Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5

←

Archive 10

Question about Teresa

Should this be the disambiguation page, and split the given name stuff into Teresa (given name)? Or is it better as Teresa (the given name) page, and Teresa (disambiguation)? I did it the latter way, but now I'm not so sure. --Tesscass (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the correct split. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

War Machine (disambiguation) and Hitler (disambiguation)

Need some help here dealing with a few editors. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I did some work on War Machine (disambiguation). See if it helps. BTW, Sess, you shouldn't get into such fights with editors who aren't well-versed in dab page formatting. It seems that he was doing the best he could to explain his reasons for disagreement to you. It's better to propose alternate solutions than to keep banging your Bible (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)) down on the table. SlackerMom (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hitler (disambiguation) is not a disambiguation page but a list of name holders. It should be moved to Hitler (name) or Hitler (surname). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you do the honours? Whatever calms the editor down is the best solution. Well, (s)he shouldn't revert again anyway as I have cited WP:BRD. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a little work on Hitler (disambiguation) also. Although it is mostly names, there are now a few other links that I think make it a valid dab page. The names could certainly be moved if someone feels strongly about it. And again, Sess, you "cited WP:BRD" in order to stop the other editor from reverting your edits, but then you only followed the B and R parts yourself, and didn't start a D on the talk page, which is what you should have done. SlackerMom (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I started one here didn't I? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but how was the other editor to know that? You were fishing for help from dab editors, rather than engaging the editor you were at odds with. Don't pick fights over guidelines if you're not willing to explain those guidelines to your opponents. And remember that the primary forum for discussing improvements to a particular dab page is its talk page. A discussion should be started there before it comes here. Every dab page is different, and many rules can often be happily ignored because of consensus that is hammered out on the talk pages. SlackerMom (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! (or, is it here here? :). I personally bring up pages here that either aren't in contention but need help, and I can't think of what to do for them, or have had lots of discussion about them elsewhere, and could use outside input. Often times misunderstandings of guidelines can be resolved generally easily on the disambiguation page talk page, or even with a note on the talk page of the dissenting editor. -- Natalya 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lord Sesshomaru, I would appreciate if you could discuss the matter with me before going behind my back like this – taking up the matter here without trying to finish our own discussion first. I have asked you to explain your reasoning, but you haven't. I mean no evil, but you are the one reverting edits. (Thanks to SlackerMom for pointing out that this discussion had started here.) John Anderson (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hana and Hannah

There are ongoing (but unconnected) disputes at both Hana and Hannah which could do with some third party input. Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Some input offered. In particular, Project Members, I opined on Talk:Hannah that disambiguation pages that has a "sister" hurricane disambiguation page could and should repeat all of the storm entries if they are ambiguous with the dabbed term. I that's a good redundancy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the contributions (though I'm not sure about JHunterJ's point; I've replied on that talk page).--Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Please review Talk:Palin, where a list of people with the same surname is, imho, being confused with a dab page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Weighed in. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hobit (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Empath

I don't know what to make of this "strange" page. Should I tag it for cleanup and/or make a Empath (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the dab tag from it. A separate dab page for the comics character and the TV episode could be created, sure. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New Wiki Cleaner version

Hi,

I have just released version 0.79 that should fix problems with SUL accounts. MediaWiki edit API has been enabled very recently on Wikipedia, so I am now using it for saving pages instead of simulating a browser. Since it's completely new, you may encounter a few problems. Please report them to me :)

--NicoV (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambig deletion sorting

I am an active editor to WP:AfD and because of the growing trend of disambiguations going through there, I have created a deletion sorting category for disambiguations. I thought this wikiproject might want to use it, but I don't know where to put the link on the main project page, so for now I'm putting it here. Thanks, Tavix (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sine Qua Non

Sine Qua Non currently directs to Sine Qua Non (Battlestar Galactica), a Battlestar Galactica episode of that name, rather to Sine qua non, the Latin phrase. There's now a proposal to move it to direct to the winery Sine Qua Non (wine). I've made my comments on the redirect talk page Talk:Sine Qua Non, but it would perhaps benefit from comments of members of this project, who know the DAB policies and issues well. Just to declare my own bias, which is express on that talk page and probably implicit here, I think it should redirect to the Latin phrase, which should (and already does) have a hatnote to the DAB page, which should list all candidate pages. TJRC (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jinx (disambiguation)

I would like to properly re-add The Jinx to this page, but don't know which blue link should be placed. Any suggestions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have at least four different uses of The Jinx, based on "what links here". I suppose they could all be included, but if so they should have disambiguators added and the links in the articles corrected, such as The Jinx (magazine), The Jinx (album), etc. SlackerMom (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Guess I'll take care of this later, if no one beats me to it though. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes it feels better to just carefully close the lid on ol' Pandora's box...! SlackerMom (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't come up with a dabbing for the one at List of works by Robert E. Howard. Any thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout delinking that sucker? Can't imagine a page for that would last long ... --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Delinking is certainly an option, but if you want to include it, I'd suggest The Jinx (short story). That seems to be the convention of many other titles on that page. SlackerMom (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help folks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears, Laurie Anderson, and "Radar"

Hi folks.

