Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Disambiguation. 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 27

→

Primary topic

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC section, "Is there a primary topic?", change:

Tools that may help determine a primary meaning

to

Tools that may help determine a primary topic

The words "meaning" and "topic" are not even synonyms and should not be used interchangeably like this. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Done with this edit -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD with implications for disambiguation

Other editors who have an understanding of Wikipedia:Disambiguation would be welcome on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York State Route 399 (disambiguation) -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And, too, someone familiar with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could also take a look at New York State Route 399‎ (the redirect). The malplaced dab was how I first stumbled across this molehill. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about Milltown, County Armagh? I redirected it to the main dab page last month, but I was reverted. Dekimasuよ! 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that even needs to go to the base dab; people looking for Milltown, County Armagh won't be helped by the base dab, since there are no articles to disambiguate. I'll take a look at Milltown, Ireland this evening. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The mess of the number pages....

For example 123 (the year) has a for other uses hatnote to 123 (number). There is no 123 (disambiguation) page. If someone could point to a good example of the split between the year, the number and the dab page that would help in attempting this cleanup. At first glance there are lots of pages like this e.g 122 (number) and 124 (number). Tassedethe (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DAB page needed

Mariano Diaz and Mariano Díaz (photographer) need a DAB page. Note that one has an accent and the other does not. Hope somebody here can handle it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done with this edit. A separate dab page isn't yet necessary; a hatnote on the base name article will direct readers looking for the photographer there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hotspot

Hot spot is first of all a physical concept so this information has to be introduced in the disambiguation list. The rest of the article 'The hot spot effect in subatomic physics' on the Talk page HOtspot should be moved , including references, to the main sector of Wkipedia as an independent article. The statement by Boleyn3 that most of the information of this article is already contained in Wiktionary is in total contradiction with facts.Gigigogo (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Gigigogo (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I copied this message to Talk:Hotspot, which is where I think Gigigogo wanted it to go. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Methodist Girls' School

DAB page upgrade, with or without the apostrophe: See here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bass

I'm having a discussion with an IP about some introductory text at Bass. If the text doesn't belong on the dab page, then where do you think it might fit better? --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In Wiktionary -- it seems to be etymological info, not encyclopedic info. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic uber alles

There is a request to move James Stewart (actor) to James Stewart, currently a disambiguation page. See Talk:James Stewart. --Una Smith (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I screwed up there, I think. The statistics looked good until a flaw was pointed out. I think that has prompted some of the recent changes here to the Primary Topic section, which I think renders it less useful. ~~We don't even have a definition of primary topic now!~~. It seems to not be well understood. I think there should be some discussion of that. My understanding is that the goal of the primary topic is to streamline navigation, which means something like "if more than (some percentage) of the people entering X in the search box are looking for 'article X1,' then it should be the primary topic." I know we don't have statistics that will give us the number for a particular dab page, but I think the abstract goal of the primary topic is something like this. It is not "the most read article on the dab page" or anything like "the most deserving of the honor." Its a pragmatic "navigation will be most efficient if..." Thoughts? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it is not ever simply a matter of mathematical proportions or statistical analysis. There may be an article that is widely viewed and has statistics showing more page views/ghits/etc than other similarly named articles, but still not be a primary topic. For example, see recent discussions about Fedora. Is the primary topic the operating system (which is widely recognized on the internet and users of Wikipedia) or the hat? Personally I thought Fedora should be a disambiguation page, but current consensus seems to support leaving the hat as the primary topic, despite the statistics in favor of the OS. There are other similar pages where the most popular page is not necessarily the primary topic. Systemic bias also needs to be taken into consideration, especially with regards to pages views and ghits. Primary topic in an encyclopedia should not be a popularity contest.older ≠ wiser 16:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that it should focus on "navigation will be most efficient if...?" If not, what IS the purpose of the primary topic? (John User:Jwy talk) 17:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that one of the goals, at least a while ago, was not to send editors to the wrong article. Bottom line, statistics are not a solution in making decisions in this area. They can help by providing data, that may or may not be useful, but that are not the deciding fact.Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic has always meant more common than any other, not more common than every other - "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, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." The only discussion, really stems on the fact that there are varying definitions of "much more used". Some use 20% more, some 50%, some 100%, some even hold out for 1000% more. Myself I prefer a higher percentage to establish primary usage, say 100%, and a lower percentage to retain primary usage, say 10 or 20%. This would mean that Foo Bar (actor) would need to get twice as many views as the second most viewed, say Foo Bar (singer) to become Foo Bar, while if their popularity waned over time they could stay at Foo Bar with only 10 or 20% more views than Foo Bar (singer). No one wants to define a mechanical cut off because of the Madonna rule - Madonna (entertainer) gets a bazillion more views than any other Madonna, but there is very strong opposition to the move - anyone remember (one of) the Beatles saying they were more popular than Jesus? 199.125.109.124 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, what is the goal of that definition? If it is the clicks (see below), "every" would be more appropriate. If not, what is the goal? I can see the issue of Madonna, but would consider that unusual (like India (disambiguation) which is treated rather specially because of similar strong opinions). But I'm hoping to focus on "what are we trying to accomplish with primary topics?" (John User:Jwy talk) 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) There are competing goals for primary topic. Navigational (whichever arrangement yields the fewest clicks for the total audience is best) and content (whichever article seems to fit best as the topic one would expect an encyclopedia to have at the name should go at the name). Sometimes those goals line up and everyone's happy. Other times they clash. The guidelines don't specify one goal over the other because, AFAIK, there isn't consensus, so the consensus-formation is left to the individual pages. It may be time to pick one though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is more to the point. I would choose clicks. Would like to hear more about the second option. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've said on other pages, I lean more towards the "principle of least surprise": what would most people expect to find at that title? The number of clicks can sometimes be misleading, as sometimes people click through to one article expecting to find another, and thus the stats become skewed. I have found that a more neutral method is to look at the reliable sources existing for either topic. If there seem to be far more reliable sources discussing one topic than the other (using the name in question), than that should probably be the primary topic.--Aervanath (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

One note: one of the goals is to minimize the number of clicks. The method of determining which arrangement would minimize the number of clicks is not necessarily counting clicks on the current arrangement. Click-counting would always have to remain a tool in the tool box, not the final arbiter. Just as there is (likely) no formula for determining least-surprise, there is no formula for determining click-minimization. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Stewart is a redirect. If Jimmy Stewart the American actor is the primary topic of Jimmy Stewart then the article should have that page name, else the disambiguation page should have it. Evidently, contributors to the article about the actor decline to use that page name, so I have requested moving Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) there (see talk). Making many redirects to one article, while relegating two dab pages elsewhere, drives readers to that article who do not want to go there and impedes disambiguation. This brings me to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; I think many editors reading it do not see the trade-off involved when the primary topic doctrine is invoked. Disambiguation is not about showing readers a dab page, but about finding and fixing incoming links so that readers go directly where they expect to go. Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) gets about 20 page views per day[1] and James Stewart (disambiguation) gets about 5. That is a lot of page views, considering these dab pages do not occupy the ambiguous base name. Those page views result from readers finding themselves on the article about the actor, and it is not the article they want. That tells me incoming links to the article about the actor need to be disambiguated. --Una Smith (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. If Jimmy Stewart the American actor is the primary topic of the string "Jimmy Stewart", then Jimmy Stewart should lead to that article, regardless of its name. If Jimmy Stewart the American actor is the primary topic of the string "James Stewart", "Stewart, Jimmy", "Harvey actor", or "that guy in the background of that one movie with all those people in it", then the main-space pages at those names, whether they are articles or redirects, should all lead to the article about the primary topic. A string can have no more than one primary topic, but an article can be about the primary topic of any number of strings; see also US/USA/United States/United States of America/U.S.A./etc. (primary topics) and America (no primary topic). Making any ambiguous phrase go to an article drives readers to that article who do not want to go there; it does not, however, impede disambiguation, because that article will have {{redirect}} hatnotes to help those readers who are looking for something other than the primary topic find the page or the disambiguation page. Fixing incoming links to disambiguation pages is a different problem than determining the primary topic for a string. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing incoming links is not a different problem. It is an integral problem that should be considered whenever deciding if an article is sufficiently primary that it should occupy an ambiguous base name. Disambiguating the incoming links may be far more important than the hatnote. --Una Smith (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing them isn't part of the problem, but understanding what links where is, correct? In a perfect world, the only links to a dab page would be deliberate links (and those unusual). Fixing is just administrative work that needs to be done when the decision is made. Just want to make sure I understand. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly, the more pernicious aspect of incoming links is when the disambiguation page is not at the base name and there is a substantial number of links to the base name that should be disambiguated. These are not readily apparent by using what links here and once a page had been at the base name for some time, it can be difficult to dislodge it. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. That's the "understanding what links where" - we need to understand this situation when we look at pages hits and they should be fixed in any event. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are on the same page here. I don't know why, but this is something Wikipedia editors simply do not understand unless they spend time disambiguating incoming links. The number of links increases as Wikipedia grows. Over a year ago, I disambiguated incoming links to AFP, a dab page; now there are over 100 more incoming links to AFP waiting to be disambiguated, but because the dab page is at the ambiguous base name rather than at AFP (disambiguation), all the new bad links are isolated and the job of disambiguating them (of fixing htem) is relatively straightforward. Now lets say a "primary topic" occupied AFP, as happened briefly; there would then be thousands of correct links and the hundred new bad links would be lost among those. I am willing to fix 100 bad links; I am not willing to sift through thousands of good links to find those 100 bad links. And what about next year, when another 100 bad links has accumulated? I certainly am not willing to sift through thousands of good links again. London is something of a model for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When is the last time its incoming links were disambiguated? How many thousands of them are bad? The cost of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that in the interest of "least surprise" we create a burden of "unpleasant surprise" for some readers. That is why some editors, including myself, want a primary topic to be 10x more popular by some measure than the next most popular topic. This is especially important when there are many items on the dab page; in some cases only a minority of incoming links to an ambiguous base name intend the primary topic, so most readers who reach the page via links are reaching the wrong page. --Una Smith (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I hear you now (my introduction to WP was disambiguating links into Epic). but let me rephrase to make sure: Because the primary topic is at the "ambiguous" title location, careless editors (i.e. most) will often link to it when they should link to one of the other articles on the dab page. This seems to be more an argument against a primary topic at all than which one should be "it" - but still a part of this discussion. I would rather we had careful editors, but... Maybe there is another way to address that problem - some way to "force" a confirmation of the link by the editors. More thinking needed. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a question of carelessness, but of practicality. Editors will link to the ambiguous base name no matter what. Incoming links that need to be fixed will accumulate, no matter what. At least when a dab page occupies the ambiguous base name, fixing these links is made relatively efficient. There is a preview tool that flags links to dab pages, and there are link checking tools that flag links to dab pages, and there is the bulk link fixing done by Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. None of these tools work, nor should they, if an article (a topic) occupies the ambiguous base name. If the topic really is a primary topic, so that the vast majority of incoming links are correct, then the topic should occupy the ambiguous base name. The problem is in defining vast majority. Some editors, including myself, think a topic qualifies as a primary topic only if, say, 90+% of the incoming links intend that topic. It has been my experience that where we argue re if there is a primary topic, the dominant topic does not get the vast majority of incoming links. --Una Smith (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Big change idea, possibly a new topic of discussion: if a page title is ambiguous, and there is a primary topic (determined one way or another), then the primary topic article is still to be titled unambiguously, e.g. Michael Jackson (singer). The base name (Michael Jackson) is made into a redirect to the unambiguously titled page, and the unambiguously titled page hatnote-links to the dab page as normal. Links-to-dab-pages repair is assisted, because all links to the base name can/should be changed to link to an unambiguously titled article. They will accumulate, as noted, but repair is aided because there will be no "good" links to go through in order to find the new set of bad links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JHunterJ. If Jimmy Stewart the American actor is the primary topic of the string "Jimmy Stewart", then Jimmy Stewart should lead to that article, regardless of its name. The idea that a given name with a primary topic should be either the location of that article, or a dab page, is incorrect, and contradicts what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states: "...then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am trying to understand what we want the primary topic to be - what problem does it solve. We can't tell if any method of determining if something is "the" primary topic if we don't understand why we have them. What does "sufficiently primary" mean to you? One meaning is "provides most expeditious access to desired information" another is "doesn't surprise the reader." Anything else? (John User:Jwy talk) 01:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why we have them is simple. Let's say that there are four or five people named Will Smith, who each have an article, but one is a very popular actor who gets a bazillion more views than any of the other. That is what primary topics are for - use Will Smith for that person and disambiguate all the others.

The bottom line, however, is that guidelines are just that, guidelines. They do not say only always do this. It is very clear that each article needs to be decided individually. You can look to the guidelines for assistance, but it is not cast in concrete how to decide what to do. The one thing, however, that everyone can agree with, is that there is such a thing as a primary topic, for some subjects. Beyond that the guidelines only give you some pointers in how to find out if a primary topic exists. There is no hard and fast rule that can be pulled out and always used. The biggest disagreements have been over an individual definition of how "much more" used a topic has to be to become a primary topic, and my advice is that whenever using the term, define what it means to you, or indicate that to you such and such topic appears to be "much more used". I really do not think there can ever be, nor should there ever be, a hard and fast definition of how much is much more. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are still describing a solution to some problem: what is the problem? Why do we need the primary topic? It appears to be navigation efficiency. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC addresses is navigation efficiency. I think the principle of least surprise is saying the same thing. That is, having the topic that causes the least surprise to be at a given name is probably equivalent to making navigation with respect to that name most efficient.
In the case of James Stewart (actor) → James Stewart the issue is whether the primary topic for the string "James Stewart" is the actor. My issue with the arguments there is that they are all based on conflating high page view counts of the article at James Stewart (actor) with evidence that the actor is the primary topic for the string "James Stewart". In theory, every single one of those views might have been reached by someone searching for Jimmy Stewart (which was shockingly recently rejected as the location for the article) or by clicking on a link - so the page view count tells us exactly nothing about whether that topic is the primary topic for that string. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable at all with the notion that we choose primary topics simply to minimize clicks, or even for a broader notion of navigational efficiency. I think the primary topic also has a semantic significance. The primary topic for a term (more on this below) should, in my view, be the common meaning of the term, using "wikt:common" in two senses -- frequent, and the ordinary or everyday meaning. Someone who types "school" in the search box and is surprised when they are not presented with an article about fish, for example, probably does not have a particularly strong grasp of English. Suppose that in some parallel universe we were to measure clicks or google hits or some other metric and decide that a majority of the people searching for "school" actually were interested in fish. That alone would not make it the common meaning of the word, nor should it be enough to make it the primary topic. Readers would get the incorrect impression that the common usage of the word "school" in English denotes groups of fish, and that using this word to denote a place of education is specialized or unusual.
That brings me to my other concern. Disambiguation pages are not disambiguating "strings" as several comments above suggest -- they are disambiguating words that have meanings in the English language. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an automated database, and we are in the business of delivering articles to human readers, not machines analyzing strings. Any approach that ignores meaning and simply takes a mechanical approach, routing the user to an article based on a string of characters, is inconsistent with this fundamental mission. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I opt for "strings" because not all disambiguation pages disambiguate words: N (disambiguation), 99 (disambiguation), ! (disambiguation), Uno (disambiguation), RBI (disambiguation), Michael Jackson (disambiguation), Once Upon a Time (disambiguation) -- depending on what definition of "English word" you're using, not all of those would qualify. And there's no implication of "automated database", "mechanical approach", or "machine analysis" in "string". -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

R'n'B, I don't follow your point. If the language evolved such that "school" became more and more used to mean "group of fish" rather than "place for education", then both the semantic considerations and navigation efficiency needs would change accordingly. That is, we would want to reflect this change to show that fish use is primary, and, due to the evolution, we would be improving navigation by making such a change. The two characteristics seem to correlate directly. If make a particular topic the primary topic for a given name does not make navigation efficient, then that's a strong (if not definitive) sign that that use is not actually primary.
I also don't see any difference between "word" and "string" other than a "string" is not necessarily a "word", nor just one "word" - it's any string of characters that has an associated meaning in English. As JHunterJ points out, there are no other implications. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks R'n'B. I think I follow. You seem to be going stronger than "doesn't surprise the reader" to "exemplifies standard English common usage?" This is an important distinction, I think, because if an overwhelming number of people were looking for "X (article 1)" when they entered "X", then they would not be surprised by encountering "X (article 1)" and we might want it to be primary (or do we have to take into account the LEVEL of surprise by the others who aren't looking for "X (article 1)"?). But we would make another decision about it if we somehow knew "X (article 1)" was not "common usage." I understand B2c to suggest these differences will be minimal, but I can see them happening (Madonna example above might fit the case). Need to think about it. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

<<<————————————————————————

(reset indent) Ah, I think I'm getting it now. So Madonna is an example of where we might go with the entertainer being the primary topic if we were looking exclusively at navigation efficiency, because most people looking for madonna are probably looking for the entertainer rather than the Biblical figure? Another example of that might be the city in Ireland named Cork. There it was argued that the city is the primary topic because though cork is a common word, it's not nearly as likely to be searched for in an encyclopedia. But that argument failed to compel (eventually) and the city ended up dabbed at Cork (city).
Okay, so it isn't purely navigation efficiency that should be the guiding factor, but also English usage considerations, at least when a name in question has a common, well-known and "important" meaning? Shall the guideline state something like a topic cannot be primary for a given name if there is another topic for which that name is commonly used, is well-known, and is important? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think you've got it. But I'm not sure we worked it out enough to change guidelines. Let's see what others say - and I need to sleep on it. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with R'n'B. One can find many compelling examples where click minimisation would not lead to the best outcome. These are especially common in the case of current events and new releases:

A few months ago, the vast majority of visitors to Swine influenza would actually have been looking for 2009 flu pandemic;
Right now, 99% of people who visit Wimbledon and The Championships, Wimbledon are actually looking for 2009 Wimbledon Championships;
Come 2010, 99% of people who visit FIFA World Cup will actually be looking for 2010 FIFA World Cup;
Leading up to the release of the final Harry Potter book, the majority of visitors to Harry Potter would have been looking for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows;
During the X-Men Origins: Wolverine hype, the majority of visitors to wolverine would have been looking for the movie rather than the animal.

These are all examples of temporary changes to user behaviour and word associations. Sometimes, however, these associations stick permanently:

Even after 23 years have passed, the vast majority of visitors to Chernobyl will be looking for Chernobyl disaster;
Similarly, most of the visitors to Tiananmen Square will be looking for Tiananmen Square protests of 1989;
The vast majority of visitors to September 11 will be looking for September 11 attacks;
Perhaps I'm overoptimistic, but I suspect that most visitors to Kyoto are actually looking for Kyoto Protocol.

