EasyStarFind - Home

I
 

deutsch
english
italiano
español
français
português
dansk
nederlands
russkij
polski
türkçe
  Web   Pictures   Videos   News   Shopping   Encyclopedia
Search in Encyclopedia for Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation      
WikiProject Disambiguation
This project page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This talk page is automatically archived.

Any sections older than 45 days are automatically archived. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.
Shortcuts:
WT:D
WT:DAB
Disambiguation
Guideline (talk)
Style guide (talk)
WikiProject (talk)

{{Disambig}}

Disambig category
Cleanup category

CJKV taskforce
Suggestions
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28


Contents

Meaningless-

The sections on wp:dab#Sister projects and wp:dab#Summary or multi-stub pages mean nothing to me (and I understand dab pages quite well); what do they mean- would an example of each make them more accessible- Abtract (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the sister project bit I get; it means (I presume) that we shouldn't create a dab entry for something just because it has an article on Wikiquote etc. if it isn't mentioned in WP. The multi-stub pages are something I don't recall ever seeing, but I guess they must exist (or have existed) given that someone once wrote about them here - an example would certainly help if anyone can find one.--Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the multi-stub idea is that you have multiple articles possible, stubs ready for each, and rather than creating ToPix (person stub) and ToPix (place stub), you create ToPix and have the text of both stub articles mashed into the same article (and the instruction here is to avoid tagging that abomination as a disambiguation). Ugly, but apparently how it was done. I'd be happy to see the instruction removed from here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If it isn't done any more, we don't need to retain the instruction, even if there may happen to be a few such beasts still lying around.--Kotniski (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
For an old example of how this used to be, see this revision of Companion. Should we note that this was a former standard that's now deprecated- -Josiah Rowe (talk - contribs) 20:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's another example [1] Note the article at that time was titled simply Belle Isle. It was fairly typical for multistubs then to use horizontal rules to separate the different senses. I think it is mostly historical. I'm sure there are still some instances around, but I agree the practice should be deprecated. older - wiser 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm excising that section from the guideline then.--Kotniski (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll ask again whether we should have a note that formerly, stubs with the same potential title were often combined into a "multi-stub", but that this practice is now deprecated. I could imagine a conflict erupting over such a page, and someone coming here looking for guidance, remembering vaguely that there used to be something here about multi-stubs. -Josiah Rowe (talk - contribs) 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I won't object, if you consider it necessary.--Kotniski (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and on further reflection, the removed text mentioned that these should not tagged as disambiguation pages. I seem to recall there might still be some valid uses -- not so much as for disambiguation as for certain sorts of thorny conceptual overview types of pages that provided a sort of roadmap to related topics with a little more description differentiating the entries than would typically be found on disambiguation pages. Although perhaps such usage is not really the same as the multistub. older - wiser 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Roadmaps (good name) would probably include things like History of Greek and Roman Egypt and History of the Soviet Union. The former is stuck the way it is because there is a lot of edit history (see the talk page for the details of the split that led to this) that can't be deleted, and redirecting one way or the other makes no sense. Ditto, I suppose, for the other one. Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone pointed me here from this discussion. My examples there were people: Abundantius, Aglaophon, Alexander (artists). I'd call them a special type of disambiguation page - a dead-end disambiguation page, where instead of the dab page directing you somewhere, the information you need is somewhere on the page. People of the same name about which so little is known (common in antiquity) that they get covered in one page instead of tiny, tiny permanent stubs. Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems that these creatures are not extinct after all. I'll re-add a short note about them - others may like to expand or modify.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A word is preferred to an abbreviation

