Wikipedia talk:Set index articles

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


The article now says in the second The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. This might be true of the selection criteria, whether X should be in the list or not; however, it does not seem to be true of the creation criteria which are clearly stated in the first paragraph. I am not even sure that it works for the selection criteria for the same reason. The main criteria is sharing a common characteristic as well as a common name. Lists such as List of people from South Carolina have three possible characteristics that provide for inclusion, a set index page should have one. I think that it might be better to change this to read The criteria that are used for stand-alone lists may provide some guidance. --Bejnar (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear (re "now"), that wording hasn't changed recently. What aspect of MOS:SAL do you think doesn't apply to SIAs? Changing from "should" to "may provide some guidance" makes the instructions much weaker and hence harder to enforce consistency. DexDor (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability for inclusion[edit]

Many lists, especially those of people, require notability for inclusion. Set index articles should only do so explicitly. Set index pages, such as those on notable families, will often include non-notable members to show the relationships between notable ones. Similarly some set index pages, such as Dodge Charger are more effective if they are complete (i.e. list the universe of Dodge Chargers) which often means listing a non-notable version. I suggest adding the following sentence: Set index articles that restrict inclusion to notable members only, shall do so explicitly on the talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm very not keen on which MOS applies to a page being dependent on a notice on the talk page - it would make wikignoming much slower. How about saying something like "Every entry in a SIA should be referenced - either on the SIA itself or on a linked article" ? - that way totally non-notable people (or whatever) can be removed quickly. DexDor (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Applicable WikiProjects?[edit]

Out of interest, are there any particular WikiProjects under which set indices would fall? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added several project tags. DexDor (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How bots handle SIAs?[edit]

I know that if I link an ambiguous term, I will get a notification from a bot with the suggestion to disambiguate? Does this happen with SIA pages? I.e., if I wikilink [[Schumacher]] in an article, will the bot bother me? If yes, then this guideline may want to mention this similarity with dab pages, just as in mentions the similarity with list pages. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Currently, I do not think SIA pages are included in the bot disambiguation notifications. olderwiser 19:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. There is no systematic review of links to SIA pages like there is for disambiguation pages, although indeed perhaps there should be. Thanks for commenting about this guideline. Should the guideline provide more coverage of gray areas between disambiguation pages and SIAs? The guideline seems to suggest SIAs are better, because they are not subject to formatting requirements of DABs, without providing balance going the other way. --doncram 01:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather not get an alert from a bot about a link to an SIA. I have often hatnoted to a set index article from articles listed within it, especially handy when then SIA is large. Also I've done quite a lot of work on the comics SIAs and the SIAs will often be legacy superhero aliases, which it is handy to link into from the articles about the individual character - Hank Pym is probably the most famous one I can think of. Ant-Man has expanded into a larger article (so doesn't count as an SIA) and Giant-Man has recently been expanded [1] so may no longer been an SIA any more, but Goliath (comics) and Yellowjacket (comics) are, and I wonder if Wasp (comics) should be (but it probably isn't worth the effort moving it and tidying up incoming links).
It might be a robot could drop a note into the SIA talk page, that way the creator of the page would get informed (they've presumably gone through the pages that link to it to ensure the incoming links are right. Or perhaps if they are a newer editor a robotic nudge might be handy. However, I don't think it is a big enough problem to warrant a robot checking it.
What I would like is an alert when someone redirects the SIA because they mistake it for an incomplete disambiguation (I had to do that with Yellowjacket just now and run across dozens of examples - just did Vision (comics) too) although perhaps the person doing the redirect should get an alert. Actually, I was saying that in jest but that would be handy, as I'm pretty sure most of the people doing that either don't know about set indices or have misunderstood what they are. (Emperor (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC))

SIA example used here is nominated for deletion[edit]

You may consider reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of peaks named Signal Mountain. The article, List of peaks named Signal Mountain is used as an example of good practice in this guidance. Informed views on the role of the nominated article vs. the role of Signal Mountain, a dab page, would be appreciated. --doncram 01:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)



I recently read the page's lead and I see contradictions in the first paragraph:

  • The first sentence indicates two criteria: Name and type. It reads: "A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name."
  • This half-sentence says name alone is the criterion: "A list is only a SIA if inclusion of an item in the list is due to the name of the item."
  • The other half of the sentence implies name alone is not the criterion: "e.g. every entry in a list of earthquakes may include the word "earthquake", but that does not mean the list is a SIA."