Kinda new here.

Issue: Britney Spears song "Radar (song)."

It's listed in the disamiguation page: Radar (disambiguation)

There's another noted song called "Radar" by Laurie Anderson's
in her Home of the Brave (soundtrack).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT77BzpMoEM

Should this Radar (song) page be turned into a disambiguation page?

Thanks.

Yartett (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it could just be listed at Radar (disambiguation) as Radar (Laurie Anderson song). That redlink should then be a redirect to Home of the Brave (soundtrack). --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've spotted the new entry and cleaned it up a little bit. SlackerMom (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmm,
The title "Radar (Song)" compared to "Radar (Laurie Anderson Song),"
and perhaps a "Radar (Morphine Song),"
implies that Britney's Radar is more pre-eminent than Anderson's (or Morphine's);
even though Britney's is quite recent and might not stand the test of time,
while Anderson's has.

As for the redirect, it implies that Anderson's song doesn't have a story, or one more compelling than Spears'.
If there is to be a redirect, could it wait:
say a month or two?

Yartett (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that someone has written an article about the Britney song, whereas the others do not have articles about them. When they are written, it would be perfectly appropriate to rename all the songs more equitably. Dab pages are for distinguishing between wikipedia articles, so the existence of an article automatically gives a link more weight. SlackerMom (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, please remember that the disambiguator is a tool for disamibiguating; it is not a primacy-ator. Since moving the others is a thing (and has implications for creating double redirects, etc.), and Wikipedia does not need it, it is acceptable to leave one article at (film) while another article comes along at (2007 film) or what-have-you. Discussion at Talk:Radar (song) would be appropriate, I think. The Spears song may not have stood the test of time, but it stood the test of Wikipedia: of all the Wikipedia editors, one of them opted to create an article for the Spears song before one of them opted to create the Anderson song. The inferences of story-having or compellingness are not implications.

Whatever the outcome, Radar (song) should not become an incomplete disambiguation page. If there's a tiff over which singer "gets" the (song) disambiguator, Radar (song) would become a redirect to Radar (disambiguation), not a dab page of its own, and all the places that link to it as Radar (song) would need to be updated to link to the correct article instead of the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nicely done. And I like the "primacy-ator" thing. Needless to say, I fully agree. SlackerMom (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Spears song may not have stood the test of time, but it stood the test of Wikipedia: of all the Wikipedia editors, one of them opted to create an article for the Spears song before one of them opted to create the Anderson song."

But has it, considering that it is being considered for deletion?

I wonder if there is a generational thing going on here.

Anderson's song was made almost 2 decades before Wikipedia, and about 10 years before the Internet itself.

Britney's song is recent.

I wonder what would happen if it was switched, would there even be an article as this song might have faded in 20 years, like other Britney songs faded; or maybe we might have articles on both. I also wonder if record company hacks might have contributed, if not created the article---I hear stories about A.I. programs in chat rooms.

If the article is to stay, and I'm certainly not opposed to the existence of an article about Britney Spear's song; and not have one on Anderson's, I can live with that provided, there is either a Radar D.A.B. page link on top of the Britney Radar article, especially considering that there maybe even many other songs of this name, and perhaps some yet to be made;
and I certainly don't want to hear someone say, "You mean this 'Laurie Anderson' made a song called 'Radar?' Yeah? Well Britney did it first---Wikipedia says so. (It says 'song' not 'Britney Spears song'.)"

Yartett (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no generational thing going on here, unless you're referring to the older generation (of which I'm a part) seeing the change in musical tastes as a personal affront. The sequence of Anderson song -> Internet -> Wikipedia -> Spears song is irrelevant. There are other policies for moving pages (see WP:RM) and for the placement of hatnotes (WP:HN); while dab notes on pages with parenthetical dab phrases are usually avoided, if you're concerned that a reader might type in "Radar (song)" in the search box and arrive at the Spears page when seeking the Anderson page, that might be a reason to have the hatnote there anyway; again, a good topic for Talk:Radar (song), or perhaps WP:SONG (hey, which does say that multiple articles on songs that share a title should disambiguate by including the artist name -- so if the Anderson song article gets created, you can quote that). Wikipedia does not say Spears' song came before Anderson's -- it says (song), not (song that came out before Laurie Anderson's song). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Surely this is moot in the absence of a an article about the Laurie Anderson song? If one is created, then we could discuss the relative merits, and if we reached a consensus to rename pages, then we have processes to do so. But you're attaching too much importance to the disambiguators (the parts of titles in parens). They're just technical aids to reduce confusion; the content of the article is much more important. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

