Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 30
 | 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
And perhaps many many more along similar lines.
I am unsure what the inclusion criteria should be on this page as there are obvious entries like PJ Harvey (although it is lacking a lot of other PJs like that) but then others seem to be there simply because it has a two part name starting with P and J
It seems like a big mess and I've gone into more detail at Talk:PJ. (Emperor (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC))
- Yes, all two- and three-letter dab pages suffers from the "anything that happens to have the initials" problem. I watch several of them, but not all. Clean what you can, and then tag for {{disambiguation cleanup}} as needed. I'll also take a look. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Project Orion
Aloha. For some reason, we have a dab page named Project Orion with four alleged entries, when in fact, there is only one article with that name, Project Orion (nuclear propulsion), which is also the primary topic.[1] I propose that the primary topic should be moved to the dab page name and that any pointers to related topics be linked from the primary topic header. Could someone take a look at my proposal? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where is your proposal? Discussions affecting a specific topic should take place the talk page for that topic. You might want to propose moving Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) to Project Orion and moving the current Project Orion to Project Orion (disambiguation). Cheers. older ≠ wiser 11:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It was moved to the qualified name in 2006. As Bkonrad notes, you can gauge consensus for restoring the earlier arrangement at Talk:Project Orion or do a formal request at WP:RM. But otherwise, yes, glancing through the alternatives, it does look like the nuclear propulsion article could be primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Input requested
Hi, I'd like to request the input of uninvolved editors in an AfD discussion I'm involved with, which seems to hinge around article titles, and article scope, and NPOV; topics which I know are of interest to this project. Thanks! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles.--KarlB (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm already at 2 reverts here and I don't want to continue, so I'd appreciate it if someone could have a look at this page. User:Bkonrad continues to undo my edits. For the entry: Money (Australian magazine), an ACP Magazines business and finance magazine, Bkonrad is adding a red link for Money (Australian magazine). Red links generally don't belong on disambig pages; there's no need to disambiguate to a page that doesn't exist. Also for the entry: Money, a townland in County Armagh, Northern Ireland, Bkonrad is adding a piped link for townland in County Armagh. The guideline says: "one blue link per entry (do not pipe links)". I realize that these are only guidelines, but this seems like a fairly simple case. If there is some egregious reason to IAR here, Bkonrad has not elaborated. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please see the explanation I provided at User talk:Joefromrandb#Money (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 15:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I read your explanation, but my question still stands. What is the point, let alone the necessity, of disambiguating to an article that doesn't exist? Joefromrandb (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- MOS:DABRL (and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Money_(Australian_magazine) ) -- since the link to the non-existent article already exists on Wikipedia, and since the topic of that non-existent article is mentioned (MOS:DABMENTION) in Wikipedia, we include the entry for the topic and repeat its red link (for the same reasons (WP:REDLINK) that the red link is used elsewhere in the encyclopedia. In entries like "Topic, description of the topic with link", we use pipes in the description as we would in normal Wikipedia article text. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- JHunterJ has correctly described our practice. To address your question at a higher level of generality, the reason for including a red link to the magazine is essentially the same as for including a redlink anywhere in Wikipedia: to identify a topic that may need to have an article created about it. As a side benefit, if the article is created, the links to it will already be in place. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but red links in articles (when used properly) should be to encourage article creation. As a disambiguation page is simply to help readers navigate the encyclopedia, I don't see how using red links is even helpful, let alone necessary. But as consensus seems clearly to be against me here, I'll just agree to disagree. Thank you for the responses. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The redlinked dab page entry serves two useful purposes: (a) it leads the reader to the associated bluelinked article, which has the small amount of information already in the encyclopedia (the magazine exists and is published by APC); and (b) it ensures that when someone comes to create the article, they know the established form of heading (to which there are already redlinks) and will use the same disambiguator, or create a redirect if on consideration they decide a different disambiguator would be better. Otherwise someone might create Money (APC magazine).