Even the editors of this page do not seem to agree with the criteria.

  • I thought that perhaps because two out of the three indicate name alone is not sufficient, then the second item must be a typo. My edit: [2]
  • Hike395 thinks that I am wrong and name alone is sufficient; he tried to eliminate the third item outright, and forgot to address the contradiction with the first item. His revert: [3] And his edit: [4]
  • DexDor disagreed with Hike395 but the article returned to original contradictory state. His edit: [5]

Alright people. What is the criteria? Name alone? or name and type?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction here, but perhaps there are opportunities to make it clearer (note: I added the earthquakes example). Here's a more detailed example - consider the following hypothetical page
List of tall towers in Foo City

The tallest towers in Foo City are:

  • Foobar Tower, a 300m high office building
  • Barfoo Tower, a 200m high apartment block
Is that page a SIA (because every entry uses the word "Tower") ? IMO it's not. If you say it is a SIA then when another entry is added (e.g. "* Foo City TV mast, a 100m high antenna") which doesn't use the word "Tower" then presumably it's no longer a SIA. IMO a page should only be a SIA if inclusion on the list is based on the names of things. If you agree with me that pages like the towers example are not SIAs then how do you think the guideline could be made clearer? DexDor (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@DexDor: The following sentence in the page disagrees with you and says the opposite:

A list is only a SIA if inclusion of an item in the list is due to the name of the item.

In other words, the towers listed do not need to be tall or even a tower, as long as their name includes "tower"; i.e. "Ivory Tower", a local nightclub can be in the list. Seeing the contradiction yet?
As for my opinion, I am pretty much in your camp. Still, my edit is reverted, so, I believe there is a dispute.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't see a contradiction; what do you think the contradiction is? DexDor (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@DexDor: Well, please answer the question then: Does my example "Ivory Tower" (a nightclub) merit inclusion or not?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The nightclub (assuming it isn't a tower) doesn't belong in a list of towers. If the list page was titled "List of things in Foo City with 'Tower' in their name" (or similar) then the nightclub would belong in the list (and the TV mast wouldn't). That page would be a SIA (as inclusion in the list is based on the names of things) - although whether it would survive a deletion discussion is another matter. DexDor (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Then you accept that type is also a criterion, don't you? In that case, the sentence must look like this: "A list is only a SIA if inclusion of an item in the list is due to both the name and the typeof the item." Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that the discussion has moved on from whether name is relevant (we both think it is) to whether type is relevant? I don't think the change you propose is necessary (that sentence is specifically talking about name being a criterion), but it would be consistent with "of a specific type" in the first of your bullet points, but that would appear to mean that List of things named Daedalus would not be a SIA so maybe "of a specific type" should be changed. Note: I think the intent of that wording is to distinguish SIAs from dabs. DexDor (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the discussion is moved on; I clearly asked "What is the criteria? Name alone? or name and type?" in the opening thread. But the discussion remains confusing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As Lisa says, the very first sentence of WP:SIA summarizes the concept nicely: "A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name." So, it's clear that it's both name and type, which was the original intent from the discussion that set up SIA. I agree that the sentence about earthquakes is confusing as it stands (which I why I wanted to delete it from the guideline).

List of things in Foo City named Tower should not be an SIA, but is a dab. It's a list of things with the same name but different type. Most importantly -- there is no specialized information that is shared between the items, so it should have a very simple format per WP:MOSDAB. List of towers in Foo City is neither a dab, nor an SIA, but is simply a list article. List of things named Daedalus would redirect to Daedalus (disambiguation), and is clearly a dab, not an SIA --- same name, different type.

Talking about a list of earthquakes named earthquake seems to be giving people odd advice. Theoretically it's an SIA (because the type is earthquake and the name is earthquake), but the fact that the name of an item is also the type of the item seems like an extreme corner case. Talking about this in the guideline will confuse readers. It certainly seemed to have confused Lisa. List of earthquakes is clearly neither an SIA, nor a dab.