PS Please don't use </br> tags in your posts. Most browsers can format the text sensibly. Thanks! --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm new here. I see a list of an articles being considered for deletion. I notice the article---because I know of Laurie Anderson's song. I don't have a problem with Britney having an article, but I want Anderson's recognized,and I have problems with the name of the article; and I say as much, including a D.A.B. page issue. I'm enlightened: partially thanks to you. This will be my last post here. "not (song that came out before Laurie Anderson's song)." Huh? (I don't see "the change in musical tastes as a personal affront." I like lots of new music, just not (virtually all of) Britney's.) As for the </br>, I find it make it easier to read, but as you, and others, have commented on it, I'll refrain, and let my some of my sentences look like fragments.;-D:Yartett (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to reading your article. Seriously. Happy editing. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sabrina

Re Sabrina

I think I'm having a bit of trouble here with two other editors. Either they're taking WP:IAR too seriously, or have no idea what they're doing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusively, what about this? Thought it was ok to list these types of entries so long as the individual or character is called "Sabrina". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit is wrong -- the entry is known as Sabrina, so it should be included. Stop shortening other editor's descriptions as in this edit. The guideline on keeping things brief does not prohibit keeping things grammatical. Characters with two name get listed on the name-holder list unless they are commonly known by a single name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Blue Mountains

What do folks here think of User:Sardaka's edits to Blue Mountains? --Tesscass (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion going on at Talk:Blue Mountains. Chimed in there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JHJ's view on the talk page but would also ask "does it really matter where the list goes, top or bottom?" Abtract (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Seems a tad pushy of the List of ... page, given that dab pages are supposed to help readers find an article, rather than a range of potential results. A list ought not to be a primary destination from a dab page. S/he wouldn't have a stake in that list, by any chance? Oh. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If it goes at the top, that's one more line for everyone who's not looking for the first line to have to scan past. Minor, yes, but the dab page is a navigational aid, and speed bumps are not navigational aids. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wonder Man (disambiguation)

This looks more like a regular dab rather than a SIA. For instance, it appears that the page is missing a primary meaning. Would tagging it with {{disambig-cleanup}} help? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed it for you, along the line you suggested. Abtract (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And you followed with a useful edit ... excellent. Thanks. Abtract (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves

Eagles Building (disambiguation) → Eagles Building
Douglas County Courthouse → Douglas County Courthouse (Omaha, Nebraska)
Douglas County Courthouse (disambiguation) → Douglas County Courthouse

There are two sets of requested moves at wp:requested moves which relate to disambiguation pages. These relate to the above NRHP discussion. Please consider contributing to the discussions at the corresponding talk pages. As i noted in my move request of the first listed one just now, I am cross-posting this at wp:NRHP and at wp:WikiProject Disambiguation. doncram (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

AIG

Something is going wrong with the AIG page. It is sending it straight to an AIG for a Wu-Tang Clan group. Can someone fix this. My username should be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2099 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism was reverted and vandal was blocked. WP:EAR might be a better place for other notes of this nature, please, but thanks for noticing. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Statistical proof

What should this be? A redirect to mathematical proof, a dicdef, or just delete it? Not sure what to do. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mathematical_proof#.22Statistical_proof.22_Section relates to this content. PamD (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Reformation

Does anyone objection to moving the disambiguation page at Reformation to Reformation (disambiguation), and returning Reformation as a redirect to Protestant Reformation? It was like that until a few months ago, when an editor changed Reformation back to a disambiguation page. I attempted to contact the editor who made the change, but never got a response. "The Reformation" almost always refers to the Protestant Reformation, and there are currently a huge number of links to the disambiguation page Reformation. -- Natalya 19:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No objection here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither here. Srnec (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor from me but why not go one step further and move Protestant Reformation to Reformation? Abtract (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, but I expect opposition. Srnec (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Acronyms

There are a multitude of disambiguation pages categorized here. The MoS doesn't support that, so isn't the purpose of this category a bad idea? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The category needs to categorize articles about acronyms (and we need to remove the category from disambiguation pages), or there needs to be consensus for change to the dab guidelines for including the category. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Manually removing them would be time-consuming. Think we can get a bot to run the job? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