Hesperian 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you say what "the best outcome" means? Is it only that we should avoid temporary bumps in "popularity" when considering optimal navigation? I'm looking for a less contentious formulation that will avoid needless argument (not ALL argument - some is good). (John User:Jwy talk) 04:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have the answers... thinking on my toes here....

I guess what I'm saying is that the primary topic should be the most notable topic, rather than the most popular topic: We have a responsibility to dig our collective heels in and say "We don't care how popular George Washington the movie is; the president article stays at George Washington."

I also think topic relevance comes into play. The most relevant topic for the term "Chernobyl" is the town, not the disaster; so Chernobyl must be about the town.

It may be that these can be merged/reconciled....

What if we determine the primary topic by checking usage in reliable sources?

No matter how popular George Washington the movie is at any given point in time, an examination of reliable sources will show that the term "George Washington" is overwhelmingly used in reference to the U.S. president.

Chernobyl makes an interesting case study. A quick Google Scholar search yields papers like "Thyroid cancer after Chernobyl" and "Sheepfarming after Chernobyl", in which Chernobyl is clearly being used as the name of the event; but there are also articles like "Fitness loss and germline mutations in barn swallows breeding in Chernobyl", where the term is clearly being used as the name of the town.

This would make a rather elegant counter-point to WP:COMMONNAME. In COMMONNAME, we start with a topic, and determine the title by seeing what term reliable sources use to refer to it. Here, we start with a term, and determine the primary topic by seeing what topic reliable sources are referring to when they use that term.

Hesperian 05:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Navigation has two parts: searching, and following links. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC addresses efficient searching, at the expense of efficient following of links. --Una Smith (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

...when editors are careless (which they often are). see discussion above. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone seasons

I agree -- they don't look like dabs to me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. They should fall under WP:SS, if someone just writes a little summary of each one. Dekimasuよ! 12:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Valid dabs?

Grey-fronted, Grey-hooded, Grey-flanked, and Grey-footed seem to be adjectives, not usually dab titles... but I don't know if any of the things in question is usually referred to as simply "the grey-fronted", etc. Are these valid dabs? Dekimasuよ! 14:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. I think the scant users (no incoming links, <1 hit per day) would be better served by getting search results rather than these list articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I wonder if anyone else has an opinion. I've noticed that the dabs are new and that they're all being created by the same user, so I'm going to leave a comment on his talk page and ask him to comment here. Now we have Grey-throated, Grey-sided, Grey-striped, Grey-mantled, Grey-rumped, and Grey-necked as well. Dekimasuよ! 13:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

After a quick glance, I'd say they're inessential but harmless. I think they're SIAs rather than dabs. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

SIAs aren't (or shouldn't be) catch-alls for things that otherwise don't have a place on Wikipedia. Even with SIAs, Wikipedia is still not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of data, such as "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with JHunterJ on that. SIAs are really for things that are closely associated with each other in content, not just in title. For example, I doubt that a category for animals with grey stripes would survive a CfD. Dekimasuよ! 14:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So if they're not dabs and not SIAs, they should be prod'd? --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting to hear from the creator, but maybe. Dekimasuよ! 15:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not too concerned personally what type of page they should be but surely these are potentially useful to readers? If I wanted to find info on the 'grey-hooded watchamacallit', then Grey-hooded would be a good place to start. I say leave them alone. Abtract (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just received notification about this discussion. This subject has already been discussed recently here. The result of that discussion seemed to be that these are set indices and are useful in the way that all set indices are useful. They are not catch-alls or directories of indiscriminate data; the majority of these pages list birds that use the disambiguator in question as part of their species name. Also, many of the entries on these pages are commonly referred to by the title of the page; the blacktail deer is commonly referred to simply as a blacktail as is the blacktail reef shark. The comment by Dekimasu that all these set indices have been created recently by the same user is only true of the pages specifically indicated in the current discussion. There are currently hundreds of such set indices based on bird species name disambiguators which have been created over at least the past three years, and these were not all created by me. As was mentioned by SP-KP in the prior discussion, "birders often abbreviate bird names" and therefore "it's right that we set up these abbreviations as redirects" for "if we do a bulk delete, we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Neelix (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the other discussion. I still don't believe they're set index articles; these are secondary characteristics that are similar, not essential ones. If birders often abbreviate bird names to the extent that birds are often referred to as "grey-hooded", then that's a good enough explanation for me (we do have pages on adjectives that are often used that way, such as Organic). Dekimasuよ! 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If they are SIAs, they should not have the disambig template. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me now like they're valid dabs, since the idea is that the adjectives are used as nouns in some contexts. Dekimasuよ! 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the entries are ambiguous with the phrase, then it's a dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

These pages concern plant and animal common names, of which there are a huge variety, in many cases more than one common name applied to the same organism, and sometimes one common name applied to different organisms. Variants in spelling are common, and more substantive variants are common too. Grey-toed, grey-footed, etc. These are hard to remember, especially the common names that are not the ones you use yourself. Editors who work on Wikipedia articles about plants and animals often find it necessary to use dabs and/or SIAs to keep these common names under control. I have made some pages of this type myself. Please don't interfere with our efforts to figure out how best to do it. --Una Smith (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is interfering with anything. Discussion is not disruptive, and there's no reason to exclude particular editors from one because of how much they work on animal articles. The whole point of bringing the subject up here was "to figure out how best to do it" with editors who work on related pages. Dekimasuよ! 05:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is good, but I think PRODing the pages (an option mentioned above) would be disruptive (interfere). --Una Smith (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

are there better ways to find the relevant articles, sure there are. will these help people find articles if they don't think of the better ways? I think they will. That's enough justification. DGG (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The absence of the pages at those names means that someone entering the names in the Search box would get search results for the adjectives entered. I think that would be more useful than an adjective index article. An adjective index article could also encourage other, poorer adjective index articles (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated) by example, and that would be counter-productive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Lists of suffix usages

These don't appear to be disambiguation pages at all, but merely lists of words which include a particular suffix. In fact, to me they seem more appropriate to Wiktionary than to Wikipedia:

These are somewhat closer in that they indicate different purposes for which the suffixes are used, but they are still dictionary material:

-ic

-ous

-ware

I propose delisting them as disambig pages. bd2412 T 20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Delisted all but -ic, and tagged it for cleanup. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. bd2412 T 20:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Erica, Erika, etc

Erika (given name) is a SIA of sorts, but Erica (name) redirects to it and there also exists both Erika (disambiguation) and Erica (disambiguation). So, should we treat the alternate spellings together, or separately? This current mixture of both treatments leads to some confusion. For example, Erika (given name) does not include most articles involving the given name Erica. Also, what do you think about moving Erica to Erica (plant) and moving Erica (disambiguation) to Erica? Erika is a disambiguation page, and I don't think "Erica" has a primary topic any more than "Erika" does. --Una Smith (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation pages are short enough that combining them could make sense, but there's not set rule for whether or not variant spellings must be combined. The name pages should be treated differently or not as determined by the anthroponymy project. Consensus for the primary topics should be found at Talk:Erica and Talk:Erika, and they might have different primary topics. Just because one has no primary topic doesn't mean the other can't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Weikato

Please weigh in on a requested page move involving Waikato and Waikato (disambiguation): see Talk:Waikato. --Una Smith (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Convergence

Convergence and Convergence (disambiguation) are both marked as dab pages. I would do a simple merge, but it appears that they're also somewhat delineated by topic: science/math vs. general usage. Is there an article to be had at Convergence (which isn't really following dab format at the moment), or should there just be a simple merge? Should it be to Convergence (disambiguation) with a redirect somewhere from the plain title, or should the dab be at the plain title? Requesting input. Dekimasuよ! 03:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I would merge them, at Convergence. --Una Smith (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Una Smith. The other option is to turn the math list into a math list article, and merge the remaining pieces of the two pages into a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and merge all of them for now. Dekimasuよ! 01:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Romance"

There's a discussion at WT:ANIME#"Romance" genre about currently unfixable links; there are 200 ambiguous links to Romance right now, and most of them are due to the fact that there's no suitable target for the romance genre of manga and TV shows. Discussion seems to be trending towards writing an overview article for Romance fiction or Romance manga. Anyone want to write one? I'd like to hear your thoughts over there.... Dekimasuよ! 01:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Allowing navigational templates on DAB pages

One time, I created a navigational template linking a large number of disambiguation pages with a common purpose. It was proposed for deletion, and though there were arguments in favor of both keeping and deleting, it was ultimately deleted on the basis of some guideline that navboxes should not be included on disambiguation pages.

I feel we should change this guideline and allow navboxes or similar templates on disambiguation pages when there are a group of such pages (perhaps 10-100, but that does not have to be an exact figure) that one who reads one of would likely want to see at least some of the others. The purpose is to make Wikipedia a more reader-friendly environment. An example is if there is a disambiguation page for each item named by a certain number, there can be a navbox linking to the page for each other number (up to a reasonable limit). Sebwite (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a few of these that are still around (for example, on the individual disambiguation pages for letters of the Latin alphabet, on A road, etc.), but I believe they are still controversial and should all be removed. Adding them clouds the purpose of a disambiguation page, which is to act as a navigational tool for the search term in question, not as a general search tool or a place to add content. Is it really necessary to add a link to A29 from A road, as in the "Numbered A roads" template? What are the chances that someone who wanted to find a road named A29 would visit the A road disambiguation page? Or to use a more subtle example, would someone visiting X (disambiguation)--presumably searching for a particular use of "X", since that's the purpose of a disambiguation page--really need a link to D (disambiguation)? It seems to me that this would be used as a means of skirting the directive against partial title matches, rather than as an actual navigational aid. Dekimasuよ! 02:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a navbox is to fulfill what a see also section does, but to allow for more articles (generally dozens), and to do so in a more efficient manner. See also sections are commonly found on disambiguation pages, and this has been accepted. The navbox found on the alphabet pages is a good example of one that should be.

A while back, I created a navbox for all the public transport disambiguation pages. It was deleted on the grounds that navboxes should not be included on disambiguation pages. I disagree with that, and before I proceed with a deletion review, this should be discussed here. Sebwite (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's generally a virtue to be selective in "See also" sections. To use the example we seem to be focusing on, the disambiguation pages are not alphabet pages as you suggest; they are specifically about usages that are not alphabet-related. Although I can understand why someone visiting the article about the letter X itself might appreciate a link to the page about the letter D, I still don't see why someone visiting X (disambiguation) would, under any circumstances, need a link to D (disambiguation). The range of potential topics is not part of a unified set, and that would seem to make them poor matches even for a "See also" section.

If there is a middle ground, perhaps it would be that the constituent links in the template should be to related articles or topics, rather than to other general disambiguation pages. That would relegate their use to disambiguation pages on which the linked articles are thematically related; as an example, I don't see a problem with the box on 2004 in NASCAR. Dekimasuよ! 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

One situation when a nav template like this is very helpful is when we have a large number of similarly-sounding disambig pages, all of which are derived from the same root. This is normally handled with the help of the "see also" sections, but occasionally, as Sebwite points out, the number of entries would be so large that using a "see also" section would not be feasible. For such cases, nav templates would be the ideal solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:06, July 24, 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic vs consistency

I've opened a thread of discussion at WT:MOSDAB#Primary topic vs consistency regarding the pseudo-distinction between dab-pages-with-primary-topic and dab-pages-without-primary-topic. Comments/observations would be appreciated. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Partial title matches - should they really be excluded?

It says on this page that partial title matches are to be excluded. That is a bad idea. There are many cases in which something is disambiguated in a manner other than with parenthesis, often with combining the common word with one or more other words. For example, the page Neon (disambiguation) lists Dodge Neon, NeOn Bus, and Neon lamp, among many others. In this recent afd, the general argument in favor of deletion was essentially that everything that was included should removed in the basis that they were nothing more than partial title matches, and therefore, it would be left with nothing and must be deleted. But there are many cases of partial title matches that should be included. In fact, almost every disambiguation page had one or more listings that rightfully belong. Tatterfly (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The guideline currently reads: "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." I think that is about right. The most efficient dab pages are short. In your example, Dodge Neon should probably stay because it's sometimes referred to as a "Neon" and someone could possibly search for and link to Neon and expect to find the car or at least a way to navigate to the article they're looking for. The Neon happens to be made by Dodge so that's a good qualifier, better than Neon (car), which is another possible title for that article that would certainly qualify for listing on the dab page. On the other hand, neon lamp does not belong there, because the article is about a lamp, neon being the qualifier. It's never called a "neon". No one is likely to search for or link to neon and be surprised they didn't end up on a page about lamps. Station1 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto what Station1 said. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good summary. Dekimasuよ! 06:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have participated in other discussions in which the consensus is "when in doubt, include." I like Station1's assessment that the Dodge Neon is often known as the "Neon." But who really determines what is known that way?

When something has a 2-word title, perhaps it should be included on the dab page for the primary word but not the secondary word. For example, Baltimore Orioles would be included on Oriole (disambiguation), but not Baltimore (disambiguation). Sebwite (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"When in doubt, include" is good advice, as long as it's remembered that some other editor may not be in doubt. To answer your question: In cases that aren't obvious, I usually look at the article. The alternative name may be bolded in the first sentence. Otherwise, such as with the Dodge Neon, it's consistently referred to as the Neon throughout the article. As to your second point, I think that's on the right track, as long as the primary word is sometimes used alone as the subject's name; in the case of "the Orioles" it might be reasonable to assume some people might be searching for the team; but something like Baltimore Zoo shouldn't be on the zoo (disambiguation) page because no one would ever expect to find it at "Zoo" and a dab page shouldn't be a list of all the zoos in the world. As with much on WP, some of this is just judgment and common sense; guidelines can take one only so far. Station1 (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus here, so I went ahead (per WP:BOLD) and changed the wording from "same title" to "same name." An example is the Mississippi River. Unlike Mercury (element) or Mercury (mythology) or Mercury (automobile), there is no way it could use the title Mississippi. However, it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because it is indeed called "the Mississippi" — not a formal name, but nevertheless a name it goes by. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if I was looking for the river I'd type "Mississippi". Perhaps within the USA people think of the state, while in the rest of the world the river may be better known? (Mississippi steamboats, delta, etc) PamD (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But if you were writing a report, you would never say, "Mississippi is a river in the United States ..." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite: I'd say "The Mississippi is...", but wouldn't expect to see "The" in the title of the Wikipedia article. PamD (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As for exclusion, the way it should be is that Polar Bear Pass would be found on Polar Bear (disambiguation). It is something that contains the term "polar bear" within the title, but is different from the animal polar bear. But you would not put polar cod on the page Polar Bear (disambiguation) just because they both contain the word "polar." That is really what a "partial title match" is.

As for the zoo example, obviously, you cannot have hundreds of zoos on one disambiguation page. It is true that in each of these cities, locals call them all "the zoo." But that is when you use lists and categories. Tatterfly (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Polar Bear Pass on Polar Bear (disambiguation) -- that is actually not a very good example of the rule, if anything it is more an exception. Polar Bear Pass should appear on Polar Bear (disambiguation) only if their is a risk of confusion, that is, if Polar Bear Pass is commonly known as simply "Polar Bear". This may be contextual, so something that may have a fuller or formal name, might often be referred to by a more casual shortened name. But this is something that needs to be determined on a case by case basis. Polar Bear (disambiguation) should not simply be a listing of pages that begin with the words "polar bear". older ≠ wiser 12:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Should pages with similar enough titles, but with affiliation with the primary topic be listed?

After the deletion of Wal-Mart (disabiguation), one of the questions that has been brought up is if pages that have a title the same or similar to the primary topic, but that are also affiliated with the primary topic should be listed on disambiguation pages.

For example, on Seizure (disambiguation), Non-epileptic seizure is listed, even though it is directly related to the topic that uses the title Seizure. Tatterfly (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I can think of no reason why it should not be listed - relation/affiliation with the primary topic (when there is a primary topic) is not relevant to the ambiguity of a title. In your example, a non-eplieptic seizure is still a type of seizure and there is every reason to list it. The deciding factor is, and should always be, focused on the ambiguity of the titles. Shereth 19:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not every type of seizure would necessarily be known (or expected to be found at an article titled) "seizure", though. List of types of seizures (or another such list article) would be the place for those. Seizure should only include ambiguous entries, the deciding factor that we agree on. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should have been a little more careful with the statement "type of". Issues with dab pages require a certain amount of common sense to be employed, as it is somewhat difficult to create a set of firm, objective criteria that fit every example. An editor in a previous discussion made the point that a common-sense bar for inclusion on a dab page is to ask oneself how likely it is that a user will type a certain phrase in the search bar. It is reasonable to assume that a significant number of users who type pound into the search bar are actually looking for Dog pound, hence its inclusion in the disambiguation page. By way of contrast, it is unlikely that someone who types dog into the search bar is actually looking for Chihuahua (dog), hence it is not included in the dab page. The same common-sense approach should be applied in every situation. How likely is it that someone typing seizure into the search bar is actually looking for Non-epileptic seizure? Likely enough to warrant a mention in the dab page. Shereth 15:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic discussion

Is Baltic Sea the primary topic for Baltic? Discussion at Talk:Baltic#Requested move.--Kotniski (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on the current discussion at Talk:Baltic#Requested move, it looks like no, there is no consensus to change the primary topic of "Baltic" to the sea. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Limits on links at TLA disambig pages

i couldnt find a guideline for this, so ill ask here: what are the criteria for including links on a TLA disambig page, for example SDG. i suspect the redlinks should go unless there is an obvious need for it, like an overlooked article of obvious notability. but what about links to articles where the abbreviation is not in the lede (Soli Deo gloria), or is only mentioned briefly, or is only in the website name for the subject (Satsvarupa dasa Goswami)? I have cleaned up some tlas that i came upon randomly, but i now want to be sure im not unnecessarily trimming them of valuable content, or adding too many that arent relevant. i know that disambigs are not search engine replacements, so i know there is some reasonable limit based on what a reader is likely to be confused about. i would tend to remove most of the links here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines are the same as for any dab page. Entries should be included only for Wikipedia articles about things/entities that are actually referred to as the acronym in question (SDG in this case). Redlinks with no other article (article, not talk page, user page, etc.) pointing to them should definitely be removed. Redlinks with article(s) that point to them are more problematic. Dab pages are supposed to differentiate between existing Wikipedia articles, so by rights any redlinks should be removed, but sometimes they are left.

Taking a look at the page as it is right now, I would remove all the redlinks because no other articles point to them. (Journal of Differential Geometry has articles pointing to it, but that isn't the SDG item.) I'd also remove the Neapolitan acronym, because that's pointing to something outside Wikipedia.

Oh, heck, I'm just gonna be bold and make the changes. Anyone who wants to see the page before the changes can go here. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines are indeed the same as for any dab page, and that includes the usual guidance for red links applies -- the "by rights should be removed" comment is incorrect as far as red link entries with appropriate blue links in the descriptions go.