Can we simply drop the sentence about earthquakes? It doesn't add anything to the guideline. —hike395 (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Later --- I hadn't realized that List of things named Daedalus is actually a separate list article. To me, that's a clear misuse of WP:SIA, and should be merged into a dab (I proposed the merge). If people are using the earthquake sentence to justify the existence of List of things named Daedalus, then the sentence really needs to go. It was never supported by consensus. —hike395 (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Hike. That was useful, especially the link to the original discussion.
Now, can I ask both of you two something to better clarify things? What about a page called List of server types in computing? It would contain web server, mail server, file server, application server, catalog server, directory server and print server. Would it count as a SIA?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think what you're asking about is analogous to List of earthquakes named earthquake, i.e., List of servers named server. The fact that you're asking makes me appreciate why DexDor added the sentence to begin with --- perhaps it isn't such an extreme corner case after all and I was speaking too rashly, above.
In theory, List of server types in computing would be an SIA, because the type is "server" and the name is "server". However, I think that is not what was intended for SIAs. I think that List of server types in computing is a plain list article. Should we explicitly carve out an exception if the name and the type are the same, e.g., List of mountains named Mount? Perhaps we can substitute the following for the earthquake sentence:
Articles where items names are shared with their types, e.g., List of earthquakes named earthquake or List of mountains named Mount should not be considered set index articles. Please consider carefully whether such articles should have such titles, or simply be standard list articles such as List of earthquakes.
In practice, I wonder if this really makes any difference to editors' workflow. SIAs are list articles, these self-referential list articles are also list articles. Whether the latter are SIA or not doesn't seem to make much practical difference, except for the {{dmbox}} label at the bottom of the article. Now, Doncram over at WP:DPL is proposing changing some of the dab tools to also handle links to SIAs. In that case, we may wish to be careful about what gets labeled as a SIA. —hike395 (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Does WP:INTDAB apply to set index and other list articles or does it even matter?[edit]

There are discussions in several venues concerning this question.

Additional input welcome. olderwiser 12:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


I don't mean to be cheeky, but I've never understood: why do "set index articles" exist? As far as I can tell, it's a completely invented concept that, in practice, seems to be a way for us to make a disambiguation page without following MOS:DAB. Why is this a valuable distinction? --BDD (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