- Yes, but red links in articles (when used properly) should be to encourage article creation. As a disambiguation page is simply to help readers navigate the encyclopedia, I don't see how using red links is even helpful, let alone necessary. But as consensus seems clearly to be against me here, I'll just agree to disagree. Thank you for the responses. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- JHunterJ has correctly described our practice. To address your question at a higher level of generality, the reason for including a red link to the magazine is essentially the same as for including a redlink anywhere in Wikipedia: to identify a topic that may need to have an article created about it. As a side benefit, if the article is created, the links to it will already be in place. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- MOS:DABRL (and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Money_(Australian_magazine) ) -- since the link to the non-existent article already exists on Wikipedia, and since the topic of that non-existent article is mentioned (MOS:DABMENTION) in Wikipedia, we include the entry for the topic and repeat its red link (for the same reasons (WP:REDLINK) that the red link is used elsewhere in the encyclopedia. In entries like "Topic, description of the topic with link", we use pipes in the description as we would in normal Wikipedia article text. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I read your explanation, but my question still stands. What is the point, let alone the necessity, of disambiguating to an article that doesn't exist? Joefromrandb (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
De-disambiguation discussion for chemical formulas and molecular formulas
I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Category:Chemistry disambiguation pages and Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages proposing to reclassify the pages in these categories as set indexes. I hope to hear a few more voices in the discussion, so that it will not be taken as a cabal-type decision. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a disambiguation page with nothing to disambiguate. The only wp article is Tulyar (horse). There is no Article on the Diesel Locomotive. I would like to get the page deleted and then move Tulyar (horse) to Tulyar. Can anyone help? Tigerboy1966 22:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The horse may qualify as primary topic. There is a mention of the engine in a linked article, so some disambiguation is needed, though a hatnote may suffice in this case. I suggest proposing a requested move to determine if there is consensus for the horse being the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 22:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll try that. This is an area of wp I am unfamiliar with so I would appreciate it if you would look over my shoulder Tigerboy1966 22:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Realism
I came across this page Realism which was sort of a DAB, but sort of not. I created a DAB here Realism (disambiguation) but it's incomplete; I'm not sure how much more we should disambiguate since the term is used in a lot of different ways. Feedback/thoughts welccome.--KarlB (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The dab looks worthwhile, especially for things like the arts use and titled works. I added more, and moved the partial title matches to see also. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. wondering if we shouldn't dab further. Is it good to have 3 meanings on the same page? i'm rather undecided; part of me thinks, keep those 3 main meanings together; but part of me thinks, no, make them all separate articles, and have realism go directly to a DAB since there may not be a primary in this case. (the primary is really those 3 I think) --KarlB (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
William etc
We have a dab page at William, which arranges a lot of kings etc by country rather than by date or regnal number. We also have a complete set of dab pages William I to William X (not XI, and I haven't checked further). There is incomplete overlap (eg William IX, Duke of Aquitaine is linked from William IX but not from William. The number-suffix dab pages are not linked from the single dab page. Are they "partial disambiguation pages" and to be deprecated? I'm sure they are actually all useful, but if it's policy to keep them then we need some notes to editors or whatever, to remind people to add entries to both lists.
I'm not sure what the situation ought to be here, but it doesn't look satisfactory at present.
It gets worse: at George there is no mention of the assorted kings etc, except a link to George (given name) (which includes some, but not necessarily all, of the numbered personages); there is also a full set of dabs George I to VI at least, except that for one or two the English king has been established as primary usage... !
And all this started because I lazily typed "george 3" to look for a mad king and found an operating system instead.
Someone interested in monarchs might like to have a look! PamD 16:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- And Henry refers us to List of rulers named Henry, which includes 6 called "Henry I", in contrast to the 24 or so listed at Henry I, which is not linked from Henry. Aaargh. I will retreat and continue with my personal little project of the day which is to make redirects from Henry 5 to Henry V etc, for the benefit of lazy or ignorant readers. PamD 16:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Public Broadcasting Service/PBS
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Public Broadcasting Service#Requested move. -- Trevj (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Eastern Standard Time (disambiguation) - requested move
I've recently discovered that Eastern Standard Time is a redirect to the US Eastern Time Zone article. I tried redirecting it to Eastern Standard Time (disambiguation) but it was reverted,[2] so I've started a move discussion, which may be found at Talk:Eastern Standard Time (disambiguation)#Requested move. Interested parties are invited to discuss. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if ESPN Sunday Night Football and NBC Sunday Night Football are mergeable. Nevertheless, I wonder if I need some help here, please. --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Need some help
Hello, can I get some help here?
I recently created an article Ali Hassan. However, before that it was a redirect to Mahmoud Hassan, the edit summary says "correct name". There is an alternative spelling since Hassan is originally an Arabic name. The alternative spelling (used in this article) is an exciting article Ali Hasan. Could someone quickly fix this situation? Thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Try {{subst:move-multi|current1=Ali Hassan|new1=<NEW NAME for Article #1>|current2=Mahmoud Hassan|new2=<NEW NAME for article #2>}} <ADD A REASON>. (sign your name). If confused, maybe instructions at WP:RM will help you. Meanwhile, I've added hatnotes. --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
SRI International
While revieweing SRI International over at Talk:SRI International/GA1, I noticed a strange hatnote: "Not to be confused with SRA International or SwRI." Is this really needed? I don't see how one could confuse the two titles with this one. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I added this note there: "The only thing that would mandate it from a dab project perspective is consensus here to include it. Not knowing the topic space, it certainly appears to be unneeded." -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
House and The House
- refs: House (disambiguation); The House, a disambiguation page
These are two disambiguation pages I edited this hour, before reading the manual. Now I know that I got some technical points wrong, but first things first, here are the crucial points.
- These are two separate disamb pages. The manual directs that they be one because the "names" differ only by an article.
- Both carry two indented, italic cross-references, one as a hatnote and one in the late section "Other uses".
I added all four cross-references this hour. In a sense I sensed the problem that the manual addresses by advising joint disambiguation.
P.S. They are relatively long and many many entries are "Media titles", as I called them all at The House (disambiguation) The House. --P64 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Here is Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages if curious. --George Ho (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. What principle determines that "House" and "The House" are disambiguated separately --unlike "Major" and "Majors"?