NAPPA

I've never dealt with a page like this before. Should any useful links be moved to Nappa? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned it and the associated pages for you but I am unable to do the last bit which is to swap Napa (disambiguation) and Napa. Abtract (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Incoming wikilinks look like Napa, California may be the primary topic for Napa. If there's consensus for the base name dab, anyone can list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages‎. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest how do you know that the majority of links are for napa, cal and not napa county? And are wikilinks a good measure of primary topic status? Abtract (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

They are one of the three good measures listed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, yes. So there may be a primary topic, and your suggested move away from that primary topic should be discussed at Talk:Napa (with a pointer from Talk:Napa, California) before the move is done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

1800s

Got a DAB question. Solid consensus has been gained after discussion and notification in many forums to move 1800s (which meant 1800 to 1809) to 1800–1809. We also got consensus to change 1800s to a page with the following text:

1800s may refer to:

The period from 1800 to 1899
1800–1809, rarely

The implication of the discussions was that this page should retain the name of 1800s, but you guys are the experts on this subject; should it keep that name, or be called 1800s (disambiguation), with a redirect from 1800s? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if consensus is that the term is primarily a reference to the entire century, I'd suggest making 1800s redirect to 19th century and then place something like the following hatnote at the top of 19th century: {{redirect|1800s|the first decade of the century|1800-1809}}, which produces "1800s" redirects here. For the first decade of the century, see 1800-1809..older ≠ wiser 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that, I'll copy this at Talk:1800–1809. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happier if somewhere on the page it made explicit that 19th century is 1 Jan 1801 - 31 Dec 1900, to show how it differs from "1800s". Either annotate the "see also" line, or put it in a lead to the page. It may not exactly fit the rules, but I see a case here for WP:IAR, to make sense of the page for newcomers. PamD (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But in response to your actual question... as there isn't a "primary usage" for "1800s", the dab page should be at that title (with a redirect from 1800s (disambiguation) to be used if any links to the page are needed). PamD (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these pages are ever going to quite fit the standard dab page format. For a start, we don't even have an article on the 1800s; we have one on the 19th century, which isn't quite the same thing. I've put a {{disambiguation}} tag on 1800s, but perhaps they shouldn't be treated as dab pages (to protect them from attacks by dab fundamentalists). Perhaps 1800s should be considered to be a short article, explaining the meaning(s?) of the term, explaining how it differs from 19th century, and containing a navigation template similar to {{centurybox}} for people to get to the relevant decades.--Kotniski (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:Hndis's recent dab edits

This editor is ruining a myriad of dab-related pages. I happened to catch these three here. See activities. I will ask him/her to comment in this discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Go easy on Hndis. All the edits are good-faith. The guidelines for categories and tags related to name pages are tricky, and many experienced editors (like myself) still have trouble with them, so let's just work them out one at a time. "Ruining" is a bit strong for a slightly mistaken tag. SlackerMom (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, couldn't think of a better word. So, how should we go about this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you've got the energy to run through the contributions and correct bad tags, go ahead. Otherwise, I suggest we wait on Hndis to reply and we can make sure that we all understand when to use which tag. Hndis is a pretty active editor of name pages, and very easy to work with from my experience, so I'm sure we can easily repair any "damage". SlackerMom (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to your concerns. I have looked over the information on WP:MOSDAB but found it scant on the issue of when to use hndis, when to use given name or surname and when to use more than one. I will re-examine the edits I've done in the last day or so where I have made such changes.

Could I just add that an incorrect category in no way ruins a dab (certainly from a reader's point of view)? Also, receiving a message asking me not to edit dabs until I had explained myself on a thread about how I was ruining pages made me feel humiliated and like giving up. I do feel it could have been handled better; a clear explanation of your concerns on my Talk page - rather than a message telling me you'd started a thread about them on a page for many people - would have made things clear without causing me offence or embarrassment. A quick look at my edit history - I have half the hndis pages on my watchlists and have edited most of those - would show that I am trying to improve pages, even if I don't always get it right. Regards, Hndis (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the way to differentiate between those is that the first might be used on a dabpage for a full name, containing both a surname and a given name, such as George Smith, the second for a dabpage about a given name only, such as George (given name) and the third for a dabpage about a surname only, such as People with the surname Smith. I don't think more than one of those is ever appropriate on one page. Merenta (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That was pretty much my interpretation, Merenta, the articles I moved to given name or surname were pages which were a list of those with the same first name or the same surname, but none with both; the article titles were (to my memory) all one word. I was however (or at least tried to be) careful if the person was known only by the first name, for example people who lived before our current naming conventions. Hndis (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The more I re-read WP:MOSDAB, the more convinced I am that your edits were, in fact, correct. Merenta (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This appears to hinge on whether the individuals listed are widely known by the portion of their name in the article title, in which case the page is a true disambiguation page, and your edits are incorrect, or not, in which case the page is a list (not a disambiguation page at all, regardless of title) and your edits are correct. I suspect that the latter is true in at least some of the pages you've modified - I'm no expert on these folks, but I'd be surprised if everybody listed at Satoshi is commonly referred to by that name only, etc. Perhaps Sesshomaru does really know this, and that's what he's saying. Merenta (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They look like good edits to me too, and I've made similar edits in the past. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