The other guidance for TLA articles is that they are not intended to list anything that happens to have those initials, but rather they should list things that are known by those letters. If the linked article doesn't indicate the use of the TLA to refer to the topic, then that entry (blue link or no) should be removed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

the guidelines youve given make sense to me, im glad i know now. thats pretty much what i was doing before. i hadnt thought about pages that link to these DAB pages, that may be logically connected to the redlinked entries. ill make sure i check for that first, and if im not sure what to do ill ask.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Determining primary topic

On what basis is the primary topic determined to be one article and not another? Can there be multiple primary topics? Are the expectations of readers or is proper naming more important when determining a primary topic? If there is a dispute, would it be appropriate to set up a temporary disambiguation page to two uncommon redirects, and thereby use the stats tool to determine what topic readers are interested in seeing? M 01:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion on multiple primary meanings here. And I'm sure there've have been others, I just know of that one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the "Primary topic uber alles" section above. Naming based only on statistics is generally discouraged (or that changed recently, depending on who you ask). Dekimasuよ! 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The basis is "consensus". Benefit to readers is more important. "Proper naming" is not a consideration in determining primary topic, as far as I know -- any article can be properly named whether it is the primary topic or not. No, if there is a dispute, it would be proper to do nothing except resolve it. Setting up a temporary disambiguation page is a kind of agreement/disagreement with one side/the other in the dispute, so it should not be done as a temporary compromise. The stats tool provides data; the stats tool does not determine anything else; it is up to the editors to reach consensus to determine what the primary topic is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He is more talking about whether the common misuse of a term can allow it to be the primary topic for a search phrase that properly refers to another article's topic (see Talk:Peer-to-peer), I would assume. Whether the term is commonly misused is an open question that the experiment proposes to resolve, although I'm also uncomfortable with it. Dekimasuよ! 02:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with it because the results would have no bearing on which setup is most helpful to readers. Assuming that M is correct that a majority of users arriving at Peer-to-peer seek the File sharing article, a disambiguation page would be of no greater benefit to these individuals than the current hatnote (linking directly to File sharing with a detailed explanation) is. It would merely force users seeking the content currently located at Peer-to-peer to also follow a link. —David Levy 02:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If a majority (>50%) arrive at the peer-to-peer disambiguation page and select "file sharing", then we can suppose that they want information on that topic. We can also suppose that (unlike the majority of editors currently voting at peer-to-peer) they have exactly as much interest in the peer-to-peer networking architecture as they do in client-server - very, very little. Yes, they're only a click away with that hatnote (which they will probably ignore, since the similarity of the two articles will lead them to think they're in the right place), but now they've been directed to a topic that they didn't expect. M 07:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the people discussing the issue at Peer-to-peer probably aren't discussing it because they have a particular interest in it. I know I don't. The discussion is linked from Wikipedia:Requested moves as a way to solicit outside views. I got to it through toolserver reports. It's probably not a biased sample. Dekimasuよ! 14:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'm far more interested in the topic of file sharing than I am in the technical side of peer-to-peer networking, so any bias on my part would be opposite to what M suggests. —David Levy 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And there we have it. This all comes down to your utterly uncorroborated belief that readers "will probably ignore" the detailed hatnote that currently appears at Peer-to-peer:

This article is about a method of networking and its implementation, not peer-to-peer file sharing. For file sharing performed over peer-to-peer networks, see File sharing.

Basically, your theory is that readers won't understand that, so you want to protect them from the "wrong" article (despite the fact that it directly relates to the subject that they have in mind) by moving it away.

And your stance isn't unique to this particular article. In the move discussion, you've made it clear that you regard hatnotes in general as ineffective. And as I noted there, the community disagrees. —David Levy 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I believe a common-enough use of a term (whether or not such a use may have originated as or continues to be seen as a misuse) can be a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But in this instance, the original/proper use remains highly common (and intertwined with the other use in question). —David Levy 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Then there might be no primary topic, if the consensus from the discussion at Talk:Peer-to-peer results in that. But there's nothing in the dab guideline that says which way that consensus should fall. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, Peer-to-peer is the most sensible location for the article about peer-to-peer networking because the term's other common use (a reference to peer-to-peer file sharing) directly relies on the former. —David Levy 04:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What does "directly relies" mean, and how does that affect the sensibility of the location? M 07:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "peer-to-peer file sharing" (sometimes abbreviated as "peer-to-peer") is based on the connotation of "peer-to-peer" documented at Peer-to-peer. It refers to file sharing performed via the type of network described in that article. Peer-to-peer file sharing is an application of peer-to-peer networking and could not exist independent of it. It is not an unrelated topic. —David Levy 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And, replying to the earlier point about the problem introduced where one group isn't helped and another group is hindered: whenever a two- or three-entry dab page is placed at the base name, there will be a case for placing any entry at the base name and using hatnotes instead to direct readers. This makes sense from a click-counting perspective, but not necessarily from a "least surprise" or "expected encyclopedia entry" perspective. If there is no consensus for which of two or three contenders should go to (remain at) the base name, then there is no primary topic and the dab page goes to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, however, the article currently occupying the Peer-to-peer title is about the underlying technology on which the specific type of "file sharing" in question is based. Therefore, there is no surprise. (And in fact, the article's content is directly relevant.) —David Levy 04:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely a surprise, and an insidious one - because of the similarity of the pages, many readers are likely unaware that they are at the wrong article, and wondering why it doesn't cover copyright issues, court cases, specific file sharing clients... which it did actually, since even editors were confusing the two subjects. Similarity of subjects should be a greater reason for a DAB page, not a lesser one - or am I wrong? M 07:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And you base this assertion on the fact that a handful of editors (one in the past 1 ½ months) have added information pertaining to peer-to-peer file sharing to the article about peer-to-peer networking. You attribute this solely to the title (as opposed to the fact that the two subjects are directly related and overlapping in their scope).

And for some reason, you believe that the hatnote that now reads...

This article is about a method of networking and its implementation, not peer-to-peer file sharing. For file sharing performed over peer-to-peer networks, see File sharing.

...is insufficient (and somehow less helpful than the text "Peer-to-peer file sharing" on a disambiguation page). —David Levy 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(in reply to the above) There was a thought of placing the DAB page at the contested title, so as to measure where readers were going - just for a couple of days, even. I think that the objection was that this might be seen as an abuse of DAB and the stats tool, or unconventional. Would it be seen in this way? Having the DAB page link to seldom-visited redirects for the duration could give us some very accurate stats. And are such stats generally useful in establishing consensus? M 08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not when there is no underlying dispute regarding the fact that many readers arriving at the page seek the File sharing article, as has been explained to you over and over again. —David Levy 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I made an effort to not direct this question to you, since you are becoming somewhat uncivil. I'm trying to pose the question neutrally, please let the editors who are more experienced with this than we are answer it. M 08:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

1. How have I been uncivil?

2. Anyone is welcome to answer the question, but I will not allow you to omit key context. —David Levy 09:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

When there is very clearly more than one primary topic (that is, topic that readers are expecting to find when searching a term), all things being equal, is it more appropriate to include a hatnote, or to place a disambiguation page there? What are some reasons to use a disambiguation page rather than a hatnote, and vice versa? M 08:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

These are reasonable questions, but the case that led you to post here is not one in which all things are equal. —David Levy 09:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care, I just want some general advice so that I can better-understand the process and reasons for using dab pages and hatnotes. I believe that I have a right to seek advice in the manner of my choosing without having some specific disagreement tagged onto each of my messages, since this makes others (who do not wish to get involved in the dispute) less inclined to answer my questions. M 06:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I plainly stated that "these are reasonable questions." You're entitled to ask them, and I'm entitled to address their context. —David Levy 06:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not more than one primary topic. Either there's a primary topic (the base name should be an article or a redirect to an article) or there isn't (the base name should be a disambiguation page). If there's no primary topic, then it's more appropriate to move the dab page to the base name. If there's a primary topic, then a hatnote directing readers to the dab page or two the other article(s) is more appropriate. Discussion to reach consensus as to whether there's a primary topic should be held at the page's talk page. A pointer to that discussion could be placed at a dab project talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it's important to clarify the terminology to avoid confusion. You're using the term "primary topic" to mean "one topic that stands alone above all others as the most commonly used by far and therefore receives the base name," and that might be the connotation typically intended on Wikipedia.

Linguistically, however, one might differentiate between multiple common usages and substantially less common usages by referring to the former as the "primary topics." (For example, the first two articles listed at George Bush are far more commonly sought than the others are, and either would have been assigned the base page if not for the other's existence.) This, of course, has no bearing on the crux of what you've written; it's a purely systematical matter.

Moving on to said crux, I would say that your explanation generally holds true. However, there are exceptions. Suppose, for example, that there are exactly two notable people with a particular name, neither of whom is much more prominent than the other is. While some may disagree, I'm adamant in my belief that a two-article disambiguation page is utterly illogical in such a circumstance (with some possible exceptions to the exception). Even if 50% of readers arriving at the base page seek each person's article, we can improve the experience for half of the readers in question by simply placing one of the articles there. (The other half, meanwhile, is unaffected.)

However, that's an extreme example (and one that I don't personally recall encountering). In most cases, one of the two individuals is at least slightly (but measurably) more prominent than the other is, so at least a majority (if not an overwhelming one) of users arriving at the base title seek that person's article. Even if reference to neither individual is "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer," a disambiguation page would be nothing but a hindrance. Of course, the existence of a third article about a person by that name (even one who is substantially less prominent than the other two are) changes everything. —David Levy 20:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm using "primary topic" as in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, exactly. That was the meaning in question. If there are only two name holders, and neither is the primary topic, then a two-entry dab page goes at the base name and the two articles get disambiguated titles, even if you find it illogical (the guidelines and consensus haven't found it illogical). Yes, navigation would be increased for a segment of the readership at no loss of navigation for the other segment. OTOH, yes, exceptions exist, and rules can be ignored. If the editors at Talk:Peer-to-peer reach a consensus to leave or move either the network or the file-sharing article to the base name (making it the primary topic), with a hatnote to the other article, that's a perfectly valid disambiguation arrangement. Usually, when there's no consensus for a primary topic, there's no consensus for placing/leaving an article at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you've written, but I disagree that there is consensus for a two-article disambiguation page in the type of situation that I've described. In my experience, the usual practice is to relax the "much more used" criterion to simply "more used" (as common sense dictates when the topic in question is being compared to one other topic instead of multiple topics). As I noted, however, there are exceptions in which specific circumstances render a two-article disambiguation page the most practical setup. —David Levy 20:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, relaxing to "more used" is abandoning WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and resorting to petty bickering over minutae. Many people who read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC do seem to get hung up on the question "which article, this one or that one?" and forget the initial question: "is there any primary topic?" --Una Smith (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that either article meets that definition in the relatively uncommon situation to which I'm referring. I'm noting that in practice, a slightly different approach is taken (because it makes no sense not to). There is nothing "petty" about that, nor is there typically much "bickering." —David Levy 21:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And to be clear, I'm not referring to typical situations in which multiple topics with a particular name exist. —David Levy 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that it necessarily "makes no sense not to"; on the contrary, putting a dab page at an ambiguous base name often makes a lot of sense. --Una Smith (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there's no argument there. I'm referring to a very specific (and relatively uncommon) type of situation, and even therein lie exceptions. I certainly didn't mean to imply that disambiguation pages in general make no sense. In most cases, they make perfect sense. —David Levy 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes this dab senseless? Is it the similarity? When similar articles are not disambiguated, it leads to more confusion, not less. M 09:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, a hatnote is a method of disambiguation. Secondly, I've explained my position in great detail within the move discussion thread. —David Levy 18:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very clearly not the accepted method for our case. Please provide at least one diff where readers here might review your position. M 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, please provide it at the relevant talk page: Talk:Peer-to-peer. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That's where I've been explaining my position ad nauseam. —David Levy 23:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The question of primary topic continues to be debated on Talk:James Stewart. --Una Smith (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

An extension of this discussion continues at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#What_is_defines_a_topic_as_being_the_.22Primary_Topic.22.Smallman12q (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A definition more clear to be clearly translatable

Present definition of disambiguation

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title.

Proposed definition of disambiguation

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the action of grouping new similar article titles with previous similar titles, resolving possible title conflicts that could occur when similar terms are associated with more than one topic, making the common title part specified with an apposition to get the unequivocalness of any single article.

The proposed definition seem more simple and realistic. I am italian, and I recommend this definition because it is specially understandable to be translate to other languages without lack of clarity. Do you agree? ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 09:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended, but "unequivocalness" is not a word in English, and "apposition" is so uncommon that most readers will not understand the sentence. For readers of English, your version is less clear and harder to comprehend than the original. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I no doubt that the best definition is made by english editors. Perhaps "definiteness" is better than "unequivocalness". The problem in the present definition, that make the concept unclear, is the lack of concern about it's tangibile object, that is a "similar title". The expressed object should be the starting point. Thanks. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 10:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how disambiguation is done on the Italian Wikipedia, but on the English Wikipedia, the central idea is that the titles are substantially the same, not that they are similar. Thus the current definition uses "single term" and "same title". Likewise, you talk about "grouping titles", but generally disambiguation is concerned with distinguishing titles, not grouping them. Dekimasuよ! 10:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that titles could be substantially the same is an error. The interpretation problem is transfered in the italian and spanish help, that intend to translate this wrong idea with "titoli omofoni" (homophone titles). The remedy is simple: to write "similar title". This will make all more reasonable. If you prefer the word "apposition" to be avoided because uncommon, and the aim omissed, a clear definition could be even more brief:

... making the common title part specified in observance of naming conventions.

Please collaborate on trying to write a definition more clear. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense, Caceo, but I am having a difficult time fully understanding your concern (and your proposed wording is rather unclear).

I also do not believe that any Wikipedia should base its text on how other Wikipedias might translate it (something impossible to predict on a large scale, as each language will differ in this respect), particularly when this makes it less clear to readers of that Wikipedia's language. —David Levy 12:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Compare to see arguments (I'm speaking about english definition):

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title.

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the action of grouping new similar article titles with previous similar titles, resolving possible title conflicts that could occur when similar terms are associated with more than one topic, making the common title part specified in observance of naming conventions.

ONLY ONE ARGUMENT:

Comparing definitions, in the definition of a concrete action schould the name of the action be expressed ? Yes. In the present definition is it expressed ? No. Else, what it is ?
My definition propose the name of the action: "grouping similar titles"? Yes. Is it wrong ?
I think that should be clear in the definition that disambiguation (title distinction) is the aim of an action. Why there are so many difficulties to understand ? ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 13:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Caceo, As far as en.wikipedia goes, the action of disambiguation is resolving potential naming conflicts, so your first point would support the current definition over your proposal. Your definition seems more appropriate for the associated, secondary, action of building disambiguation pages. Even there, though, your use of similar isn't correct; it's too loose a grouping.

To take your points in order: the first is not correct, as described above; the second is indeed wrong; the third is correct in the first part. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have understand very very few of what sed by AndrewHowse. If pages of help were adressed only to philosophers and erudites, they are surely capable to conceptualize the present long definition with optional term such as "natural title", and make flexible interpretations; but helps are adressed to all kind of readers. My argumens are finished (italian with limited english) and my ask remain without answer: why do not make a more clear and simple definition? Goodbye, Ciao. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. Please feel free to post at my talk page and tell me what was unclear. Unfortunately my Italian is far too limited for this conversation! --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but sincerelly I do not have understood what sed by AndrewHowse. My only argument is regarding a lack of descriptivity in the present definition of disambiguation. Disambiguation templates are used to make the basic action of "grouping similar titles" and what change by using any template is the links alignment. If disambiguation is the aim, and template are the instruments, the action have sufficient importance to be named ? Why a definition that do not tray to identify and to name the base action ? It is inexplicable the reason to mantain a lexicalisation bug: missing descriptive element to rely on interpretation by induction. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the action is not grouping (bringing together) titles, the action is distinguishing (separating) titles. You are confusing the means (disambiguation) with the end (navigation). The aim is to aid navigation, not to disambiguate for its own sake. Dekimasuよ! 18:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What I think Caceo is trying to say is that it might be better for us to define what the process of disambiguation actively entails (distinguishing between articles, by giving them distinctive titles based on naming conventions) rather than defining disambiguation as a process (that resolves certain types of naming conflicts). If stated that way, is there something to the argument? Dekimasuよ! 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There might well be. Section 4 could come a little sooner? That would be an improvement I think. I really took Caceo to mean that the aim of disambiguation was to create disambiguation pages, and I don't think that's right. *steps down from soapbox, brushes it off carefully, keeps nearby for future use* --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This is my last intervention, now is up to you to decide. The mistake of Dekimasu is to say: "the action is distinguishing". I know that the action is not named in the present definition, while the "distinction" or other abstract term can be only an aim (or end = it:scopo, es:fin, fr:bout). Why ? Because actions are concrete terms and tangible facts, while ends are abstract terms (such as distinction or disambiguation or happiness). This make all disaccord consequent. Thanks very much for your decision. Goodby. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 19:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Unresolved|1=A solution to address arguments ? --« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 14:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)}}

You should not expect continued discussion when you announce that you are permanently ending your participation (thereby conveying that any reply would be moot). You have done this twice.

No offense, but it appears that the issue stems primarily from your "limited English." You have expressed difficulty comprehending text that seems entirely straightforward to those fluent in English, and you have proposed that it be replaced with text that is awkwardly structured and highly unclear.

Your understanding of English is far better than my understanding of Italian is, but it is not strong enough for your attempted analysis to be practical. Sorry. —David Levy 03:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While I was discussing here User_talk:Caceo#Re:_your_comments_at_WT:Disambiguation with AndrewHowse (I appreciate him very well), the intervention above of user David Levy is nothing more than an offence toward me. Note: I have sed twice "goodbay" simply because I completed my argument. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 23:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1. You described your English comprehension as "limited," and it is clear that this is accurate; most (not all) of what you write is reasonably understandable, but you obviously are unable to distinguish between proper and improper English syntax.

I am sorry if this assessment offends you, but I know of no other way to address your arguments (as you have continually demanded). What do you want me to write?

