Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 52

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject 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 45

←

Archive 50

Surnames and categories

The disambiguation article Eisenhower (surname) is included in Category:Eisenhower family. However, the surname is almost certainly not exclusive to members of the Eisenhower family.

Should the page be removed from the category, or should it remain? Painting17 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove, as the family is not a defining characteristic of the name. It's members can be on the page.—Bagumba (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response! I agree that it should be removed, as per WP:DBC Painting17 (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that a namelist is a set index, not a disambiguation page.—Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

What Bagumba said. WP:DBC doesn't apply. Narky Blert (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move discussion in progress

An editor has requested that Fucking be moved to Fucking (disambiguation). Please join the discussion at Talk:Fucking#Requested move 28 August 2021. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Michael Lindsay

Hello, it seems to me that Michael Lindsay, 2nd Baron Lindsay of Birker is at least as notable as the anime voice actor Michael Lindsay. Since Lord Lindsay used "Michael Lindsay" as a journalist and academic (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/unknown-war-north-china-19371945-by-michael-lindsay-london-bergstrom-and-boyle-books-ltd-1975-112-pp-595/66CACFCAD9B326516610E5D06512D9AE), it seems to me that entering "Michael Lindsay" should go to disambiguation page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lindsay_(disambiguation) rather than to the actor. It made me assume today there was no page for the journalist before further research revealed the page with his aristocratic title (which he only inherited after he had written several works) Sheijiashaojun (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Michael Lindsay has a hatnote mentioning Michael Lindsay (disambiguation), which is normal for a name with a primary topic. But is there a primary topic here? If we assume that Michael Lindsay-Hogg is rarely referred to as "Michael Lindsay", then page views suggest the voice actor to be much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined. He also dominates search results from Google and other sources. Enduring notability and educational value is less clear, but he's been active since 1981. The voice actor has twice as many incoming links as the baron, and they seem correct. I'd say the current page organisation is sound, but moving the dab to the base name would be a reasonable alternative. Certes (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Gestalt

I invite members of this WikiProject to participate at Talk:Gestalt#Whether to include certain entries. The issue is whether the entries identifiable from this edit should or should not be included on the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Rebecca Brown (author)

Rebecca Brown (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rebecca Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been confusion about the article Rebecca Brown (author). Again and again, people try to insert stuff about some doctor by the same name who has delusions about Satanic conspiracies and wrote a book about it. Once, the whole article was replaced. Should there be a red link in Rebecca Brown for the Satanism woman? A link to the dismbiguation page at the top of Rebecca Brown (author)? Both? I guess you people will know the best solution better than I would. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Red links in those cases are generally not suitable per MOS:DABRL and WP:REDHAT. This is a classic case of Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein. If it happens enough, options include (in no particular order) WP:HIDDENCOMMENT, WP:EDITNOTICE and WP:PROTECT.—Bagumba (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Several books, actually. I see what you mean - her article in RationalWiki (which should be read cum grano salis), and an actual citation by a reputable publisher (ISBN 978-0791474068) which got an indepth review in NWSA Journal.

I can't find any mention of her in WP; and per WP:DABMENTION, she should not be on the DAB page unless there is one. She could be mentioned, briefly, in Jack Chick, I suppose, but even that might be considered trivia. Nevertheless, it might be the best solution (together with a hatnote on the novelist's page, which will still need watching). I couldn't find enough about her in any event to justify a redlink (which implies notability); but blacklinks are fine on DAB pages so long as there's a DABMENTION and some useful info at the other end. Narky Blert (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Brown Satanist did make some splash in 1980s. this (BTW, is answers.org a reliable source?) gives the following refs:

“Drugs, Demons & Delusions, The ‘Amazing’ Saga of Rebecca and Elaine” by G. Richard Fisher, Paul R. Blizard and M. Kurt Goedelman from The Quarterly Journal of Personal Freedom Outreach. Vol. 9, No. 4, October-December 1989. Editor: Keith A. Morse.
“Doctor Accused of Using Drugs to Treat ‘Demons'” by Gerry LaFollette from the Indianapolis News, March 16, 1984.
“‘Demons vs. Demerol’ Doctor Will Get Pre-Hearing Exam” by Jane Stegemiller from the Indianapolis News, May 18, 1984.
“Excessive drug prescription, State board revokes doctor’s license” from the Indianapolis Star, September 21, 1984.
“Physician’s Bizarre Behavior Related” by Jane Stegemiller from the Indianapolis News, September 21, 1984.

as well as some primary sources as a furthr support of the above.

In addition I found a couple of interesting refs:

James R. Lewis, Satanism Today p. 303
- It says, in part, that Brown's book Prepare for War was recommended to police as a reference on how to identify Sanatism
"Science teacher Steven Arizmendi allegedly sells Junior High School 220 students book about Satan"
Dr. Rebecca Brown A Letter from Peter Hoover to a Friend about Rebecca Brown, published at a Christian publisher,Scroll Publishing Co, webpage
https://www.harvestwarriors.com/ :
- https://www.harvestwarriors.com/about-us/ Harvest Warriors is a spirit filled Christian ministry Led by Rev. Daniel Yoder and his wife Rebecca (Brown) Yoder, M.D. This dynamic couple minister together as a team to boldly teach biblical truths with an authority based on their own extensive and unique experiences.
- Rebecca (Brown) Yoder, M.D.: "In over twenty years of ministry, Dr. Brown has lead many people out of hard-core Satanism and all types of occult bondage, including Eastern mysticism and New Age philosophy, and into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Rebecca is a skilled warrior. Her teaching opens the understanding of the listener or reader to the reality of the spiritual realm and makes the difficult subject of spiritual warfare easy to understand. Dr. Rebecca Brown has authored three best-selling books, He Came To Set The Captives Free, Prepare For War, and Becoming A Vessel of Honor In The Master’s Service. She has also co-authored Unbroken Curses – Hidden Source of Trouble In The Christian’s Life, and the soon to be released book Warriors."
- " Her counsel is often sought by professionals in many different fields in addition her books are utilized by various law enforcement officials."
- My friends, on Tuesday, June 23, 2020, our beloved Rebecca passed into the arms of our Savior. - Rev. Daniel Yoder

So it looks like we can concoct a reasonable bio, Rebecca (Brown) Yoder, who wrote a couple more books, to be prevented from getting into Rebecca Brown (author) . Lembit Staan (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. OMG : Rebecca Brown Fan Clube Brasil 3,711 Followers · Writer · HarvestWarriors.com Lembit Staan (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Good research! Answers.org is a sensible-looking Christian apologetics site. We can certainly use it for its citations. The link in answers.org to Personal Freedom Outreach (whose WP article suggests it's a good site) is dead, but I found its contents as a PDF (the spam filter doesn't like it, so changing https to hxxps - hxxps://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj_w8bKv_HyAhUQiFwKHUxqBKcQFnoECAUQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpfo.org%2FCurse%2520Theology.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0g-yxFUCksixOz-SK2DKzR). It's well researched, and looks very usable; and there may be more in the PFO archives. I agree, there's enough support for a bio, despite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Brown (Christian author) (2014). It might be worth asking for a WP:REFUND of that article in case there's anything useful to be gleaned from it (though I suspect there may not be); this link looks as if it could be a scrape. Narky Blert (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Direct link: http://pfo.org/Curse%20Theology.pdf. (Google links add a tracker, and this one randomly includes an offensive word.) Certes (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Obituary here: https://www.rollerfuneralhomes.com/services.asp?locid=21&page=odetail&id=55783 - might be a useful source for date of birth etc. PamD 14:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

So, who will volunteer to revive the bio? I am asking because WP:REFUND will put the deleted article in the user's space and we have to know where it will be. I am not volunteering myself because I am a non-native speaker, and I am having difficulties writing larger texts. But I will contribute to its content. Lembit Staan (talk)

I've volunteered to host a copy of the 2014 article for a short time at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Rebecca Brown (Christian author). Narky Blert (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

An admin was understandably reluctant to restore the article in any form - but has helpfully extracted a bunch of citations from it, possibly added as a WP:HEY attempt during the AFD. At first glance, they all look potentially usable; some have already been listed here, but others are new. Narky Blert (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you wouldn't dream of reading the deleted article. Certes (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As Mark Twain wisely said, An uploaded pic of genitalia isn't just for your birthday, it's for life. Narky Blert (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Restoring is handy to look into article history. We know that the version you cite is available in wikipedia rip-offs. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

John Young/John Youngs

There are currently two articles John Youngs and John E. Youngs that are, on the face of it, handled appropriately under WP:TWODABS with hatnotes.

But there are also several "John Young" (without the s) articles disambiguated at John Young. I know I'd confused the two in the past. I was considering creating a John Youngs (disambiguation) which, under a strict reading of WP:TWODABS would be unnecessary, but that I think would be worth adding to the "See also" in the John Young disambiguation page. (That dab page already has a fairly lengthy See also section, and adding both John Youngs and John E. Youngs would clutter.)