- Another editor has revised both pages with attention to internal technical matters.
- The House is a disambiguation page for almost two years, my oversight yesterday, after I arrived there via some piped link to the redirect. --P64 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is it unfortunate historical accident that --P64 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- The principle I use is whether the readership will be better served by a combined dab or by separate dabs. If readers reaching one dab will often want a topic only listed on the other, it makes sense to combine them. If readers reaching one dab will usually find the topic they're looking for on it, it makes sense to keep them separate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
"Color wheel" and "The Color Wheel"
Should there be a hatnote on Color wheel pointing to The Color Wheel ? -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Possible move of Millennium (miniseries)
There is a suggestion at Talk:Millennium (miniseries)#Name change that that page is moved to Millennium (2010 TV series). To my mind, this would mean that Millennium (TV series) would need additional disambiguation, i.e. Millennium (1996 TV series). Does anyone have anything to add to this discussion? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Articles nominated for deletion
Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Could an admin have a look at WP:MALPLACED, which has a bit of a list. Normally this is JHunterJ's domain but since they are on a wikibreak, I'm afraid a backlog may start to creep up. France3470 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Slashdot_effect and complementary flash mob hatnotes
The removal of the hatnote seems to indicate that unrelated articles should not have hatnotes... this is discussed at talk:Slashdot_effect where several editors have commented on whether being related should be a requirement for a hatnote on these two articles. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I stub-sorted Miranda (satellite), went to add it to the dab page at Miranda and got bogged down in trying to clean up the dab page. I've done some work on it but it would benefit from another pair of eyes: what order should the sections be in, was I right to move the surnamed fictional Mirandas out into Miranda (given name) (only three real surnamed Mirandas were in Miranda when I started, one of them twice, but a whole list of fictional ones were there), what about the existing unconventional layout used for places, with 3rd level headings done using ; rather than ===? My head started spinning after a bit. Time for someone else to have a look. PamD 21:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"Wild Girl" split?
Wild Girl has been Dab-CU tagged -- appropriately in light of the last substantive edit, which introduced Dab entries for The Wild Girl, together in roughly the last half of the page under a (nonconforming) second WP:MoSDab#Introductory line.
Barring objections favoring simply reformatting, i will split the page (with a clean division of the edit history), leaving the two titles separately Dabbed on respective pages (of course reciprocally linked via their "See also" sections). I have described my view on the choice in some detail at Talk:Wild_Girl#Split?, with the expectation that this will be of narrow interest among readers of this page.
--Jerzy•t 05:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. DPL Bot has just informed me one of my edits to Leslie speaker points to a disambig page Amphenol connector. However, the specific term "amphenol connector" in the context of a Leslie speaker (eg: as seen here, here or here) doesn't match any of the terms listed. I'm not sure it's really notable enough to warrant an article in its own right, and even so doesn't appear to be referred to anything other than "amphenol connector" in forum discussions and parts lists. What options do we have here to resolve this? --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- As there have been no further comments for ten days, I have expanded the page and removed the disambiguation tag. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with this de-disambiguation. This should not have been a disambig at all, per WP:DABCONCEPT. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Lamia move
Hello. I proposed a move, redirecting Lamia to Lamia (disambiguation) in keeping with WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, but there have only been a few opinions expressed. Since this involves questions of what constitutes a valid disambiguation, and I am still new to Wikipedia, I seek the expertise of the WikiProject. See the Talk page for more information. - Michael Rogers, 170.110.235.42 (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Job
Job (role) is currently the only Vital 100 article with a parenthetic title. It has been proposed merging with Employment (see the discussion).
Job is a currently disambiguation page. Job (disambiguation) redirects there.
Any opinions on whether Job (role) should be a) merged into Employment? b) moved to plain Job per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? c) left as it is at Job (role)? Input would be greatly appreciated! benzband (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Talk:Job and Talk:Job (role) would be good places to solicit input. I suspect the existence of the Biblical book may play a part in the decision. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Starfighter
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Starfighter#Questionable article. -- Trevj (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
{{Dqm}} has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is proposed to be renamed. Join in if you may. --George Ho (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Marine (ocean)
Am I mistaken, or is Marine (ocean) just a specialized dab page with a dictionary definition? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a dab page; it doesn't list different topics that could have been the subjects of an article titled "Marine". It could be a partial title match list, which, if it were claiming to be a disambiguation page, would be deleted. Since it's supposed to be an article instead, it would go through the usual prod/AfD process if it's not article-worthy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Makes sense, thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Where to link it
Is there any rules on where disambiguation pages can be linked? Is it only allowed on the article of main subject's of the disambiguation or can it be linked on all other articles that is listed in the disambiguation page.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Aerosol article
The aerosol article has WikiProject Disambiguation template on its talk page, yet it is not a disambiguation page. Is it okay to remove this template? --NHSavage (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Particulates
In an attempt to clean up the confusion around the particulates article, I moved it to Atmospheric particulate matter which was what 95% of the article was about. However, this did leave the tricky issue of what the Particulates page should be. As it is more general than Atmopheric particulate matter, it can't be a redirect. At the moment, it is a stub but I am not sure if it should be a disambiguation page. Any advice?--NHSavage (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way,
you broke interlanguage links on the article. Links currently found on atmospheric particulate matter actually belong to "particulates" topic. IMHO it was not a good deal to split an article without a discussion. Also, I suggest NHSavage to turn the spell checker on. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)- This was already broken, as very few languages have articles on "particulates" proper. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I posted this suggestion to the talk page over a week ago. No one replied. A previous suggestion did not reach consensus because there was no decision on what to redirect particulate to. I felt it was better to be bold and make improvements where I could. If you have strong feelings on this, please feel free to revert and start a discussion on the talk page. Also feel free to correct my spelling.--NHSavage (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- just to clarify - the talk page where I asked for comments is now Talk:Atmospheric_particulate_matter which moved along with the page.