2. Even taking the language barrier into account, the statements "my argumens are finished" [sic] and "this is my last intervention" seem rather unambiguous. You are welcome to post here, but please do not complain when others decline to respond to someone who has announced an intention to cease participating in the discussion. —David Levy 02:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Caceo, it's not right that you should speak to David Levy in that way. You started that post saying "This is my last intervention" and finished with "Goodbye." Your English is quite good enough to understand how that would be read. You really should withdraw that comment. You can do that by ~~striking it through~~ - like this - <s>striking it through</s>. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

See below: "explicit resolution to preliminary question". ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 23:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Guidelines and definitions still correct and within consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Unresolved|1=A solution to address arguments against arguemnts ? ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 23:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)}}

I do not think this merits "unresolved". See Template:Unresolved/doc. I have not seen anyone else agree with your complaint, and "unresolved" is not the same as "I still disagree". Unresolved would be for when there is consensus for a change but the change has still not been implemented. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Template case: the topic is "editing the actual definition of disambiguation", and the issue is: "in the definition of a concrete action schould the name of the action be expressed ?". There is no clause that identify and name a concrete action in the actual definition. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 06:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you have a question, complaint, or suggestion about the disambiguation guidelines. However, one editor's question, complaint, or suggestion does not mean there's a unresolved issue per {{unresolved}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

See below: "explicit resolution to preliminary question". ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 23:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Guidelines and definitions still correct and within consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT ABOUT REQUIREMENTS OF A GOOD DEFINITION OF THE WORD "DISAMBIGUATION" AS USED IN WIKIPEDIA
A good definition should be descriptive and explicative, distinguishing: 1. concrete action (grouping similar article titles), 2. concrete means (special templates, all linking two or more grouped titles in different layout), and 3. abstract end (titles disambiguation = unequivocalness).

In the present definition only the first clause is explicative ("Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article title")
All other clauses look like a pettifogging questionnaire. Paraphrasing clauses:
- Title conflicts "... occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" ? I say not.
- A "term" can became "the natural title for more than one article" ? I say not.
- "Disambiguations are paths leading to different articles..." ? I say yes.
- "Different articles... could, in principle, have the same title" ? I say not.

Everyone can answear YES/NOT. Conclusion on the present definition: what really represent disambiguation in Wikipedia is very ambiguosly defined, explanatory clauses are missing, definition is syntactically untranslatable (an italian or spanish litteral translation is rather ridiculous) thus interpretation is hyper-subjective. Note: relations among disambiguations, naming and renaming are an heterogeneous topic. The topic here is only the clarity of disambiguation definition. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 06:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is a discussion about how to state the definition in the lede, that's fine. I can even agree with you that I erred when I said that "the action is distinguishing" when attempting to restate your case; that was putting the cart before the horse. However, there is no need to perform any literal translations in Spanish or Italian. If the extent of your involvement here is a desire to get a statement easier to translate, then you may as well rewrite it from scratch as you desire for those Wikis. Since there do not appear to be any misunderstandings occurring on the English Wikipedia as the result of the current lede, it seems to be functional, which is all we need it to be. We're not writing a philosophical treatise. Dekimasuよ! 10:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

1. You state that "the topic here is only the clarity of disambiguation." Yes, and some of your comments and proposed wordings are extremely unclear. You have described your English skills as "limited," so why do you regard yourself as qualified to critique and rewrite English text?

2. Several of us have attempted to explain to you that "disambiguation" does not refer to "grouping similar article titles" (creating a disambiguation page). AndrewHowse has repeatedly advised you of this on your talk page, but you evidently refuse to believe it.

3. As Dekimasu wrote above, the guideline's intended purpose is to document the concept in a manner that is clear to readers of English, not to serve as a template that can fully retain its meaning after being literally translated to other languages by someone not fluent in English. —David Levy 11:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply againt arguments in contra:

I do not follow David Levy arguments because they are to much biased against the fact that I'm italian...
To Dekimasu: I do not guess what you refer using the word "lede"; is it a "a lead paragraph in literature" (Lead_paragraph) ? Please do not consider the incipit of this help to be an unmodifiable dogmatic text.
To JHunter: the "unresolved template" is used regarding an objective question, not subjective Caceo "complaints" or "suggestions".
No, it isn't used to flag "objective questions". -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
To AndrewHowse: when I sed "this is my last intervention, now is up to you to decide" my argument was: "in the definition of a concrete action schould the name of the action be expressed ? Yes. In the present definition is it expressed ? No. Else, what it is ?" When I sed so, I was thinking that this question would have been tackled quickly and resolved implicitly by collaborative work proposing alternative good definitions, but following discussion has not been the case. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 23:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Caceo, I haven't previously commented here, primarily because I could not quite decipher what issues or objections you were attempting to raise. I rather agree with all the others who have commented here that you appear to be proposing to fix something that no one else really see as needing to be fixed. Unless you (or someone on your behalf) can make a cogent articulation of the problem you see, I don't see much need to prolong this lopsided discussion. older ≠ wiser 23:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ciao. Please look the "query" below, which is my articulation of the problem. Thanks. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 12:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I take great offense at the accusation that I am biased against you because you are Italian.

You described your English skills as "limited," and I am merely challenging your ability to properly analyze and rewrite English text. Likewise, I am unqualified to analyze and rewrite text at the Italian Wikipedia.

The discussion has not proceeded in the manner that you want it to because every respondent disagrees with you. You apparently believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and you do not understand why we stubbornly refuse to fix what you regard as an obvious problem. And now you have set up a poll to determine whether we should ignore this "fact" or act upon it. No matter what anyone writes, you evidently will not even consider the possibility that your perception is inaccurate. —David Levy 23:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You have no reason to offend, because you speak about me: "...Caceo...do not comprehend english text...(he) is not qualified..." and so on. It is not the truth that every respondent disagrees with me because you do not differenciate questions. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 12:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Explicit resolution to preliminary question

The question can now only be resolved explicitly, with a VOTE (not a substitute for discussion):

QUERY: Are you opposing or supporting the fact that the present definition of "disambiguation" define "disambiguation" without a clause to identify and to name what is the material action made by editors to pursue the abstract end of disambiguing ?

VOTE:

Oppose. First because such way to define is syntactically and logically incorrect. Secondly because substantially the present definition is unclear, alike a pettifogging questionnaire based on enigmatic clauses. Thirdly because I have a clear idea of what the nameable material action is and should be included in the definition. It is "grouping two or more similar article titles". The mistake of some users discussing here is to consider this material effect admissible only in the "disambiguation page", that is when a specific template is used, but it is the same using any disambiguation template. The specific category Disambiguation templates is based on struments that change linking conditions and layout, but none template cut off the necessary grouping of two or more similar titles. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 23:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reject premise. Your poll's structure assumes your contention as "fact" and requires us to either condone or condemn a situation that no one other than you believes exists. —David Levy 23:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The query is based only on a fact regarding the existence of a clause (this fact can only be true or false). Contention about what definition is better is another question and objectively it is not in this query. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 12:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to avoid the sabotage of consensus

This consensus expression has begin with the unresolved template (Template:Unresolved/doc) because the query is formulated as an objective question. Any user that assumes the query is objective and correctly formulated can answer appose/supporting. Any user that assume the query is not objective or correctly formulated can express here any objection to invalidate voting. What is inadmissible is the removal of the unresolved template before consensus expression take place and before any objection is evaluated by other users, because this will be a foretaste of the judgement and a sabotage of consensus which is one of the Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Therefore I ask User:JHunterJ: why the question is not objective? Put here your objection and if it receive consensus the "template unresolved" will be removed. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 12:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has been formed and remains unchanged. Consensus is not unanimity, so just because a single editor (in this case, you) disagrees with it, that does not mean consensus hasn't taken place. You are welcome to ask "objective questions", but your questions so far have been answered. I have no objections that need to receive further consensus. There are no unresolved issues with this guideline. Now, kindly explain what you mean by "foretaste of the judgement and a sabotage of consensus", because, possibly due to the language barrier, it seems possibly uncivil and threatening, although it is not clear enough to be sure. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ, if your desire is to invalidate this query you are free to choose an objection to invalidate it; but do not presume consensus of other users about this query, let it be freely expressed.----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 14:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't presume the consensus. The other editors in this discussion disagree with you. Is there another editor who agrees with you? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You are presuming consensus about this query ! Other editors in this discussion have disagreed with me about my proposed definition of disambiguation (different question not present in the query). ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am recognizing consensus about this guideline. You are welcome to ask questions, but questions don't need the "unresolved" template, and using it is troublesome for people who work on actual unresolved issues. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Caceo, the action is not, as has been explained several times, one of grouping articles. If our intention was to group articles, we wouldn't need to disambiguate in the first place. We'd just put everything with the same name on the same page. That is what creating a disambiguation page entails, to a certain extent, but it is not equivalent to disambiguation itself, which is inherently a process of distinguishing things. If the reaction to your proposal is negative, I request that you let this go. Continuing to restate your position is not going to result in a change to consensus. Unfortunately, your tone has made other editors less interested in addressing your question. Dekimasuよ! 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sabotaged consensus

User:JHunterJ has sabotaged consensus over this query, replacing the template "unresolved" with the template "resolved" without motivation. I appealed to avoid sabotage but no user is concerning so far. Everybody can see that the unresolved template require an "objective question" and this query is precisely objective. I am very disgusted and now I denounce that in this situation this help is not a collaborative work. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 20:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're wrong. Every other editor who has tried to engage in this debate disagrees with you; none of us understands what you're trying to say; none of us can see a problem in the material you're challenging. As Dekimasu said, your tone and choice of words has made it difficult to help you. Please stop. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to say what the sabotaged query say. It is clear because only need a basic knoledge of periodic sentence. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

{{unresolved}} does not mention "objective question". Instead, it says: "This template should be rarely used. The purpose of the "unresolved" tag is to give a visual hint to readers of talk page items that a topic contains important unresolved issues, most commonly an action or change that has been agreed to by consensus but not yet actually dealt with, or a consensus discussion that failed to reach consensus, but needs to go one way or another to solve an extant problem." Since that's not the case here, the template shouldn't be used here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

ok, your motivation now is formal, but substituing template you have made a substantial judgement of my query: "recognizing consensus", and "complaint". I'm tired to discuss. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 23:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was responding (formally) to your substantial allegations of sabotage, which I also have tired of discussing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at summarization

As before, what I think Caceo is trying to say is that it might be better for us to define in the first sentence what the process of disambiguation actively entails (giving articles distinctive titles based on naming conventions) rather than defining disambiguation as a process (that resolves naming conflicts). If we want to change the definition, there's no need to hold a vote. We can just change it. For example:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of applying naming conventions to give articles distinct titles, thus resolving conflicts that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic.

could replace the current

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article.

I think this is an improvement in some ways. Dekimasuよ! 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Caceo conclusion

Thanks Dekimasu for your step forward, but I surrender for now. The huge problem is that Wikipedia has developed an hybrid disambiguation (encyclopedia form + dictionary form) without respect of tradition and tecnical terms.

Traditional encyclopedias diambiguate logically "similar article titles", not words, because any entry became "title", analogously in newspaper.
Traditional dictionaries disambiguate syntactically lemmas; some dictionaries disambiguate semantically stems. What is to be disambiguate in the all-languages-words entries (single page for lemma) of every latin and english Wiktionary are only homophones and homographs.
My conclusion: failing distinction and coordination with the Wiktionary project (wikt:Special:Disambiguations) a clear definition of non-hybrid disambiguation on the english Wikipedia is a caotic discussion, and disambiguation pages seem dictionary pages to the detriment of the english Wiktionary. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 16:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

War on DISAMBIG

I was honestly not even aware there were sentiments like these, but apparently some people do not like disambiguation! Redirects which can be turned into disambiguation pages are simply being deleted, preventing information from being amassed for disambiguatory purposes. Furthermore, disambiguation pages are being degraded into redirects even when a term may refer to more than one subject! (see Battle Net, for example). Also, hat notes are being removed, so that even when one allows something to keep their redirect (even if it should properly be a neutral disambig for various things) it allows no means for resolving others' potential confusions about shared names! Just when did this hatred of disambigs begin? Where did this meme that a disambig means a search engine originate? Encyclopedias before computers and wikis have had disambiguation in their index pages for decades. This is not a novel concept, and it is completely unique from the search function built into Wikipedia or from the engines on the Internet with which people may search it. How is mass deletionism targeted against disambiguatory efforts to be defended against? Tyciol (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide more examples. Your version of the Battle Net "disambiguation page" included one blue link and one redlink. That's not a valid use. If Battle network was a valid article, then a {{redirect}} hatnote at Battle.net would be more than sufficient. Beyond that one example, I'm not clear on what your complaints are. What sorts of hatnotes are being removed? What redirects that could be disambiguation pages are being deleted? Powers ^T 12:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive555#Tyciol's redirects. Battle Network was a redirect to Mega Man Battle Network when Tyciol created the completely unnecessary disambiguation page, and this is just one of many counterproductive actions on Tyciol's part (the objections to which he has construed as evidence that "some people do not like disambiguation"). —David Levy 13:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments

The page Bankruptcy protection is currently a disambiguation page; comments are requested at Talk:Bankruptcy protection on whether it should be changed to a redirect or otherwise modified. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming poll

Just a friendly notification that there is an ongoing poll at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names related to disambiguation of Ireland-related articles. The main questions are the locations to be used for the pages on the country, the island (currently at the plain title), and the disambiguation page. One of the options is to move the disambiguation page to the plain title; the plain title is currently linked from at least 30,000 articles in the mainspace. Dekimasuよ! 08:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Karplus

Could anyone give a look at this? It's not horrible, but it's not inline with the usual presentation of the (Surname) sort of dabs. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DIRC in need of work.

Again, another easy fix for those in the know. Thank you. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Redirected to only link on page. Station1 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Partial title matches vs. (name) pages

Hi.

<background detail> I created the Sheikh Yusuf page yesterday. In order to find some more incoming links I rightly went to the Yusuf page which has a hatnote to Yusuf (disambiguation). I was about to add Sheikh Yusuf to the list, when on a hunch I did this Wikipedia search (first 500 results of 3019) which brought up about (judging by the position of the scrollbar in the window) 150+ articles with Yusuf in the title!!!!, either as a name or surname. Now, Yusuf (disambiguation) and Yusuf both contain links to Yusuf (name), which I discovered is another disambig page, luckily not (yet) listing all 150 names.</background>

Right, to the question at hand: surely the existence of (name) disambig pages is in direct conflict with "no partial title matches"? There is no good reason to expect to find articles on people by typing in only their name or surname (famous one-namers excluded of course). I would not list Sheikh Yusuf at either Yusuf (disambiguation) or Yusuf (name), since no-one would look for an article by typing in the name only. And yet, on hundreds of (name) and (disambiguation) pages across WP (Yusuf included, e.g. Yusuf Islam a.k.a. Cat Stevens; who would search for him on his first name alone?), the practice is to dump every matching name/surname into these articles. Thoughts and comments? I'd like some advice on what to do with poor old Sheikh Yusuf please :P. Regards. Zunaid 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You can see how this is supposed to work by looking at: WP:QUALIFIER.
—

V = I * R

(talk) 22:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Avoid proper nouns

I just added a note about avoiding proper nouns in the parenthesized version of disambiguators (in the WP:NCDAB portion). For examples of what I feel are good reasons for this change, see Talk:Mary Jones (Bible)‎‎, Talk:Arran (Transcaucasia)‎‎, and Talk:Pluto.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your point that it "could be an issue" doesn't make it an issue; it's actually a total non-issue. As for "avoiding proper nouns", this is where we have to use basic common sense. Where WP:NCDAB mentions to "avoid proper nouns" in the parentheses, it actually says:

For disambiguating specific topic pages by using an unambiguous article title, several options are available:

[...]
A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
- the generic class that includes the topic, avoiding the use of proper nouns, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal); or
- the subject or context to which the topic applies, as in Union (set theory), Inflation (economics).

Note the implication of the word "or". Then, the page also states that there is a distinct protocol for geographic names, covered at WP:NCGN. And one of the examples given for disambiguating on that page, is Eagle River (Colorado) -- the parentheses are because a "natural feature" does not fall into the category of a current Administrative Subdivision, similar to historical regions, as in our case. But a page named "Arran (region)" doesn't actually disambiguate anything at all, which is supposed to be the purpose of the parentheses, so the flaw with that proposal should be obvious. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've copied the above here from Talk:Arran (Transcaucasia)‎‎.

Basically, what you're indicating is confusion about the wording added to the project page, which is something that I struggled with myself. Thanks for pointing out the use of "Eagle River (Colorado)" though, since that's definitely worth considering. Anyway, I'm wide open to discussion on this issue, so feel free to jump in with a reply.
—

V = I * R

(talk) 00:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for the phrase. If a proper noun clearly indicates which of the meanings is intended, then why not use it. It seems an unnecessary restriction. Could you explain your reasons for including it here? (John User:Jwy talk) 06:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be a "restriction", really. It's supposed to be clarifying the point that is already there, that the disambiguator should describe a generic class. As can be seen on the three talk pages I liked to above, use of proper nouns (which wasn't immediately clear to me) seems to be the cause of some naming conflicts. Since guidelines are supposed to attempt to reduce conflict, I think that this clarified language could help.
—

V = I * R

(talk) 20:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've scanned through the pages some, but am not sure I could complete the sentence: "Proper nouns should be avoided as qualifiers because..." (John User:Jwy talk) 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Proper nouns should be avoided as qualifiers because they are overly specific, and often can prompt conflict when the word or phrase has political connotations."
—

V = I * R

(talk) 23:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"See also" Sections

Does WP:ALSO apply as equally to diambiguation pages as article pages? (ie as here) Þjóðólfr (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. But as a possible answer to it, I'd say that most of that guideline is not applicable to disambiguation pages, which should not have ~~a "see also" section,~~ references, or external links. Debresser (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you on the references and external links, but See also? Really? Is that specified somewhere? I've found see also sections very useful on dab pages when there are similar-sounding things. For example, Star (disambiguation) has a "see also" section with several entries I think are helpful. A few of them should maybe be incorporated into the main part of the page, but not all. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "See also" sections on dabs are useful for keeping unambiguous titles (incl. partial title matches) out of the disambiguation list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any reason that we should specifically exclude the possibility of adding a "See also" section to a dab page, if it makes sense for a specifc DAB page (I also agree on excluding refs and EL's, though). It probably shouldn't be a standard thing to include a section, but the question of including one or not could easily be handled on a case by case basis.
—

V = I * R

(talk) 16:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's the common strategy; User:Debresser's comment is the only time I've heard anyone say they should be specifically excluded. MOS:DP specifically describes what the "See Also" section should contain if the section is warranted. Propaniac (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Its been a long term strategy: Wikipedia:MOSDAB#.22See_also.22_section. Its guidelines are different than standard pages. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I scrapped the part about "see also" sections. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lemniscate

It doesn't seem to me that Lemniscate should really be a disambig page. The terms on the page are just different models of the same phenomenon. bd2412 T 03:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by replacing {{mathdab}} with Category:Mathematical terminology. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. bd2412 T 20:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation by first name

I just run into Ryszard, which is a Polish version of Richard. Correct me if I am wrong, but first names are not disambiguated...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not like that page: John is a decent example of a first name dab page. Ryszard most likely should be a name page as handled by the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthroponymy. Maybe drop them a note at their talk page. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This has a given name template, so it's not a disambiguation page as it stands. Please also note that John is the exception rather than the rule; it exists mainly because there are a fair number of people known as "John" without a surname appended. Dekimasuよ! 02:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of hand.