J. Śniadecki and L. Ball

I have nominated J. Śniadecki for deletion at mfd, and am considering doing the same for L. Ball, since it seems a similar situation. The creator of these pages has presented arguments against deletion on the talk pages. Opinions are requested. SlackerMom (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I prodded H. Broadhurst (deleted) and took J. Drummond to AfD where it was deleted. The creators have gone to a lot of trouble to explain their reasons for J. Śniadecki and L. Ball but I agree with the responses on the J. Śniadecki Talk page; unless more than one of them was known primarily or commonly as this, there shouldn't be a dab. If they don't know someone's first name, a search engine should help them rather than Wikipedia. The only other hndis like this (I looked through them all, but I may have missed one) is E. Laguerre. This is due to be deleted in two days. Its creator indicated they were unhappy I'd PRODded it, but hasn't yet challenged its deletion. If these pages were set up for every combination of initials and surnames, the amount of pages we'd need to create and edit would be overwhelming. Hndis (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the suggestions on L. Ball, I've moved E. Laguerre to Laguerre (surname). Let me know if you think this is the best solution or if people have other ideas. Hndis (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. Surname pages can surely handle this. SlackerMom (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Royalty on name disambiguation pages

I happened across the page List of rulers named Leopold, and I note that this page was originally created in order to split out all the names of royalty from the Leopold disambiguation page by an editor trying to improve the page. I can't see any part of the disambig guidelines that suggests this. Originally I thought that this should be covered by MOS:DABSUR and the entries should go on a {{given name}} page. However Title III of Thingamyjig doesn't fit the given name, surname pattern very well, so I'm now thinking it shouldn't apply and such links on disambiguation pages should be treated as an "Articles with the item as part of the name". Is this something on which there is consensus? I'm reluctant to undo something a member of this project did in the name of improving disambiguation without clarifying this. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. People who are known by a single name should go on the dab page for that name. But I'd bring it up on Talk:Leopold first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who split off the page, which was in my newbie time. I don't remember my reasons for doing that, but I guess it had something to do with different dab rules at the time (the approach for dabs and surname/given names didn't really get formalised until summer/autum 2007). I am completely neutral now to what happens to these pages. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments requested

See Talk:Francis, Dauphin of France#Request for Comment. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

original language names in dab pages

I'd like to know if it's allowable to have the original language names as part of the description sentence for dab entries on dab pages. I've been reverted for it at Feitian 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are any particular rules about it, but in the case of Feitian I don't see much need for the Chinese names (they don't help to disambiguate the terms).--Kotniski (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) If the disambiguation phrase does not match the original language, then the guidelines for keeping the entries as brief as is needed to get the reader to the sought page would be against including the original language. If the original language matches the disambiguation phrase and the entry otherwise does not, then yes, it is appropriate to include it. In Feitian, they would be opted against, while on 文 (for instance), they would be included. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Gonzo (disambiguation)

This one needs some attention. Despite a few cleanup attempts, it still doesn't have an entry or primary usage for Gonzo because the term redirects back there. And should GONZO become a potential primary topic or does that go against WP:MOSCAPS? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all disambigs will have a primary usage... We could move the disambig page to Gonzo leaving a redirect, but would it really improve things? –xeno (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved as an examples of Wikipedia:Malplaced disambiguation pages. Yes, it really improves things. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sterling College

Please check out Talk:Sterling College, a user replaced one page for "Sterling College" in Kansas with "Sterling College" in Vermont. Personally, I don't care which one is called which, but there are about 100+ pages in Wikipedia going to the "old way" of linking... and I think this is a new artcile about the college in VT. I don't know who really to notify or ask for help, but I'm guessing that your project is close enough to the solution to get it to the right team.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nystagmus - truly disambig page?

