Ten Years of Godsmack" and several "Best of ...."). But I think the readers who want to cruise through all these might be better served by "List of albums of Greatest Hits or Best of", or something to that effect. Chris the speller (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to drop a fact-nugget into this conversation: There are at the momemt approximately 200 pages titled List(s) of... and tagged as dab pages. --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting fact, it may demonstrate that other editors also think that dab and list can coexist. Referring to christhespeller's and others' points, it seems to me that you are treating the name of the two existing articles (singles and albums) too seriously - their aims seem to be the same. As to an editor typing in "greatest hits" without knowing who, the same applies to "singles collection". These two "articles" are the same - they just have a different type of name. Anyway I seem to be out numbered so I won't pursue it but for one last time I will simply re-iterate my point Lists can also be dab pages because they help disambiguate. Abtract (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worth actually looking at some of the "List of ..." included in the category. I only did a cursory examination of several, but in each case, the page disambiguated between one or more list articles with similar names. I'll admit, that may seem a little odd, but the actual list articles being disambiguated were not in the category. older ≠ wiser 21:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I never thought of that and didn't think to look. But is a dab page the appropriate way to index related lists? Or, to put it another way, is an index of related lists a dab page? --ShelfSkewed Talk 22:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. When I first began this thread, I had been hoping to find something in this manual that specifically addressed the use of tables on dab pages... either acceptable usage examples, or possibly even a disclaimer stating that their use was discouraged. I found neither, but strongly feel that the topic of tables should at least be mentioned somewhere in this article.

The manual does however, suggest that each entry should begin with a bullet, and that all dab pages should maintain a consistent look, which both of my examples (Live (album) and Greatest Hits Live) do not. They are also saturated with piped links, which is something the manual clearly attempts to discourage.

I was about to revert these dab pages back to bulleted lists myself, but questioned whether such edits would really be considered constructive, or simply just an invitation for an edit war. That's why I stopped by... to attempt to validate a reason for what I was about to do.

If it's determined that the use of tables within dab pages is valid, I should hope we all agree that they should at least maintain their own unique appearance, which differs from that of tables commonly used in main articles.

What concerns me, is that this may mark the beginning of a trend which sees more and more dab pages appearing in tabled format, and eventually losing their consistent appearance altogether. Something which is sure to confuse many readers. WikHead (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WikHead, you did the right thing to bring this up here, but I was happier not knowing. I share your concern, and have a feeling that there is room for more discussion, and that some guidance might need to be provided on tables within dab pages, or on the relationship of tables, lists and dab pages. I'm going to take a deep breath. Chris the speller (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a value to consistency on the pages to speed navigation - once you get used to the dab page as described here you can navigate it quickly. Encountering a page like Live (album) would disrupt this. That said, I think the page has useful information. Its interesting, though. It references Live!, which IS a standard dab page.

My inclination would be to discourage tables on dab pages. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree about discouraging tables, unless there is an established project that is willing to define and maintain some alternative standard as has occurred for Ship Index and Mountain Index pages. Live (album) currently appears to be a one off page though. OTOH, Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles would appear to justify having the page at List of albums titled Live and not being included directly in Category:Disambiguation. However, I don't much like the prospect of creating yet another special-purpose disambiguation subcategory--I just looked and the subcategories have proliferated considerably since the last time there was a discussion about subcategorization of disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I totally agree with older ≠ wiser. Chris the speller (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'm probably leaning towards discouragement too. Far out, there's a lot of albums called Live, why don't they think of more original names and make life easier for us disambiguators? I guess the sort-table has benefits in this case (easier to browse by artist or year), but it's probably fair to say it's a one-off case. Neonumbers (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just punching into the discussion to say I think lumping lists and dabs together is a bad idea. Lists and dabs serve different purposes (as explained by older-wiser), and there's no reason a dab can't include a link to a useful list, which would make the information easily accessible to a searcher, but keep it in its proper category and format. SlackerMom (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If, before the current dab page MS had been created, an editor had created a page entitled List of concepts abbreviated to MS containing all the same info, would this actually be a dab page as well as a list? Abtract (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The short answer, if you ask me, is that a "list of concepts abbreviated to MS" wouldn't exist and would most likely be a candidate for deletion. Neonumbers (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The longer answer, imho, is that I think the lists vs. dabs contrast is more about what is designed to do than what it can do. The importance of that purpose difference can't be stressed enough, even if they do share common traits. And I think the Greatest Hits case really is a one-off case, given it's sort of a "standard name" and they're, like, all albums (though just maybe, a merger of those three hatnotes into one disambiguation page wouldn't be too bad an idea...) Neonumbers (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is technically a difference between a list of greatest hits albums and a disambiguation page for albums called "Greatest Hits" as there need not be any reason for a greatest hits album to be called "Greatest Hits" if you see what I mean. It could be two ways of helping people find the information they wanted - you'd just need to make