- This was already broken, as very few languages have articles on "particulates" proper. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Could "Morality of science" be a neglected Dab page?
The page Morality of science has languished about a year with a Dab-style lead and a talk:Morality of science opinion that it is not a Dab. A colleague recently opined it was "obviously a Dab", changed its tags, and tagged it for {{Disambig-CU}}.
I've reverted, and then given it a List article lead. I promised that colleague that Dab-editors would forcefully say so here, if i were mistaken. Am i?
--Jerzy•t 15:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, not mistaken. That's a good spot for a list or a broad-concept article, but there's aren't multiple distinct topics that could occupy that title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am the colleague that Jerzy refers to. When I came upon the page it read like a Dab, and there was a talk:Morality of science opinion that it is
nota Dab. So I declared it a Dab in need of clean-up. - That said, I can see how this could be converted to a list. So, if Jerzy or other editors want to go that way, I will support.
- --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am the colleague that Jerzy refers to. When I came upon the page it read like a Dab, and there was a talk:Morality of science opinion that it is
An editor has been adding a template to what I think are inappropriate types of articles such as dab pages: eg Flood (surname) had template:Dalcassians added to it (diff), or am I wrong and it is appropriate? -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- The same editor created that template (which contains a link to
[[Flood (surname)|Flood]]. benzband (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed something weird on this dab page. It's transcluding other dab pages. I thought dab pages weren't supposed to be templates of boilerplate text. Is this acceptable practice? -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The surname page is not a disambiguation page. But that aside, it is not standard practice to transclude disambiguation pages in the way it is done there. There is nothing I'm aware of that bars the practice though. But it is somewhat risky in that other editors might come along and remove the <noinclude></noinclude> tags and mess up the transclusion. older ≠ wiser 11:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There are partial matches, and the page needs further cleanup. --George Ho (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
MFD
With the failure of the last DfD proposal, I made a suggestion to expand MfD to cover dab pages. See WT:MFD -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- MFD is intended to cover things not in the article namespace. Disambig pages are articles, so absent a separate space for discussing them, they should be considered under AFD just like any article. We also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts, which centralizes links to various kinds of discussions affecting disambiguation pages, fulfilling most of the function of a separate space for such discussions. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Should name pages be considered disambiguation pages for this WikiProject?
I have been working on a similar WikiProject regarding names, but I have noticed that some of them have the WikiProject Disambiguation template in their talk page. In most of these cases, these pages about names are not the disambiguation page of the word. For example, the article Jefferson (surname) has the WikiProject Disambiguation template on its talkpage, even though the article is not a true disambiguation page of the word Jefferson. So... for this article, would you say that it is supposed to be under the WikiProject Disambiguation, or has this been improperly marked??? I would answer this myself, but I can't find any specific information regarding this. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the specific guidance/support you need is that Jefferson (surname) carries the {{surname}} tag, which brands it as a {{SIA}}. SIAs are articles, and tho we often talk about the "article" namespace (which includes Dabs), the truth is that the best name for that namespace is main namespace, and includes two mutually exclusive classes of pages: articles, and Dabs.
More specifically, you should feel unsurprised to see others remove {{Dab}} tags from pages that have nothing but surnames, and welcome to do it yourself, and i can't think of any reason why you should hesitate to add a {{Surname}} tag to a page that is primarily people with the surname (or primarily people with the surname or given name) if it's missing.
Not quite conversely, {{Dab}} has some parameters: - {{Disambiguation|surname}} appearing on a Dab page indicates that some entries are each for a person with the term being Dab'd as their surname. (In the future, they may be split out to a Surname page; in the meantime, the Dab page appears as a member of the Category of surname pages.)
Now, i think the specific guidance/support you perhaps are seeking is that talk:Jefferson (surname) probably doesn't need the Dab-project heading, and that it may be left over from a time before our treatment of Jefferson complied with current guidelines. But there are borderline cases (e.g., IMO Thomas Jefferson is the primary topic for "Jefferson", and i think it is clear that the lead on Jefferson should begin- Jefferson was Thomas Jefferson ...