I'm thinking this is the type of thing where WP:IAR applies. I'd normally just be bold and do it, but since it's not a straightforward edit revert, thought I'd check in here. TJRC (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

TWODABS is often misapplied; I think you mean WP:ONEOTHER.

I agree that this is a good candidate for a DAB page - per TWODABS. 85 and 17 views in the last 30 days doesn't suggest a striking WP:PTOPIC; and who knows how many of those 17 were by readers who'd gone to the other page first? A link to the as-yet uncreated John Youngs (disambiguation) from DAB page John Young would help navigation for any reader who'd landed on the latter page better than two see-alsos.

I'd suggest (minister) as qualifier for the page currently at the basename. I checked the inlinks to John Youngs, and all are correct. They'll need to be updated at the same time any change is made. I say - go for it. Narky Blert (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I did indeed mean WP:ONEOTHER. Thanks; I'll follow up on this shortly. TJRC (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Also John William Theodore Youngs. Tassedethe (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, that simplifies the issue. TJRC (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Please have a look and feel free to correct anything I missed. TJRC (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. My search had turned up a couple of typos (Youngs' for Young's), but no other people except the too-remote WP:PTM Thomas Anthony John Youngs. Narky Blert (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Should people with the proper name 'Foo' be listed in the Foo (disambiguation) page, or only in the Foo (name) article?

I have been recurrently confounded by DAB pages whose title is a personal name, yet do not link to the most notable people named that way. Rather, the reader is supposed to find these in the Foo (name) article, and whether they get there from the DAB page or not seems to be entirely left over to chance.

Is there any guideline on this? I'm currently struggling with Omar (disambiguation) (see my query on the talk page), but I'd like a more general reference for what to do in this kind of situation.

Thanks for your input, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: MOS:DABNAME has some useful advice. Certes (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

YES that's extremely useful advice.

Together with WP:NAMELIST, this should offer enough guidance for any future decisions. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bapu#Requested move 2 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bapu#Requested move 2 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Item on Ken Crawford

Can someone look at Ken Crawford as I am in a WP:3RR situation. Thanks Tassedethe (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tassedethe: This edit war may have ended (I've been keeping an eye), because the editor in question has now written the article. Narky Blert (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Misdirected link

In the list of possible articles, the Psyche that refers to Rohde's book has a link to the article above it in the list. I suspect there isn't an article on Rohde's book as such (it is not linked in the article on Rohde himself). But I could not see how to edit the link out. Ed Brandon (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Done I removed the incorrect link and linked the author's article in the description.—ShelfSkewed Talk 17:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, finding that Psyche (book) had been redirected to the author's article, I moved the edit history to a further disambiguated title and redirected Psyche (book) to Psyche (and made the appropriate changes there).—ShelfSkewed Talk 17:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Logbook

Logbook was a PT about a ship's logbook. There was a dab at Logbook (disambiguation). The ship article is now at Logbook (nautical). The dab has been extensively changed and looks more like a BCA now (but still has the same title). Logbook redirects to the ship article instead of being the BCA/dab. There is also Log book, a redirect to the dab (the edit history there is confusing me). I'm not sure if there is more involved than just this, but it certainly needs to get straightened out. MB 21:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@MB: Gud catch! I've WP:BOLDly (1) WP:ROBIN-moved Logbook (disambiguation) to Logbook, (2) deleted the {{dab}} tag from it, added a {{no categories}} tag, and added a references section, (3) retargetted Log book, Logbook (disambiguation) and Log book (disambiguation) to the basename, (4) retargetted the links-in to the last two to the basename, and (5) tagged them both for WP:G14 (neither has any history worth keeping). I think we're done here. Narky Blert (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Mass creation of WP:DABNAME redirects

Hi, I was think of running a bot task for creating DABNAME redirects. So far, I've created (semi-automatically) ~1000 redirects, checking ~5000 disambiguation pages. What are your thoughts? ― Qwerfjkl talk 20:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would just make sure to let the pages sit for a few days before making an incoming redirect, in case the disambiguation is reverted or moved in favor of a primary topic. BD2412 T 20:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

To expand on the process I use to get these redirects, I got a list of disambiguation pages, appended (disambiguation) (checking if they already contain disambiguation), then check if they exist and create them if not. See User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox for an example. @BD2412, It would be fairly easy to manually remove recently created disambiguation pages from the list. ― Qwerfjkl talk 07:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, any errors should show up at Special:BrokenRedirects. ― Qwerfjkl talk 07:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I monitor WP:TDD#Today's highlights "left the list" for DAB pages which are no longer such (orange links → blue, if you have that feature enabled), and WP:G14 the (disambiguation) redirects where appropriate. (Cf. e.g. #Logbook, just above. Redirects to WP:PTOPICs only: experience at WP:RFD has taught me that it's fruitless trying to get (disambiguation) redirects to SIAs, name pages, BCAs, lists and the like deleted. There are always some editors who see no problem; it's difficult enough trying to get downright errors like (disambigaution) deleted.) Narky Blert (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it wise to check for any (qualifier), or do we want redirects such as Herald (newspaper) (disambiguation)? Certes (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I dislike many of the pages which get categorised into Category:Disambiguation pages with (qualified) titles (but not all, some are unavoidable), and have merged some back into the basename DAB, and moved others where the qualifier should have been (disambiguation) in the first place; but while such pages exist, the (disambiguation) redirect is needed. Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This would be fairly easy to do either way. ― Qwerfjkl talk 18:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@R'n'B: I have a vague sense that this may be something that we were previously doing and stopped doing. Can you comment? I just want to be sure. BD2412 T 19:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

User:RussBot already does this. See Železno (disambiguation) for a recent example. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@R'n'B: Interesting. Why do some disambiguation pages appear to be missing these, then? Are they too recent? BD2412 T 20:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: Probably. It only runs twice a month. Plus, I found that there were some bugs in the script that does this job. Hopefully I found all of them! :-) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Dabfix Broken

Clicking on the "Open Dabfix" or "Random Cleanup" buttons redirects to an unregistered and parked domain Bryan (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixed in User:Dispenser/MOS:DAB stats. Thanks for the report. Certes (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages in a list article

Is it standard practice to use a disambiguation page in a list to substitute for listing the articles individually even when there are only two or three articles on the disamb page? For example in Lancaster (surname), the disamb redirect "Mark Lancaster (disambiguation), multiple people" is used to substitute the two articles, Mark Lancaster, Baron Lancaster of Kimbolton and Mark Lancaster (artist). This seems to me to be making it more difficult for the reader to find the articles they want for little gain. If a list article is becoming unwieldy, and/or if there are many articles on the disamb page, as in the case with List of people with surname Brown and the disamb pages Aaron Brown, Adam Brown, Alex Brown, etc, listed at List_of_people_with_surname_Brown#Disambiguation_pages, then using that system seems appropriate. But for disamb pages with less than five entries, I am unsure of the benefits.

If this matter has been previously discussed, and consensus is to include disamb pages of less than five articles in a list article, then fine - it's just that this is not an area I travel in frequently, and it looks a little unwieldy to me. I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy (as it seems to be mainly lists of people's names where this happens) of this discussion. SilkTork (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd also welcome comments on a related practice: transcluding the hndis within the name list, such as Melanie Bernier in Bernier. Certes (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense to me as both entries in Melanie Bernier are displayed in Bernier, and only Melanie Bernier would need to be updated. That would work better than adding Melanie Bernier (disambiguation) to Bernier. I should think that as long as there is a consensus number agreed (say less than five) then transclusion could be used for lower numbers, and the disamb redirect for higher numbers. SilkTork (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd go with three as the limit (i.e. less than four). Transclusion can be confusing to new editors who don't understand that the syntax signifies that there is an article to be edited at that title. Note the opposite extreme case, List of people with surname Smith, where all ambiguous variations are listed at the top, and the main list only contains unambiguous names. BD2412 T 19:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a critical point to make that transclusions can be confusing, and not just to new editors. Some pages which use a number of transclusions, such as Portals, or Wikipedia:Good article criteria can be demanding for non-technically minded editors to cope with. However, I think the example given of the use in Bernier is fairly modest and could be picked up by the sort of people who are willing to go through the Wikipedia learning curve of dealing with our layouts and language. Not a discussion for this page, but it might be useful for pages which use transclusions to have a Page notice note saying that the page uses transclusions, with a link to Help:Transclusion. SilkTork (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Transcluding (as opposed to linking) a DAB page is a very bad idea indeed. The {{dab}} tag is imported along with the entries; so that e.g. a {{surname}} page becomes {{surname}} + {{hndis}}, with the {{hndis}} tag in the middle of the text; and any previously-correct links to the surname page are flagged as errors by User:DPL bot and appear in DPwL. The problem can be tricky to locate if you haven't seen it before, especially on large pages. Narky Blert (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