I known this has been discussed ad nauseum previously, but I have to ask, why- In general I think I agree that if there is a page with very roughly equivalent proportion of word-like forms and abbreviation-like forms, then the word form should be preferred. But does it really make sense to force a page where the majority of entries are abbreviations to use a word form- The page that made me think about this is PUB, which a user has requested to be moved to Pub (disambiguation), with the reason being it is the "Expected location for PUB/Pub combined disambiguation page". This is not really such a big deal and I suppose either form is acceptable, but it made me wonder if always defaulting to word form is necessarily the best rule. older - wiser 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite know why, but to me it seems intuitively more reasonable to find "PUB" entries under "Pub" than "Pub" entries under "PUB". Perhaps it's because "PUB" is more likely to be pronounced [pub] than "Pub" is to be pronounced [pee-you-bee].--Kotniski (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Except in this case there is a primary meaning for pub. If someone types in all caps, they are most likely looking for an abbreviation. And since most of the entries on the dab page are abbreviations, wouldn't it be more user-friendly for the title to match, rather than the artificial title Pub (disambiguation)- older - wiser 11:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
There are also two albums called Pub in this case; it seems to me to violate the "principle of least astonishment" (which discusses article names as well as content) to look for an album called Pub at a disambiguation page called PUB (as linked from Pub); for whatever reason, the reverse is not true for me, as for Kotniski above. --Rogerb67 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm just more easily astonished. The seven terms (that granted are not exactly high-profile) known primarily if not exclusively as PUB, versus two relatively unknown albums would in my mind argue for locating it at PUB based on the principle of least astonishment. But then if it is at PUB, I suppose that might raise messy questions about whether pub should be treated as the primary topic. older - wiser 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a link to the previous discussions of this topic- --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The text says "A word is preferred to an abbreviation. For example, the disambiguation page for Arc and ARC is named Arc." This is a bad example: currently there are two pages, Arc and ARC ! 128.232.1.193 (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No replies, so I removed the example. I don't really understand what the guideline means now.. is the Arc case "wrong"- 128.232.1.193 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No, the Arc page split since it grew so large. The meaning of the clause is clear; I added a current example. --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Exception regarding categorization