Just had a look at Nystagmus and I don't think that it should be classified as a disambiguation page. Sure there is further specification, however, IMNSHO it is like further calling blood pressure a disambig page, and then separating to diastolic and histolic. Maybe it would be at MedicoWiki. Anyone else care to have a look and an opinion? -- billinghurst (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a dab page. I removed the tags from the article stub and its talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Vedic added to the project list and ugly

Just went and visited Vedic and it is an ugly looking page and not one that I would want to touch to disambig. For an uncommon topic matter, it has a lot of links, and one wonders there should be a different base article. billinghurst (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Author has done work and reorganised to specific Disambig. Consider done. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Indo-European people" similarly

Must be me, I must be in pick pick pick mode. Indo-European_people has the label and it does not meet WP:MOSDAB, and then there is specifically linked from the top Indo-European (disambiguation) which would seem to be appropriate. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has modified the text and it now complies. :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambig editintro - working

It's Alive! Months later, but {{Disambig editintro}} is finally working. Do a hard refresh or cache clear, and try editing any disambig page (e.g. A Wonderful Life or Aboncourt) to see that edit message at the top of the page.

(Just fyi, the request to add the code was at MediaWiki talk:Common.js#Disambig editintro, so ask there if you encounter any code-implementation problems)

The template message itself can still be improved too. See the template's talkpage for the older discussion.

Thanks to all that helped. (notice cross-posted to the 3 main disambig talkpages) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but it doesn't seem to work for me. Abtract (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize, bug reports are good! Have you done a hard refresh (ctrl+F5)? What browser/OS combination are you using? Do you see it if you sign out, and then try editing a disambig page? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambig editintro vs set index articles

How can we get this 'feature' turned off for WP:SHIPS set index pages? (They are marked with {{shipindex}}, by the way.) While the suggestions are great for dab pages, most go counter to the established ship set index guidelines. Related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Ship_index.2FDisambiguation and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Editnotices_for_set-index_pages. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quiddity asked me to take a look at this.

Bellhalla: No worries. I know several easy ways to fix that. I just have to think and test a little which way is the best. I have put all my other work aside since this seems urgent. I think we can have this fully fixed within some hours. :))

Could you guys point me and everyone else to one single talk page where we can discuss this and where I can publish the solution I recommend (once I have figured out which one is best)? (I think this page might be that place, but I'll leave it to you guys to decide on which page.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This place will work as a central location just fine. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

After some investigation I came to the conclusion that the best thing for the time being is to change or remove the id="disambig" in those templates that really are "set index article boxes". Since it is the "disambig" ID that the javascript in MediaWiki:Common.js uses to determine if a page is a disambiguation page or not. Changing the code in Common.js would not work as well since that code is cached for some time in the web browsers. And marking "set index article boxes" as disambigs is wrong anyway.

So I started with {{shipindex}} by changing to id="setindexbox" and hard-coded the needed styles to keep the same "disambig" look as before. This solves the problem immediately, no delay due to CSS or javascript caching.

But I need help to figure out which of the templates listed in MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage are true disambig boxes and which really are set index boxes. I made a new section there named "Set index article templates" and moved some of the templates there. But there might be others that I don't know about in the disambig list there or perhaps not even listed there. I will fix the ones you put in that set index section.

I have also come up with a better long term solution. I will report back here when I have coded up that one so you can have a look and a say before we deploy that one.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding which templates cover set index pages, I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#Templates is meant to list that – so all the templates except the first four, from {SIA} down to {Numberdis}. Most of them follow the standard disambiguation styling (currently). Can anyone confirm?

Also, we non-admins can't edit the MediaWiki page. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right. I checked some of the templates that are indented under {{SIA}} under Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#Templates. Sure, they are "Topic-specific templates", but most of them are not "set index templates" as far as I can see. Most of them seem to be used on very normal disambig pages. So most of them can probably have the {{disambig editintro}} displayed. So the question remains, which templates should and which should not have the {{disambig editintro}} displayed? (You could use the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#Templates and sort them properly.)

And oops, sorry. I forgot that most of you can not edit the MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage page. (When editing in MediaWiki space I don't get the usual red notice "only admins can edit this page", so I forgot and just copied and pasted the page name.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between a "Topic-specific disambig" and a "set index article"? The only clue I can find in a very quick search, are the 1st two threads at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 29. Presummably Template talk:SIA holds more clues, but I don't have time to read that at the moment. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I did try to edit the old template list last night, in an attempt to partially clarify the listing, but I'm unsure of the history behind all those templates. Possibly the indentation is now incorrect? -- Quiddity (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I just have to tease you a little:

You guys work with disambiguation, while I am just a template programmer who was asked (by Quiddity) to come here to fix a technical problem. But I end up having to help you "disambiguate" between what is a disambiguation message box and what is a set index message box?

So, I have now updated your template list on this project page so it keeps the two kinds of message boxes apart.