Abuse of the disambiguation label is completely out of hand. For example, Shinobido, Lists of characters from The Mighty Boosh, Books of the Maccabees. How can we put a lid on the use of supposed disambiguation pages which do nothing more than list different aspects of the same thing? bd2412 T 20:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To start with, I think this needs to be spelled out more clearly in the guidelines. Then, we need to go ahead and remove these templates, and explain why we are doing so. Today, I have boldly removed {{disambig}} tags from 2002 in NASCAR, 2003 in NASCAR, etc. up to 2011 in NASCAR; but there are many more years to go. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure the first two are that bad; the articles listed could possibly share the dab page's name. The last (Maccabees) started close to a dab but evolved; I've converted it to a set index article. Station1 (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Recently it seems like more and more editors object to the creation of articles in summary style, or decide that they want to turn summary style articles into dabs; for example, see what happened in June at Hockey stick or the current issues with Sheep dog. Dekimasuよ! 04:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Disambig

Some readers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/Archive 12#Introducing "The Daily Disambig". --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments requested on new Doug Baker (disambiguation)

I have just created Doug Baker (disambiguation) and added a hat note on Doug Baker and repointed a number of links. As this is my first venture into disambiguation, I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks!! YBG (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I made some guidelines-based changes, and also changed the links on the pages that were linked to it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought redlinks were not meant to be used on disam pages, (i think they should be), but thought i read somewhere about not using them. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

They are acceptable as long as the red link also appears in an article and the red-linked entry has a supporting blue link to an article where the topic is discussed, or at least mentioned. See WP:MOSDABRL.--ShelfSkewed Talk 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh i see, thanks for link. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just chipped in by generalising the dab page to include Douglasses as well as Dougs, finding a couple of new blokes to add. PamD (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to one and all for a marvelous bit of collaboration! What a great example of how WP can work! YBG (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages consisting of red links only?

Specifically Jungang-dong. I'm inclined to think that pages like this are not a good idea because they don't navigate anywhere, but I'm not sure where the guidelines stand on this sort of thing. PC78 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. {{db-disambig}} should be reworded to cover this sort of thing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Or where possible, blue links can be added. But IMO db-disambig should still be expanded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

confusable redirect

A few times, I've seen redirects which could be confusable, but there's no standard hatnote template to deal with them.

To take 000 emergency as a specific example: 000 (three zeros) redirects there, but could obviously be typographically confused with OOO (three ohs). Currently, this is often dealt with by (ab)using {{distinguish}} without mentioning the redirect, or using a custom {{dablink}}. I think a template combining {{redirect}} and {{distinguish}} is needed. Something like:

{{redirect-distinguish | X | Y }}:

"X" redirects here; it is not to be confused with Y

Does this already exist, but I've somehow missed it? Any comments on the idea? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea. Of course, you don't have to create a template for every possible hatnote - you can use {{dablink}} or even just write what it is you want to say - but if it's something that comes up oftenish, then sure, make a new template.--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the plethora of hatnote messages is already a little overwhelming, which is why {{dablink}} is always a good fallback option. older ≠ wiser 12:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

New type of disambiguation

I propose to allow disambiguations for search terms which may possibly redirect to multiple targets. For instance, there is no article on Wikipedia that could be rightfully called "Quartering of soldiers," so it does not fall under the current disambiguation guidelines. However, people naturally would try to search for it. It could possibly redirect to Third Amendment to the United States Constitution, Quartering Act, or a variety of other topics dealing with the forced housing of troops. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That kind of disambiguation is currently handled by the search functionality -- searching for "quartering of soldiers" turns up Third Amendment to the United States Constitution, Quartering Act, and a variety of other topics on the subject. Putting a page in between the user and those results to restate a version of those results may not be helpful, as the search results are kept accurate and current automatically. However, if you're set upon the course, IMO it would be a set index "article", not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Then could we expand the set index article guidelines? I don't think my example counts as "a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you couldn't write a short/stub article on the subject of Quartering of soldiers and have it link to the relevant pages. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to understand why this page would be better than the current search results you get from entering "quartering of soldiers" in the search box. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That icon looks familiar

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

What is wrong with this picture? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You used the wrong image with the dmbox template? Is this a problem out in the wild somewhere? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the right icon looks like a USB trident icon. Compare:

I was on USB (disambiguation), and I thought "That trident looks a bit off" before I realized it was the standard disambig icon. I had the bright idea to have different themed disambiguation icons for different subjects, much like stub types: USB-style for computer-related pages, a turn sign for highway-related pages, Poseidon's trident for river/lake pages, etc. Bad idea? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on redirects from names of fictional characters.

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Proposed rule for redirects from character names to disambig pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic, systemic bias?

Originally posted at the talk for wp:name, moving here. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today, an administrator-assisted move was undone at Consumer Watchdog, with the initial argument that wp:name shouldn't be used to further systemic bias. I believed the move to be uncontroversial: two organizations share the name "Consumer Watchdog" (one in the United States, the other in Botswana). The California-based group appears to be vastly more prevalent in common usage (67,400 hits) than the group based in Botswana (2,350). Google search result hits are not, at all, a scientific way to measure common usage, but I think they can help demonstrate relativity in many cases, and a nearly thirty to one ratio would seem to indicate one is arguably in common usage in the English language, while the other is clearly not. Since both articles have had only one primary editor, it seems like a move discussion would not be likely to bring in any diversity of opinions, so I'm hoping a discussion here could help clarify. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The WP:RM process is still the best way to reach consensus, even if each article has had few contributors so far. But no, disambiguation of titles and primary topic are not the subject of systemic bias, which deals with article content. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing that's certain is that Consumer watchdog (with a lowercase "w") should not redirect to Consumer watchdog (disambiguation). I've corrected this by moving the disambiguation page to the base title.

As noted by JHunterJ, the "systemic bias" argument is misplaced. Whether Consumer Watchdog (with an uppercase "W") should redirect to the disambiguation page depends on whether someone typing Consumer Watchdog (with an uppercase "W") intends to reach one of the three articles linked in the See also section. I regard this as unlikely (given the uppercase "W"), so I believe that Consumer Watchdog (USA) indeed belongs at Consumer Watchdog. The hatnote now links directly to Consumer Watchdog (Botswana) in addition to the disambiguation page, so there would be no added navigational steps for readers seeking Consumer Watchdog (Botswana). —David Levy 22:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify how we got in this position. Consumer Watchdog was originally the title of the article on the Botswanan organization with that name. This article existed for about two years. There was then an attempt first to speedy it, and then to AFD it, at the same time as creation of an article about the USA organization. The present situation was my attempt at a compromise, and is far from ideal.

A few months have passed, and the names have begun getting swapped around again[2], [3], which I have reverted since no consensus has been gained for the change. So I have no problem with having Consumer Watchdog plus a hatnote, without an intermediate dab. My objection, on the grounds of WP:CSB, is to the attempt at replacing the original, perfectly notable Botswanan article with the US article, on the grounds that that the US group is more notable than the Botswanan group. I believe that Consumer Watchdog (Botswana) belongs back at Consumer Watchdog, as it was before its attempted deletion. It should have a hatnote pointing to the article created two years later, Consumer Watchdog (USA). There would be then no added navigational steps for readers seeking the US group. MuffledThud (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The move is apparently controversial, so the WP:RM process should be followed to determine which articles should be titled what. It is possible, though, for that discussion to determine that the newer article is the primary topic, and should go to the base name. Order of article creation is not a criterion in determining primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As JHunterJ noted, the articles' ages have absolutely no bearing. If one of the two articles is a significantly more likely target, that article should go to the base title (thereby improving navigation for a majority of readers).

As an extreme example, suppose that someone by the name of "Paul Shenar" assassinates a head of state/government tomorrow. Would we create his article at Paul Shenar (assassin) and link to it via a hatnote at Paul Shenar? No, of course not. The assassin would instantly become the most notable Paul Shenar, so his article would reside at Paul Shenar, the current content of which would be moved to Paul Shenar (actor). —David Levy 23:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, but this analogy is hardly applicable here. If the USA article can be shown to be more notable throughout the English speaking world, then it should indeed be moved to Consumer Watchdog. Otherwise, the Botswanan article should have its name reverted, and a hatnote for the USA article added to it. MuffledThud (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

1. You've asserted that the article about the Botswanan organization should receive the base title because it was there first. This has no basis in policy.

2. User:J has cited overwhelming evidence that the U.S. organization is far more prominent. You've cited no evidence to the contrary. —David Levy 23:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I've asserted that if the USA article can be shown to be more notable throughout the English speaking world, then it should indeed be moved to Consumer Watchdog. Otherwise, the Botswanan article should have its name reverted, and a hatnote for the USA article added to it.

Let's take our time here and see if the evidence is overwhelming or not. If it is, then, again, I will be happy to support the USA article being moved as J proposed. MuffledThud (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "throughout the English speaking world"? Do you mean "among the world's speakers of English as a whole," or do you mean "in every part of the world where English predominates"? —David Levy 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Not sure what the difference is between those two. Basically, I'm trying to avoid a single-country-centric view of what's more notable. In India, Bollywood films are more notable than Hollywood films of the same name, and so on. MuffledThud (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll reword my question:

Are you going by the total number of English speakers on Earth (in all countries combined), or are saying that the U.S. organization must be more prominent in every part of the world where English predominates? —David Levy 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither: the primary topic, if one is possible here, should be the one which is notable in the largest number of English-speaking parts of the world, and in particular, should be more than marginally notable outside of the country in which it's based. I don't see evidence that either qualifies for this yet, but I'm open to persuasion. MuffledThud (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic is the one that's most used throughout the Wikipedia audience. Notability in general doesn't enter into it (if they aren't notable, they get deleted and so can't be primary topic). Notability in some cases (largest number of regions, largest number of foreign regions) also are not criteria. There is no preference for U.S.-based topics to be primary, nor is there any bias against U.S.-based topics to be primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And how is "most used" determined then? MuffledThud (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:J has cited numerous relevant statistics. —David Levy 02:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that answers the question, sorry. MuffledThud (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it doesn't answer the question. Likewise, I'm sorry. —David Levy 02:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

JHunterJ: How is "most used" determined, in the sense that you're meaning it here? MuffledThud (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

By consensus, separately for each ambiguous title. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists some metrics that may be useful for editors in reaching that consensus, and those metrics include Google hits among others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That has no basis in policy. Quoth Wikipedia:Naming conventions, "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more." It makes absolutely no difference whether those readers are in the United States, Botswana, Australia, Tuvalu, or anywhere else. —David Levy 02:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The latter will certainly have a large influence on the former. MuffledThud (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm saying that the interested readers' locations are irrelevant. —David Levy 02:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, David, how many countries have you lived in? MuffledThud (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That isn't germane to the discussion. Nonetheless, I'll answer the question, simply because the fact that I've resided in one country (the United States) brings me no sense of shame or doubt regarding my ability to objectively analyze the situation and apply Wikipedia's standards.

Before we proceed, I'll need you to explain where you're going with this line of questioning.

I also ask that you please supply the clarification requested above. To what "large influence" were you referring? (I honestly don't know what you meant.) —David Levy 02:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(←) In line with the above discussion, I have proposed the requested move at Talk:Consumer Watchdog (USA)#Requested move. Please consider adding your thoughts there, as well. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now also proposed the requested move at Talk:Consumer_Watchdog_(Botswana). Please review the evidence for notability for the whole of the English Wikipedia readership carefully, and add your views to the discussion. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC) (withdrawn in order to keep the discussion of both proposals in one place)

Primary topic of 2

It occurs to me in the above discussion (and not for the first time) that there is a point to be made about primary topic decisions in situations where there are only two topics involved (or two primary topic candidates and other less significant ones). If you make the more sought-after of the two the primary topic, and mention the other one in a hatnote (in addition to the reference to the dab page, if there are additional topics), then you don't actually inconvenience readers seeking that second topic (they make the same number of clicks to get there), while you do make things better for readers seeking the first topic (they get there straight off). Hence: clear net gain. (Of course you do inconvenience people seeking the other minor topics - they need an extra click - but that's the same as with any primary topic decision: we assume the total number seeking those topics is small compared with the number seeking the main one.)

Anyway, the conclusion is that in one-of-two situations like this, we should lean more towards making one of the topics the primary one, even if the evidence for its primariness isn't as overwhelming as would normally be required. Does this make sense? Should we say something along these lines in the guideline?--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the reason for disambiguation is to assist readers, yes and yes. Abtract (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It makes the systematic correction of mistaken links more difficult. In order to reap benefit from a primary topic, there should be some significant indications of actual primaryness. That is, while considered purely in terms of required clicks from the point of view of individual readers, setting a one of two topic to be primary would then inconvenience only approximately half of the readers; but because mistaken links are more likely go undetected (and unrepaired) than if the base term were a disambiguation page, these mistaken links would have a greater persistence, such that over time the mistaken links would obviate any benefit of arbitrarily designating one of the two topics as primary. The relative numbers involved would also need to be considered. For example, if both topics are relatively obscure and get very little traffic and have a small number of incoming links, it likely would make very little difference if one were primary and the other referenced by hatnote. But if both topics get more more than a few dozen hits per month and have have several dozens of incoming links, then the benefits of arbitrarily selecting one gets more iffy, IMO. older ≠ wiser 12:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

One point and one question: 1) Is there any evidence to support the idea that "these mistaken links would have a greater persistence"? 2) "setting a one of two topic to be primary would then inconvenience only approximately half of the readers" is surely untrue since the alternative to hatnoting is a dab page ... with hatnoting, half the readers need two clicks and half need only one ... with a dab page, all readers need two clicks ... therefore hatnoting actually inconveniences few readers, imho. Abtract (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

1)Anecdotally and by inference. Links to disambiguation pages are more evident (at least to those who pay attention to such things). For example, I have my CSS set up to highlight links to disambiguation pages; if the topic is not a disambiguation page, the link is not highlighted and it requires clicking on the link to discover that it is mistaken. Also, while updating/cleaning up disambiguation pages, I often check What links here. That also would not happen if the base name were not a disambiguation page. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by #2. What you describe seems to be the same as what I said (though I mangled the grammar a bit). older ≠ wiser 15:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I may well have mangled my reading ... so long as we are clear that, where ther are onl;y two items, using a dab page inconveniences at least twice as many readers as the select a primary and hatnote method then we are n agreement ... this is why I agreed with the original proposal. Your point is that the benefit of hatnoting, halving the number of readers inconvenienced, may be obviated by the persistence of mistaken links. You may be right but it seems to me that you are swapping a possible gain for a maximum of half the readers for a definite gain for at least half the readers ... no contest imho. Abtract (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to have concerns about the quality of disambiguation being done. In one page that I started looking at I'm seeing that greater then 50% of the links, including some that were just disambiguated, are wrong. And they are staying there since no one is cleaning them up. This happens when there is a similar usage. I don't think we are having problems like this when we have a city in foo vs a city in foobar. Maybe a tool to use a disambiguation page to dab links to another page could make it easier to repair these. But right now it is wrong to send readers to a page that will be incorrect for many of them. So I don't see redirects as proposed as the wise thing to do. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski didn't refer to a scenario in which one article is arbitrarily assigned the base name; he/she referred to a scenario in which "the evidence for its primariness isn't as overwhelming as would normally be required." I strongly agree and have argued exactly the same thing in the past.

In other words, if three or more common meanings exist, one should receive the base title only if it predominates by a large margin. If one meaning appears to be the most common by a smaller margin, its use doesn't outweigh that of the other two or more common meanings combined.

But if there are only two common meanings, the situation is different. If the evidence reasonably points toward one of two uses being significantly more common (even by a margin that would not be considered large enough in the previous scenario), it's far more helpful to our readers to assign its article the base name.

Yes, this makes the detection of incorrect incoming links more difficult, but the same is true to a much greater extent in situations such as this. A possible solution is to set up a system in which such articles are flagged and a bot reports incoming links as they're created.

There are, of course, scenarios in which a two-article disambiguation page is best. For example, see Park View High School. There simply is no reasonable standard under which we can deem one of those two subjects more prominent than the other (let alone in a manner that doesn't come across as favoritism), and there also would be a high likelihood of confusion if one of the two articles were to reside at the base title. —David Levy 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what David says is what I was trying to say. --Kotniski (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, I agree that a less than overwhelming standard is fine for two-subject disambiguation. But I guess my point is that quantifying that can be tricky. Is there a concrete proposal on the table? older ≠ wiser 17:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it makes sense to simply apply the same methodology used when comparing three or more common meanings, except with a lower threshold (predominance instead of overwhelming predominance). —David Levy 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, although the example was intended as an extreme, in a case like George Washington, while it is true that mistaken links might go undetected for some time, it is also very true in such a case that virtually no one would be surprised that an unmodified link to the name "George Washington" will take you to the U.S. president. In cases where the primary topic is less overwhelming, there is much more likely to be an element of surprise or confusion cause by mistaken links. older ≠ wiser 17:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's true, and it certainly is important to mitigate surprise and confusion via the use of well-written hatnotes.

My point pertained to the sheer quantity of "George Washington" articles. —David Levy 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Using alternate names as disambiguators?

In naming discussions, I've seen some people suggest titles where the big in parentheses is just an alternate name. For example:

Kumul (city): called Kumul in Uyghur and Hami in Mandarin, someone moved it to [[Kumul (Hami)]] (I later moved it to its current title).
Yue Chinese: there's a discussion going on over whether to call this Yue or Cantonese. Some people have suggested titles like [[Yue (Cantonese)]] and [[Cantonese (Yue)]].

Are titles like this appropriate? My opinion was that they weren't, since the thing in parentheses is not a disambiguator or a descriptor, it's just an alternate name—and thus it doesn't fit the more logical format (like "Kumul (city)" or "Yue (language)"). But I don't see anything explicit about this in WP:DAB. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines guide against using proper names as the disambiguator, so "city" is better than "Hami", and "language" is better than "Cantonese". It tucked over in WP:NCDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And the mammoth discussion regarding the title Football (soccer) clearly demonstrated overwhelming consensus against such a naming format, even among users for whom the alternative entailed removing the subject's familiar name from the title. —David Levy 16:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Navigation tool vs. Research guide

Why not turn the "See also" Section into the Research guide? There's a clear demand & need for it. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus for the demand for it. What is the need for it (what problem does it solve)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Best practise for assessing set index articles?