Also as has been mentioned albums called Live could legitimately be defined as a set index and would be allowed more flexibility on formatting - having sortable tables seems quite a reasonable solution to the issue and would fit WP:TABLE. It would still technically fall under the purview of the Disambiguation Project while offering people to room to produce the most elegant solution. (Emperor (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Requesting comment at Talk:N (disambiguation)

Resolved

Per above discussions about the purpose of the "letter" disambig pages, I did a cleanup at N (disambiguation), removing those entries which were just abbreviations, just as I have been doing at many other complex pages that needed cleanup. However, another user disagrees and has been repeatedly reverting me, saying that if something is an abbreviation, it should be included. I disagree. (my version) - (his version)

I would appreciate if those editors with an opinion on the matter, could please weigh in at Talk:N (disambiguation) to ensure consensus. Thanks, El on ka 20:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Entropy (disambiguation)

Hi all, despite having been involved in disambiguation for a fairly long time I'm having trouble getting my head around how to deal with Entropy (disambiguation) (talk page). I'm not asking for backing—I don't think there's an escalated conflict (yet, though I've never been in a full-on edit war before)—just some help from people who are more experienced with application than me. Version before my recent edits—not insanely out of line, but I'm thinking could be better? Thanks, Neonumbers (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists again

I believe the MOS is wrong in its treatment of lists because it misses the point that there are two types of list:

Lists where the connection is conceptual, an example is List of cathedrals in England. Such lists are clearly not intended for disambiguation but are of interest to actually read (if you are that way inclined) and maybe zip off to individual cathedral articles, returning time and again to the master list. Such pages impart a lot of comparative information, deserve "article status" and are certainly not DAB pages.
Lists where the connection is through a keyword, an example is Berg (surname). Lists like this can have no interest as reading material, they serve only one purpose which is to assist readers find the Berg of choice, once they have navigated to the specific article being sought they will not return to the list. The only information in such lists is there to aid navigation. Surely, whatever title we give such pages and whatever the MOS may say, such pages are DAB pages?

There are probably other mentions of lists, but the one I am interested in atm is on this project page: "Pages only listing persons with certain given names or surnames who are not widely known by these parts of their name otherwise are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply. " Surely this cannot be right? If they are not dab pages, what purpose do they serve? What do others think? Abtract (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Straub (surname) and Monica (given name) may give more insight why these are not dab pages. Granted, few surname/given name pages have etymology info, and there is considerable overlap between dab pages and surname pages (I often apply the spirit of MOS:DAB to surname lists), but I still find it an improvement to separate these two/three types of pages from an encyclopedic and organizational standpoint. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the two you quote should be split into two pages each: an article about the name and a list (dab) of people with the name. Abtract (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See the AfD consensus for the latter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica (given name). Surnames are a tricky issue because some people are referred to by their surname (i.e. being dab-worthy), but it has become such a huge mess with is-he-isn't-he-dab-worthy that most regular dab editors prefer to keep people off the dab pages (my impression, I am not claiming to speak for anyone else here). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Lists of name-holders are not disambiguation pages, although sometimes short lists might be included on dabs if a name article does not (yet) exist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I get the point about steering clear of a sticky area but no-one has yet explained what they are for if, in jhunterj's words, "Lists of name-holders are not disambiguation pages" - people go to the list and decide where to go next, that's all they are for surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In theory, they could be seen as primarily providing a disambiguating function, but in practice this has just not worked out. Here is what tends to happen: A list of people gets moved off of a dab page. Someone then nominates the list for deletion with the rationale of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. (Fair enough.) So the list then gets deleted and new editors start adding names again to the original dab page, or the list gets merged back to the dab page, "cluttering" it, as we say—making it harder to navigate. So, in practice what seems to have worked out (and what editors hashed out on this Talk page in the past) is to treat the name pages as articles (which can then fall under the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy and more article content can then be added). --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So it is entirely pragmatic, OK I can accept that (I don't like it but that's life). It does seem to mean in practice that anyone can get round the dab rules by simply creating a list! Abtract (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very true. But editors have tried that in the past and, for the most part, those lists got deleted. A bit of an extreme example was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And let's not forget the pure idiocy (IMO) of deleting the Lists of People by Name which was expressly a vehicle for an intelligent mechanism for listing people by name (with a small group of people maintaining it). The deletion was already over and done with before I even knew about it. older ≠ wiser 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ungrammatical example