Recently, I was somewhat disappointed to learn of a rule (-) that apparently says that "content-specific categories are inappropriate for a disambiguation page." I request that an exception be made in this regarding a certain project that I started over two years ago.
Since March 2006 I've written almost exclusively about snakes and have worked to provide some 500 articles with a complete set of redirects for all known common names and taxonomic synonyms. These outnumber the articles by about 10 to 1. To keep this large number organized, I created a series of categories for them, for example Crotalinae by common name and Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms. Some of these categories are now actually rather complete and links to the relevant ones are present in all of the articles.
Of course, every once in a while it is discovered that a common name or taxonomic synonym that can refer to more than one taxon (e.g. genus, species, subspecies). In such cases, the redirect is turned into a disambiguation page and the new entries and category tags are added. This is where the problem lies.
Obviously, if the rule against using content-specific categories in disambiguation pages is applied in this case without any further consideration, several years of my work will be undone: the categories rendered forever incomplete as there will be many obvious omissions. I cannot imagine that anyone would consider this to be constructive. Therefore, to preserve this work I humbly request that an exception be made to the aforementioned rule when it comes to the systematic categorization of disambiguation pages for common names and taxonomic synonyms. --Jwinius (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what you say makes sense. In fact if these categories contain primarily redirects, then perhaps they don't fall into the "content-specific categories" class in the first place. Has anyone actually objected to their presence on dab pages, or are you just anticipating that they might---Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your reply. Yes, I have encountered objections twice now. The first time was in August regarding a disambiguation page for "Sand boa", the discussion of which was moved here. I intended to come here with it, but then an alternative solution presented itself. The second time was today and involves the Moccasin disambiguation page, the discussion of which can be found here. I would be very grateful for any efforts to clear up this matter. --Jwinius (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
One solution that normally keeps people happy is to reclassify these pages as "set index articles" (see at WP:Disambiguation) rather than dab pages. This is justified since they are not lists of random terms with the same name, but lists of things of a specific type. This doesn't necessarily require any change to the content of the page, just the removal of the {{disambiguation}} template (and the use of {{SIA}} instead, although I don't know if that's considered obligatory). You will then have more freedom to categorize and format the pages as appropriate for the subject matter, without attracting complaints from those who enforce the disambiguation page rules. --Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That certainly sounds like a step forward, but what about cases such as Copperhead, Viper, Python, Boa, Pilot, Congo, etc.- These are examples of disambiguation pages that contain mainly information that is not snake-related. In such cases many other editors are often involved, so I expect that some would protest the substitution of {{Disambig}} for {{SIA}} just to suit my needs. If that happens, what could I do or say- --Jwinius (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, in those cases you could create something like Viper (snake), either as a redirect to Viper or as a set index article itself, and place the category there.--Kotniski (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Moccasin is not a suitable candidate to be a set index as the contents dissimilar types. I would suggest creating a redirect such as Moccasin (snake) and adding the categories to the redirect. older - wiser 11:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not exactly what I was hoping for. The last solution means that if, for example, there were to be a nice {{SIA}} page for "Keelback" with 30 snake entries and one day somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it, then that person may very well decide (and be within their rights) to change the article to a {{Disambig}} page. Subsequently, it's possible that the category tags would also be removed. Another example would be when there is only a redirect for "Keelback" with a category tag and somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it. They would of course change it to a {{Disambig}} page and again the category tag would probably be removed, immediately or eventually. In both cases it would be unlikely that any of these people would think to create "Keelback (snake)," so that it would almost certainly be up to people like myself to keep a constant lookout for this kind of damage and fix it. Oh, goodie. However, even that won't work in the long run, because after I'm gone and if there is no one else left who has this page on their watchlist and cares (or understands), then in many cases deterioration of this kind will likely be permanent. --Jwinius (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a common problem -- anyone can edit Wikipedia including persons who might know nothing of your project or might even disagree with it. Categorization in particular is problematic, since it is nearly impossible to track pages that are removed from a category unless someone happen to see the change on their watchlist or there is some separate list page for tracking purposes. Looking at the category intersection of Category:Snakes by common name (and subcategories) with Category:Disambiguation pages (and subcategories), there are a few disambiguation pages with these categories. Personally, I think it is a mistake to attempt to categorize common names by relying on disambiguation pages in this way, and you will likely continue to face problems with maintaining such categorization. But if no one else objects, then I don't really care about it all that much. older - wiser 14:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, the relevant guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Categories:
Categories aid navigation between articles. However, disambiguation pages are non-articles and do not require categorization other than for maintenance purposes; they already get auto-categorized by using {{disambig}}, {{hndis}} and {{geodis}}. No other categories should be added, except Category:Surnames, Category:Given names or their subcategories (if the disambiguation page includes sections of name information or lists of people), or disambiguation subcategories that might apply.
Pending the outcome of this discussion, that section may need to be modified. older - wiser 14:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