SIAs mainly exist because the Ships wikiproject wanted (and may still want) pages that fulfill the same role (or a _very_ similar role) as dab pages, but can have redlink-only entries (e.g. A-class submarine). See: Wikipedia:History of SIAs. DexDor (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a very helpful overview. Sounds like my initial assessment is not wrong, though... --BDD (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything of value in A-class submarine that couldn't be in A-class. Since MOS:DABRED allows redlinks in DABs as long as there is a bluelinked article with that redlink, the mere addition of red links doesn't seem that useful. For the A-class submarines, the Spanish ones are mentioned at List_of_retired_Spanish_Navy_ships#Submarines, where they could be redlinked. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point. This reminds me of the debate over empty sections in mainspace articles. I'm generally of the opinion that it's unseemly to show readers what should be internal processes when there isn't a clear benefit to them. But I can understand the argument in signaling, either via a redlink or an empty section, "Yes, we're aware of this, even though we don't have anything more for you right now." --BDD (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I mean we could do that by having something like * A-class submarines (Spain), a retired class of Spanish submarines. in the main DAB page, which would meet MOS:DABRED, or just not have the redlink and only the second link, which would meet WP:DABMENTION. Having the separate seems like doubling the number of pages to maintain, while not providing any additional benefit to readers.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I was involved in the original definition of SIAs, so I can give you my perspective. Indeed, the original started with Ships, but WP:WikiProject Mountains made us generalize the concept. Readers may want to know statistics about a list of mountains with the same name: either so they can identify the relevant one ("Oh, yes, this is the really high one in Wyoming"), or just out of curiosity ("Wow, there are 37 peaks named Silver!"). Ships with the same name often have a shared history that is useful to know. Now, some editors wanted to force all lists of objects of the same type with the same name into the DAB format, but that was artificially limiting perfectly valid list articles. So, we broke out the SIA concept to allow people to build these list articles. I want to emphasize these should be valid list articles, not dab pages. —hike395 (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that perspective hike395. I was involved then too, or was at least observing from the sidelines, and your description matches what I recall. I think a crucial detail that is often overlooked is that SIAs should be valid list articles, rather than disambiguation page look-alikes with a different template (although I admit I have on occasion swapped templates without doing anything to improve the SIA). I fear that some editors who patrol Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, sometimes choose to transform disambiguation pages with persistent or problematic links into SIAs, or some other non-disambiguation type simply to get it off the list. I also think there has been a proliferation of SIA subtypes without any real input from a sponsoring project willing to maintain and improve the pages, and in many cases, these would be better off remaining as disambiguation pages (IMO). olderwiser 10:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks both for your perspectives. I definitely agree that tighter "regulation" of SIAs could be helpful for all. The thing for me with mountains is that just about every country, every US state, and I assume many other jurisdictions, has its own "List of mountains in" article. Where those articles don't exist, it just seems like it would be so easy to make them and then use MOS:DABMENTION on the disambiguation page and call it a day. Put more concisely, a list entry is going to be much more helpful than a dab-like line with no functional link. Which brings us back to the idea that SIAs should be true lists, rather than just wild-west disambiguation pages. --BDD (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
IMHO unless the SIA provides some tangible benefit to the reader (e.g. statistics in Mountain pages, picture galleries for plant SIAs, additional content for context), they should be reconverted into DABs and/or merged back into the parent DAB page. WP:SIANOTDAB says: " A set index lists things of only one type and is meant to provide information as well as navigation". If the SIA does not do this, then it's not a SIA, but a miscategorized DAB. This in turn hinders reader navigation when people turn them into SIA and delete the resulting "(disambiguation)" redirects to them on the pedantic reason that the target is now a SIA. I would propose replacing "An SIA need not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages, although many SIAs do." with An SIA should not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages. SIAs that do follow the disambiguation rules should either be tagged as a disambiguation page and linked from the main disambiguation page or merged back to the parent disambiguation page.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we want to force DAB-conforming SIAs back to DABs. For example, look at Ironwood (the second-most-visited plant SIA). Right now, it's clearly in DAB format. But, because it belongs to Category:Set indices on plant common names, I found it and now I can add a gallery and species distributions. If this were forcibly DABed, then I wouldn't have found it to fix it.
How about if we make a warning template, {{Not a set index}}, and a tracking category Category:Set index articles without extra information? That way, they can still be classified as SIAs, but then either improved into a real SIA or converted back to a DAB. Would that satisfy you, Patar? —hike395 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a workable idea. There are certainly SIAs that do add value, and people should be able to find them. We could also have a category for DABs that could be turned SIAs. Maybe after X time spent tagged as {{NOTSIA}}, it should be reconverted to a DAb and the page added to Category:Set index candidates (hopefully with the tagging/categorization done in a semi-automated fashion if possible). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The emphasis should be on retagging some SIAs as dabs so that inlinks get fixed (rather than deliberately making them less like dabs). For example, a page such as Pied flycatcher should be a dab page (not be adorned with photos, map etc). (I've just fixed a load of inlinks to that page). DexDor (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@DexDor: Why do you think that, DexDor? I would think that telling the readers the family of the species (Muscicapidae vs. Monarchidae), and supplying a photo of each would be informative and help guide them to the right bird. Is it because a list of two items is too short? Or because it's too obscure? —hike395 (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The main advantage of a page like that being tagged as a dab (rather than a SIA) is that inlinks are likely to be fixed quickly (the person making the link gets a DPLBot notification) and/or efficiently (because there are editors/tools that specialise in fixing inlinks to dabs). Adding the family would be fine (whether the page is tagged as a SIA or as a dab). Photos aren't (afaics) totally prohibited on dab pages (see MOS:DABICON), but I don't think it would help disambiguation in this case (the birds are found in different parts of the world) and for many dab/SIA pages (e.g. listing lots of people with the same name) having a photo for each entry would make the page bigger. If you think pied flycatcher should be tagged as a SIA rather than as a dab then what about, for example orange emperor? Note: Your ping didn't work because you didn't add a signature in the same edit. DexDor (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
While we're revisiting SIA/dab split, aren't there mechanisms already for dealing with list articles that have limited or no difference from a dab.. I notice that many SIAs are unsourced, e.g. List of people with surname Smith (which also has the article Smith (surname)). Why is it that SIAs, as fully-fledged list articles are not challenged on notability or some other current content reason per WP:SAL? Existing content levers (unsourced, notability etc) can be to put to use converting unhelpful ones to dabs, and also references would justify any redlinks that are not existing in articles. I think Patar knight is on to something - they can't be compliant fully-fledged articles and comply with MOSDAB. From my experience, it's a complex value judgement for converting based on preserving valid SIA entries which would be lost as a dab, project knowledge. Any clarity would be welcome. Widefox; talk 10:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the two Smith articles actually illustrate the purpose of the list/DAB/SIA split quite well; List of people with surname Smith is just that — a list — while Smith (surname) is a prose article detailing the history, etymology, and distribution of "Smith" as a surname.
To me, is the point of SIA is that it allows scope for a sectioned, prose treatment of subjects that share not just a name, but a type (i.e. they are all members of the same set, like with a set of ships), especially in the case where it is unlikely to generate enough content for more than a collection of stubbed articles (or while such content is being compiled). Disambiguation, on the other hand, is simply to differentiate between similarly- or identically-named subjects of different types (or not all necessarily the same type). One of the key differences is that information on differing objects is likely to be structured differently, and therefore any attempts to treat them together in a prose article will become messy. For example, an article on a person and a ship named after them will likely have a biography of the person, with their birth, life, and what they are known for; none of these sections would have relevance in the structure of the ship's information, especially beyond the reason for the ship's naming.
So the point of SIA is not that it is a list format, like DAB articles are, but precisely that it isn't; it's an article format, so it gives scope to expand a list with prose about the listed items. I agree with Widefox that set index articles should be expected to adhere to the same standards as other types of articles, but I don't believe that we should begin converting SIAs that don't currently adhere to article standards. If anything, I think that would risk muddying the purpose of SIAs even further, as you would start building a collection of articles that have the same scope as SIAs, but have been changed from being SIAs. I think that would be especially confusing to any future editors who are trying to understand SIAs. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Sasuke Sarutobi just to say the obvious Smith (surname) isn't an SIA, and SIAs are list articles. Widefox; talk 11:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Take two random examples