By default, yes, and I've seen such a mess happen. Melanie Bernier prevents this with <noinclude> tags, but modifying the transcluded page is not ideal, especially if something else wants to transclude a different part of it. One alternative is to transclude just the list entries from the unmodified hndis with something like {{excerpt|Melanie Bernier|only=list|hat=no}}:

Mélanie Bernier (born 1985), French actress
Melanie Bernier (ski mountaineer) (born 1981), Canadian ski mountaineer

As a mnemonic aid, we could wrap that in a simple new template such as {{transclude list|Melanie Bernier}}. That might clarify what is happening, at the expense of extra software, bureaucracy and complication. Certes (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As for linking to full names on surname pages, I greatly prefer linking through the (disambiguation) qualifier rather than to the individual entries in all cases. So would you, if you'd ever spent time devising a suitable qualifier for an ambiguous name, only to have it turn blue because it was listed on the {{surname}} page but not the {{hndis}}. I've very probably created redlinks when we had existing articles because of that. I expect to find the article I want on a DAB page not an SIA. Narky Blert (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"I expect to find the article I want on a DAB page not an SIA." That's an interesting comment. My assumption is that people are not looking for or searching by Dab pages - that they land on them because their search has failed (they want Mélanie Bernier, but type in Melanie Bernier). But people would be using a SIA for particular research; either deliberately as in "Her name is Bernier, and she is a French actress, so I'll find her on Bernier", or by default in the use of just the search term Bernier. Or am I misunderstanding the use of DAB pages and SIAs? SilkTork (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Certes, are you able to create a transclude list template in a sandbox for us to look at? SilkTork (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've created Template:Transclude list. It may need a few rough edges knocking off: we should exclude any See also section, and ensure that there are no blank lines around the list, but the basics are a one-liner. Certes (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the usage on your sandbox, and it looks good to me.

Mélanie Bernier (born 1985), French actress
Melanie Bernier (ski mountaineer) (born 1981), Canadian ski mountaineer

That's easy to use, and much easier to understand. {{Transclude list|Melanie Bernier}} v {{:Melanie Bernier}}. No need to create a new disamb page and then redirect it. I'm all for supporting it, though would like to hear what objections people may have. SilkTork (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The real benefit is not having to modify the transcluded dab by adding tags that might get removed or break other transclusions. If anything, I find my proposed syntax slightly less intuitive as it involves remembering a template name. However, it does make sense if we've slipped into the mindset of "braces means template" rather than "braces means transclusion with template becoming the default namespace". I've also rewritten the template to use a simple match on the first list in the dab rather than the overkill of using Module:Excerpt, and to avoid list gaps and subsequent lists such as "See also". Certes (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If a reader goes to a surname page, they will probably be looking for a specific person of that surname: a 19C poet or a 20C palaeontologist or whatever, after seeing a reference somewhere to "writers influenced by Xyz" or "Xyz's work in South America" etc. It is very unhelpful if they find a surname page full of links to disambiguation pages so that they cannot just scan down looking for poets, or palaeontologists, of roughly the known period but have to click out to "Anne Xyz (disambiguation)" and umpteen other pages. Whether it's done by using a sophisticated sort of inclusion system, or just by copying information from disambiguation pages, I strongly think that we ought to show the reader all the people of that surname who have Wikipedia articles, in one list. Divide it by century, or by field of endeavour, if you like, but don't make the poor reader have to check umpteen disambiguation pages. PamD 16:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is my thinking as well. And I think we are moving toward that as a consensus. I'm OK with either individual names or the transclusion, as in both methods the reader can clearly see the name they are after, and don't need to click what may be several DAB page links to find the article they want. On the whole, I don't think we should be sending people to DAB pages if we have another option. SilkTork (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible, with the nuance that the important thing is for the information to be in one place, which could be a dab, list or other page. Certes (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Or hatnote on the primary page if there are few other targets. SilkTork (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; I forgot that one. Certes (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea of transcluding main body-restricted contents from hndis pages onto surname pages, provided that the transclusion includes an explicit (preferably unpiped) link to the hndis page as well. (1) That would help in keeping the master record in one place. Editors wanting to add a person would be pointed to the correct page to do so. (As a DABfixer, I find myself on surname pages most often because of a vanity post like

John Smith (born 2007), future superstar

and very often the surname page had no link to the hndis page before I arrived. Surname pages are often very incomplete.) (2) Readers might need a variant spelling from the one they've searched for, of the kind which should only be a see-also; e.g. John Smith/John Smyth/John Smythe. (3) dab+hndis pages can contain entries which aren't valid surname page entries, because they aren't people. See e.g. Albert Hall (disambiguation).

I like arrangement of small hndis pages by date, but not large ones; I find them difficult to scan. Field of endeavour is much easier.

Of all languages, I find Russian surname pages the most helpfully organised: strictly alphabetical by given name and patronymic. Of course, that culture has a very standardised personal naming system, and doesn't have hypercorisms at opposite ends of the alphabet such as Bill (given name)/William and Bob (given name)/Robert. Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm as reluctant as I know you are to add unnecessary layers of template obfuscation, but one advantage is that we can encourage a uniform treatment. If we agree with the anthroponymists on some standard layout such as

Melanie Bernier (disambiguation)
- Mélanie Bernier (born 1985), French actress
- Melanie Bernier (ski mountaineer) (born 1981), Canadian ski mountaineer

then that could all be done in one template call. We can even change our mind about the format later with one template edit. However, we should then rename the template to indicate that it's suitable for name disambiguation only and not for general-purpose list grabbing. We may also want a mechanism for grabbing a list other than the first (Connor Hall) or even multiple lists (John Street – or are two lists always too much to transclude?). Certes (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That example is exactly the layout I have in mind. (It's the same as the one used by ruwiki; see e.g. ru:Иванов, Иван.)

One way to keep use of the template honest might be to wrap the code inside if incategory so that nothing happens if it's tried on other types of page. (Fortunately, there's only one, very rare, subcategory, which never has a surname element: Category:Temple name disambiguation pages.)

Complicated cases will need special attention; but I've no idea how many of the 69,540 hndis pages that would apply to. Narky Blert (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The layout on the Russian page appears to be:

Melanie Bernier
- Mélanie Bernier (born 1985), French actress
- Melanie Bernier (born 1981), Canadian ski mountaineer

rather than

Melanie Bernier (disambiguation)
- Mélanie Bernier (born 1985), French actress
- Melanie Bernier (ski mountaineer) (born 1981), Canadian ski mountaineer

We have always tended to display the disambiguation rather than pipe it, though that does tend to simply repeat information needlessly as in "ski mountaineer" mentioned twice. I think we only need the information once.

And I don't think we need to create a disambiguation redirect page simply to put Melanie Bernier (disambiguation) instead of Melanie Bernier. We actually get more information from the use of just Melanie Bernier, as that is letting us know that Melanie Bernier is the disamb page, and that also tells us that there is no primary topic. Melanie Bernier (disambiguation) is misleading as that is not the disamb page. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do we need to list, and link to, the dab page, when the reader will gain nothing by going there because we have transcluded the entire contents? And I don't think we should pipe these names, just as we don't pipe other names on disambiguation or name pages: it is useful to make it crystal clear which article the link will lead to. Looking at the current "Bernier" page, the Melanies seem excellently handled, but the reader does not benefit from the listing, and link, of Gilles Bernier (disambiguation): better to unindent the pair of people named Gilles, and lose the link to the dab page. PamD 12:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The disambiguation redirect page will be created anyway. I used an unpiped link to the redirect per the second of the three cases in WP:INTDAB; it's also the way we would link to the dab if we were not transcluding its contents. To repeat the example which started this discussion, Lancaster (surname) links to Mark Lancaster (disambiguation). There are reasons for and against linking to the dab but, if we do, it should be to the ...(disambiguation) title. Certes (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Echoing PamD, there is no point in linking to the dab page at all. I used to prefer dab page links and then switched to just listing the name-holders out like at Satō. Adding dab page links to that article would be pointless clutter. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Supporting above that the DAB page is not needed on the list page once we already have the individual entries (however they are produced). In the Melanie Bernier case I'm not entirely sure we even need a DAB page (let alone two including the redirect) as there are only two people, and one of those has a different name. Melanie Bernier (ski mountaineer) is the only Melanie Bernier, and so that should be at Melanie Bernier with a natnote for those who mistyped her name to Mélanie Bernier. If both pages get the same sort of hits (ie, no primary) then having Melanie Bernier (ski mountaineer) at Melanie Bernier will save approx half the readers from an extra click. Those who want Mélanie Bernier will not have to do any extra work as they will have to click through in either case.