When I started categorizing those redirects and disambiguation pages back in mid-2006, that guideline did not yet exist. There was no problem. The Categories section you refer to was only added in July 2007. I'm not an administrator, so I don't keep track of these things. On the other hand, in cases such as these, should administrators not be mindful of the needs of the editors- This particular guideline is killing my project. Or, is my project no longer deemed worthwhile- --Jwinius (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly reasonable to categorize as a snake a "disambiguation page" (or better, a "set index article") that only contains snakes, but I don't think it's a good idea to categorize as a snake a disambiguation page that mixes snake and non-snake entries, such as copperhead. Creating entries such as copperhead (snake), whether as a SIA page or as a redirect, sounds like a good solution. Like you say, there is always the risk that someone will screw up the page later, but that's a problem with every wiki page! (And someone will screw it up regardless of what the guidelines say.) If you find that maintaining this as a category is too much of a hassle, perhaps you'd find it easier to handle it as a list instead- That way only one page needs to be watched. Otherwise, I think you'd have a higher chance of success at preventing good-faith decategorization by using SIA pages instead of dab pages, and adding a comment to each page saying something like "this is a set index article about snakes. If other, non-snake topics with this name exist, please, do not turn this into a disambiguation page, but create a separate disambiguation page instead." You can also add a similar comment to the redirects. Of course, if you are interested in this approach, it is possible to use a bot so that you don't need to edit hundreds of pages by hand. --Itub (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a workaround that has already been suggested. I find it depressing that WP's administrators have become so bureaucratic that so little flexibility can be demonstrated in cases like this. Obviously, a small change to the rule in question would save me a lot of work and safeguard my project. Is this not a case of the tail wagging the dog- --Jwinius (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The rule already contemplates what you need, under the set index article. There is no need to change the rule for dab pages, which are a different thing. If anything, perhaps a "rule" could be added saying that "set index articles should not be turned into dab pages, at least not without discussion". --Itub (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
As a solution, the set index concept is not good enough. Here's why. If, for example, there were to be a nice {{SIA}} page for "Keelback" with 30 snake entries and one day somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it, then that person may very well decide (and be within their rights) to change the article to a {{Disambig}} page. Subsequently, it's possible that the category tags would also be removed. Another example would be when there is only a redirect for "Keelback" with a category tag and somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it. They would of course change it to a {{Disambig}} page and again the category tag would probably be removed, immediately or eventually. In both cases it would be unlikely that any of these people would think to create "Keelback (snake)" even if a note asking for this had been attached, so that it would almost certainly be up to people like myself to keep a constant lookout for this kind of damage and fix it. However, even that won't work in the long run, because after I'm gone and if there is no one else left who has this page on their watchlist and cares (or understands), then in many cases deterioration of this kind will likely be permanent. --Jwinius (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I already read that above, and proposed two different solutions, but you don't seem to notice. --Itub (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Then why mention set index articles as a solution- That's already been suggested and it's not good enough. As for the idea of using list articles instead, first of all it's more work to have to update a list as well every time a new redirect or disambiguation page is created, and secondly such articles are more likely to be vandalized because they are easier to edit. Besides, my initial reason for making the categories was because I wanted a way to keep track of all the redirects and disambiguation pages that I had created for the articles (thousands, and only those with references have been categorized). In addition, not only are these categories self-updating, but they are unique: the (category) lists of taxonomic synonyms exist only in one of my most expensive books, while the (category) lists of common names exist nowhere else at all (they come out of many books). Finally, it's one thing to contemplate the possibility of vandalism resulting in random decategorization, but it's quite another to be faced with a rule that all by encourages this to happen. --Jwinius (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned it because don't agree it's not good enough, and proposed specific ways of addressing the problem: adding a comment to each SIA page discouraging people from turning it into a dab, or adding some text to this guideline page discouraging people from turning SIA pages into dab pages. SIA pages and dab pages are different things, and what you need is a SIA page, not a dab page. A dab page can list a hodgepodge of items that have nothing in common other than the name, which is the reason it is inappropriate to categorize them. SIA pages do have a topic, and don't have the layout and content restrictions of dab pages. If someone turns your SIA page into a dab, they would be doing something wrong. I think the best way of preventing that is to make a SIA page that doesn't look like a dab page. A SIA page can have a lead, it can have pictures, and it can have more links than a dab allows. That, in addition to having a SIA template instead of a dab template, should discourage any editor with a clue from turning it into a dab page. As for clueless editors, nothing you write in the guideline page will help. They might as well turn your entire SIA page into an article about a video game! --Itub (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
As for the case of editing a redirect, I think it is almost certain that the category will get removed when the redirect is edited, whether it is turned into a dab page or not. That's the sad reality of wiki maintenance, and especially the maintenance of redirects and categories, which are harder to keep track of. --Itub (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
And I don't like your solutions because they only mean more trouble for me. But, it looks like a compromise is out of the question. Thanks. --Jwinius (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A well-constructed SIA that is supported by an active project (such as the ship index or nountain index pages) is extremely unlikely to be converted to a disambiguation page. Your objections about people futzing with pages constructed according to practices that are rather persnickety and completely undocumented and so far as I can tell idiosyncratic to yourself seem rather unrealistic. older - wiser 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I find an appropriate disambiguation template -