I'm wondering whether set index articles would be better assessed as List-Class or Disambig-Class? The guideline states that a set index article is "a list article" and "not a disambiguation page", but on the other hand set index templates such as {{surname}} are {{dmbox}} disambiguation templates. PC78 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

List-class. Set index articles are articles, not disambiguation pages. If the templates are causing confusion on that, the templates should be updated to minimize the confusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not just the templates. User:Pyrospirit/metadata (also a popular gadget) gives set index articles the colour of dab pages rather than lists. Perhaps an {{lmbox}} meta would be useful for set index templates and the likes of {{incomplete list}} and ({{expand list}} etc.? PC78 (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the gadget also needs to be updated, or the bits it relies on updated, or something -- I'm not familiar with it. Yes, a parallel meta sounds like a good idea, especially if it solves both problems. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial bit of confusion. Set index articles are in a neither here nor there status. They have been declared to not be disambiguation pages, and yet to most ordinary readers, such pages look very much like a disambiguation page and so far as links to such pages are frequently mistaken links, they are not truly articles. For the most part they are disambiguation pages that have been disowned by Disambiguation Wikiproject because they refuse to conform to the stringent specifications of disambiguation pages, and yet they continue to serve a disambiguation function for most other purposes. older ≠ wiser 02:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, where they disambiguate other articles, they should be disambiguation pages (or be split to disambiguation pages). But the projects that work on them (such as the ship indexers and the hurricane indexers) prefer both their differences from the disambiguation guidelines (not just the stringent ones, but the ones inherent to navigational-as-opposed-to-explorational pages) and their ambiguous titling. Those are other issues that could be usefully addressed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's the {{SIA}} template (and variants), which try to make it clear that the article is a list article, not a disambiguation article. It's unfortunate that some SIA templates are build on a poor choice of meta-template. —hike395 (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to an article section

How should a dab link look when redirecting to an article section? Specifically, at Second, I want to redirect to the chess term at Glossary_of_chess#Second. I've done this:

Glossary of chess (Second), an assistant to a chess player

... but I wonder if there is a better way. I can't find a guideline. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PIPING in MOSDAB. Create a redirect such as Second (chess) with the target being Glossary of chess#Second and tag it as {{R to section}}. Then use the redirect rather than the piped link on the disambiguation page (and I'm guessing you meant Second (disambiguation) rather than Second. older ≠ wiser 01:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(Yes Second (disambiguation) is what I meant). Thanks for the link to WP:PIPING. Though after reading it, I think what I've done (link to a section and use piping to hide the ugly "#") is also acceptable. (In particular the section beginning with this sentence seems to describe what to do: When a disambiguation page is linking to a specific section of an article, rather than an entire article, piping may be used for linking to that section via anchor points or section linking...). So I'll leave it as is. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That sentence is an indented sub-bullet under the bullet that begins When the link is in the description, rather than at the start of the entry, piping can be used more freely. The sentence you quoted is specific to links within the description of the entry rather than at the head. See the examples under Where redirecting may be appropriate, in particular the incorrect example which illustrates what you describe (a piped link to a section in the head of the entry). Also in the bullet that you refer to, if you examine the example mentioned from E (disambiguation), is that the piped ESRB ([[ESRB#Current | ESRB]]) is preferred to simply linking to the top of the target page ESRB, you'll see that that usage is in the description of the entry not in the head. older ≠ wiser 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see that now. Thanks. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Subject Headings

After reorganizing the subject headings on about 30 disambiguation pages (in some contexts, 30 samples is considered the minimum of a valid statistical sampling), these are my proposed standard subject headings on disambiguation pages. Depending on how many entries are present on the disambiguation page, the subject headings may be split or combined as noted. The rationale for the groupings of subjects has to do with subjects that have overlap (e.g. Science vs. Technology) and subjects that do not have overlap (People vs. Places), and the frequency of occurrence of the subject in Wikipedia. Note that the entries in the subject Organizations (groups of people) are separated from the subject that the organization has as their goal or purpose. However, individual people associated with a subject are in that subject (musicians, sports figures, fictional characters, etc.), and the People category is a catch-all for other people.

Proposed standard subject headings for disambiguation pages (in approximate order of descending frequency of usage):

Science, Technology, and Medicine, or break into
- Science and Technology
- Medicine and Biology
- Biology
- Aviation
- Mathematics
- Chemistry and Physics
- Chemistry
- Psychology
- Motion Picture, Video, and Audio production
Computers
Video Games (should this be Computer Games?)
Organizations, or break into types
- Organizations, Business
- Organizations, Education
- Organizations, Sports
- Organizations, Military/Government
- Organizations, Political
- Organizations, etc.
- Organizations, other
Transportation
Places
Television, Film, Music, and Comic Books, or break into
- Television, Film, and Music
- Television and Film
- Music
- Fiction and Entertainment
- Entertainment
Business
Sports
Publications
People, or break into
- People, non-fictional
- People, mythical and fictional
Books
Education
Military and Government, or break into
- Military
- Government
Religion
Games and Hobbies
Art and Culture
Food and Meals
Land Surveying
International relations
Languages
Other uses
See also

Work needed: Definitions/examples of the subjects.

Obankston (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the impression that standardizing the sections will do little to assist readers to the appropriate article. It might make dab page editors' lives easier, but that's not the goal. The "best" (IMHO) for a given topic "depends." It depends on how many entries might be included in various intelligible divisions of the links on the page, for example. The editor should attempt to spread the links out into roughly equal intelligible sections. That means flexibility. Codifying the sections might help a little by providing a familiar layout, but I don't think it will be useful enough to codify here. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all dab pages must use standard headings? IMO, suggested headings could be helpful, but often the content of a particular dab page doesn't fit standards. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I could perhaps see some use for suggesting a few basic headings to use, but there far too many variations to produce a standardized list -- and I fear it could foment disagreements about which standard mschema to use. Also, headings should capitalize only the first word unless it is a proper noun. older ≠ wiser 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that a standardised set of headings is useful - terms vary so much as to what they are used for. And in particular, the proposal "However, individual people associated with a subject are in that subject (musicians, sports figures, fictional characters, etc.), and the People category is a catch-all for other people." is a radical departure from existing practice, and I would not support it. PamD (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

External links

Shouldn't the "What not to include" section also mention that external links are always inappropriate on a disambiguation page? I occasionally notice that a page I've been despamming on my watchlist has actually had spam links on the disambiguation page that links to it, for months. --McGeddon (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB includes that prohibition. We could add it here too, if needed. There's a known outstanding issue that the two pages could use some clean up to make their roles clearer. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New look

Does anyone else find the new standard format for disambiguation pages both confusing and esthetically unappealing? The first line doesn't have a bullet and is in bold so that it stands out. To me it is forcing the reader to see one entry as the correct entry. It also is visually cluttered, the eye is drawn to the first entry because it is both in bold and is unbulleted. Why does one entry have to be given preference over the other. I am assuming it is because it has the same name as the disambiguation page, but no one goes to a disambiguation page directly, they come from the page called "John Smith" to get to the page called "John Smith (disambiguation)" if the person wasn't who they were looking for on the first page, so why emphasize the one you are not looking for? The question is: why is "John Smith" in bold and unbulleted? See: John Wingfield (disambiguation) for an example. Anyone know where this is discussed to try and change it? Anyone else find it esthetically unappealing and confusing? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New look?? AFAIK, dab pages have always been like this. In the example you mention, John Wingfield is bolded on the first line because it's the primary use of that term. That's not somethig new. PC78 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with PC78. Plus, the bolding thing applies to all pages, not just dab pages: the first reference of the title in the opening is bolded. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A little more explanation: When there is a primary target (an article at the dabbed term name), it is given special treatment for exactly the reasons you mention. Most people will not come to the dab page looking for that definition as they would have stopped at the original page. By keeping that entry different, it makes it easier (after one gets used to it) to scan immediately the other entries that are most likely of interest. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All of which is covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to a primary topic, which is "new" as of 9 May 2005 -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 1#Linking to the main article -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Red links on disambiguation pages

Is it good practice to include red links on disambiguation pages? I would think not, but found no guidance on this. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MOSDABRL for guidance. Red links with an appropriate blue link in the description are OK if the red link appears in the linked article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

CAIR primary topic

Resolved

– Wrong venue.

I would suggest that the primary topic for CAIR is the Council on American Islamic Relations. If someone agrees, could they effect that change? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You should initiate this discussion on Talk:CAIR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Tx. Will do.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Or better take it to WP:RM where the proposal really should be announced. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary links to disambiguation pages?

Quite often I come across articles which have a qualified title and a note at the top of the page linking to the disambiguation page of the unqualified name. If that didn't make any sense, an example is Indus River. At the top it says:

I've never really understood the rationale behind such links. If you're at "Indus River" then why would you be looking for any other meaning of Indus? Is there something I'm missing? 86.161.41.99 (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

If "Indus" redirects to Indus River, then this link is appropriate. If "Indus" doesn't redirect to Indus River, then the link should be removed as something that is not ambiguous. Hope this helps. Dekimasuよ! 04:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised actually -- apparently just at the moment you were changing it -- that I hadn't checked to see if Indus redirected there. I see you've fixed the wording to refelect that. I understand what you're saying... 86.161.41.99 (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(double e/c!) I was going to say pretty much the same thing, but in this case "Indus" redirects to Indus River. I've added the correct hatnote to that article. PC78 (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again, I didn't check the edit history and I just assumed it was Dekimasu who had changed it. I think we got there in the end though! 86.161.41.99 (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

The Indus (disambiguation) page doesn't seem to be correctly formatted to reflect that the river is the primary topic - no time to fix it just now but someone else might like to have a look.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 07:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

New

Please someone put the disambig page page New on your watchlist. 75.154.186.99 (talk · contribs) has a specific idea about what this page must be. - Altenmann >t 04:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the editor needs to discuss and seek consensus before making a change that drastic. Disam pages do have Talk pages, right? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You just beat me to it. Presumably Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches applies still? Until we have consensus to ignore it, of course. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Partial matches" section

Badly phrase example: For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi. Although I may guess what was the intention of the example I beg to disagree with its phrasing: It is quite feasible from the historical POV that the primary meaning for "Mississippi" is the river. I would suggest to either explain why it is "not feasibly" or provide a more self-evident example, such as Moscow and Moscow River (nobody knows Moscow River, but everybody knows Mississippi River). - Altenmann >t 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the text of the section, I'm not sure what the intended purpose is for including the phrase that you quoted; it just seems unnecessarily confusing when the sentence goes on to say that the Mississippi River SHOULD be included on the dab page anyway. I know that whether a term could plausibly be located at the disambiguated title is a common litmus test for whether it should be included at the dab page, but that idea isn't introduced anywhere else in the section so it just sort of comes out of nowhere in that phrase. I would suggest striking that phrase altogether and simply saying that the river should be included because it's commonly referred to as "the Mississippi." Propaniac (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall objecting to that very phrase in some earlier discussion for much the same reasons. older ≠ wiser 02:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Apotome

Apotome could use something... probably a rewrite. Its linked to from articles as though it wasn't a DAB, itsformat is nonstandard, and there's more than a hint of COI in the third definition.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I undid the two problem edits. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It still seemed a bit of a hybrid dab/non-dab: I've plumped for "non-dab" and made the 2nd bullet point into a hatnote. PamD (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Need help for Winny article

I need help to disambiguation of Winny, which actually Winny is also a name for female (Winny (name)). So, article Winny should be moved to (maybe) Winny (technology) or Winny (file sharing) or Winny (application) or Winny (software), and then article Winny can become the disambiguation page. Thanks in advance. Ivan Akira (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Or a hatnote should be added to Winny to direct readers searching for the feminine name. Which I've done. The existing article should remain where it is unless it is no longer the primary topic. You could propose a move of Winny to another name at Talk:Winny -- see WP:RM for details. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it's better now, I think there is no need to propose movement of article Winny right now. Thanks. Ivan Akira (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Question on specific articles

Hi; is it OK to have two different articles—one at Pine Hill, New Zealand and the other at Pinehill, New Zealand? They are spelled differently (two words vs. one), so is this enough to disambiguate the two articles? My intuitive sense was that it was not enough to disambiguate, but I've been told otherwise. Can anyone point me to a relevant guideline? I'm not clear on how this works. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's only two articles, we usually wouldn't disambiguate them anyway - just have a hatnote atop each noting the other. bd2412 T 22:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, see, what I mean is should the names be "disambiguated" to something more specific, like "Pine Hill, Auckland" and "Pinehill, Otago"? If not, why not? Is it only necessary if the names are absolutely identical? I'm using the word "disambiguate" wrong, no doubt, but what I'm wondering about is whether we care if the article names are identical apart from the fact that one is two words and the other is one word. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the difference in spelling/capitalization cited to reliable sources and used consistently in such sources? If so, then it may be enough to simply cross-reference via hatnotes. I'm not sure what the convention is for further disambiguation of place names in New Zealand. In most other countries, additional disambiguation is achieved by use of a second level administrative unit. older ≠ wiser 23:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the difference is consistently used. I'm not so concerned about what the actual NZ convention would be for further dab, just whether the difference in spelling is enough of a difference to leave it at that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the guideline you're looking for is WP:PRECISION - make an article title as precise as necessary but not more precise. If that could confuse readers use a dab technique such as a hatnotes (for only two articles). In this case, the titles are not identical, so they can both exist concurrently. The current hatnotes look good enough to get people where they want to go. Station1 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I thought there had to be something like WP:PRECISION out there, but I didn't know where to look. Thanks, and sorry for the confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Dab pages disambiguate existing Wikipedia articles

I concur with this edit (since reverted). The comment on reverting, "In my experience it is standard practise to include relevant redlinks in disambiguation pages", does not contradict the inclusion of "existing" -- the standard practice of including red links with blue links to existing Wikipedia articles in the description meets the note that "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." Disambiguation is never required for red links, no more than a red link might possibly be the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] There is a notion floating around that "we only disambiguate against existing articles".[4], and an attempt was just made to insert that notion into this guideline.[5] This is disagree with, as I believe it is standard practise across Wikipedia to include relevant redlinks in disambiguation articles; and MOS:DABRL clearly leaves room for the inclusion of redlinks.

This guideline, as currently worded, says that disambiguation is required "when a single term can be associated with more than one topic". There is no suggestion that articles on the disambiguated topics must exist. However there is also no explicit statement to the contrary. Since there are differing views on this point, it needs to be clarified. We're already through the bold-revert part of the bold-revert-discuss cycle, so please let's discuss it here before updating the guideline. Hesperian 03:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[reply to JHunterJ] I read the proposed sentence differently; and so, I think, will many others. Would you care to propose a rewording that makes it clear that it is acceptable, and may be appropriate, to create disambiguation pages like this?:

XXX may refer to
* XXX (1); see 1
* XXX (2); see 2
* XXX (3); see 3

Hesperian 03:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming 1, 2, and 3 are appropriate blue links (i.e., links to existing Wikipedia articles that talk about XXX):

XXX may refer to:
* XXX (1), an XXX of type 1
* XXX (2), an XXX of type 2
* XXX (3), an XXX of type 3

link to existing Wikipedia articles. We could add a parenthetical "(either as the main link or as a link in the description)" or something. Could you propose a rewording that still makes it clear that it is not acceptable and is not appropriate to create:

XXX may refer to:
* XXX (1), an XXX of type 1
* XXX (2), an XXX of type 2
* XXX (3), an XXX of type 3

since sometimes editors will claim that those non-existent articles are still articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems to me to be a reasonable disambiguation page that does not conform with the manual of style on disambiguation pages. I agree that it should be fixed by adding a blue link to each line. Do you really hold that "it is not acceptable and is not appropriate to create" it? Hesperian 03:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It can be fixed two ways: adding a blue link to each line (if such a blue link can be found), or by deleting it. Not every red link has an appropriate blue link (which is why they are deleted), and not every dab page with red links needs to exist. So, yes, I really hold that it is not acceptable to create a Wikipedia disambiguation page that does not disambiguate Wikipedia articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we disagree. Let us see what others have to say. Hesperian 04:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I didn't even notice this section before I wrote the section below! (slapping my forehead). My thoughts are below.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original sense as primary topic

We're discussing at Talk:Role-playing game what sense of the word, if any, should be the primary topic. It's been noted that the primary topic for the article name Goth refers to the tribe rather than the modern subculture, even though nowadays it may be the subculture that is more often meant by the word. Is this a generally-applied rule, where in cases that don't have an immediately obvious primary topic in terms of usage, the original sense of the word is considered to be the primary one? If so, should the page be updated? Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that's a generally applied rule. If there's no primary topic in terms of usage, the dab page should be at the base name. No one appears to have proposed a new arrangement for "Goth" and its disambiguation page, so it may be that the primary topic for "Goth" is still the tribe. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, see you already beat me to it (@ Percy). Oh well, it seems like a logical default, which is why I raised the question, but apparently isn't a Wiki policy (at least not yet?). Will read up more on DAB reasonings. --Alkah3st (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, you should determine the primary topic by seeing how reliable sources use the term. Goth subculture becomes the primary topic for "Goth" when, and only when, the vast majority of uses of the word "Goth" in reliable sources are in reference to the subculture rather than the tribe. "Original sense" only comes into it inasmuch as the original sense has a headstart of a few centuries, and so will be quite a challenge to overturn. Hesperian 01:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case. The primary topic is the the topic that more readers use the ambiguous term for, not the topic that more reliable sources use the term for. Internal links and Wikipedia article traffic stats can help editors determine that, even though the first two don't meet WP:RS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck figuring out what "more readers use the ambiguous term for". There's ain't no reliable sources for that. Even the Google test measures usage by writers not readers. Hesperian 01:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There are suggested tools for it, not just luck. But I won't refuse luck if it's available. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of balance and consensus. There are topics where a preponderance of hits might be for a particular topic, but for which there is still no consensus that it is a primary topic. How terms are used in reliable sources is as much a factor worth considering as hit counts. Over-valuing hit counts can contribute to a form of systemic bias. older ≠ wiser 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Recognizing a primary topic that best serves the readership isn't a form of bias, even if the readership skews systemically. Yes, the articles should avoid systemic bias, and the topics covered should avoid systemic bias, but if one topic is used much more often by the Wikipedia readership (a systemically-biased skewed sample of the world population), then that's the primary topic, and the others can be reached through hatnotes or disambiguation pages. Hit counts are valued, but not over-valued, and I agree that the hit counts themselves only inform consensus; they don't dictate consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your point of view, JHunterJ, I don't agree with it. Wikipedia is not just intended for today's readership, but as a long-term resource. Future readers (including those alive right now who just haven't been using Wikipedia up to now) may not have the same interests or prejudices as today's. To put it bluntly, Wikipedia as a serious reference work would look stupid if Goth were an article about a late 20-century cultural aberration rather than about the historical ethnic/tribal group. I wouldn't care if 99.9% of the people who go to that title today were looking for information about high school kids wearing black. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And I appreciate that view too, but I like to believe that future Wikipedians can care for future Wikipedia, while present Wikipedians make present Wikipedia as useful as possible for present readers. Present Wikipedians have found that the primary meaning of "Goth" is the Germanic tribe and not the modern subculture, so you and I are not at odds over this instance. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to help keep navel-gazing page-view statistics in perspective is that Wikipedia's mission is to build an encyclopedia -- one where the content is freely reusable. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, is more than just a website and organizing articles based solely on web statistics can be misleading if that is all that is taken into consideration. The ultimate determining factor about primary topic is consensus based on intelligent discussion of all factors, not only page-view statistics or google hits. older ≠ wiser 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Add "existing" to language

I suggest we tweak the intro to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate to avoid the unfortunately common occurrence of users creating DAB pages solely for for nothing but red links, or for one red-linked and one blue-linked topic. Suggested change to language below in bold italics:

"Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that appears on hitting "Go" to any of the other possible desired articles."