- (I may be a bit odd in wanting to finish that line simply
- ... (1743-1826), American politician.
- ) But i don't think anyone would object to the idea that there is so close a tie thru TJ to Jefferson (surname) that some Dab-specialists should probably be watching that page, and probably its talk page, and that the Dab-Project template on the talk page supports that need.
--Jerzy•t 10:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC) - No, anthroponymy list articles should not be tagged as dabs or as part of the dab project {{WikiProject Anthroponymy}} should be used instead on the Talk page. OTOH, disambiguation pages that are acting as transient homes for name-holder lists in addition to their ambiguous topics get page tagged with {{Disambiguation|surname}}, as noted, and might be in both projects on the talk page. But such dab pages won't have "(surname)" or "(given name)" in their titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the aim to assist ignorance or to assist in ignorance?
I have just searched for the 2002 Acadamy awards, expecting to see the Acadamy awards page for 2002. Instead I am now offered the choice of either the 2002 acadamy awards or the 2003 acadamy awards, the idea being that the 2003 acadamy awards covers the movies of 2002.
Confusing? Yes of course it is.
If I wanted the 2003 Acadamy awards I would have searched for them.
If I didn't realise and really wanted the 2003 awards then I would have learned from my mistake and searched differently next time.
Instead we are now offering a disambiguation page which only serves to annoy people who search correctly at the same time as rewarding, but not helping those who have made an error.
Why? Seriously, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.83.131 (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- You assume that you search correctly, but those expecting to find the opposite result will also think they're correct and get annoyed if they land on the one they weren't looking for. It turns out that what you call "2002 Academy Awards" is the 74th Academy Awards (date: 2002; movies: 2001), and what you call "2003 Academy Awards" is the 75th Academy Awards (date: 2003; movies: 2002). I believe those are the "correct" (as in "official") names. benzband (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Someone with more experience than myself needs to take a look at this article, which looks to me to be a disaster. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- This seems like it belongs at Outline of Nigeria rather than at a disambiguation title. bd2412 T 01:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what the solution is, but something needs to be done. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation Subject Headings
Fundamentally my question is, "Is there a standard for headings for disambiguation topics?"
I am working on adding a documentary film/video/tv special to (Medal of Honor (disambiguation) and am having trouble selecting a heading. For now I have chosen "Entertainment" but this just doesn't seem appropriate to me. I've attempted to find other disambiguation pages for other TV documentaries with limited success and no consistency. Softtest123 (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've done a little more research on this, referencing, for instance, Wikipedia:Disambiguation but I can find no help on my question. It would seem to me that there could be a standardized set of disambiguation topics, but instead, I find considerable variation among headings, for instance:
-
- Places
- Film and television
- Literature
- Music
- Transportation and
- Other uses
-
- where
-
- "New Orleans may also refer to:" and
- "In music:"
- and All pages with titles beginning with New Orleans lists many other pages that should be listed specifically in the New Orleans disambiguation page.
-
- but under what headings? When should a new heading be provided? Should a disambiguator have its own heading if there is only one?
- Softtest123 (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Van Veen, what is the right template
I am confused about Van Veen. What template should be used here? {{disambig}}, {{hndis}} or {{disambiguation|surname}}?? The Banner talk 15:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
{{disambiguation|surname}}. It's a disambiguation page with a surname section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)- Aha, I didn't know that option. I guess "hndis" is for names only? The Banner talk 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC) quickly checking my other disambig-pages
Dan Roan - dab or redir?
Dan Roan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a dab page with a list of two entries but only one linked article. The page had been deleted. I made it a redir after another editor created it. My edit was reverted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Two linked articles, per MOS:DABMENTION. Probably the full article on the British journalist could be moved to the base name and a hatnote placed there to link to WGN. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
William F. Cody
William F. Cody redirects to Buffalo Bill. But there is a William F. Cody F.A.I.A., (1916-1978) who was a prominent architect in Palm Springs, California. I've added Wm F. to Bill Cody (disambiguation). Can someone assist with the Wm F. page please? Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed it from the dab page, since there was no encyclopedic coverage to navigate readers toward. Once the article is created, or the information is added to an existing article, what assistance on which "Wm F." page are you looking for? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- William F. Cody F.A.I.A. is in the Palm Springs Walk of Stars article. So I'll try this: I've modified the William F. Cody redirect page to give us Bill Cody (disambiguation) instead of going straight to Buffalo Bill. (Of course, JHunterJ, I defer to your expertise in this.)--S. Rich (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Natural light
I found (following up on a feedback form submitted by a reader) that we have a Natural light and a Natural Light article which point to different places. Should the Natural Light article perhaps be moved to Natural light (beer), with "Natural Light" redirected to the disambiguation page? Or is it common to have two similarly named articles like this point to different things? I've added a hatnote in the article, but it would probably be better to have a bit more consistency. MeegsC (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would support such a move. benzband (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would not support such a move. It is common to use Title Caps to distinguish common-noun articles from Proper-Noun articles, since readers who trouble themselves to enter the caps title are unlikely to be looking for the common noun (see also Red Meat, Quantum Leap, Iron Maiden, and WP:PRECISION). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) I've improved, I think, the hatnote at Natural Light. It's perfectly normal for there to be different articles at different capitalisations - can't come up with an example off the top of my head, but ... Red Meat and Red meat is an example given in the last para of Wikipedia:Name#Disambiguation. I'm not sure about the dab page at Natural light, though can't think what else to do with the phrase! Possibly Sunlight shouldn't be there, as it's included within Daylight? PamD 14:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are about 18 incoming links to Natural light, none of which seem to be for the beer (even Hop Exchange relates to the light in which to examine hops). So something needs to be done, whether it's making a redirect to Daylight as the primary usage of Natural light, or just fixing all those incoming links! PamD 14:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I do not see here a problem more prominent than usual ambiguity of almost all article titles. This is acceptable, unless Wikipedia intends to drop its case-sensitivity, of course. There exists much more dangerous traps for incoming links, such as hydrogen ion. Trust my experience, the problem PamD described just above it petty. Go forth and fix links. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Citius, Altius, Fortius