I think we should always be looking at ways to reduce inconvenience to our readers, and reducing the amount of DAB pages is one of those ways. SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguating by diacritics alone is dangerous. They tend to get dropped in the Anglosphere, especially North America. I've just disambiguated 5 links to Sebastián Villa. 3 had the diacritic; 2 did not. All related to the same person (who spells his name with á). Narky Blert (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Certes, what would happen on Bernier to {{Transclude list|Melanie Bernier}} (or {{:Melanie Bernier}}) if someone moved Melanie Bernier (ski mountaineer) to Melanie Bernier? Should there be a warning on DAB pages that are transcluded, about the consequences of moving them? SilkTork (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The first draft of the template doesn't handle that. The stupid computer would do as asked and show the article's first list, which happens to be Bernier's racing results. In the absence of any list, we'd get a Lua error (easily suppressed, but error messages appear on reports and can be a useful way to find problems). We can produce default text if no match is found, which could be to display no names but add the transcluding page to Category:name lists we just broke. We could also check for the transcluded page being a dab, but that's harder than it sounds and has disadvantages. Certes (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm so glad folks like you work on Wikipedia. I struggle with tech stuff. SilkTork (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree that entries on surname pages (just like DAB pages, see MOS:DABPIPE) should not be piped. When adding or fixing a link, I like to copy the link directly from the relevant page; and if creating a redlink, to know what qualifier to use or avoid without opening any other pages. Narky Blert (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The advantage to adding an unpiped link to the DAB page is twofold. (1) It helps readers and editors find variant spellings. (2) It tells editors to add a new entry to the DAB page, not just the surname page (which happens a lot, in both directions). Narky Blert (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the link should be unpiped, and would add that it should end in (disambiguation). That's normally a redirect like Mark Lancaster (disambiguation) but is occasionally an actual dab like Albert Hall (disambiguation). We also need to consider cases such as George Canning (disambiguation), where the primary topic is one person but we may wish to list namesakes on Canning (disambiguation). Certes (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiNav tool presents Clickstream data

Announcing WikiNav, a tool to filter and display Clickstream data. It shows a monthly analysis of destinations reached by clicking on links in a mainspace page, and of sources clicked on to reach that page. (Not my work.) Certes (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Awesome. older ≠ wiser 16:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't dared even dream of that :) – Uanfala (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Amazing! —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Index of Country-related articles

There's a proposal floating around Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Index of Country-related articles that may be of interest to some members of this project. – Uanfala (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Help with fixing dab

I moved Southern League (baseball) to Southern League (1964–2020) because there are 2 baseball Southern Leagues. Southern League (baseball) would now need to be redirected to Southern League & redirects be re-targeted to Southern League (1964–2020), but it has 1777 linking articles. Is there an automated way to fix these, or can someone help with this? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bison X: I started the process but soon found that many of those links are pre-1964 and clearly refer to different leagues. Please can you check that I have picked the correct historic league in these edits:

changed to Southern Association: Tennessee Smokies, Chattanooga Lookouts‎, Birmingham Barons, New Orleans Baby Cakes‎, Memphis Redbirds‎, Joe Nuxhall‎, Hitting streak, Mickey Lolich‎, Luke Appling, Nashville Sounds, Shoeless Joe Jackson‎, Odin, Illinois‎, South Atlantic League‎ — (checked, changed [1][2][3] --Bison X (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC))
changed to South Atlantic League (1904–1963): Cramton Bowl‎, Tennessee Smokies‎, Chattanooga Lookouts‎, Charlotte Knights‎, Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp, Lloyd Waner, Cookie Rojas, List of defunct professional sports leagues, South Atlantic League — (checked, changed [4] --Bison X (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC))
changed to Southern League (1885–1899): Memphis Redbirds‎, Fred Clarke‎ — (checked --Bison X (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC))

Articles listed two or three times contained links which appeared to refer to two or three different historic leagues. If you can look at the remaining links and fix those which are pre-1964 manually, that would help a non-baseball fan such as myself to continue the work. Certes (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Certes: Ok, I found that South Atlantic League (1904–1963) was split from Southern League (1964–2020) in May 2020; those links were sometimes to a section, Southern League (baseball)#History. So that would mean the time frames would be:

1885–1899 link to Southern League (1885–1899)
1901–1919 link to Southern Association
1904–1963 link to South Atlantic League (1904–1963)
1964–2020 link to Southern League (1964–2020)

So 1904–1919 overlap & need to be checked. I'll go thru the above links tomorrow when I have more time. Thanks for looking into this, I didn't realize it was so convoluted. Also, I'll install DisamAssist & try it out. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Such changes are often simple if the start position is correct but become convoluted once we realise that most of the work is in fixing existing errors. DisamAssist is wonderful but the standard version can only fix links to dabs (including via redirects); these links currently lead to an article. AWB or JWB are more complex to use but either is very useful for bulk changing, say, [[Southern League (baseball)#History| to [[South Atlantic League (1904–1963)| if we can be sure that's the right target. I've changed templates such as Template:Southern League (baseball), which should fix several links in one simple edit. Certes (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, it appears "Southern League (baseball)" is being used for Southern Association well past 1919. The easiest way for me was to open both pages, Southern Association & South Atlantic League (1904–1963), in tabs & scroll to the list of teams & decide from that. Even then, some teams were in both leagues, but "Southern Association" also listed years for the teams. Much, much harder than expected. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Belgian (disambiguation)#Requested move 25 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Belgian (disambiguation)#Requested move 25 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Turnaa - move proposal

Resolved

I started a move proposal at Talk: Turnaa that may be of interest. Leschnei (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It was an improper move by a new user. Page reverted back to Talk:Turna. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect this was stage one of a failed attempt to promote the deleted Turna (hip-hop musician) to a primary topic at the base name. Certes (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Foo (Discombobulation)

Do we have an effective boilerplate RfD rationale for getting rid of redirects like Daily Post (Disambiguation) which attempt to apply WP:DABNAME but miss the target? Certes (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

People sometimes cite WP:RDAB (which has a stubbornly exhaustive list of example errors), though I think it would be less pericombobulating if a more specific shortcuts were used instead, and the whole section moved to WP:RFDOUTCOMES, where it belongs. – Uanfala (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy {{db-error}} as a typo. Rgrds. -Bison X (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Which was declined as it is a correct dab page. Now listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Daily Post (Disambiguation). Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

RfD closed as Delete; possibly a useful precedent. Certes (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus needed before adding a hatnote through {{editsemiprotected}} ?

I was notified at talk:Fergie (singer) that a new local consensus is needed for a disambiguation hatnote. Is this correct? The target article clearly lists "Fergie" as an alternate name of the subject in the article lede. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Guidelines are guidelines. How they apply to individual cases is something to be discussed on the article's talk page if there's any disagreement. How likely is it that someone landing on "Fergie (singer)" (as opposed to "Fergie", a dab page) really wants Dennis Frederiksen, whose article says he is "occasionally" credited as Fergie? Reasonable people might disagree about the answer. Station1 (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There should be a consensus if there is any disagreement. I looked at your proposal and didn't think it was appropriate, because Fergie and Dennis Frederiksen are not confusing. I added a different hatnote; if there is any objection to that it should be discussed on the article TP. MB 04:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors are encourged to be bold, as you were in making the edit request there. However, if the editor answering your request didn't see it as straightforward, they are in a way contesting the edit, which then can be discussed to reach consensus. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Malay names in dab

Siti was recently created and it contains a long list of people whose name begins with "Siti". In looking at a sampling of them, I haven't seen any that are normally referred to by just "Siti". Several have hatnotes saying there is no family name, they should be referred to by the given name "Siti something". Per WP:NAMELIST, only people who "are reasonably well known" as Siti should be listed. Comments? MB 04:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DABNAME allows a list of people with a common given name. However, without knowing much about Malayasian names, my concern is that this is a case of WP:PARTIAL, in that their given name is more than "Siti".—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Malaysian_names#Malay_names explains that "Siti" is a common given name and holders of it often also have a second given name, so this is similar to any other list of holders of a given name like Mary_(name)#Others, which includes various "Mary Lou xxx" etc. It could be argued that there are so many name-holders that it's time to split them out from the dab page into Siti (name) or Siti (given name) and Siti (surname). PamD 08:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi guys, I did think when I was creating the very long list that perhaps they belonged somewhere else. So I've moved all the Malay ones to their own article. It would be nice to find reliable sources for the Malay article stating that it's a common name and explaining that people with it often also get a second name. I had a look at the sources given at Malaysian_names#Malay_names but I didn't find anything that I could use. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Burkina Faso attacks

Should Arbinda attacks and Ouagadougou attack be dabs or SIAs? Their main use is in Template:Burkina Faso attacks. Certes (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Innisfallen (disambiguation)

There was a time when I could fix this disambiguation page myself. Please would a member of this project care to fix it? The issue arises in the article RNLB Mary Stanford (ON 733), when it relates the notable Daunt Lightship rescue. The Innisfallen (ship) was the passenger ferry from Cork to Fishguard, she interrupted her voyage to see if she could help. She "stood by". The problem is in RNLB Mary Stanford (ON 733) which reads:

Mary Stanford made several attempts to get a steel cable aboard the Comet. Every time they did, a large wave crashed the ships further apart and the cable snapped. When darkness fell, Mary Stanford headed for Cobh to get stronger cables. The Innisfallen and HMS Tenedos (H04) stood by.