I believe this is what the current language means but does not say explicitly enough. We already state at WP:MOSDAB: "A disambiguation page should not be made up completely of red links or have only one blue link on the entire page, because the basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to other Wikipedia pages."

I made the change and Hesperian reverted stating in pertinent part "In my experience it is standard practise to include relevant redlinks in disambiguation pages." I agree that we do sometimes includes red links to articles that clearly should be created and I don't mind that practice so long the red link clearly should have an article. However, the intent of the edit is not the stop that practice at all, and the suggested change doesn't prevent it if followed, nor does it it even speak to the issue. The section is about our three methods for disambiguation when disambiguation is required to avoid confusion between existing titles—its title is "Deciding to disambiguate" and nonexistent articles should be no part of that decision process. The section doesn't speak to whether red links can or cannot be added to a DAB page that we decided to create based on possible confusion between the titles of existing articles—that's what the section speaks to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this. Suppose I wanted to create an article about Dry Island, Australia. Dry Island is a redlink, so I am entitled to put my article there. Nonetheless in the course of my research I have discovered that there are places called "Dry Island" in Scotland, Canada and New York; and that the Australian "Dry Island" appears to be the least notable of them. Common sense tells me that I should capture that information by creating a disambiguation page at Dry Island and putting my island article at Dry Island (Australia). Your proposal would forbid this course of action. Hesperian 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My common sense tells me you would be making a list, not a disambiguation page. The first Wikipedia article created at Dry Island is indeed the most notable Wikipedia article about "Dry Island". If and when one of the other articles get created, the articles and disambiguation pages can be arranged as needed to accommodate them. Future Wikipedia will have future Wikipedia editors to take care of it -- there's no need to have future Wikipedia screwing up present Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a list; to be precise, a list of the meanings of an ambiguous term. I don't care what is "the most notable Wikipedia article". I'm talking about the most notable topic. If people are searching for "Dry Island" and being taken to the wrong place, possibly without knowing it is the wrong place, that is a problem. It is easily solved. Why should I have to wait for future editors to create future articles before I am allowed to go ahead and solve a problem I see now? Hesperian 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, it would forbid that course of action, should, and that is what WP:MOSDAB already states as quoted above. The point of disambiguation is to avoid confusion between article titles, and there's no confusion on Wikipedia until a new page is created with a title that conflicting. All our naming conventions for article titles and how we address disambiguation is geared toward present titles. We create all articles at "primary topic names" until a new page comes along that is far more common. We never properly create topic X (disambiguator) unless and until another article exists. We don't talk about what is the primary topic until that topic announces itself by its creation. And we don't create disambiguation pages to gird against nonexistent titles. There is nothing new about any of this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, agree with JHJ and Fuhgettaboutit. In Hesperian's example, if xe were to write about the Australian locale first, then it would be at Dry Island with no parenthetical disambiguator. Only when other Dry Islands (in practice, at least 2 others) were written about would we need a disambiguation page. And if none of them were written about, then Dry Island (disambiguation) would be quite pointless and ought to be deleted if created, because it would assist nobody in navigation. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would assist anybody who stands to be misled when they search for "Dry Island" and are immediately presented with an article on the Dry Island, as though there is only one of them.

I'm still opposed. You guys are about making Wikipedia less informative for your own maintenance convenience. Hesperian 05:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We are about making Wikipedia give more navigational aid to readers looking for one of the ambiguous Wikipedia articles. Articles are for informing readers; disambiguation pages are for directing readers to those informative articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"disambiguation pages are for directing readers to those informative articles"; indeed. And within the scope of that ought to be telling the reader, "hey, this term could mean four things, but we only have an article on one of them." Hesperian 12:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Those informative articles" and "red links to non-informative non-articles with no blue links to appropriately informative articles" are exclusive sets. WP:AFC is not WP:D. But the solution is simple enough: add the information to an article, making it informative, and then use that blue link in the entry on the dab. Serves the purpose of informing the reader and serves the purpose of keeping all the cruft off of dab pages (the cruft being things that editors can't be bothered to add to articles or can't get consensus to keep on articles). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I can make it compliant:

Next. Josh Parris 10:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, by my understanding that's only compliant if each of those redlinks has a link to it from the bluelinked article - ie there's somewhere to go in Wikipedia to get some information on the topic. Otherwise those 4 lines would be removed in a dab cleanup. PamD (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding too. Josh Parris 11:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And the better solution for the "Dry Island" enthusiast would be to create a basic stub for each of the other locations - you found the info while researching your favourite island, so share it with the world by making a well-formed, referenced, stub to tell us where each one is, linking to the appropriate higher-level location articles and perhaps including coords to be really helpful. Sort out the naming including any decision on primary topic, create a dab page, and carry on working on your island of choice. Job done. Have a "See also" to Dry Island Buffalo Jump Provincial Park, though unfortunately the wonderful folk-rock band from St Andrews of the same name looks as if it might not be notable. (Even though its song, lyrics on the website, includes references to Hosea, Boethius, Fannie Mae and Heraclitus - well, the band members are all academics!). PamD (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was planning on suggesting this. The problem (in general, not in this instance) is that a lot of dab options, when described as an article of the kind a typical disambiguator (me) would create when flailing around trying to make a valid article would have an interesting time surviving CSD. Dictdefs they often turn out to be. Josh Parris 11:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Christ almighty; listen to yourselves! Creating a disambiguation page for an ambiguous topic is a quick, simple, common-sense thing to do that contributes information and therefore improves the encyclopedia; something I can do as a quick aside to the article I'm actually focused on. You guys would ban it because it doesn't fit with some idealistic vision of what a disambiguation page ought to be.

Nah, I'm not gonna play this game. This is precisely the situation that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was written for. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Hesperian 11:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But consensus is not with you that cluttering up disambiguation pages with red links to things that aren't ambiguous on Wikipedia (which then makes the actually-ambiguous entries harder to find) improves Wikipedia. The common-sense thing to do is still to disambiguate Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, IAR would be applicable where "existing" was included in the policy page and you found a situation where it shouldn't be followed. A good example is the plant wikiproject issue, where I conceded in response to your post that the DAB pages for species name classes do present an unusual exception to the normal harm of creating an all red-linked DAB pages since no article would ever normally be linked or created at those particular DAB titles. This is a rare exception. The vast majority of DAB pages created for all red-linked topics are actively harmful. As I stated there, red links invite people to create an article. Creating a DAB page with all red links is deceptive in that it fools readers into thinking there's an entry where none exists, thus lowering the likelihood of an article being created. Say link X is linked in 25 articles and is a dab page with all red links. It may only be clicked on once in a blue moon, and that is the only way a person coming across the link will learn there is actually no article at the title. If those 25 links are all red, every person who reads the article (and who knows what a red link means or course) will be immediately informed that the subject does not yet have an article. The difference is grave. This harm is the norm. The policy should state the general rule (already followed uncontroversially everyday by loads of users) that avoids the harm, and ignore it when presented with a sui generis reason to depart from it. We can only ignore what's already stated. We don't "ignore" stating the rule that should govern in almost all situation because there are rare exceptions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A non-MOSDAB-wonk's perspective on redlinks

I am concerned that the perspectives of ordinary users, and of many veteran editors such as myself, do not get taken into account in MOSDABRL, because few have the inclination to join a self-selecting conversation that tends towards promoting conformity. Real issues of the Wikipedia's usability and useful content may not get their full due of consideration.

Over and over again, I've seen the following sequence play out:

A dab page lists a redlink for a notable topic, e.g. a name or place that an ordinary reader might encounter and turn to Wikipedia looking for encyclopedic treatment, but which is not necessarily yet mentioned in the encyclopedia.
An editor with a strict focus on MOSDAB removes the redlink.
One of two things happens: (A) the redlink stays gone, and the possibility of its referent as a potential topic in the Wikipedia is rendered invisible; (B) someone is spurred (often out of patent frustration with the removal of this signpost & quick identification of something important) to create a stub or even a full article on the topic.

Now, we can all agree that 3B is a boon to Wikipedia, and I'm happy to see any spur to the creation of good articles. (I have been spurred to make an article as substantial as Sophonias (commentator) just to prove a point to a MOSDAB enforcer.) The problem is that, when the industry is lacking to create those stubs or articles, the encyclopedia's information and content is diminished. As I just wrote in a related discussion with JHunterJ, it is quite possible "that the disambiguation page had 90% of its current utility for ordinary users while the links were still red," and this is true even if they remain red for months. In other words, the difference between 3A and 3B materially affects the usability of Wikipedia, but it depends on a capricious and arbitrary factor.

My expertise is in Classical antiquity. Wikipedia is starting to have good coverage of many authors, historical figures, etc., but there are many other notable ones - whose names and careers students and general readers out there will come across in their reading - who are not yet mentioned. Remember that disambiguation pages exist to resolve confusion. If I see a long list of people named X, including ancient philosophers, grammarians, and politicians, and I have just read of an ancient philosopher named X who is not on the list, I may well leave the deficient disambiguation page in the false belief that the X I've read about - since he's obviously notable and deserving of treatment or mention - is to be identified with some unrelated X who also happens to be a philosopher but may have lived 300 years previously in a different part of the Greek-speaking world.

I've seen other expert editors get so frustrated with the removal of notable items that they are experimenting with other formats (lists, prosopography articles) to accomplish what the dab page would have done perfectly well without these rules.

Red links, as Fuhgettaboutit says, are invitations to create articles. If the topic is not yet mentioned in Wikipedia, the only place for that placeholder and invitation to stand may be a disambiguation page. Removing it harms the encyclopedia because there is no invitation.

My suggestion is that MOSDABRL clearly state (1) redlinks to notable subjects that deserve encyclopedic coverage may stand, (2) mentions of additional items that form part of the expert knowledge on a subject (say, minor historical figures who are nonetheless mentioned in a wide variety of sources) can stand as non-redlinked items. (I realize #2 is more ambitious: I hope #1 will receive some serious consideration on its own merits.) Yes, I realize the MOSDAB enforcers' job gets harder if there is not a mechanical test ("What links here") for the appropriateness of a redlink - this would be replaced by the test of notability. But at least it would end the unseemly occurrence where expert editors - whether botanists, historians, or whatever - have tried to use dab pages to indicate which articles should exist on a name, but find their work undone.

To accomplish my suggestion #1, the text could be added "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. Redlinks to articles likely to be written, or on sufficiently notable topics, should be retained." And other parts of MOSDABRL that conflict with this sound principle could be scrapped, or at least made to sound less binding. As long as the rule "Dab pages exist only to disambiguate existing articles" is enforced, useful content will keep being lost from Wikipedia. Wareh (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Another stimulus to discussion I'd like to throw out is this hypothesis: If the ordinary users and expert editors who don't follow MOS discussions were polled on the usefulness of redlinks to notable topics in dab pages, they would overwhelmingly disagree with MOSDABRL and call them useful. Maybe not easily falsifiable, but you have to admit it's plausible. Wareh (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the solution is simple enough: add the information to an article, making it informative, and then use that blue link in the entry on the dab. Serves the purpose of informing the reader and serves the purpose of keeping all the cruft off of dab pages (the cruft being things that editors can't be bothered to add to articles or can't get consensus to keep on articles). Presence in other articles is an excellent test of "notable subjects that deserve encyclopedic coverage". Notability is used a test for inclusion in an article; inclusion in an article is the test for inclusion in the disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages navigate readers between ambiguous Wikipedia articles; where the articles are not ambiguous, there is nothing to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Presence in other articles is not an excellent or sufficient test of notability. I have contributed any number of articles on notable ancient persons (including Sophonias (commentator), which I mentioned as a redlink I failed to defend) who were not mentioned in other articles; none of these has ever had its notability questioned. There is not always obviously "an article" in which mention is appropriate, and the point is to figure out what to do when the topic is notable & not elsewhere mentioned. Yes, again, it does require MOSDAB enforcers to distinguish between "cruft" and truly notable topics. This is why I harped on how often "expert editors" conflict with MOSDAB enforcers: not to be smug about anyone's expertise, but to point out the cases where it is obvious that a good-faith & experienced editor with scholarly credentials is vouching for the notability, and the redlink still gets removed by the MOSDAB enforcers. As to the last sentence of what JHunterJ says, that is a definition of disambiguation pages I hope will change, in the interest of the encyclopedia's quality and usability. Wareh (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That last part is the part I don't understand. "disambiguation" means "removal of ambiguity". You can't remove ambiguity where none exists -- if this guideline drops that identity, it should just be deleted and the existing disambiguation pages should become list articles instead, since they will have fresh content of their own (and will need citations from reliable sources for the inclusion of bits that aren't included in other articles). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get "the first part." I presume none of the articles that currently link to Sophonias (commentator) existed when the link was first created on the DAB page. I don't see why one of them could not have been created first, then the dab link added. Or that the list of commentators be included in the Aristotle article. I guess I disagree with Wareh's first sentence: presence in other articles IS an excellent or sufficient test of notability. If a particular topic cannot be referenced even tangentially from another article, I don't see how it could be notable. There should be a bluelinked somewhere-to-go to get the reader into more than a single, unreferenced phrase about the subject.

And how would those of use who focus on dab pages assess whether another editor has "the credentials" to merit the placing of this kind of red link? The appropriate solution would be references on the dab page? (John User:Jwy talk) 17:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am generally prejudiced against any Wikipedia philosophy that calls for leaving things that are messy, useless or otherwise inadequate in place in the hopes that someday, someone will come along and turn it into something worthwhile. All my experience indicates that there are a lot more people on Wikipedia making messes than cleaning them up. As someone who voluntarily chooses to spend my time trying to improve this project's navigability via dab pages (as most of us here do), I am unenthused about being called to spend my time researching every single redlink added by some flyby IP, in order to make a call about whether there could possibly potentially be an article on the subject, in which case I'm supposed to leave the redlink cluttering up the page, making it harder to identify the actually useful links, and meanwhile serving no purpose to any user (since Wikipedia has no information to offer about the redlinked topic) except for that one mythical figure who will someday come along, see the redlink, and decide to hunker down and create an informative, well-supported article on the topic, which he otherwise would have had no intention of doing. Propaniac (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize I probably can't change minds here. I personally understand the procedure for keeping useful redlinks to notable articles from being destroyed. But that doesn't exactly help me repair the damage anywhere outside of my watchlist. I've done my best to explain the disambiguating utility of such a redlink - it is for someone who encounters a mention of (or hears about in a lecture, half-remembers from school or reading, etc.) an encyclopedically notable figure in their reading outside Wikipedia and wishes to know whether this "Callistratus," or "Ptolemy," or whoever, is Ptolemy-el-Garib, Callistratus (grammarian), or rather some other notable fellow whose article hasn't been written yet. I get the feeling that because this is not the officially ordained function of disambiguation pages, there is a blind spot to the fact that disambiguation pages do, in fact, serve this useful function (related to Wikipedia's core mission) every day, for countless users. Wareh (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone denies that such situations can occur, but to Propaniac's point, the converse seems to occur far more often. As you say, there is often a way to present one of your good redlinks (that is, associate it with an appropriate bluelink) in a way that will endure until somebody wanders along and creates a stub. Meanwhile the proposed change helps to avoid all sorts of non-notable cruft accumulating and obscuring the good, and even the potentially good, destinations. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec - confirming to some extent AH) For what its worth, I do understand the issue Wareh is trying to address. The difficulty is finding a way to do it that doesn't lead to "mess" as Propaniac calls it. Maybe there is a way to provide guidance that captures what you now understand will address these cases, including a decent descriptions of what "these cases" are. I'll spend some time thinking about it. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 21:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for saying you will give it some thought. I recognize that my forte is creating content, not figuring out rules to avoid "mess." I'm sure everyone understands that ultimately quality content is the goal, even if some mess happens along the way. Ptolemy-el-Garib, by the way, is a pretty good example of an article I created on a notable (but somewhat obscure) figure where there wasn't any obvious place to plant a redlink in an article (if I had wanted to support his inclusion in a dab page, rather than drafting the article). I mean, I could have created List of Hellenistic pinacographers with one item and an expand tag, but that would have been odd. And I created that article because I was encountering references to him and couldn't find information on Wikipedia (or readily anywhere else). This is exactly the situation where I'd want the (hypothetical) redlink to survive if possible. Just to clarify: if it looks like cruft, it probably is cruft, and it should be deleted. But if it says "Ptolemy-el-Garib, Hellenistic pinacographer and source for Aristotle's biography," well, that doesn't look like cruft, so that's when I can't understand the MOSDAB-tidiers removing the links. Thanks again for the friendly responses. Wareh (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The goals are quality content and accessibility of content. Quality content that can't be easily accessed is still a problem. So content creation is good and cleaning up the messes that happen along the way is good. But the editors creating content (and possibly making incidental messes) shouldn't take exception to the editors cleaning up the messes. Content goes in articles (including lists, some of which are rife with red links that can spur content creators on to new work); navigational pages (redirects and disambiguation pages) provide easy access to that content, but don't have content themselves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure I'm not misunderstood: I agree 100% that the content & organization are both absolutely important goals, and (while I might take exception to where the line is sometimes drawn between mess and useful content: it's important not to prize visual neatness too much) I do not take exception to editors cleaning up messes! By confessing that my forte lay more with one than the other, I was trying to say, "Learn what you can from a content-creator who sees how sometimes tidying work jeopardizes content." I, in turn, will do my best to appreciate from interactions with MOSDAB enthusiasts how content work sometimes jeopardizes organization. I hope what's useful in my perspective can stay in your thoughts, even if I was originally attracted to this page because of a clash we had over an edit. "Disambiguation pages add no content to the encyclopedia" may be theoretically or ideally true, but I've tried to explain how practical concerns need to put that principle in a truer perspective. Wareh (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the truer perspective? -- I though I was putting those practical concerns into truer perspective by summing up the difference between articles (content) and disambiguation pages (navigation). Recognizing those differences does not diminish editors' ability to add useful content to appropriate places. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