Hi guys. I've been dealing with an editor who insists on slapping [citation needed] tags on disambiguation page Citius, Altius, Fortius, even after being pointed to the language in MOS:DAB about dab pages not having references. Some help, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi folks. I am the editor that David Eppstein refers to. I invite involvement about the minor dispute on the article Mr. Eppstein mentions, but the topic is really a bit broader, and might perhaps be profitably discussed on your WikiProject Talk page (to get a wider audience) or on a similar project talk page at WP:V.
- The core of my argument is rather simple: If DAB pages merely disambiguate, and contain links to other pages, they need no citations. However, if DAB pages do contain assertions, over and above the mere links that are necessary to disambiguate, then they would be subject to challenge as disambiguation pages are explicitly NOT exempt from the core Wikipedia policy of WP:V. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Dab page entries are annotated with information which is present in the target article, and which serves to help the reader decide whether the target article is the one they need, and in some cases also serves to explain the presence of the entry on the dab page where it is not immediately obvious. This information should be properly sourced in the target article, but does not need to be cited in the dab page. See WP:MOSDAB, which has examples like "John Adams (composer) (born 1947), American composer who came to prominence with his opera Nixon in China", with no indication that this information should be sourced on the dab page. (Interestingly, that and adjacent examples are longer than I'd use on a dab page, and I'd probably trim it to "American composer": either I'm getting it wrong or current practice has changed!)
WP:MOSDAB doesn't seem to explicitly state "Don't add references", and perhaps this should be remedied as at least one editor doesn't find it to be obvious. But it's in Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts, though the status of that page isn't made clear. PamD 08:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)WP:MOSDAB is quite clear on the subject: "References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles." (last point of this section, just before this heading). (I missed it before because I mistyped my search and couldn't find "Refern..."!) PamD 08:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Update in WP:disambiguation
Update: The no-"primary topic" rationale has been added. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Restating only what was already stated in that section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Needless disambiguation
David Wright (baseball) has more than 100k page views within the past 90 days. Nearly all other David Wright articles have less than 500, with the second closest being a few thousand within 90 days. Suffice to say, simply entering "David Wright" should take a reader to the David Wright (baseball) page, not the a redirect to the disambiguation page, me thinks and hence, "David Wright (baseball)" could be changed to simply being named "David Wright." Zepppep (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's done two years ago, but it failed. You can propose, but do not forget to bring up the past. --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Primary topic discussion
There seems to be a primary topic discussion (or straw poll) underway at Talk:CBS Records that may be of interest to this project. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Primary topic for lowercase discussion for Quantum leap
An RFC relevant to this project: Talk:Quantum_leap#RfC: Should "quantum leap" (lowercase "l") redirect to "Quantum Leap" (uppercase "L") or to "Atomic electron transition" -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
{{LetterCombination}} has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether a disambig link should be added to Floor from Flour. Please see: Talk:Flour#Typo:_.22Flour.22_to_.22Floor.22 WhisperToMe (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Talk:New South Wales Blues as to whether it should be a disambiguation page, or merely a redirect. StAnselm (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Determining primacy of Harry Potter films and novels
The novel has 2,000 to 3,000 views per day; the film has at least 2,000 per average day. How do I must determine primacy specifically for more than one topic with same name? --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is no argument between books and films. Books always have primacy. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- What about Doctor Zhivago? Even original novel is not primary because the film is more popular, but the dab page is now the primary topic because readers would rather read more about the 1965 film than about the novel itself. --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Xs always have primacy" is a false statement for all values of X. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- We can make it a true statement if we want to. For example, we could set a rule that "With respect to Harry Potter media, the books will have primacy over the films". bd2412 T 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I did intend the present tense. It's possible (though unlikely) that the disambiguation criteria of the future will include needless exceptions like that. There is no benefit to rules that favor the attributes of the topics over the needs of the readers (the current criteria), so I'm hopeful that we don't want to make it a true statement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- We can make it true... if only there will be a television miniseries of Harry Potter. Unfortunately, we must wait; in fact, the opposite as JHunterJ said is true. --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why would a television miniseries make any difference at all? The question is, basically, what article will the title point to? We can say that it will point to the article on the book. bd2412 T 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Must we make readers read more about the novel? The numbers are really confusing; nevertheless, if we disambiguate the novel, then the numbers may go down, as Dr. Zhivago novel did. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Dr. Zhivago was not the best selling book of its day though. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying that all books are primary topics due to its best-selling status? --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Where a film is an adaptation of the book (and the title is not also ambiguous to topics unrelated to either work), then the book should be the primary topic of the title unless the book is so obscure that the average reader might be unaware that there was a book in the first place. This rule would adequately cover all of the Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games types of series. As for George's earlier question, unless readers are interested in movie-specific facts such as box office numbers, the articles on the books will generally cover much the same the subject matter in greater depth because the films generally leave out plot elements and background information found in the books. bd2412 T 19:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying that all books are primary topics due to its best-selling status? --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Dr. Zhivago was not the best selling book of its day though. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Must we make readers read more about the novel? The numbers are really confusing; nevertheless, if we disambiguate the novel, then the numbers may go down, as Dr. Zhivago novel did. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why would a television miniseries make any difference at all? The question is, basically, what article will the title point to? We can say that it will point to the article on the book. bd2412 T 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- We can make it a true statement if we want to. For example, we could set a rule that "With respect to Harry Potter media, the books will have primacy over the films". bd2412 T 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
In other words, readers who want to look for a film without using disambiguators must know more about difference between novel and film by reading Wiki-article about novel first, right? How many general readers want to do that? --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- They don't have to read the article, there is a hat note. Given sales of 450 million books - the average consumer of wikipedia is not going to be surprised that the Harry Potter articles are primarily about the books with separate articles on the films. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sales are meaningless. Even I disambiguated the "best-selling" novel The Notebook because it is a less viewed article. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- 'Best Selling' and '450 million sales' are as far apart as you can get, you are seriously underestimating the cultural impact of the novels. There is no argument here - the books have primacy due to their long term significance, popularity and impact. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved The Notebook back for now, Doctor Zhivago does not set a precedent GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why did you do that? You know? I made a request to repair the damages. I was going to discuss further that franchise and specific novels are different from each other in terms of treatment. Anyway, you can make a move request rather than cut-and-paste, as you did earlier. --George Ho (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- And you could have done that initially, especially as you then tried to use it as an argument and justification to push your POV here. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can I revert your edits right now? I simply want to turn "The Notebook" back into dab page, and then novel into a page with disambiguated name. At least the administrator can fix this. --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Creating disambiguation pages at titles that are usable as primary topic titles creates unnecessary work for editors and readers alike. I would also like to know what is wrong with using a hatnote, which saves time for the person who was looking for the book, and adds none for the person who can click the hatnote link to go straight to the movie (which is also going to be mentioned in the lede anyway). As for The Notebook, I've moved it back to the primary title as a clear violation of WP:TWODABS, a policy inapplicable to Doctor Zhivago. People who are looking for the film can easily click through the hatnote, which creates no additional work for the reader; those who are looking for the book should not be forced to visit a disambiguation page to get there. Furthermore, I assume that you intend to police these pages and make sure that any incoming links are immediately fixed? bd2412 T 12:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can I revert your edits right now? I simply want to turn "The Notebook" back into dab page, and then novel into a page with disambiguated name. At least the administrator can fix this. --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- And you could have done that initially, especially as you then tried to use it as an argument and justification to push your POV here. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why did you do that? You know? I made a request to repair the damages. I was going to discuss further that franchise and specific novels are different from each other in terms of treatment. Anyway, you can make a move request rather than cut-and-paste, as you did earlier. --George Ho (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sales are meaningless. Even I disambiguated the "best-selling" novel The Notebook because it is a less viewed article. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you implying that stats are not valid reasons to disambiguate the novel? --George Ho (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Jumping in -- taken in isolation, no stats alone are not necessarily sufficient to require the titles you suggest. older ≠ wiser 15:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I always assume that a general reader is either inept to realize things or less interested on further details. Therefore, I have disambiguated My Sister's Keeper (novel). (Amazingly, last year's numbers were stellar (at first), but this year's went worse.) Frankly, this is more to do with what a reader really needs and is interested in generally. A fan of a topic is different from general reader: he is more intelligent to me and has more common sense, right? If fan and general reader are not valid reasons, you don't suggest using mere policies and guidelines to prove point, am I correct? Policies and guidelines on titling articles are not thrilling, exciting, or intriguing. They can either change or stay the same, but a name is a name (duh!). Even arguing about disambiguating a name is more fun (Apu (The Simpsons) vs. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon) than about renaming a title (Burma vs. Myanmar, Men's rights vs. Men's rights movement) because... disambiguating a name is more complicated and thrilling than arguing about which natural name to use is simple yet degrading. --George Ho (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- My Sister's Keeper is a different kettle of fish. For that title, there are a dozen possible meanings, mostly unrelated to either the book or the film, so WP:TWODABS doesn't apply. Even if the book and film were combined in a single article, it wouldn't necessarily by the primary topic as against the other meanings. However, I anticipate that, having made the change, you will fix all incoming links to My Sister's Keeper, and continue checking for future links to fix those as they arise. bd2412 T 17:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Already fixed links to My Sister's Keeper long ago. Anyway, how and why would "attributes of the topics" (quoting Hunter) triumph needs of a reader? --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- What are the needs of the reader? A user looking up Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone will land on the book article, with an immediate link to the film should they need it, they're both equally important as far as page views are concerned, therefore the original source of the phrase trumps and gets primacy. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah... about that... Hatnotes give advantage to readers to ignore the whole article in favor of another topic rather than to scroll down looking for adaptations. However, statistics are very confusing and hard to determine because of circumstances, including hatnotes. Current stats don't tell us whether the reader read the WHOLE article, and neither does a hatnote. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Where there are only two or three topics it doesn't matter. The reason we have disambiguation pages at all is that some titles have too many potential meanings to fit neatly in a hatnote. A disambiguation page is not an end in and of itself, it is a navigational aid. A hatnote is essentially a very short disambiguation page - one for two or three terms - sitting at the top of the article for what is likely to be the most important of those terms. Only if the number of terms would render an ungainly long hatnote do we put readers to the trouble of going to a disambiguation page to pick their intended search target from that list of terms. bd2412 T 20:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah... about that... Hatnotes give advantage to readers to ignore the whole article in favor of another topic rather than to scroll down looking for adaptations. However, statistics are very confusing and hard to determine because of circumstances, including hatnotes. Current stats don't tell us whether the reader read the WHOLE article, and neither does a hatnote. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- What are the needs of the reader? A user looking up Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone will land on the book article, with an immediate link to the film should they need it, they're both equally important as far as page views are concerned, therefore the original source of the phrase trumps and gets primacy. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Already fixed links to My Sister's Keeper long ago. Anyway, how and why would "attributes of the topics" (quoting Hunter) triumph needs of a reader? --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- My Sister's Keeper is a different kettle of fish. For that title, there are a dozen possible meanings, mostly unrelated to either the book or the film, so WP:TWODABS doesn't apply. Even if the book and film were combined in a single article, it wouldn't necessarily by the primary topic as against the other meanings. However, I anticipate that, having made the change, you will fix all incoming links to My Sister's Keeper, and continue checking for future links to fix those as they arise. bd2412 T 17:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I always assume that a general reader is either inept to realize things or less interested on further details. Therefore, I have disambiguated My Sister's Keeper (novel). (Amazingly, last year's numbers were stellar (at first), but this year's went worse.) Frankly, this is more to do with what a reader really needs and is interested in generally. A fan of a topic is different from general reader: he is more intelligent to me and has more common sense, right? If fan and general reader are not valid reasons, you don't suggest using mere policies and guidelines to prove point, am I correct? Policies and guidelines on titling articles are not thrilling, exciting, or intriguing. They can either change or stay the same, but a name is a name (duh!). Even arguing about disambiguating a name is more fun (Apu (The Simpsons) vs. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon) than about renaming a title (Burma vs. Myanmar, Men's rights vs. Men's rights movement) because... disambiguating a name is more complicated and thrilling than arguing about which natural name to use is simple yet degrading. --George Ho (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Must we believe that two to three thousand people per day read the WHOLE article about one novel? Surely, I believe that 500-1000 do that, but 2000-3000? --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's a ridiculous argument. Do 2000 people read the whole film article? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 08:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- They could ONLY if they know how to type (or to find) the WHOLE title itself. --George Ho (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I give up. You're not making any valid points, pointing to the novel with a hat note is no more work for someone looking for the film than pointing at a disambig page. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 09:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- They could ONLY if they know how to type (or to find) the WHOLE title itself. --George Ho (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Can I take this whole issue to WP:village pump (policy)? I cannot wait any longer. --George Ho (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone check mine and the last edits, what is best according to the guidelines? Thanks! --Trofobi (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right now, the improvement is your version, but I've done some adjustments. So with this diff, some dubious ones are appropiately removed, and improvement on the See also section is great justification. --George Ho (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thx for your fast help :) I find esp. the "" and italic guidelines a bit confusing... --Trofobi (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks also to JHunterJ! Please keep an eye on the page, because there is one user always reverting to the old chaos. Pls discuss there: Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation)#August 2012 cleanup. --Trofobi (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the story is being escalated by Zarlan on and on, therefore I kindly ask you (all) to take part in this WP:Wikiquette assistance#Talk:Broadsword_(disambiguation)#August_2012_cleanup discussion, especially concering this post challenging your (George's and JHunterJ's) edits. Thank you! --Trofobi (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks also to JHunterJ! Please keep an eye on the page, because there is one user always reverting to the old chaos. Pls discuss there: Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation)#August 2012 cleanup. --Trofobi (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thx for your fast help :) I find esp. the "" and italic guidelines a bit confusing... --Trofobi (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)