The wikilink for Innisfallen gives the abbey Innisfallen when it should give the ship. Even though there is a disambiguation. Thanks Lugnad (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It's now been fixed to use Innisfallen (1930–1940), a new redirect to Innisfallen (ship)#Innisfallen (1930). Certes (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated.Lugnad (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fix courtesy of PamD; I just noticed it. Certes (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Television ratings, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}

Infinity

Infinity (disambiguation) has collected a large amount of material. I'd like some kind of advice on whether it's OK as-is, whether some material should be split out (like the music/songs), or whether some material doesn't belong here.

There's a lot here, because not only is infinity highly ambiguous in mathematics, Infinity (philosophy) contains a similar number of distinct ideas, and the name is highly popular for companies, songs, etc.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

We could weed out a few PTMs such as Infinity Blade and The Man Who Knew Infinity (film). Otherwise, I'd leave it as is. The list is split helpfully and accurately, so someone looking for a building can find it without trawling through a page of music albums. Certes (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

King Charles

I was surprised to find that King Charles isn't a list of monarchs named King Charles. It's just a list of disambiguation pages, each of which is a list of dukes, counts, and other non-kings, with a few kings also included. Often the kings aren't identified as such, for example one of the entries at Charles II is "Charles II of Sweden or Charles VIII of Sweden (1409–1470)", and we have to click through to the target page to discover that he was a king. The result is that if you're looking for a particular King Charles, and you know the country but not his number, the King Charles page isn't much help. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. Someone reading either fact or fiction about a country's past may find the monarch of the time referred to as "King Charles", un-numbered, and we shouldn't make it difficult for them to find the monarch they want. Wikipedia seems to have a variety of ways to do this - see King George, King John, King William etc. This particular reader above would have best served if they'd wanted a George: the King George dab page has a list of monarchs A-z by country. There are separate dab pages such as George III (disambiguation) (the British king being primary topic). I suggest we should make sure that monarchs are findable both by regnal number (whether or not intermingled with numbered dukes etc too) and by kingdom name (King Xyz of Foo) - we would provide a redirect from either, if they were unique, so should provide a simple dab page route where we can't use a redirect. PamD 17:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Something like King George would have been ideal for me. I was trying to track a line in an English drinking song that talks about "when Charles was still King." I knew it was English and 17th or 18th century. But I had to check both List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs to find him, after giving up on King Charles. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope we already provide some sort of route from those terms. A problem is that, for terms with no primary topic, that route is necessarily indirect via a dab. That dab may also include articles which match the dab's title but not the reader's original term. In a sense it's no different from King (film) taking me to a page with many meanings of King, most unrelated to films, but at least there I only need to peruse #Films. Certes (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion to talk about "See also" sections of "Just_n"

I have started a discussion to talk about what the "See also" sections of various pages should contain. Please visit this section to participate in the discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

G14 speedy deletions

Speedy deletion criterion WP:G14 ("Unnecessary disambiguation pages") applies to:

Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page.

Regardless of title, disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages.

A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function.

I've sometimes kept an eye on the pages that get tagged for G14 deletion, and if I recall correctly, virtually all of the ones I've seen fall into two categories:

Dab pages or redirects that have been rendered unnecessary because of primary topic moves, or, occasionally, the deletion of the linked articles. G14 is almost always applied correctly here, and the taggings are usually done by experienced dab editors (Shhhnotsoloud springs to mind).
Disambiguation pages with two or more links which appear not at the start of each line, but in the description - G14 very clearly doesn't apply here, and very often the dab pages are useful. These taggings and subsequent deletions are normally performed by NPP reviewers and admins who are apparently unaware of the finer points in the guidelines, like WP:DABMENTION or WP:DABRED.

Is my experience representative? If it is, then maybe we need to amend the guidelines so that valid dab pages don't get deleted any more (#2 above), but the usual clean-up is still possible (#1). How about dropping the list of the specific criteria for page title and number of links (evidently, people don't read them), and instead having something simpler, like some carefully thought out variation on "Disambiguation pages that are no longer necessary"? – Uanfala (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I've had a look at the recent G14 deletions, and half of them were inappropriate uses of the criterion. I've followed that up at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Rethinking G14. You're welcome to join the discussion there. – Uanfala (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

A couple of points which might clutter the open discussion on the CSD page.

G14 #1 is problematic ("only one extant Wikipedia page"). Imagine a WP:PTOPIC, and a DAB page containing two or more full title matches supported only by DABMENTIONs. This isn't that uncommon with creative works. Such DAB pages are useful; not everyone knows how to search WP if there's a page with the identical title. See e.g. Love Song for a page with multiple valid blacklinks.
I dislike "disambiguation-like function" in G14 #3, but that's for another day.
WP:ONEOTHER DAB pages are not caught by G14, and probably should continue not to be. I fall across these from time to time, and the existing procedure seems to work reasonably well (though there is a (small) backlog in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic). Nil Einne seems already to have an eye on most of the ones I find. I strongly dislike the suggestion in ONEOTHER that such a DAB page should be kept if "there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia [...] in the future" (emphasis added).
I suspect that overenthusiastic past use of G14 may explain the existence of Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia, whose 1,992 entries (i) are DAB pages, however they're labelled, and (ii) in my experience, invariably have at least one ambiguous inlink. I cheerfully delete orphan redlinks from DAB pages - but not if there's a prima facie chance of passing WP:GEOLAND.
Not only G14 but also PROD can be misused. Earlier today, I dePRODded Lord Darcy. The rationale had been that only one article on the page was about a lord and the other six were about barons, and were therefore not title matches. Well, if Shakespeare referred to William Sandys, 1st Baron Sandys as "Lord Sandys" in Henry VIII, that's good enough for me (let alone modern usage).

Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The advice is clear but not always followed, even by editors I normally trust without checking. Do we need a bot to create a daily report of pages with G14 tags which might not merit them, or even all pages with G14 tags (there don't seem to be many)? Or would they have been deleted before we have time to save them? Certes (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- That may be useful (an alternative is for us to keep an eye on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages, making sure that the option for the watchlist to show page categorisation is turned on). This is not going to solve everything though: G14 deletions are sometimes performed directly, without anyone first tagging the page.
  I think the low quality of the work around G14 deletions is down to the fact that most of them are performed by admins who don't otherwise have any experience with disambiguation, so that even obvious things (like, making sure that after a dab page is gone, its navigational function is still carried out by hatnotes or redirects) are rarely done. I'm getting the impression that the underlying problem is that some have come to see G14 as one of the easy criteria, like G7 or G13, where you can rack up deletions and do "useful" work without sparing much thought or effort, and without risking any headaches. – Uanfala (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  - A related issue is failure to add the {{other uses}} hatnote after a move to PTOPIC, leaving the DAB page dangling. I correct 1 or 2 of these a week (though I haven't been checking for the last 2 months). Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What should we do with cases like Julie Su (disambiguation)? In case it's gone, it was a three-entry dab but was overwritten by a redirect to Julie Su and, in the same edit, nominated for speedy deletion as a redirect to a non-dab. Reverted to the dab; question withdrawn. Certes (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: There is ambiguity in the word "page" - does a redirect count as a page? If it does, then G14 #1 is not problematic, because DABMENTIONs are just as valid as articles then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
That exact wording is not technically correct, which may be behind some of the inappropriate uses of G14. Dabs don't disambiguate pages, they disambiguate ambiguous terms, where those terms refer to topics that are covered on Wikipedia, whether in dedicated articles, in individual article section, across several articles.... – Uanfala (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Where do I go to ask for feedback for a disambiguation page proposal?