"Thingamajig may refer to: In science: ..." is ungrammatical. It should read as a sentence: "Thingamajig may refer to science." If a reader needs to be told to 'think of "In science" as a parenthetical', that is an indication of a problem with the guideline, not the reader. Further, none of the other examples employ this jarring usage. --Jtir (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit odd too considering that with longer lists where == type sectioning is advised, the "in" is dropped. I noticed this inconsistency a while ago but felt I had already made (more then) enough waves. Abtract (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, none of the other examples deal with dab pages sorted by topic, so of course they don't show this usage. As for the rest, I find your particular objection (but see the end of my reply) irrelevant—as we're talking about an outline format and not a standard sentence structure—and wholly a matter of opinion. You are claiming that the reading "Thingamajig may refer to science. Thingamajig (chemistry), an isotope of chlorine" is somehow superior to "Thingamajig may refer to, in science, Thingamajig (chemistry), an isotope of chlorine". Your way creates one sentence, but leaves the rest as a fragment; the latter reading creates one whole sentence. In any case, I don't think your objection rises to the level that it justifies making a unilateral change to a format that has been arrived at by consensus. As it happens, however, I tend to agree with Abtract that the "In topic:" header does seem nonstandard compared to what is used when the formatting is stronger ("the == type sectioning" Abtract mentions). Why not have a standard topic-header structure even when the formatting is different? --ShelfSkewed Talk 15:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If that was a proposal to drop the "in", I agree. Abtract (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think all of the points ShelfSkewed raises are very valid, well-thought points. Something to add: When I think about the cases individually, when separator leading lines are used "In topic:" seems more natural, and when section headers are used, "Topic" seems more natural. It could be because you naturally expect leading lines to be part of the sentence, whereas section headers are something to notice and then look over.

If it sheds some light on anything: when we wrote this guideline a few years ago, I think it was probably anticipated that the "In topic:" line would be the more common, because dab pages long enough to warrant section headers (one page worth) are meant to be rare. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if the anticipation didn't turn out right (and btw I'm not saying it didn't), it's worth re-thinking. Neonumbers (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comment on combining a disambiguation page with a list

Another editor and I disagree over whether Old Jail Museum disambiguation page should be combined with List of jail and prison museums. Discussion is at Talk:List of jail and prison museums. This is a pretty tightly focused issue and we hope to come to a conclusion soon. Someone with familiarity with disambiguation pages would be welcome at the discussion. Noroton (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Piping/Redirect

I have a query because I am being quizzed on this by another editor. Two parts of the "exceptions to piping" sedction seem to be in conflict; I have bolded the two phrases:

"Exceptions:

Use piping if you are linking to an anchor point on the target page.
Use piping if the article title differs from what it should be due to technical limitations per {{Wrongtitle}}; for instance The Singles 81>85 or Softimage|XSI.
Use piping to format or quote a portion of an article whose name consists of both a title and a clarifier, or a genus or species and a clarifier; for instance Harvey (film), USS Adder (SS-3), "School" (song), or Saturnalia (dinosaur).

If a word in the description is linked (an unusual occurrence), you may use piping in that link.

This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not. For example, in Delta (disambiguation), a link to the redirect term Delta Quadrant would be preferred over its target, Galactic quadrant."

If you follow the links through on the second bolded set, you will see that delta quadrant leads to a # part of galactic quadrant but via a redirect instead of using piping (as suggested in the first bolded set). Any thoughts? Abtract (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So how is that in conflict? Granted, #1 perhaps should not be phrased as a directive (that is, you can use pipes in such a case, but it is not required). Linking to a redirect which itself links to an anchor point is merely an alternative way to implement this (and in many cases is preferable). older ≠ wiser 20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's in conflict exactly as you said ... the first says use and the second says (some other way) will sometimes be preferred. This question arose in the context of the word actually being disambiguated ... look at Kaito to see what I mean. Abtract (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The first item shouldn't really be taken as an imperative. The only real imperative in that section is Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed. The rest of the section contains acceptable exceptions and alternatives to piping. older ≠ wiser 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding (and perhaps this needs to be clarified in the guidelines) is that the anchor exception applies only to links that are not on the dabbed term. For example, to use that old standby Foo, You might have the entry:

''Foo'', a film directed by [[Joe Foo#Filmography|Joe Foo]] --which would display as:
Foo, a film directed by Joe Foo

--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good ... that's what I have been doing, thanks. Abtract (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that if Foo (Joe Foo film) is a redirect to Joe Foo#Filmography, you should use:

[[Foo (Joe Foo film)|''Foo'' (Joe Foo film)]], a film directed by Joe Foo

instead, linking to the redirect instead of using the target link. The redirect that matches the dab is preferred. Also note that there is nothing wrong with link to redirects in general. Some editors seem to think that it's better to link to the eventual target in all cases, but that is not true. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can claim that "will sometimes be preferred" is quite the same as "is preferred"; my preferrence is to not use it for the dabbed term ... and it seems others above may agree. I would appreciate it if my edit on Kaito is not reverted again on the basis of a very minor technicality hinging on preferrence. Abtract (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was ambiguous. It is not that I prefer it one way; it's that the guidelines state a preference for it that way. Not to mention that you have no consensus for reverting the previous editor again on the basis of the same "technicality". -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But the guideline does not say it is preferred ... it says (as I quoted above twice now) "will sometimes be preferred" not at all the same. Abtract (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It does say "This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not." Breaking it down, redirect will not always be preferred, but they will be preferred (by the guidelines) in the case given in the subordinate clause: if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect title does not. I think you are trying to create a very minor technicality to revert Sesshomaru again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Kaito, the redirects are well-constructed—adhering to the "principle of least astonishment"; see WP:REDIRECT#PLA—so the redirects ought to be used on the disambiguation page because they do match up to the name of the dab page itself. That's my read of the guidelines, anyway. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

MMM sounds like hunter is doubting my good faith ...Abtract (talk)

No, just pointing out the problems of you reverting one editor and then asking not to be reverted based on the opposing sides of the same "very minor technicality". I recognize the good faith in your recent self-revert -- no assumption needed. Kudos! -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Except you may have missed the fact that it was my format that was changed originally. Anyway I seem to be in the minority so I have moved on. :) Abtract (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Piping/Redirect suggestion

Since the current wording (see above) is a little loose and has caused confusion between editors, I suggest the following wording:

Exceptions:

Use piping if you are linking to an anchor point on the target page (not applicable to the term being dabbed).
Use piping if the article title differs from what it should be due to technical limitations per {{Wrongtitle}}; for instance The Singles 81>85 or Softimage|XSI.
Use piping to format or quote a portion of an article whose name consists of both a title and a clarifier, or a genus or species and a clarifier; for instance Harvey (film), USS Adder (SS-3), "School" (song), or Saturnalia (dinosaur).
If a word in the description is linked (an unusual occurrence), you may use piping in that link.

Links via a redirect page should be used only if there is a good possibility that such an article will be written.

Added words are shown bolded and others have been omitted mainly at the end. This may not be the best wording but you will get my drift. Abtract (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Better:

Links via a redirect page should be used when the title of the redirect includes the disambiguated title and the target title does not, or when the redirect titles matches the disambiguated term more closely.

Remember, redirects serve many purposes, and are not limited to articles-that-may-be-written, like redlinks are. There is nothing wrong with linking to redirects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JHunterJ -- if anything, the guideline should not make the "Use piping" exceptions seem like imperatives and I don't think the guideline should discourage the use of redirects. older ≠ wiser 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont really mind either way but I do think it needs clarification. Abtract (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully understand Abtract's additions, even after having read the above thread, just prod me in the right direction if I stray off...

I prefer JHunterJ's sentence (because I get what it means), but I think an example (either the current one or another one) should be provided to make it clear, because the sentence alone is quite hard to get one's head around.

Would this make it clearer: "Use piping if you are directly linking to an anchor point on the target page", so that it doesn't apply to redirects? I don't get the "term being dabbed" part, could it be phrased as a condition "if..."?