  • Burton (name) - SIA, has sources. (The dab Burton is in worse shape, it has many redlinks not used in articles. Cleanup tagged.)
    • It's incorrectly tagged as a {{surname}}, but if that's removed, is it still an SIA?...
  • Dylan (name) - list article (not an SIA).
Burton (name) had the wrong template on it, and Dylan (name) was missing the template. Is there a difference between a set index article and an article containing a set index? —Xezbeth (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I put the cats in the template but nothing changed. They're both still SIAs. Widefox; talk 10:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the fundamental problem with SIAs that they are dual use - both navigation (dab by another name, "!dab", solely navigation), and project use (not solely navigation). SIAs allow projects their own freedom away from the strictness of MOSDAB, and the more that projects exercise that freedom, the less useful the SIA is as solely navigation. Put another way, we don't link to dabs, do we link to SIAs? As a "!dab", that's bad, but as a fully fledged list article it's good (else it's an orphan). It can't be both good and bad! Take Pied flycatcher, if it was a dab, I'd put Australian pied flycatcher as the link for the second entry, but as an SIA I'd leave for the project. Wouldn't it be simpler and serve readers better to get feedback from projects about revisit/tweak/deprecate SIAs? I see it more as an internal maintenance split ("pedantic" has been said by others) but there's no doubt project views not yet voiced. It's possible projects would be happy to create redlinks in (list) articles, and then they'd be valid dab entries. Has anyone asked recently? Any list needs to justify itself including WP:V and I really don't see SIAs going that way of fully-fledged list articles (which is how they are defined), so they remain in no man's land between dabs and lists allowing entries that fail WP:V, hindering disambiguating incoming links whilst being, by definition, ambiguous about the validity of incoming links themselves. They're a compromise, but are they still a useful one? Widefox; talk 11:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Although I reserve some rebuttal of your comments directly above, I generally agree with your conclusion that SIAs came of compromise, and say Yes, I believe their purposed existence is quite useful.--John Cline (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they're in the "let sleeping dogs lie" category for me. Projects desire for unallowed dab redlinks can be worked around easier than creating SIAs in between lists and dabs. I've just discovered we have {{Siadn}} - the equivalent of {{Disambiguation needed}}. The SIA definition currently is broken as they can't both be inappropriate to link to, and necessary per their definition as fully-fledged articles (above). Similar for references: as a !dab, they don't need references as they mirror referenced content in articles, but as an article they do, else SIA entries fail WP:V, for example. Projects creation todo lists are better handled either in articles (lists and others) where WP:V clearly applies or internally on project pages. If we clarify their purpose, we may be able to eliminate the paradoxes. I suspect that the currently internally inconsistent definition is the root cause of current maintenance issues causing division at RfD, CSD, AN, WP:suppress. We could fix the cause or put a plaster on the symptoms. Fundamentally, dictionaries organise by the same spelling, encyclopedias don't. There's a default preference IMHO not to have articles based on the same name per se, unless notable. That's surely the default position? Widefox; talk 09:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you've put your finger on it, Widefox. If SIAs are valid list articles (which I believe that they should be, e.g., Dodge Charger, List of peaks named Signal), then they should be linkable. Should we change this in the guideline? —hike395 (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest getting wider consensus before proceeding either way "forwards" (keeping SIAs, and narrowing the definition as linkable, full list articles, essentially a subset of list articles with entries of the same name, and removing the {{Siadn}} etc) or "backwards" to say they are like dabs in some way. Maybe some SIAs need to go forwards, and some converting to dabs, I don't know. While I'm here, if there's a reason for a grouping - like a "brand" e.g. Dodge Charger, what's the difference between that and a WP:DABCONCEPT e.g. the Nokia Lumia example? If the only reason for the grouping is the same name and type, which I presume List of peaks named Signal is, then it should fend for itself as a cohesive list inclusion requirement/notability as a topic (per encyclopedia not dictionary). I'm being very precise to highlight, I don't have an opinion if SIAs still have a use, but if they can be in theory divided into DABCONCEPTS, lists, and dabs then they may not be needed, or at least we can codify their raison d'être. Widefox; talk 17:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe that if we didn't explicitly allow SIA list articles in a guideline, that editors who prefer dabs would convert them all to dab format. IMO, this would make WP less useful. —hike395 (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you help me understand the use? e.g. what's the difference between the SIA and dab concept examples? Widefox; talk 10:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
A link to a "Dodge Charger" may be valid (a broad concept), maybe sometimes not specific enough, but a link to "List of peaks named Signal" needs disambiguating as it is never valid as a broad concept unless there's an underlying reason for them to be in a group above their name (ie a broad concept), so unless there's a reason for the list to exist per se, it is a WP:CHIMERA. We don't generally link to dab pages, so why should we link to !dabs? It's not obvious to me what circumstances a link to the peaks would be valid. That may be intuitive given the title List of peaks named Signal but not so obvious if it was titled Signal Peak or Signal Mountain, as is common for SIAs. On first impression, the lede of the peaks SIA seems to fit within the scope of the broad concept Beacon, and be US centric. Widefox; talk 11:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
See also:

Moving on[edit]

I came late to the party, and it's unfortunate that the discussion got stale without any action produced. I share the opinion of many editors above that SIAs are an unnecessary distraction and should be deprecated, and I'm contemplating starting a RfC on the issue. However, structuring a successful RfC is a challenge, as they often got sidetracked or rejected for a variety of reasons, procedural or substantial. I would appreciate help of all involved in the discussion in formulating the RfC and preparing answers for questions that might ensue. I feel it would be worthy of listing it in Wikipedia:Centralized discussion.
I'm thinking of something like the following format:

Proposal: Wikipedia:Set index articles should be deprecated and gradually converted to disambiguation pages, lists or articles, as appropriate. Policy page Wikipedia:Set index articles should be marked as historical.
Arguments in favor
  • SIAs can be and often are inadvertently linked, which is seldom an appropriate target. If converted to disambiguation pages, a bot will notify editors about mis-links and ask them to fix them.
  • <More points from the discussion here>
Arguments against
  • Since set index articles allow for wider formatting latitude than disambiguation pages, particularly allowing red links, references and coordinates, MOS:DABRL will need adjustment to accommodate reasonable exceptions (for example, red links and coordinates of geographic features, and red links for presumably notable people, possibly with {{Interlanguage link}})
  • Category:All set index articles has 69,000 entries, so it is vast amount of work. However, it is populated automatically; the majority comes from {{Surname}} (41393) and {{Given name}} 11718, so that leaves only a few thousand pages to review.
  • <More arguments to be defined>
Process outline