Anyway, Quiddity: Go read Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles and take a look at some of the articles/lists that use the {{shipindex}} and {{mountainindex}} templates. Then you might figure out what is what. (But I admit, the difference is sometimes hair thin.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh fully expected, but partial clarity appreciated :)

- Should Victoria University be labeled as an SIA, or a schooldis?

- Should Thebes and Ozyorny be SIA or geodis?

Believe me, I've read that "set index" section numerous times, and never quite understood what separates them. I've jumped to the conclusion that they're almost all potentially set-indexes, but are temporarily styled as disambig pages, until the members of their respective projects come and upgrade them.

Eg. Eventually, WikiProject Highways will come and turn the disambig-styled List of highways numbered 11 and Riverside Drive into set indexes

and, Eventually, WikiProject Medicine will turn up to style Mercy Hospital into a more detailed list.

etc.

If the above is indeed the case, and the whole conceit is originally just to get some wiggleroom for expansion past the wikilawyers (fie!), then we should comprehend that before the guidelines get changed again.

According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:SIA, it seems to be used on ~90% comics-topics or Russian locations. Might it be clearer to just split that into two topic-specific templates? {{Comicdisambig}} and {{Russiangeodis}} or something? (Which your dmbox would help with!). -- Quiddity (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As you know I am not an expert on this, but perhaps no one is, so this is of course just my personal conclusions and views:

Yes, your analysis seems to be spot on. And as I understand the guidelines then Victoria University, Thebes and Ozyorny are set indexes since they have additional information that disambig pages may not have.

And here are my personal views (my rant) on this:

What never ceases to amaze me is that many/most people see the world in black and white. I am a software engineer but I know very well that we have more than just binary 0 and 1. We can use whole bytes for starters! (That's 0 to 255.) So for me the differences between disambiguation pages, set index pages and articles are not binary. Rather it is an analogue scale. There is no clear boundary between them as I see it.

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide neat blue link lists formatted according to some style guideline. Rather, we are here to serve interesting and/or useful information to all of humanity. And for instance the list of towns named Ozyorny can be very useful information, even though most links there are red. And it can be internally useful too, since the day someone decides to write an article about one of those towns then that list will help that user to use the right syntax for the name for the town and make that user aware that there are more towns with that name. Of course, we should perhaps have the recommendation that such lists should only make links to notable items red. So we don't encourage the creation of a lot of stub articles. (We probably have such a recommendation in some guideline about lists somewhere.)

So yes, you could say that the idea of "set index articles" is a concept to give some wiggle room for expansion past the wikilawyers. But I see it as steps on a scale, perhaps named something like disambiguation pages, set index pages and articles. And to me such defined steps are just a simplification to make the world manageable. In this case it allows us to have guidelines that describe the typical design of each kind of page. But to me that doesn't mean that there should not be pages that are in-between two of the defined steps. Instead those guidelines simply describe the ideal state of a page in the middle of such a step. But a page that are in-between should of course also look something in between the two styles, and not like something totally else, since then it would truly break the guidelines.

And seeing it as just one scale is of course a simplification, but I'll spare you from my rant about that...

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

{{surname}} and {{given name}} Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy articles are not disambiguation pages and should not get the new instruction template. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

JHunterJ: Ah yes, they seem to be put on typical set index article pages. I will add them to MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage#Set index article templates and to the list of set index templates under Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#Templates. And I'll fix so pages that use those two templates don't display the {{disambig editintro}} when edited. Thanks for the report.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Err, I'm not so sure about that -- both of those templates may sometimes be placed within sections of a disambiguation page. I don't particularly agree with such usage, but so it goes. Such pages are still disambiguation pages, they only happen to contain a section listing given names or surnames. older ≠ wiser 14:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

older ≠ wiser: My findings and your findings agree, but there is more to this than you seem to understand. Yes, as you point out those templates are sometimes used on plain old disambiguation pages. But they are also often used on set index articles. And that means they may not trigger the {{disambig editintro}}, since that one should not be used on set index articles. Thus we now have to classify them as set index article boxes. When they are placed on a disambig page there also is a {{disambig}} box or similar, so that other box will take care of triggering the {{disambig editintro}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, that is well then. It wasn't clear before the editmessage would appear with sectional uses of the other templates on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambig and setindex meta-template

While I was checking all the different disambig and set index templates I noticed they all use the same code and the same looks. But now we need to differentiate between the two kinds so only the true disambig pages get the {{disambig editintro}} displayed when people edit such pages. It's a CSS id in those templates that trigger the javascript that makes that editnotice show when editing a disambig page. But that id is currently also used to control the looks of the templates. So removing the id currently means some hand-coding.