Apologies if this seems like momentary stupidity. Neonumbers (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The "term being dabbed" part is looking at each dab entry this way:

Foo may refer to:

Foo term being dabbed, a description of foo in this context

Now, you can have pipe links in the description part all you want (although only one blue link per line), but you should never have a pipelink in the term being dabbed part -- and those two parts are separated by the comma. If you "need" a pipelink in the term-being-dabbed part because it links to an anchor point, you should find (or create) a redirect to that anchor point and link to the redirect, which wouldn't need piping. Links to anchor points in the description part can simply be piped.

We might consider coming up with "official" labels for the pre-comma and post-comma pieces of dab entries. And examples willy-nilly. Actually, I've got in the back of my mind an idea to rewrite (in my user space) both WP:D and WP:MOSDAB, and try to make them both shorter and clearer. But that is currently waiting on the addition of an eighth day of the week... -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah right I see. Hmmm that sounds complicated. What about entries covered by the "synonyms" and "URL anchor notation" sections of this manual? There should only be one link in a line anyway...

In fact, links to an anchor point on the target page shouldn't be in a term-being-dabbed part—they are links to parts of pages and so should be formatted similar to the tail of a coin example on the manual page? Neonumbers (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I tend to format them that way unless there's a redirect already in use that can serve as the entry term. But if another editor wants to make it the entry term, I'll create a redirect to substitute. And even then I tend to use that criteria to order them after the entries that have their own "full" articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation-related RfC

There's an RFC in progress at Talk:Loli that may be of interest to editors active on disambiguation pages. --Muchness (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Use of References Sections on Disambiguation Pages

I recently posted this in the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Special:Disambiguations, but am not sure wether it is better suited to be posted here:

"I recently came across an odd situation: in most cases, a disambiguation page links to other pages, therefore verifying / citing the infromation on the disambiguation page itself. So, if you can't link to a page about the information you put on the disambiguation page, do you put a references section on the bottom of the disambiguation page. If you're confused, here's my case: There is a lesser known but notable (was praised by various magazines as the best grunge band to come out of Orange County) band, Smile. But, the page Smile (band) is about the 60's band, not the aforementioned, which is a 90's grunge band. I couldn't find information on wether or not to include references sections in disambiguations pages, there is nothing on this in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), or its discussion section, I might put it in there, but I don't want to leave 3 blunders everywhere (1. Adding the reference and references section to the disambiguation page, 2. Adding this question here 3. Adding the question twice over there.) The disambiguation page in question is Smile (disambiguation)." Nnnudibranch (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can't link to a Wikipedia article about the information you are considering putting on the disambiguation page, you should first create the appropriate Wikipedia article Smile (grunge band) (or similar) with the citations, and then disambiguate it on Smile (disambiguation). (If no appropriate Wikipedia article can be created, then there isn't a Wikipedia article to be disambiguated.) Disambiguation pages don't list everything associated with the title of the dab page; they only list Wikipedia articles that need to be disambiguated. It's covered more by WP:D than by this guideline, although this guideline does indicate it by stressing one blue link per line. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, a friend suggested leaving an external link to the corresponding Allmusic page until more information can be found to create a page for the band, and that is how it's currently sitting there, until I can find more information. Nnnudibranch 04:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnudibranch (talk • contribs)

Officer

Resolved

This page has been on the cleanup list for awhile. It needs work, but it's not obvious what needs to be done with it. I posted a note to the talkpage suggesting that we break out the "military" designations to a separate disambig page. No one else has commented, but, before I decide to be WP:BOLD and tackle it, does anyone else have suggestions on how best to proceed? --El on ka 04:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better now, thanks! :) --El on ka 21:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Abtract (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

TOC _should_ be used

I propose the following changes:

Lists should be broken up by subject area to facilitate understanding on disambiguation pages:

from

The list may be broken up by subject area:

, from

In science:

and

In world music:

to

==Science==

and

==Musicology==

but please help me so that it disables the edit clicklinks, and from

Section headers may be used on longer lists instead of, or in addition to, bold subject area headings, but using more than a single level, as on Aurora (disambiguation), is rarely necessary.

to

Section headers start with 2nd (second) level headlines (for example, ==Thingamajig==). Sections within sections add another level of = (equal) signs. When headlines run out, or if the headlines should be bluelinked, they should be bolded, as headlines are to show what the section will talk about, not to talk about it itself (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Headings).

My reasons:

In a talk page (of an article) I participated, a good reason came up to not include bluelinks in headlines, which is probably the one I state, as I can't quite remember the reason, although I know it is better to standardize all headlines and to keep them all bluelink free. It would proably be deduced to my proposal.