Right now there are two articles for Japanese biologists named Hiroshi Inoue: Hiroshi Inoue (entomologist) and Hiroshi Inoue (which Hiroshi Inoue (bryologist) redirects to). It seems to me that neither is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so the article about the bryologist should move to the disambiguated page leaving Hiroshi Inoue to be the disambiguation page. Neither page has many views, they're both stubs with around one page-view per day on average. I was thinking about being WP:BOLD and doing it myself, but the existence of a redirect at Hiroshi Inoue (bryologist) complicates things, I believe. I've had to fix a few links to the bryologist which should have been to the entomologist, so making the bare name a disambiguation page would have that helpful popup come up letting editors know that multiple articles for people with that name exist. Hopefully this is the right place to ask if my idea makes sense, if not I appreciate a pointer to the right venue for discussion!Umimmak (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Umimmak: If you're confident that there is no primary topic then you can simply move Hiroshi Inoue over the top of the redirect. Because Hiroshi Inoue (bryologist) redirects to the current title and has no history, that will work, deleting the old redirect. It will create a new redirect called Hiroshi Inoue, which you can overwrite with a {{hndis}}. Please check incoming redirect Inoue Hiroshi: it should continue to target Hiroshi Inoue, which will divert them to the new dab rather than an article but, if a bot has stepped in to retarget it to the bryologist, that may need to be reverted. Then the incoming links need to be fixed to point to the correct person. There aren't many, and DisamAssist is very useful for such cases. Certes (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks! Do you think I should use Hiroshi Inoue (bryologist) since it already exists or create Hiroshi Inoue (botanist)? And also to clarify, I would only fix incoming links in the article space right? As in I shouldn't go into others' UserSpaces, right? Thanks! I might just be bold and do this, but I wanted confirmation that the bryologist is not the primary topic, where would I go for a second opinion? Umimmak (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If you think there may be a primary topic, a requested move is the way to go. That might also attract advice on the best new title. (botanist) is a far more common qualifier but (bryologist) is not unprecedented: we have Karl Müller (bryologist), Robert Braithwaite (bryologist) and a redirect Max Fleischer (bryologist). If the article does move, it's normal to change links in the main namespace plus Template:, Category:, Portal: and File: if you're feeling diligent. We usually leave User: and talk pages alone. DisamAssist limits itself to the right namespaces. Certes (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I figured to be safe I'll do a requested move: Talk:Hiroshi Inoue#Requested move 8 February 2022. Thanks for your help! Umimmak (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Hiroshi Inoue now is a {{hndis}} linking to Hiroshi Inoue (entomologist) and Hiroshi Inoue (bryologist). The one possibly remaining issue is the presence of Category:Taxa named by Hiroshi Inoue. This is used for taxa named by the entomologist, and there does not yet seem to be a corresponding category for the bryologist (although he also named taxa with articles on Wikipedia). But I'm thinking that this doesn't need to be fixed quite yet since there's only one category. Umimmak (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ice age (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ice age (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Question about DAB links on surname pages

I've searched the archives about this one, and looked for a MOS page for a rule, but cannot find anything specific. There seem to be differing schools of thought about whether to list (not a real example) all Joe Bloggses underneath Joe Bloggs (disambiguation) on the Bloggs (surname) page. I can see an argument for both, but I usually remove the duplicate listing because someone said so in a discussion somewhere ages ago, and it does make some sense to keep the authoritative complete list in one place. However one editor did point out that it's much easier to find, e.g. J. Bloggs, or Dr Bloggs or Rev. Bloggs, on the surname page when they are all listed in the same place. Then you get pages like Wade (surname) where some of the DAB pages (e.g. for Michael Wade) are not even mentioned. I'm not about to go changing a whole lot of entries now, but was just wondering if there is an actual rule on this, or whether it's just one of those things that differ on different pages, based on length or other criteria? (Although I do think that in the Wade case, it should at least be consistent within one article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 52#Disambiguation pages in a list article, where some solutions were discussed, including transcluding the sublist. Certes (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Certes - interesting, with quite a few complexities. Is there any chance of summarising at least the basic consensus of those suggestions on MOS:LIST and/or WP:SIA? At least that the link should include (disambiguation), and that where a DAB exists, the link should be included, whether or not the names are listed as well (referring to Wade, mentioned above). It looks as if it will continue to be a judgement call in many cases, perhaps based on sheer numbers. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

One option is to start with the style essay WP:APO/S first. Kinks, if any, can get ironed out there. It can be incorporated into a guideline once it becomes the norm. Per WP:PROPOSAL: Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.—Bagumba (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Belated thanks, Bagumba. I will add it to my list and see if and when I have time to return to this. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Russia (disambiguation)

I've imprudently gone well beyond 3R here. There might actually be something to disambiguate in the topics being added though on the face of it look like nothing more than partial title matches; however, discussion involves being on the receiving end of walls of text from editor with a definite POV, which given current events might even be part of some sort of misinformation about the extent of what is Russia. older ≠ wiser 22:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Take to ANI. They are PTMs, and no one calling you or Clarityfiend vandals can be acting in good faith. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguate links to Ice Age

After a recent move Ice Age was made a dab page. There are still a few hundred links to it. A lot of them refer to "the Ice Age", which I think should link to Last Glacial Period, but it could be that it doesn't apply to all cases. Any help or suggestions would be welcome. For more info, see Talk:Ice_Age#Update_all_Ice_Age_links_to_Last_Glacial_Period. Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Places on name page

I just came across Haydar, which is tagged as a given name page, but I am finding several things confusing there, namely: it includes surnames; it includes places; it includes lists in sections which also have their own name articles (e.g. Haider); and both Haydar (disambiguation) and Haidar (disambiguation) link to the page. Does this need a bit of a cleanup and rearranging? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

When name pages list things other than names, options include 1) placing WP:HATNOTES to the non-name topics 2) creating a disambiguation page with entries to the name list page and the other pages.—Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of those other items seems like WP:PARTIAL matches, that maybe can be removed.—Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, that turned out to be a can of worms!! I've spent ages trying to untangle all kinds of variants of Haydar, Hayder, Hyder, Heider, Haidar and others, so that they link in a logical way where useful, with name pages separate from DAB pages in some cases, etc. Might not be perfect or complete, but hopefully an improvement on what was there. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hero City

We have a new dab, which might work better at a BCA. Please comment at Talk:Hero City. Certes (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Why does this link to the DAB page?

I've just got a DAB notification about the Northern Argus link in Pulteney Street, Adelaide. Am I going bonkers, or can someone explain why it seems to be linking to "Northern Argus" (the DAB page), when the link in publisher is actually "The Northern Argus"? I can of course just remove it, but it just seems weird. Is the template dropping the "the"? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There was a second link in the next citation. Fixed. —ShelfSkewed Talk 06:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah - doh! Thanks ShelfSkewed. I have Covid at the moment so I think I'll just blame that. :-) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: If you're copy-pasting the citations that Trove handily pre-formats for Wikipedia, beware that many of their wikilinks are wrong. Some link to disambiguation pages, some to the wrong paper (e.g. Trove id 1297 links The Daily Telegraph (London) for The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)) and others to a completely different topic (e.g. 439 links Arrow (missile) for The Arrow (newspaper).) These need manual correction. Certes (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Certes - I've noticed this before and usually check them. Just somehow managed to miss that one first time and then couldn't work out what ws was going on when I kept looking at the wrong one! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've compiled User:Certes/Trove: a list of Trove wikilinks which vary from ours. Corrections and additions welcome. I really wish we could get the NLA to fix these! Certes (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that work - I will make a note of it. I seem to recall being part of a discussion about Trove wikilinks and other issues somewhere before. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cologne Centurions (disambiguation)#Requested move 3 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cologne Centurions (disambiguation)#Requested move 3 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Conjuration (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Conjuration (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

List of disambiguated articles without corresponding disambiguation page

I am not sure this is the right spot, please correct me when this is the wrong place.

I am looking for a list of articles with a disambiguation but without the corresponding disambiguation page. The intention is to (try to) solve them. Either by writing the disambiguation page, adding items to the disambiguation page, redirecting to the correct disambiguation page etc. I prefer an added "ignore list" for those cases that are insolvable.

This is clearly a job for a bot.

I know that the list will be shockingly long, but that is the challenge of it all.

I have something in mind as nl:Wikipedia:Onderhoud/haakjes/GeenArtikelZonderHaakjes1 and nl:Wikipedia:Onderhoud/haakjes/negeerlijst (the ignore list, providing skips for the bot). That page is updated regularly, on the 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th and 25th of each month. (A higher pace is not necessary)

I am not sure if such a list exists without me finding it or that it has to be created. The Banner talk 11:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "disambiguated articles"? If you narrowly mean articles with a parenthetical qualifier in the title, like Mars (mythology), this would be an easy task. But it would be much more difficult if you include titles that are naturally disambiguated. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I mean. And the ignore list is to filter out the naturally disambiguated articles (for example song titles with a part of the name between brackets). The Banner talk 09:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much to "solve" there. If an article is titled "Foo (bar)" and there is no dab page at "Foo", this may entail several situations:

"Foo" is an article or a redirect to an article; that by itself is not a problem (primary topics are common), and if anyone is interested in digging here, then what they'd need is a list of all such redirects where the target doesn't have a hatnote to "Foo (bar)".
"Foo" doesn't exist, but there's at least one other disambiguated article, like "Foo (baz)". That's also not a problem. You'd be tempted to create a dab page here, but that wouldn't really be necessary, as the two "Foo" articles are already easily accessible from the search results and a dab page isn't an improvement on that. The search results are actually better here, as they reveal possibly relevant minor mentions in other articles, and they automatically remain up to date (so that if a third article with the name is created, it will still be accessible without the need for people being proactive in adding an entry to a dab page). Creating a dab page would be useful in rarer set of circumstances: if there are too many aricles (say, more than half a dozen), if the search results are swamped by partial title matches, or if the dab is to include entries (like alternative spellings, or stuff in the style of WP:DABRED or WP:DABMENTION) that may not be easy to retreive from the search results.
"Foo" doesn't exist and there are no other relevant articles. In such cases I've seen editors (esp. dab editors) regularly move the disambiguated article to the primary title. That's usually a bad idea. In most cases, sooner or later another article with the same name will get created and the old article will have to get moved back (assuming someone notices; if they don't then the new article will remain inaccessible). If an article has a disambiguated title and it's passed through at least half decent curation, then chances are someone has made the decision to use that disambiguator, either because they know that other topics with the name exist, or because they've guessed that they do based on how common that sound pattern may be.