So I am planning to code up a meta-template that supplies the full disambig look. And that template will have a "type=disambig/setindex" setting that decides which CSS id gets set and thus decides if the {{disambig editintro}} gets displayed or not. And it will of course take an "image" and a "text" parameter. Thus it will be very simple to make disambig and setindex templates and set them to the right type.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have coded up the meta-template. Take a look at {{dmbox}}. And take a look at the test cases in Template:Dmbox/testcases.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. I'm glad I asked you (the fellow who understands our mboxes well) to come look at this problem! Strongly endorse. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad that you like it! So I will do as I usually do: Wait a day and then look at my code and documentation again, since one almost always discovers something more to fix. And then I'll deploy it to the disambig and set index boxes.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pages listing stub-like entries on same name

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Pages listing stub-like entries on same name

Is there a tag to apply to pages like Abundantius and Aglaophon and Alexander (artists)? These pages are invariably dealing with disambiguation of ancient historical names, but the information is so scanty (typically Roman or Greek or medieval saints or other sources from antiquity) that there are unlikely to be individual pages about the people concerned. Some are incorrectly in Category:Multiple people (or a subcategory of that category). The current "name" and "disambig" tags all presume that people coming to the page will want to correct the link to point somewhere else, but in many cases this page contains the needed information. These are more names lists than name disambiguation pages. I am asking here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy what is the best thing to do. Apologies for cross-posting again, but many issues like this do seem to affect both projects. Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

They look like set index articles to me. Abtract (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

They are like the ship name, ones, aren't they? Well, if that's the answer, great. Trouble is, I want to tag them and put them in a little box to make it easier for people to find the genuine "multiple people" pages (such as Abundius and Abundantius) and hence keep the "single biography" pages in their own box. But there doesn't seem to be a "biographical set-index" tag. Do the ships have one and should one be designed for people - at the risk of confusing some people horribly? Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. While I'm here, Abundantius is technically functioning as a dab page as well, as it points to Abundius and Abundantius. There may be people linking to Abundantius who want the other page. Abundius (disambiguation) does a better job at the moment, IMO. But that is mainly because there are separate pages for each entry. Carcharoth (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To me these look like examples of old-style "multi-stub" pages, which used to be covered in Wikipedia:Disambiguation but were recently removed after discussion here. The new standard (which was not very well articulated) seems to be to break them out into little stubs of their own, but I can see the argument for treating these as set index pages as well. It might be useful to mention this case in that discussion, which is still on the WT:D page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented over there. Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sonny Dixon (disambiguation)

Any advice on what to do with this one? It late at night, and I find myself befuddled... SlackerMom (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. Leave it be. Go to sleep.... :) doncram (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks, I did go to sleep, but it doesn't look any better today. If I bring the intro into accord with WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic, then the only other link on the page is red. Do we need this page? SlackerMom (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good morning Mom, I don't think so. If anyone thinks the pitcher is notable, they should create an article and a hatnote on the other page. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:ATHLETE John Craig "Sonny" Dixon is notable, having played major league baseball and so on and so forth. Hatnote seems appropriate. Dab page could be AfD'd, or could be left alone since it does no harm. I'm off to write an article ... --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. That was exactly the right fix. SlackerMom (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles etc.

People might be interested in the straw poll here about how and whether to disambiguate Los Angeles, which arose from the more general discussion on dropping state names from American cities at WT:Naming conventions (settlements), which might also be of interest.--Kotniski (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Harry Potter related topics

Is this Harry Potter-related? The articles appear to be categorized as such, then again, it could be wrong. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Each article certainly mentions HP and seems to be related at least loosely; I would leave them alone if it were me. Abtract (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but what do you think about the placement? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to see where else to put them ... if you have any better ideas then go ahead but they don't seem to fit in any of the other sections. Abtract (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Norman Hunter

Looks to me like Norman Hunter (footballer) should be the primary topic (and hence moved to the base page) at Norman Hunter (disambiguation). Any thoughts? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The author looks pretty notable too, especially in the non-WP world where perhaps a higher proportion of people care about children's literature and a lower proportion about football, so the footballer is not necessarily the primary topic. If we leave him at NH(f), we need to fix a mass of Norman Hunter links, all looking as if they are intended for him, which now point, via a redirect, to the dab page, (as the editor who moved the page failed to do) (actually they seem to be mostly from various England squad templates, so not as bad as it might be!), and we need to move the dab page to plain Norman Hunter. PamD (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Googling shows the footballer on the first 3 non-WP hits, and the author as numbers 4 and 5. Doesnt' seem a clear primary usage, so the move to (footballer) seem justified... just needs some serious tidying up after that move. PamD (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the research! --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)