I cannot find any pointers here on how to locate an appropriate template for a disambiguation page. Without that we can't create the page.. the format appears to be Template:Xxxdis.. - Rcbutcher (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambig to disambig

What is the purpose of WP:INTDABLINK- My understanding is that it was always preferable to link to an exact target, rather than a redirected target, especially on disambiguation pages. For example, in the "see also" of a disambiguation page, I normally put something like:

However, I see some other editors changing it to:

Even though the second one is a redirect which goes to the same place.

I am not understanding why this is preferable, could someone please explain- Thanks, --Elonka 21:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is that when checking for mistaken links to disambiguation page, it is easier to recognize that these are intentional links to the disambiguation page. IMO, it's not much of a difference either way. older - wiser 22:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's about it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk - edits) 03:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It actually makes a big difference to editors involved in the WP:DPL project. SlackerMom (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

New search feature

I see there's a new search box feature, whereby if you prefix the search term with "intitle:" you return just articles which have that term in their titles. Might be useful when creating dab pages... it might also be useful to include hard links to such searches on certain dab pages (like we already use links to "all pages beginning with..." on some given-name pages and the like).--Kotniski (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In case this is sometimes desired (I'm not saying we should suddenly start putting such things everywhere), I've created a quick template for this purpose: {{intitle}}. Foer example, {{intitle|Dab}} produces All pages with titles containing Dab.--Kotniski (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

ANother example of ignore primary usage

This discussion is another example of ignoring primary usage as a criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses in articles with brackets

The Template Template:Otheruses should not be used in articles with brackets, since you get there only following a already qualified link in another text or a disambiguation page, not by searching. I removed all those cases in the German wikipedia (about 50), but there are much more in the English WP. You can find them by searching for ") (transclusion)" on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php-title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Otheruses&limit=5000.