So, I don't believe a database report of the type described here is on its own going to encourage editor activity that is going to be helpful. However, it can certainly be used as an ingredient in more complex queries to yield reports indicative of real problems (say, primary redirects without hatnotes). – Uanfala (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, it also picks up articles that were never added to an existing disambiguation page. Those pages can be added there, thus improving navigation. The Banner talk 09:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The missing entries log picks up articles that were never added to an existing disambiguation page. There are false positives and it may be out of date. I completed the pages with five or more missing entries a while ago but there is still good work to be done there. Certes (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The missing entries log has unfortunately not been updated for almost 3 years. – Uanfala (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:7th Hussars (disambiguation)#Requested move 6 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:7th Hussars (disambiguation)#Requested move 6 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 16:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Carleen (disambiguation)

Carleen (given name) is a page name that indicates the content should only be WP:APO content. However, it has long had WP:DAB content. Today, I expanded the APO content and attempeted to create a Carleen (disambiguation) page. However, I am realizing that the content is very sparse. In the dab, both places have no content on a Carleen page, but rather have minimal content in small parts of other articles. Does this dab page warrant existence? After the place in Wales became a redirect in 2009 and Carleen was moved to Carleen (given name) in 2011, the disambiguation purpose was lost if you ask me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S. if the dab page should exist, should I request someone move the dab history from Carleen (given name)?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The arboretum looks like a WP:PARTIAL match, so does not need disambiguating. We could just have the namelist be the primary topic with a hatnote to the village.—Bagumba (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The village in Cornwall (not Wales!) was turned into a redirect for no obvious reason: perhaps lack of sources, but that has been easy to resolve. It is now an article once more, with a hatnote pointing to Carleen (given name). The arboretum gets a mention under its namesake, who I have added to the given name page. I think all is now well. I think we can safely do away with the disambiguation page as it is no longer useful. PamD 14:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved
--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Do mononyms turn a name page into a DAB page?

I have been running across quite a few name pages where {{hndis}} has also been added - Conrado is one example. The reasoning behind this (I think) is that the name is also a mononym. My question is - if a page contains only people, and some of the article titles listed are monomyms, does it necessarily become a disambiguation page, or can it remain a name page? (@Ortizesp: - I'm not objecting to your edit, just seeking information). I'm thinking particularly of the formatting differences; some name pages could require quite a bit of editing to follow DAB guidelines, Carlos Jorge would be a better example of that. Leschnei (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Opinions will vary and I doubt we'll get a definitive answer. I think Conrado is and should be a dab, because it simply lists possible meanings of "Conrado" with no encyclopedic information about the name (or any other meaning) beyond the usual brief summary of the meaning. It also lists non-name meanings, though they are debatably PTMs and currently relegated to See also. Conrado (footballer, born 1991) and Conrado (footballer, born 1997) support the case for it being a dab, though they probably wouldn't mandate a dab on their own. Hndis is a type of dab, name list is a type of article, and dabs are not articles, so it can't also be a name list. Carlos Jorge is different: it includes etymology, a reference and a navbox, so is a name list rather than a dab. A hypothetical Carlos Jorge (film) would go in a {{for}} hatnote, or in a separate dab if there were several such meanings. Certes (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick note, I use the tool DisamAssist to fix incoming links when I create a disambig, and I can't use the tool unless it has a {{hndis}} or another DAB tag on it. That's the main reason I use it, although I reckon there are times when it should be taken off.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I edited Conrado as a DAB. Carlos Jorge needs its templates and sorting fixed but I don't know what is correct, so I've left it alone. Leschnei (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aioun#Requested move 21 March 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aioun#Requested move 21 March 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 06:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Under which spelling should the disambiguation be?

I, personally, tend to write all words as close to the original as possible,

in order to make it visible where the word originated from (like: Greek, Latin, French, Yiddish) and
out of respect for the land and people of the original.

In this sense/attitude I have suggested a change on: Talk:Schmendrick.
Steue (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

commented there. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with titles differing only by case

I did some digging and found there are almost 500 pairs of disambiguation pages which differ by case. I've listed them all at User:Colin M/Disambiguation pages differing by case.

A lot of these look obviously problematic (perhaps the result of editors working on different case-variant titles without realizing the other page exists). e.g. Dream hunter - Dream Hunter; Scid - SCID; Baptized By Fire - Baptized by fire (disambiguation); Green-striped darner - Green-striped Darner. These should obviously be merged. (Almost all pairs that don't include an acronym variant fall under this category.)

I'm going to start with trying to tackle these obvious merges. If anyone else is interested, feel free to grab a chunk.

There are also a lot of cases that seem like they're on the borderline of acceptability. WP:DABCOMBINE says Terms that differ only in capitalization... should almost always share a disambiguation page but If a combined disambiguation page would be inconveniently long, it may be better to split the disambiguation page into separate pages. Does a pair like Use/USE, where both pages are short enough to not need section divisions, meet that criterion for splitting? What about Wohl/WOHL, where the former page is fairly long, but the latter has only two entries? Would be interested in people's thoughts on these sorts of judgement calls.

A pattern I see with a lot of these is synchronization issues. e.g. entries that get duplicated between Foo and FOO (some pairs like Core/CORE seem to overlap deliberately), or an entry for a "FOO" entity is listed at Foo but not FOO (Argus/ARGUS has a few of these currently). Which makes me think these sorts of splits should be avoided except in extraordinary circumstances. Colin M (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to approach these on a case-by-case basis, considering the length of each page, and whether there is a real difference in expected meaning rendered by the capitalization. I would think that there would not be for the Dream hunter - Dream Hunter example, but for something like Xi - XI, I would expect that there would be. BD2412 T 22:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding length, I'm wondering if there's a reasonable rule of thumb we can use for identifying split dabs that are too small to be worth it. e.g. If one out of a pair of case-variant dab pages has only, say, 2 or 3 entries, is it fair to say the pair should be merged by default? A lot of pages would fall under this threshold, e.g. AMLA, ANDRA, ANGUS, ARGH... Colin M (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

ANGUS is short but Angus isn't. The all-caps dab saves readers who know they seek an acronym from wading through a long list. Certes (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

So you would evaluate the suitability of a split/merge based on the total number of ambiguous terms combined across case variants? I guess one thing I'm finding confusing is a lack of consistency in existing practice. Why do Cop, Cab, and GNU (disambiguation) get combined dab pages, but we split Cou/COU and Cid/CID? On the whole, it seems like a combined dab is much more common. If you think of a trigram that's plausible as a word and an initialism and look it up, you'll probably find it has a combined dab page. Which is why I would lean towards achieving consistency by merging some of these split dabs, rather than by splitting the many more combined dabs. Unless there are particular properties that make certain cases specially suited to splitting, but like I said, it seems pretty arbitrary at the moment. Colin M (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think consistency matters here. It's true, there has been a strong tendency to combine the different case forms on the same dab, but I believe that at least partly, this is down to historic contingency rather than deliberate decision. See, all dabs start out small and then incrementally get bigger when new entries get added as the encyclopedia grows. At each step of the way, it's easiest to just add the next entry to the existing page; splitting would be a positive action that requires more effort. – Uanfala (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

As a start, I just merged in case variants for Yud, Yup, Zah, and Zer. These seem like they should be uncontroversial merges (given that, in each case, the combined list of entries is still quite short), but if anyone objects to these examples, please speak up before I move further up the alphabet. Colin M (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a really useful list! There will probably be a lot of cases of accidental duplication that we'd need to resolve, but I'd echo the comments by BD2412 and Certes that separate pages are often better for readers. If someone has typed "CID" in the search bar, then they're almost certainly looking for an item listed at CID and we won't be doing them any favours by sending them to a big list with a lot of lower-case entries mixed in. So if the lower-case dab has more than a few entries, it's usually best for readers if the upper case is dabbed separately (though it's a separate question whether the lower-case dab should also list the individual upper-case entries or simply refer to the upper-case dab; the latter is certainly less work for us). If both dabs are really small, as with Zer, then I agree it's best to merge them. Merging will also work if all the upper-case entries fit neatly into a single section (like ISLA, which now redirects to Isla#Organizations), or when the lower- and upper-case forms appear to sometimes be used interchangeably for the same topics (like at Intec).