Possibly another reason could have been that bluelinking can create ambigiuity and indecisivness because lets say ==Korean language==, do we blue link as in ==Korean language==, ==Korean language==, ==Korean language== or ==Korean language==?

Another reason could be that because you can not go to another article via TOC, it would not be useful, or even just that only the headline proper gets the bluelink.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But adding section headers to all lists (instead of just longer lists) makes them take up more vertical room and expands (or possibly creates) a table of contents. I agree that group headers should bold the grouping topic, although not necessarily bold the entire thing (e.g., In music:). (edit) We should add/reinforce the note about avoiding bluelinks though; the Gypsy dab page has one, and I think it looks bad, but I haven't changed it since I thought it was just personal preference.

We could include the link to Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Headings within the current text, say: "is rarely necessary. Section headers should not include links. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Headings for more.". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't ToCs good things? They SHOULD be included. ToCs are used to navigate a page; they aren't just used for showing in a glance what topics are in an article; people click on a ToC link to jump to that topic, when you don't have a ToC, that usability function is gone.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not saying they aren't good things at times. They are useful on long pages, but on a page, like Jesse James (disambiguation) which is fairly typical size, it wouldn't add much useful. They add more things to distract the eye without providing any more help than the bolded topics on the page already. I've change the topic of this section to make it easier for people to find. I didn't when I first looked (ironically in the TOC :-) - but this is a LONG page ). (John User:Jwy talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with JHunterJ that mandating section headers in not advisable. And not including links in section headings is covered in other guidelines. The relevant guidelines should be linked to, but there is no reason to replicate the content here. older ≠ wiser 14:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding a TOC and section headers to a DAB page just clutters it up. Unless the list is very long indeed, breaking it up as we had it (before Asrghasrhiojadrhr started messing with it) does the job admirably. -- Zsero (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Asrghasrhiojadrhr's suggestion that this must be done. On longer lists, yes, but otherwise, no, never. Introduces too much bad with too little good. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Section headers looks clumsy on short dab lists and create TOCs when they not necessary. Enfocrcing them in the MOS makes this even worse. They make it hard to find what the reader wants, quickly, which is bad for dab pages. I like the MOS how it is, and your suggestion doesn't convince me that it is an improvement to the MOS and dab pages in general. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How do ToCs make it HARD for people to find things? Maybe you aren't keeping in mind people at low resolutions? Some people's computer settings make it so that they CAN'T see the whole dab page at once, then the ToC would come in handy. See if you still like it when someone else changes MOS.68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

TOCs and section headings make the page harder to read because they clutter it up. For people with low bandwidth or resolution, how does making the page bigger and longer help? -- Zsero (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They ~~dont'~~ don't clutter it up.68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys are also all saying dab pages are somehow different from article pages.68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are. -- Zsero (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere I have read: Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That means ~~That~~ that dabs are supposed to not introduce new material, or material that is not covered by the article. Which is not the case for most, if not, all dabs. All dabs introduce material not found in their repective articles. Unless the articles can incorporate the corresponding meanings in thier dab pages, then your concept doesn't really work, although I totally understand where you're coming from and I've totally understood the idea a few months ago and weeks ago.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggested changes ... and this editor is already making changes to dab pages along his proposed lines. Abtract (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles related to primary topic

In cleaning up the Jesse James (disambiguation) page, I was not sure if articles about the primary topic should be listed above the rest of the articles. This page is not clear where literature on the primary topic should be listed. I believe it should be listed immediately after the primary topic and above "Articles with a clarifier in parentheses" in the order of entries. Thoughts? --Old Hoss (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My unhelpful advice: it doesn't really matter on such short disambiguation pages. The dab editor is completely free to decide what works best. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I just took a stab at that and it seemed that having three groupings with one of them being 'other uses' didn't make sense, so i moved the non-people names up with the film in the 'may also refer to' section. Then changed the other section heading to 'is the name of' as they are all names. Then, reordered the name to be firstname/lastname, then firstname/middlename, then stagename. Thoughts? Gwguffey (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems that the order of articles with clarifiers should be presented in alphabetical order to aid in quick scanning unless there is a specific common sense reason (or overwhelming popularity) on a particular dab page. I don't feel that preference for literature related the primary topic should be given as their relation to the primary topic should actually make them less likely to need disambiguating....but I could be way off. Gwguffey (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)