Couldn't that job be done easily by a bot-

--Abe Lincoln (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that articles with brackets should not use {{Otheruses}} on its own, then that's right, since that would normally generate a red link to Foo (tag) (disambiguation). However I suspect most of the cases involve {{Otheruses}} with a parameter, which is acceptable use (though in most cases not necessary). I don't think such hatnotes do any harm, and I don't believe a bot would be capable of identifying the cases where the hatnotes are actually beneficial. The main benefit comes, I think, in cases where the reader has clicked on a link of the form [Foo (something)|Foo] hoping to get to an article on Foo (something else). If there is a (something else) reasonably close semantically to the present (something), then the hatnote makes sense. For example, I use similar templates (otherplaces2/3) at the top of articles like G--boczek, Greater Poland Voivodeship, because people are likely to get there by clicking on a link that says simply "G--boczek", and they might think they're going to an article on some other G-“boczek that they happen to know about. In this case the hatnote serves not only as an aid to further navigation, but also a kind of warning that this isn't necessarily what you were looking for.--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then the English WP has a different approach than the German WP regarding this. For instance, if I already am on article Aquarius (constellation), I actually don't really need a hint that there other meanings. I can clearly tell from the expression in the brackets, in this case (constellation). A hint is useful in article Angst, since there are no brackets. I would see it as some kind of information overload. Also, it is not consistent, as Aquarius (astrology) does not have any hint. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we lack the German rigour;) But I think it's a matter of judgement whether any particular article would benefit from a hatnote. Not all readers are so familiar with Wikipedia's ways as to deduce the existence of other articles from the name of one (and those who are familiar know that a dab tag is often added pre-emptively or to conform to some naming convention, like the US city+state rule). And if you've come to a page by clicking a link that you hoped would take you sommewhere slightly different, even if you assume other articles exist, it's nice to have a note right at the top that confirms that and contains a link to the dab page. --Kotniski (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem with removing such hatnotes from articles with brackets is that it assumes the parenthetical disambiguation is sufficient to differentiate the subject from all others; however, there are many, many case where a reader coming from a search results page (or from a mistakenly linked page) might not be certain that the subject is the one intended. The parenthetical disambiguation phrases are not intended to precisely define all aspects of the subject, they are simply phrases that capture one major aspect of the subject. This can be particularly problematic for people who may be notable for several reasons, but the parenthetical term usually only reflects one. Whether a hatnote is appropriate in any particular article would be a topic for discussion on the talk page (or perhaps for WP:BRD, if one is so inclined). older - wiser 16:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If I am looking for a special James King, I will find James King, from where I will find the right one. If I get to the wrong one, then the disambiguation is bad and should be improved. If I get to the wrong one somehow else, for instance James King (footballer), than I now that I have to look at James King for other meanings. This can be easier by a hatnote. But then every page with brackets could automatically be supplied with hatnote, that does nothing more than to either remove the brackets or add (disambiguation). I understand your point, but it's just not consistent right. Eventually it's a matter of taste though. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is a lack of consistency. But you make assumptions about how readers navigate which may work OK for experienced editors, but leave those unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Wikipedia naming conventions at a loss. older - wiser 17:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Before driving in a country for the first time, you need to learn whether to drive on the right or left side of the road. In the US drivers who are accustomed to driving on the left are not accommodated, and in the UK they don't accommodate those accustomed to driving on the right. Making assumptions about certain basic knowledge of its users is inherent in any system. The only assumption made by User:Abe Lincoln above is that a reader chancing upon James King (footballer) will realize that this article is about the footballer and not any other James King. If said reader then becomes curious about what other James Kings there may be, surely the only reasonable thing to do, whether one has familiarity with "the peculiarities of Wikipedia naming conventions" or not, is to enter "James King" in the box labeled "Find" and to press "Go" or "Search". I also think it is inaccurate to characterize the Wikipedia convention of providing specific distinguishing information about a particular usage of a name or term in brackets as a "peculiarity" - this method should be familiar to anyone who can read English (language). There is lack of consistency, period. No buts about it. And no excuses either, especially lame excuses about Wikipedia "peculiarities" which are not peculiar at all. We should all be working in unison to eliminate these inconsistencies, one at a time, or with bots when appropriate. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Total consistency is not going to help anyone. There are situations (probably most) where your arguments hold; there are other situations (for example, when the bracketed tag is imperfect - as many of them are - or not immediately comprehensible to all readers) where they don't. This isn't a distinction a bot can make - in any case the superfluous hatnotes are doing no harm. --Kotniski (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I stand by my characterization of Wikipedia naming conventions as peculiar. And no amount of Serge's calling such characterization as lame makes them any less peculiar. older - wiser 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

primary topic clarification - Primary topic in Wikipedia are in all of English-

The lead sentence for the primary topic section currently reads:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

There are recent and current disputes at Talk:Nice at Talk:Malice (legal term) respectively which are essentially about whether the "ambiguous term" refers to usage within Wikipedia, or all English usage regardless of whether the term is covered in Wikipedia. For example, the argument is being made against moving the article about the legal usage of Malice to Malice since the primary topic for that term is the emotion, yet there is no article in Wikipedia about that usage (since Wikipedia is not a dictionary). So should that usage even be included in the consideration- I think our guideline needs to be clear on this one way or the other. Essentially, I think we should clarify with one of the following (proposed clarifications noted with underscores in each):

a) When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other Wikipedia topic to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.
b) When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other usage of it in the English language (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

