Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Proposal for updating Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)[edit]

Following a Request for Comment on the matter of ship article disambiguation, I have drafted an updated version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). The proposed text can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. Your project is being notified because the major change revolves around the disambiguation of article titles.

The most significant change to the guideline is that the only form of disambiguation for articles on ships is the year of launch, expressed in the format "(yyyy)". All other forms of disambiguation are depreciated, such as pennant/hull number, ship prefix, or ship type. Using ship prefixes in article titles for civilian/merchant ships is also depreciated, unless part of the ship's "common name". Examples have been updated as a result of the RFC and other recent discussions, and in some cases, elaborated on. A list of other changes can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update#Summary of changes for proposal.

Discussion and comments are welcomed at User talk:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update.

Dabfix: is the name of[edit]

On human name disambiguation pages, Dabfix will always propose to replace the typical lead "may refer to" by "is the name of". Seems to be part of its ruleset. But I've noticed some/other people seem to find it rather awkward (I do) and remove it again. Wouldn't it be best to stick to the same lead for all, and/or is there a way to get it off dabfix? --Midas02 (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Dispenser who created and maintains Dabfix. No opinion on whether or not Dabfix should change this. Jenks24 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that "may refer to" is fine for all disambiguation pages. It is certainly not wrong when used on human name disambiguation pages, so I see no need to complicate things with a different rule for those. bd2412 T 13:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I change "is the name of" to standard form whenever I come across it. olderwiser 14:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree, I also change to the standard form in all dabs. Dispenser "is the name of" is not a style in MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is right in MOS:DAB and template. The footer states only people are listed, companies/media need to be in a separate section (like See also). I've listed the set of changes below. After there's a function to convert to {{subst:refer|type=<refer type>}} when possible.
Name is (also) the name of: Contains {{hndis
Place may (also) refer to several places: Contains {{geodis
Initialism may (also) stand for: Previous intro line used variation of it
Term may (also) refer to: Everything else
Finally, I've noticed the increase interest in Dabfix and spent a week overhauling the modules and improve the user-interface. Syntax highlighting is for auto-added text is now always on, the "Show details" debug view has less clutter, auto-italic/quote is more correct. — Dispenser 18:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest it's much preferable to stick with "May (also) refer to" for all dab pages, so that it doesn't need to be changed when we add a placename to the page for an initialism, or a film or book to a list of names. PamD 22:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Species abbreviation strikes back[edit]

So, going thru the stupid {{species abbreviation}} templates, I encountered Haenkeana and I have no idea what it means. Does someone know? And if no one knows, how do we create an entry at List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names? Or just delete? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Paging previous participants in discussion: @PamD:@Pigsonthewing:@Bazj:@Jenks24:@Bkonrad:@Augurar:@Otr500:@Plantdrew:@DexDor:

Send it to MFD as "Dab page with no entries apart from WP:PTM". It's another Notwith/Nono64 creation. DexDor (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That would be articles for deletion, right? Since it is article space. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right (although redirects in article space go to RFD - I use Twinkle which takes one to the appropriate XFD). Anyway, I've now turned the page into a redirect (rather than have another AFD discussion). DexDor (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a rather pointless redirect, though, isn't it? I think an RfD would end in a delete vote. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If nothing in mainspace uses the redirect - and nothing does in this case - then the cost is irrelevant. Bazj (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
...and the lack of use also undermines the redirect to a page with "commonly used" in its name. Bazj (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Two blue links per entry[edit]

There's a discussion going on others may want to join: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Two blue links per entry. --Midas02 (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Albums and songs separate?[edit]

albums and songs mixed together here, don't we normally separate them? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You could always break it into songs and albums, but put the songs above the albums. I would personally also leave off the Music heading, since it's the only heading at that level. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Fyrael that'd be good. Would you mind doing it as I've already reverted this merging once? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act request to disambiguate[edit]

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

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Animal killing, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Proposal to revive Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion[edit]

In light of the continuing pattern of existing pages with incoming links being turned into disambiguation pages without discussion, and causing substantial disruption to disambiguation efforts in the process, I would like to revive the idea of having a dedicated Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion notice board, and a process for initiating and resolving such proposals similar to the processes in place at Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Basically, my position is that an existing title with incoming links, whether it is an article or a redirect, should not be turned into a disambiguation page without a discussion forming consensus for that change occurring at a centralized location for the discussion of disambiguation matters. This should apply irrespective of whether any titles are moved or deleted in this process. Pinging User:Midas02, User:PamD, User:No such user, User:KrakatoaKatie, and User:Deor, all of whom have recently weighed in on occurrences of this issue. bd2412 T 14:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The problem is real, but I'm not sure if another noticeboard is an appropriate solution. I'm thinking more about a set of new Special:Tags "Redirect turned dab", "Article turned dab", "Redirect turned article" (that one used to exist), that would at least allow RC patrollers to spot the issue and maybe raise a red flag. Or some other createive use of edit filter? No such user (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • My primary concern is not merely alerting RC patrollers, but specifically putting the issue in front of the eyes of experts in disambiguation. Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts does this to a degree, but because there is no noticeboard for proposals to convert articles to disambiguation pages, there is no notice to appear as an alert, and this is often done without any discussion at all. bd2412 T 15:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Adding a tag would mean the community has accepted the change, which is often not the case. BD2412 is specifically after the changes causing disruption, and those shouldn't be accepted without proper justification. I'm all for a system where disruptive new dab pages can be 'disarmed', i.e. stripped of the dab template, until the community has vetted the change. --Midas02 (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • WP:RM requires a discussion before any potentially controversial page move. We should require the same for any potentially controversial disambiguation, and for the same reasons. We could establish a system to cross-reference discussions that involve both a DFD and an RM or RFD. bd2412 T 05:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
        • But anyone already can bypass WP:RM and move the page themselves, potentially causing havoc. Apart from the WP:ANI#Fastifex issue I raised, which triggered this debate, I also got irked recently because someone moved Dragan Marković (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and created WP:TWODABS at Dragan Marković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), instead of going to WP:RM where it would probably get rejected (I dropped the issue as not-too-important, and I can't revert it myself anyway; at least, the editor fixed the links). How would the proposed WP:DABFD board solve that problem, as it would likely be under-advertised and under-attended (RFD and CFD aren't very busy places either)? No such user (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
          • There are really two components to this proposal - there is an inherent component that we should have a rule like the rule at WP:RM that says that potentially disruptive disambiguations should be discussed. The example you raise with Dragan Marković is very much on point. I have just reverted the undiscussed move you noted, because it is against policy to allow such a move. You are empirically wrong about RfD being under-attended, but in any case, disambiguation already has a substantial community of people engaged in disambiguation discussions. What it lacks is a centralized noticeboard. bd2412 T 18:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)