All I mean by a truer perspective is one that includes as many legitimate encyclopedia editor, user, & maintainer perspectives as possible. I've done all I can do to make clear I only consider myself to have a piece of the truth & that I'm ready to learn from others. If it helps, perhaps you can see that what I call the "content" of a dab page is also "navigation" in the sense that it correctly and clearly navigates a user to a dead end. Wareh (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Navigation from a disambiguation page to a dead end (I'm assuming that means no article) would be an incorrect navigation. Navigation to a live article with dead ends of its own would be correct and clear. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, what you're saying means you think a user in search of a truly notable subject is better served by no mention of it whatsoever than by a redlink confirming that it exists & is to be distinguished from other topics with confusingly similar names. I can only hope others who work on MOSDAB will question that idea. Wareh (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. If the user is in search of a truly notable subject, he is best served by correctly adding that content to an article (where citations are used to verify its true notability if needed) rather than incorrectly adding it to a disambiguation (where instead blue links are used to verify its true ambiguity). This is not a technical-for-technicality's-sake distinction -- this is a technical-for-the-benefit-of-Wikipedia distinction. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to stop here. I agree with JHunterJ that a user is "best served" by an article. However, she is better served by a redlink than by nothing. "Incorrectly" is only the case because MOSDAB defines it is incorrect; my whole point is that MOSDAB should be changed. By the way, while we've been having this fruitless exchange, I've provided the encyclopedia with the new article Physiognomonics, which originally came to my attention as a redlink and a problematic disambiguation with physiognomy. For what it's worth. Wareh (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have been fruitless, if we have agreed on how to best serve the reader. "Incorrectly" is only the case because consensus has determined it to be so, and WP:MOSDAB reflects that consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as the encyclopedia is a work-in-progress, rather than a permanently finished achievement, it will not be enough to agree on what is best. We will also need to seek agreement on what is better when what is best remains unavailable. We never did disagree about the ideal, so I'm afraid I can't regard the fact that we still agree about it as progress. Wareh (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. The works should progress from good to better to best like this:

Red links incorrectly added to disambiguation page
Incorrect red links fixed on disambiguation page by finding blue links for them (dab project members are good at this)
Remaining incorrect red links fixed on disambiguation page by deleting them (this too). In good faith we suppose that they might be notable, but as yet they aren't verifiable.
Editor who knows something about the notability correctly adds the information to an article (this is the hardest part, and one the the dab project member who cleaned the dab page will be unlikely to have the knowledge for)
Blue link correctly added to the disambiguation page

-- JHunterJ (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

...except that you have stated that it is inappropriate to create a disambiguation page at step 1, and that this guideline ought to ban it. Hesperian 23:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct. If there are no correct links on a dab page, the sequence becomes:

Disambiguation page incorrectly created where no ambiguity exists in Wikipedia
Disambiguation page deleted until ambiguity arises
Ambiguity arises when knowledgeable editor adds content about two topic referred to by the same name, to a second article (or more)
Disambiguation page correctly created

or

Disambiguation page correctly created where ambiguity has arisen, but with incorrectly formatted (none of the entries have blue links)
Incorrect red links fixed on disambiguation page by finding blue links for them (dab project members are good at this)

-- JHunterJ (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The flaw in the sequence, in my judgment, lies in the complacency of the admission that "they might be notable." Note, in fact, it is wrong to say "as yet they aren't verifiable," just that they're not verified. Ultimately, with dab pages, it's the same question of how much unsupported & unverified stuff to tolerate as the encyclopedia progresses that occurs in articles. In articles, if our style of enforcement of WP:V was as severe as the MOSDAB enforcement, we would delete half of Wikipedia tomorrow and provide edit summaries stating "please don't repost this content until it's footnoted." Step #3 has the nasty side effect of making step #4 less likely to take place. Wareh (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Then it is a good thing that the guidelines for article content (WP:V) are properly different than the guidelines for navigational non-articles (WP:D and WP:R). Since ultimately the navigational pages are for navigating the encyclopedia, it's a different question than the questions that face the content pages. I have not observed the nasty side effect you mention, but have noticed the nasty side effect of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information when editors load dab pages with entries that don't link to articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The repeated claim that "ultimately the navigational pages are for navigating the encyclopedia" is begging the question. If disambiguation page are solely "navigational pages for navigating the encyclopedia", then your argument stands. However, whether or not disambiguation pages are solely "navigational pages for navigating the encyclopedia" is essentially what is under discussion here, so it is not appropriate to work from that premise. There are two of us here who believe that most readers and most editors alike consider disambiguation pages as rightly providing an informational function over and above navigation. Hesperian 14:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Navigation is the primary goal of the dab pages, I think you will agree? The problem with increasing the amount of "target" information on the page is that it reduces the effectiveness of the page for navigation. It is difficult to do both efficiently on the same page, especially when in MOST cases, there is an article available that will provide the information desired. If we decide to allow more "target" information on the dab page, where would you draw the line in a way that editors will be able to manage the pages effectively? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, the answer to the question you claim I'm "begging" is in the intro to WP:D: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles". So far it appeared that the questions were asked about the current guidelines (by editors who claimed to be ready to learn), so explaining what the current guidelines say isn't begging the question. If this is instead a proposal to change the guidelines to suit a new purpose:

There was a problem in the encyclopedia when the naming conventions would yield articles are different topics but with the same name. The solution to this problem was the creation of disambiguation pages to help readers navigate to the page they sought.[6] If the two of us here who would like to start adding content to these navigational pages gain consensus for that change and turn disambiguation pages into articles (pages with encyclopedia information), this problem remains: if there are ambiguous articles, readers seeking one of them need a way to reach it expeditiously.
There already exists a separate solution for providing the informational function you mention: "Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable. ... However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." (from Wikipedia:Red link, emphasis added). So, to provide the information, you could edit the text of an article, add the red link (or information without a link), and then add the red link entry (or no link entry) to the disambiguation page and put the blue link to the article in the description of that entry. This helps readers by giving them the information in an appropriate place (the relevant article) and keeps the disambiguation pages from becoming indiscriminate lists.
If the consensus forms to allow the addition of red links (without blue links) to disambiguation pages, what is the accompanying proposal for keeping them from becoming indiscriminate lists? I suppose we would then need to allow citations on disambiguation pages for entries with no article to justify their existence. Again, it appears to be simpler to add the information to a relevant article, and it gets the benefit of putting cited information in front of the readers of that article, rather than on a disambiguation page.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet, while you "explain what the current guidelines say" and accuse me of trying to change them, there remains the minor problem that, which I raised with my very first post here, that the current guideline is extremely wishy-washy on this point. The nutshell "When an article title could refer to several things, it is necessary to provide links or a disambiguation page...." appears to be consistent with allowing redlinks in disambiguation pages. The first sentence "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" appears to be consistency with allowing redlinks in disambiguation page. The sentence "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term" appears to be consistent with allowing redlinks in disambiguation pages. On the other hand, there is little to nothing here that reads as discouraging redlinks in disambiguation pages. Frankly, I think this guideline studiously avoids saying anything explicit on this topic. You haven't been explaining what the current guidelines say; you've been explaining the personal opinion of JHunterJ. Hesperian 00:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"When an article title could refer to several things, it is necessary to provide links or a disambiguation page...." appears to be consistent with requiring blue links (links to articles) in disambiguation pages. "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" appears to be consistent with requiring blue links (lins to articles) on disambiguation pages. The sentence "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term" appears to be neutral on the subject of red links, although if it's confusing or seems to be contradictory to the others, we could replace "topic" with "articles" there for consistency. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If, as you say, "article links are blue",[7], why do you endorse this? Hesperian 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy is often good for communication. Case in point, it appears that people forget that articles means existing articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian: "What would be a good article title for an article I'm thinking of creating on Dry Island in the Houtman Abrolhos, Western Australia?" JHunterJ: "The question is malformed. Use of the terms "article title" and "article" imply that the article already exists. If it doesn't exist, then it is not an article, it does not have an article title, and the question is unanswerable." Hesperian: "Thankyou so much for your help." Hesperian 04:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, if still incorrect. We could go into a discussion of tenses and moods, since you do not see the difference in your "would be" question and the actual conversation we were having. But I don't think this is the place for that. In any event, JHunterJ: "You're quite welcome." -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(outd) I don't think the tone is necessary. I think WP:DABRL is pretty clear... Until you pointed it out, I didn't see the possible interpretation of the phrases you mention - I had the DABRL in mind, assumed topic meant existing article and didn't see the ambiguity. I think the phrases you point to are intended to be general discussions of Disambiguation and DABRL is the specific consensus on how to do it. But maybe I have it wrong. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pool

You might want to change the Pocket billiards/Pool example in the "Naming the specific topic articles" section as that article now appears to be at Pool (cue sports). Cheers, Miremare 12:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Done with this edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Calbuco

Hi, I have seen an edit war on Calbuco (disambiguation) with the result that one user (User:TrueColour) got blocked. He created the DAB page. Jhunterj deletes valid entries. TrueColour restores them. Boleyn2 deletes again and says this had to be done due to MOSDAB. How is this true? Also see that TrueColour created several Calbuco articles, he really put effort into growing WP. Another question is: All Calbuco are in Chile, does MOSDAB require to have the word Chile in every DAB line then? Isn't it easier to the reader to have the information given once? And also, why are the communes deleted and the regional grouping? The Calbucos are in three different provinces, yes, in three different regions. But the main group is in the Llanquihue area. TheCalbuco (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One more question: what justifies Calabouço (disambiguation) to be on the Calbuco page? TheCalbuco (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit war you have "seen" happened before you created this new account, TheCalbuco. The entries I deleted were not valid. TrueColour did good work in creating the articles, but he erred in edit warring. No idea what "justified" Calabouço; I assume BD2412 thought they seemed similar. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it happened before. This is already stated on my user page. It seems TrueColour made a mistake and by MOS:DABRL you were right to delete the entries! TrueColour should come around and say sorry for his error - in case he finds out he made an error. TheCalbuco (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Red link policy

JHunterJ altered the red links section with reference to a discussion where only he said this is his way of doing it . So because JHunterJ did it that way, he made it a policy. And enforces this policy later on other Users, even with false explanations of the policy " many of them do not (yet) have English Wikipedia articles". An instance where he violated another policy of WP was brought to ANI, but the discussion was closed, stating "JHunterJ can't breach policy he writes himself.". TheCalbuco (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you telling us this? Do you have a suggestion to make on the subject of Disambiguation? --Kotniski (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am telling this, so that others users can easier find what I found out by research. And I also think it was bad how this own made policy was enforced by JHunterJ and later he got TrueColour blocked. It shows how much darkness is in JHunterJ. Why are you asking? TheCalbuco (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the purpose of this discussion page is to discuss the policies about disambiguation on the project page, not to discuss the goodness or badness of particular users. User:TrueColour seemed to have difficulty recognizing that disagreements about how best to build the encyclopedia can be kept separate from attacks on individual users, and now you seem to be struggling with the same problem, coincidentally enough. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you a sock puppet of Kotniski, or why do you answer en lieu of him? TheCalbuco (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am a user who would like to see this discussion page used for its intended purpose. Are you a sock puppet of User:TrueColour? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I saw what happened to User:TrueColour, that's the reason why I am here on this talk page. I think that he was not treated fair. The intended purpose of the talk page is to discuss DAB policy? And changes thereof? If you are not a sock puppet, are you maybe a meat puppet of Kotniski? Your statement started with "Because...", or do you have a mind reader to what he intended, please show verifiable sources. Otherwise, when I ask a question to Kotniski, please stay out of the business to reply to such questions in the way you did. This is of not much help to find out why Kotniski asked! TheCalbuco (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good, another adversarial introduction. BTW, being brought up on ANI is not the same as actually violating policy. In this case, I didn't violate any policy, and the ANI was incorrect. I didn't "get" TrueColour block; TrueColour got TrueColour blocked by violating 3RR. I'll take the warning about no personal attacks to your (new account's) talk page. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. ANI report != violation. But you violated deletion policy. TheCalbuco (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

By deleting a page several times with reference to G6, while G6 was not met. TrueColour told you at your talk, and gave the reason: the deletion was not uncontroversial. See Special:Log/Calbuco. TheCalbuco (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No pages were deleted. Some deletions of redirects occurred while pages were (correctly) moved. The reason you (as TrueColour) gave was irrelevant. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, link did not work, better: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Calbuco G6 applies to uncontroversial moves, but they were not uncontroversial. You moved and deleted several times, so for the later moves you were likely aware of controversy. TheCalbuco (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was indeed aware of the controversial move that TrueColour performed ("20:34, 10 December 2009 TrueColour moved Calbuco to Calbuco, Los Lagos"), yes. When a move is controversial, it needs to be discussed, so I put things back to the original state so that discussion could occur. You're welcome. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When a move is controversial, it needs to be discussed, so I put things back to the original state so that discussion could occur. - the discussion can also occur without you violating the deletion policy. TheCalbuco (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No violation occurred. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And WP:DAB is not policy, it's a guideline; please don't be histrionic, Calbuco. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support the current (a.k.a. new a.k.a. JHunterJ) wording, as more concise and clear. I'm a big fan of WP:PROCESS, but this tempest in a teapot is sound like objection simply for the sake of objection. It doesn't matter that JHunterJ made a modification without getting your or anyone else's permission. WP:BOLD exists for a reason, and this page is no stranger to WP:BRD in action. Instead of complaining about JHunterJ doing something in a way you didn't like, try getting to what you substantively disagree with about the content of the changes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording may be more concise and clear. But the meaning was changed. I think red links without article incoming links should be allowed as before the change. TheCalbuco (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This "change" happened two years ago, right? One user may have made the change "unilaterally" (I don't know of any other way changes can be made on WP - there's no mechanism for joint edits), but many people watch this page and they would have objected had they disagreed. So I think we can consider the current wording to represent consensus until a new consensus is reached to change it. Personally I don't see that it matters very much - I don't like to see masses of red links to articles that will never or should never be created, so the rule of thumb that we put redlinks on dab pages iff they appear on some article pages seems a reasonable way of limiting them (though like all rules, there can be exceptions where there's a good reason).--Kotniski (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm not sure what TheCalbuco is on about. The meaning didn't change at all; redlinks without any links to them from article have long been stripped from DAB pages are near-certain vanity insertions or additions of otherwise non-notable tripe. Two years of stability is certainly more than enough to establish that there's a consensus that has to be worked at in order to change. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The meaning did change: Deletion of red links with no links from other articles was not recommended before the chagne took place. @vanity insertions: At Calbuco (disambiguation) there were none. It were all valid topics, see the articles that have been created since. A small tag, "please create articles where the red links point to, or link to the red link-topics from other articles (not DAB pages), otherwise they will get deleted" would have been sufficient. No, need to waste the time of content creators. TheCalbuco (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That suggestion was made to you/TrueColour. Obviously, it has not been sufficient. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

@TheCalbuco: I think there's an easy solution here - make a robust stub for the topics you want included, and if they meet the other criteria for inclusion on the dab page then you'll be all set. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what TrueColour ultimately did. But this is more work. And why cannot the deleters instead of deleting, add the stubs? It was valuable time of the TrueColour that was wasted by the deleters. See below for an example where a whole DAB page got deleted, because of one red link was deleted. TheCalbuco (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Why can't somebody else do the work?" isn't useful. The people cleaning up the disambiguation pages are doing work. The people claiming that the red links are article-worthy are hopefully in a position to create the stub, since they ostensibly would have the necessary reliable sources for verification. "Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources." (WP:5P) -- this is the work, not more work. The time of the disambig cleaners was wasted by TrueColour. The janitors aren't mind readers. Sometimes whole disambiguation pages should be deleted, if there's no use for the navigational assistance they claim to provide. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a template that asks for references or sources. It is not general WP behavior to directly delete material without request facts before. E.g. the whole purpose of Template:Fact is to invoke better sources - if, and only if, someone contests something. Nobody needs to have mind readers, he can just use Google in the way the DAB red link adder may do. WP:OWN - everybody may contribute content. The DAB crew should help content creation and not content deletion. Red links are content too. The deletion of the whole DAB page of Calbuco Department is an example of deletions that are not good for WP growth. Also, it is still not clear why Calbuco is primary. TheCalbuco (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not for disambiguation pages. That's for asking for references or sources where references or sources should be added, i.e. on articles. Calbuco is (still) primary because nobody who thinks otherwise has followed WP:RM to see if consensus has changed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My point, Calbuco, was simply this: Create the stub and then the disambiguation page can follow. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

@JHunterJ - this is YOUR approach, a deletionist one, one that YOU yourself tried to make official policy. @AndrewHowse - Why not ask for reference in form of stub? Why directly delete? I waited a long time to reply. I see no more edits of the user TrueColour. I think your approach is really bad - it alienates good contributors. The benefit does not at all justify the lost contributions. WP content suffers from such acts. TheCalbuco (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary topic

AfD with implications for disambiguation

The mess of the number pages....

DAB page needed

Hotspot

Methodist Girls' School

Bass

Primary topic uber alles

Tropical cyclone seasons

Valid dabs?

Lists of suffix usages

Erica, Erika, etc

Weikato

Convergence

"Romance"

Allowing navigational templates on DAB pages

Primary topic vs consistency

Partial title matches - should they really be excluded?

Should pages with similar enough titles, but with affiliation with the primary topic be listed?

Primary topic discussion

Limits on links at TLA disambig pages

Determining primary topic

A definition more clear to be clearly translatable

Explicit resolution to preliminary question

Attempt at summarization

War on DISAMBIG

Request for comments

Ireland naming poll

Karplus

DIRC in need of work.

Partial title matches vs. (name) pages

Avoid proper nouns

"See also" Sections

Lemniscate

Disambiguation by first name

Out of hand.

The Daily Disambig

Comments requested on new Doug Baker (disambiguation)

Disambiguation pages consisting of red links only?

Categories

confusable redirect

New type of disambiguation

That icon looks familiar

Discussion on redirects from names of fictional characters.

Primary topic, systemic bias?

Primary topic of 2

Using alternate names as disambiguators?

Navigation tool vs. Research guide

Best practise for assessing set index articles?

Redirect to an article section

Subject Headings

External links

New look

Red links on disambiguation pages

CAIR primary topic

Unnecessary links to disambiguation pages?

New

"Partial matches" section

Apotome

Need help for Winny article

Question on specific articles

Dab pages disambiguate existing Wikipedia articles

Original sense as primary topic

Add "existing" to language

A non-MOSDAB-wonk's perspective on redlinks

Pool

Calbuco

Red link policy