I think (a) is correct and (b) is arguably nonsensical, but want to make sure we have consensus before I make the revision. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Since dab pages are intended to disambiguate between wp articles, I see no place for primary topics that are not also articles ... dictionary defs are well covered by using the wiktionary tag. To be even more clear, imho what a word means is quite imaterial for dab purposes; articles with that title, regardless of meaning, is what counts. You have my support for a). Abtract (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That's a very succinct way to put it. If you have an improvement on the proposed (a) wording to suggest, please do. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe "topic covered in Wikipedia" rather than "Wikipedia topic"- But you have my support too.--Kotniski (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the recent discussion on a primary topic for Plymouth the latest of many on British cities, I wonder if we should abandon the primary use criteria. Yea, this is a bit cynical, but recent discussions on British cities seem to be saying that primary use is not a consideration. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is cynical. That aside, I think we need to make sure the guideline is adhered to more consistently, and one way to do that is to clarify the guideline, which is what this proposal attempts to do. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that abandoning the guideline is a mistake, instead these discussions perhaps should not have went the way they did. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the sentence per this discussion as follows:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. When a topic is the primary topic for more than one name the more common should be the title, and the less commmon should redirect to the article.

--Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This invites "divide and conquer" tactics. Among 30 or 50 entries, one entry may be the largest yet not even the majority. Should it be the "primary topic"- I say not, particularly because such an ambiguous title is likely to get a lot of incoming links. Harrisburg is a case in point. --Una Smith (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you. I recall on Weymouth, I gave London and Paris as examples of a link that should go to a primary topic (London UK and Paris France, respectively) rather than to a dab page. You argued that even London should be a dab page rather than an article. Do you still feel that way- Because I think that is not a commonly accepted view. With the example of Harrisburg, what are the likely common hits- And what is their frequency- ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a note, in reference to the original example, that disambiguation to Wiktionary is perfectly acceptable, especially for well-known meanings with no hope for an article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to Wiktionary. --Bejnar (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    You may like to re-read that section which does not encourage disambiguating to Wiktionary, but simply adding an initial link "outside" the disambiguation process, which is all about articles with a similar name not definitions. But it's an easy mistake to make. :) Abtract (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with two entries

Rinku, Hellsing (disambiguation), and Ryuk come to mind. IIRC, the guideline prefers hatnoting when it comes to dabs with really two entries. So does anyone have any suggestions on what to do here- Lord Sesshomaru (talk - edits) 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It partly depends on whether either of the two is significantly more well-known than the other. If there is not a primary topic, IMO, a two-topic disambiguation page is preferable to misleadingly implying that one is primary. older - wiser 11:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
All 3 seem justified in different ways: to avoid a dab page for Rinku would mean that it had to point to one or the other, as a Primary Usage, and the Primary Usage seems not to be established. The "See also" to Rinku Town seems worthwhile too. Hellsing (disambiguation)- well, the SA seems again to justify its existence. Ryuk - again, the alternative would be to decide that one or other was a primary usage, and have a complicated "Redirect" hatnote to lead to the other - a dab page seems the tidiest solution. Maybe the "no dab page if only 2 articles" rule is one where WP:IAR needs to be invoked if the result will be a more helpful page for more readers. PamD (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
#1 and #3 look alright as dab pages, but I'd personally get rid of #2 and replace it with hatnotes. - sgeureka t-c 16:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

NB. Someone recently changed the guidelines. Under "Disambiguation page or disambiguation links-", it used to say: "If there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page may be used; an alternative is to set up a redirect from the term to one of the topics, and use disambiguation links only." It now says: "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.". Sam5 (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

But WP:HATNOTE still says "When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. It is not necessary to create a separate disambiguation page.". Consistency, anyone- Sam5 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
That text on WP:HATNOTE says nothing about primary topic -- if one title is disambiguated and the other is not, that implies one is a primary topic (at least by definition, if not in fact). However, it could be stated more clearly there. And include a link or two to WP:PRIMARY. older - wiser 17:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec) What he said. Also, I'm increasingly in favour of adding a dab page where there's any greyness to the issue. I think it helps to reduce the incidence of fighting over the base page by proponents of either of the 2 disambiguated topics. Further, it's much easier to start with each destination disambiguated than to put one at the base page, only to move it later and hence have to revise all the links to the base page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments above of AndrewHowse. Issues like the one concerning the Matthew Williams disambiguation page (See move on 25 November 2008) would not arise if disambiguation had occurred as early as possible. --Bejnar (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
In some ways it is worse when there are many entries. Eg Harrisburg and Harrisburg (disambiguation). --Una Smith (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Error on this page - linking to redirects

This guideline says:

"To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect - for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages.