If anyone's interested, let us set up a subpage Wikipedia talk:Set index articles/RfC draft with above contents, to work on ironing it out? Obviously, the proposed process is just my draft idea. No such user (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that multiple editors (above) see the value in SIAs, so I predict you're not going to get consensus. If you do decide to move forward, please poll the WikiProjects that have specialized SIAs: Mountains, Ships, Comics, etc. —hike395 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't have too high hopes for a consensus, but I'd like to test where the community stands on the issue nonetheless. I did have in mind those wikiprojects indeed.
Shamelessly pinging BDD, Patar knight, Bkonrad, DexDor, Sasuke Sarutobi, Widefox, John Cline, Xezbeth (hope I got'em all) for an opinion whether it's worth pursuing. No such user (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't support wholesale conversion of SIA into disambiguation pages. Some, like surname and given name pages are nothing more than partial title matches which are generally only allowed on disambiguation pages in short doses, if there are many such names a separate list is preferred (and for the record, I think the case for including given names on disambiguation pages is far, far weaker than surnames with the relatively unusual exceptions where a person is commonly known by the given name only; in contrast, it is not unusual for a person to be referenced by surname). Other SIAs which aim for comprehensiveness, such a lists of peaks can provide some additional information over a simple disambiguation page, but in general I'd like to see such SIAs have a sponsoring project that actively maintains them with defined standards and can articulate a clear rationale for having a particular type of SIA. So I could support a narrower proposal that focused on specific types of problematic SIAs. olderwiser 14:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Bkonrad. Maybe we can document the different uses of SIAs.
My (latest) SIA understanding is that with notable exceptions like surnames and clearly given names, SIAs need a dab covering the (bulk of the) items anyhow. Is that duplication useful for readers? We could convert those. Just because I don't get why we have SIAs outside of the name lists etc, doesn't mean they aren't useless. SIAs escape both WP:LISTN, and WP:MOSDAB but per my reasoning above they aren't defined well enough currently and fall down define (in an internally inconsistent way) the crack between lists, dabs and WP:DABCONCEPTs. I'd want to hear from projects that find SIAs useful about what they actually need - e.g. surname and given name list articles yes for finding an article which doesn't generally overlap with dabs, but can't be normal lists - those shouldn't even be called "set" IMHO as they aren't attempting to be a complete set of those topics with redlinks, but a finding mechanism. We wouldn't want to create redlink items in those. I'm struggling to understand how SIAs satisfy WP:LISTN - even the example List of peaks named Signal doesn't seem to have a source detailing the set? I can't see anyone questioning the notability either. Beacon details how "Beacon Hill" is common, but Beacon Hill is a dab and surely both together would make a much more useful dabconcept for readers which wouldn't be UK or US centric? Wouldn't it be more useful for readers to have examples of signal mountains without the constraint that they have to be also called "Signal Mountain".
We have exceptions to MOSDAB to aid readers selecting their article, but does that need to extend as far as a sortable table? Widefox; talk 15:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I would support such a proposal, but fear it would not be successful. If it resulted in a reduction of SIAs, though, I would count that as progress. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Title of a set index article when the primary topic is already used?[edit]

Hello. How the title of a set index article should be disambiguated when the primary topic is already used? with (disambiguation)? Ip Man (disambiguation) and Kuala (disambiguation) are correct? Saeidpourbabak (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason Ip Man (disambiguation) should be considered an SIA instead of a disambiguation page. Kuala itself might not be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in which case it could be moved. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ip Man (disambiguation) changed to dab, Kuala AfDed. Widefox; talk 16:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Counterterrorism Center (disambiguation)[edit]

I converted the dab Counterterrorism Center (disambiguation) to an SIA. Suggest moving to "List of..." but leaving for others as no confidence in current state of SIAs/titling with (disambiguation) currently. Widefox; talk 16:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

SIA to evaluate[edit]

Further to the above SIAs, Order (mathematics) seems like it would be better as a dab, or putting back in the dab it was split from. Widefox; talk 13:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)