This is wrong. We don't link to redirects but to the target article. That's standard practice and guidelines should reflect standard practice. I changed the wording to reflect that reality but I was reverted.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it has never been standard practice to link to target articles rather than redirects. In fact, there's a guideline specifically recommending against editing redirects to point to target articles, WP:R2D. --Muchness (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Disagree -the guideline is IMHO correct. I think it's a useful and increasingly common practice, because it makes clear that one intends to link to the disambiguation page, and that further disambiguation is neither needed nor appropriate. (Contrast this with unintentional links to dab pages, which have a whole WikiProject devoted to fixing them.) See, for example, User:PamD's comment here for a recent example. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I assume you're disagreeing with Scott- Because I agree with your argument, and was indirectly trying to make the same point, that there are many contexts (including this one) where intentionally linking to a redirect is preferable. --Muchness (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yup. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec)This is wrong. And I hereby protest at another example of MOS legislation being imposed on the wiki. But my time is scarce, I can't be bothered, and so you win. However, some fine day we'll rise up and rid wikipedia of MOS nonsense. Unwatching.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Who's this "we"- This fine day we managed to rid the MOS of the "Thou shalt not link to redirects" nonsense in a perfectly Wiki way (see WP:BRD and WP:R#NOTBROKEN). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Informing him of these threads would have been much more useful than biting him. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree that he should have been invited to participate or at least pointed to existing discussions. However, Scott's issue with Barack (disambiguation) has little or nothing to do with the recent discussion regarding Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping_and_redirects. That discussion was primarily concerned with using redirects or piped links for entries in the page. Scott's apparent gripe concerned the deliberate links to other disambiguation pages in the see also section. That practice has been in place for quite a while. older - wiser 20:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
No, Scott's gripe is about the formatting/piping/intentional-link-to-redirect of those links. The "see also" links go to the same targets in both diffs, just the label is changing. Check! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, yes, that's what I said, isn't it- I don't see how that has any connection to the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping_and_redirects discussion. The practice under discussion there was about something else. older - wiser 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Aren't both discussions about "When should a disambiguation page link to a redirect as opposed to an actual or piped link"- Scott wants the link to go directly from Barack (disambiguation) to Baraka, whereas the people reverting him want the link to target Baraka (disambiguation) (which is a redirect). -- Quiddity (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping_and_redirects was not about deliberately linking to disambiguation pages. It was about linking to redirects in the main listing. Scott objected quite specifically about the practice making intentional links to disambiguation pages use a redirect. I could see how they might be confused, but they are different topics with very different rationales and covered by different parts of the guidelines. I completely agree that intentional links to disambiguation pages should always be to marked form. But for entries in the main listing, I am much more inclined to favor linking directly to the topic rather than a redirect except in certain cases.03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean about the fine distinction of topics. I guess I was suggesting that one might lead to, or have unwittingly led to, the other.
What I'm trying to verbalize, is that there are 3 choices for how to format the link to Baraka at the page Barack (disambiguation):
1. Baraka (disambiguation) [[Baraka (disambiguation)]]
2. Baraka (disambiguation) [[Baraka]] (disambiguation)
3. Baraka (disambiguation) [[Baraka|Baraka (disambiguation)]]
1. leads to a redirect, 2. & 3. do not. I think Scott and I both essentially want either 2 or 3, because purposefully-writing-a-link to send all the readers to a redirect is "less good" in the end, than sending them directly to the actual page's title. Partially because the redirect notice is visually distracting/crufty, partially because it is at odds with the standards elsewhere. Possibly other reasons- (I can't speak for him. I also didn't realize he was a former admin until just now)). (the 4th option is to move the page to the expanded title, but that way windmill-tilting lies...)
I'd been trying to avoid getting into it actually, whilst glancing through the #Piping_and_redirects thread for the last few weeks, but for some obscure biochemical reason I chose this iteration to speak up in. It's a mess of related topics, with a mess of related ramifications, and a mess of subjective stances. All horribly convoluted and intractable. Ahhhh, Wikipedia, how we love thee. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The basic rationale for clearly identifying such intentional links to disambiguation pages can be found at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. The reasoning is that in general there should not be any links to a disambiguation page. Repairing such mistaken links is the raison d'être for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages task force. Using such redirects unambiguously indicates that such links are intentional and do not need to be repaired. older - wiser 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"Partially because the redirect notice is visually distracting/crufty, partially because it is at odds with the standards elsewhere." How is it distracting/crufty- If the small-text notice at the top is somehow bad, I believe that the benefit Bkonrad described outweighs it. What standards elsewhere is it at odds with- -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The benefit you're describing is for editors - we're not writing an encyclopedia for editors.
It is crufty because it is completely irrelevant to a reader (In this Baraka (disambiguation) case. In the case of Baking soda it is actually useful). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "crufty" means in this context -- but if it is irrelevant to a reader, then why shouldn't the guidance be to the benefit of editors- I'm also not sure what utility is being compared/contrasted by the mention of Baking soda. I'm as yet unaware of any formal guidance to prefer using direct links over redirects or that specifically mentions that redirect messages are to be avoided. older - wiser 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The "decision" (or consensus) existed before this month's discussion. As for "Chrome", a reader who reaches Chrome (disambiguation) clearly didn't enter "Google Chrome" in the search box; if they are looking for Google Chrome, they are doing so by searching for a web browser by the search term "Chrome". In that scenario, Chrome (browser) best fits what the hypothetical reader is thinking. I'm not sure what benefit it gives to the editor, but the redirect is used to benefit the reader. NOTBROKEN was brought up as a counter to Scott's claim of "invariable practice" -- it lists other reasons for linking to redirects besides the reason he was negating with his edit here. And what bite are you talking about- -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It gives benefits to the editor as described at WP:INTDABLINK ("helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages"), thereby removing them from the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links list of items we need to fix.
  • "buh-bye" was unhelpful to anyone who reads it.
  • I do agree that for the specific Barack example, it is more helpful to readers to have the text "(disambiguation)" either next to, or as part of, the see also links (either of these 2 diffs). What I object to here, is forcing there to be a redirect-notice at the top of the page for the reader (i.e. just an "aesthetic" objection). This is a primary-topic/page-naming-convention issue, mixed with a redirect issue. It makes more sense to me, to move the Baraka article to Baraka (disambiguation), if all of the incoming links point to the second title.
  • For Chrome (browser) and Ten (character) etc, I'm not convinced. I believe using the actual article-title name would be clearer for some readers (perhaps "most" readers- I'm not sure).
Having 3 main discussion forums for disambig matters isn't helping any of this... but that's yet another topic -- Quiddity (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This was unhelpful to anyone who reads is (and edit summaried "Pah"). "Buh-bye" was an appropriate response to that petulant note of farewell.
  • Moving all dabs to (disambiguation) has been discussed before, and opted against. Changing the consensus is certainly possible if you want to reopen it, but not really relevant to the use of the redirects for intentional links to base-name dab pages.
  • Again, how would a reader who is clearer with Google Chrome vs. Chrome (browser) have gotten to the Chrome dab page in the first place- -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • But you're an admin: You're supposed to be setting a better example. (yes "he started it". how about we just drop it... wasn't that big of a deal at all)
  • Moving all dabs to (disambiguation) is relevant if redirects are (widely-) objected to and are being mass-implemented because of a recent guideline/standard change.
  • It seems to be the same as changing the link at Mercury for the Bristol Mercury to read Mercury (aircraft engine), and changing the link to Project Mercury to read Mercury (space project). Referring to it as Chrome (browser) is a completely invented and Wikipedia-centric label for a link. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Moving all dabs to (disambiguation) is relevant if redirects are (widely-) objected to and are being mass-implemented because of a recent guideline/standard change. This is confusing two separate issues. The practice of having intentional links to disambiguation pages use redirects with the (disambiguation) form is not the result of a recent guideline change. That practice has been in place for a very long time now (even if not evenly applied). The practice of linking main entries through redirects is a somewhat more recent development, but is still goes back quite a bit farther than the recent discussion you linked to above. Regarding Google Chrome, I'm inclined to agree with you. older - wiser 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Being an admin does not mean I cannot have a sense of humor. There is nothing wrong with the example set. No personal attacks, etc. Any non-admin is welcome to respond similarly to other such farewells. But if you'll stop making it a big deal, I'll be happy to stop answering your points about it.
  • What Bkonrad said.
  • I still don't understand how you are proposing to help someone who is looking for an article on a browser and enters "Chrome" in the search box -- obviously they'll reach the page sought by scanning blue links and clicking on Chrome (browser), even if they don't know it's from Google. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)