Consistency can help the user experience (say, if a search strategy works in one case, it should be expected to work in another), but when its effects are neutral there's no point in pursuing it as a goal of its own. Now, there's one place where consistency matters here: if we have two separate dab pages, should they point to each other in their "see also" sections, or with hatnotes? – Uanfala (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a split benefits users who search for something like "CID" (at least under ideal conditions). But there are a couple of related downsides that make me question whether it's a net benefit to readers in most cases:

Some readers will type "Cid" into the search box even though they're looking for an initialism. (Most readers access Wikipedia from their phone, so they might do this simply because it's easier to type.) They might skim the listed links and give up, without realizing they need to click through to CID (disambiguation) at the bottom of the page.
The aforementioned synchronization problems. Sometimes a thing called "CID" will be listed at Cid but not CID (because editors are also susceptible to the pattern described above), so even a reader that uses the proper search term might not find the article they were looking for. If entries are included on both pages (e.g. because they're sometimes referred to as Cid and sometimes as CID), there are the general DRY issues that come with that, where a fix to the entry on one page needs to be mirrored on the other page.

re if we have two separate dab pages, should they point to each other in their "see also" sections, or with hatnotes?: That's a great question. My default would be to use the "See also" section, because that's currently the approach that's most commonly used, but I don't have a strong opinion on the merits. I do agree that we need consistency on this though. Colin M (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

See also is usual. Hatnotes on dabs are rare, except to refer between sections of the same page as at Lincoln#Places or as self-reference to a project page as at ANI. Certes (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:SS (disambiguation)#Requested move 13 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SS (disambiguation)#Requested move 13 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Usage, primary topics and the ghost train RM

Some of you may be interested in the RM at Talk:Ghost train (folklore)#Requested move 3 April 2022. One of the questions there is whether in deciding primary topics we should take into account all relevant entries on a dab page (possibly with different weighing) or restricts ourselves to only those where the respective article has the dab term in its title.

Another of the questions is where we should be getting usage data from. One of the participants believes that the best we have is the WP:Clickstream/Wikinav, which shows the number of clicks received by each link on the dab page (which is currently at the base title), while another has stated that this data is useless and instead argues for promoting the article to the primary topic and then comparing the pageviews that the article and the dab page will receive in the next couple of months. – Uanfala (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Merging similar dab pages

Hi – an editor has recently set up the dab page Re:member, but both topics on the page are already listed at Remember (disambiguation), and reading WP:DABCOMBINE it seems like the new dab page is unnecessary. Am I right in thinking the correct thing to do is simply redirect the former dab page to the latter established page? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Although we don't normally duplicate entries in this way, Re:member may be a useful page. A reader who types "Re:member" with a colon probably wants to find one of the two pages listed there without checking a long list of entries without colons. Certes (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MASN (disambiguation)

The article MASN (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Is this page even necessary? I don't think so. Moving Anthropology Student Network was recently deleted and it's doubtful the Mission Area Sub Network is even notable enough to be worth mentioning, especially since it's not mentioned at all in the Link 22 article. This leaves the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network as the only one left, thus making this page pointless.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

MASN used to stand for Moving Anthropology Student Network. Link 22 has no WP:DABMENTION. In my opinion, the dab was useful when created but no longer needed. Certes (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move: Java

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Java (programming language)#Requested move 16 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Certes (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move: Cow parsnip

A user has requested that Cow parsnip (disambiguation) be renamed and moved to Cow parsnip. Interested users may wish to join the discussion at Talk:Cow parsnip (disambiguation)#Requested move 23 May 2022. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:C17#Requested move 6 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:C17#Requested move 6 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 何をしましたか？那晚安啦。 08:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Null

I just removed a number of WP:PTM and non-notable fancruft from Null, but I'm not sure about the items under the header "Science, technology, and mathematics".

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Null character, Null pointer and all the Null (*) items are certainly known simply as "null" (though the character is more commonly "NUL".) "Null" could be understood to mean many of the others in context (all singleton sets are null), but they might still be PTMs. (We used to have an example about Berlin Zoo, which doesn't belong on Zoo (disambiguation) despite being the primary meaning of "the zoo" for people in Berlin.) Certes (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Rose (Doctor Who character)

Please see a discussion I just started on the disambiguation page Talk:Rose (Doctor Who character).--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Medon

Medon needs a disambiguation page. The existing page is about mythology. Should it be transformed into a disambiguation page or is it better to start a new page ? --Io Herodotus (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)-

Why does it need a disambiguation page? older ≠ wiser 15:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

We probably need a dab, because Medon may refer to:

Medon (beetle), a genus in the family Staphylinidae
Médon, a town in Ivory Coast
Medon, Tennessee, a city in Madison County
Medon, a synonym for Leucandra, a genus of calcareous sponge
4836 Medon, an asteroid
Caroline Medon (1802–1882), German opera singer
Tion Medon, a character in Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith
A load of old Greeks without articles

It's less clear whether the Greeks deserve their own list article and, if so, whether it or the dab should live at the base name Medon. Certes (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Move the Greeks to Medon (mythology) and create the dab page at Medon. No obvious primary topic, and an overdue dab page (there are a couple of hatnotes on the Greeks' page but no ccess route to Tennessee, beetle, singer etc). PamD 15:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @PamD: I agree, but someone with a clue about the classics will have fun sorting out the links to the resulting dab. There are 50 incoming links from articles plus another 300 via four templates. They should probably go to new redirects along the lines of Medon, King of Athens. Those mentioning Odysseus are probably about Medon (herald), but the references on Medon suggest that at least three people listed there are {{characters in the Iliad}}. Certes (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I made the change, but I think it would be better to have only one page for the whole thing. Why 2 pages ? I suggest to revert it. --Io Herodotus (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Many of the entries on the mythology page would fail WP:DABMENTION. In a set index there can be references to support such entries, but not on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NCGN

Hi project.

Let me call your attention to a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Two-part place-dabs.

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Transformer oil

IEC 60296 will be inhibited and uninhibited transformer oil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.76.25 (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

List of International Electrotechnical Commission standards mentions IEC 60296, but what is the relevance to disambiguation? Certes (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah... I think this relates to DBPC's entry for Butylated hydroxytoluene. Per MOS:DABENTRY, we try to keep such entries concise, leaving full details of the chemical's use for the article itself. Certes (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Saint Lucia and Santa Lucia

Hi. I'm not sure if this the correct place but I would like to advice about this discussion, about a proprosal of merging to disambiguation pages in Talk:Saint Lucia (disambiguation) MrKeefeJohn (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Glass onion

I'm not part of this WikiProject, but I did create a disambiguation page for Glass onion (disambiguation) given there are three articles referring to that term. Since the upcoming and recently titled Glass Onion film is likely to become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC later this year when it releases, I wanted to get a head start on this, and was wondering if any of these titles, ie Glass Onion (the Beatles song) and Glass onion (the bottles) should be renamed for disambiguation. The film article has 6,809 pageviews, and before the title was announced, the article had already amassed 109,862 pageviews. The Beatles song article has 6,121 pageviews, with a spike of 3,307 from yesterday because readers were looking for the newly titled film. The bottles article has 1,164 pageviews, which again had a spike yesterday, this time of 802. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The song is likely to remain the primary topic. The film is getting more page views right now only because of its recency. I could be wrong, and a few years after the film is released it rises to being more of the typical reader's mind than the song, and if so, a renaming would be appropriate. TJRC (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also Glass onion, undoubtedly the primary topic with respect to long-term significance; it differs by the case of one letter (O vs. o), but editors will have varying opinions about how much WP:SMALLDIFFS should matter here. You could always start an RM to see what can come out, but as TJRC points out, it's generally best to wait until the dust has settled on the recently released film. There are precedents for both outcomes with other Beatles songs and films: one RM that didn't succeed at the time of the film's release (but a second attempt several years later did pass), and another that got consensus while the film was still in the news (but it had won a major prize, so that's another thing). – Uanfala (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Films (including Neflix and Amazon and etc originals) are released every day. The film will probably be mostly forgotten in five years. I wish we had a mechanism for pushing a term to primary status for some few years then dropping it back down, but we don't. We look for long-term significance of 10, 20, 50 or more years.

I expect that there's no primary topic here long term, but the Beatles are very very big, the broke up a half century ago and are still a huge deal, and I expect that they will be of popular and scholarly interest 100 years from now to a degree. Much more than say Stravinsky or Coltrane or etc. "Glass Onion" was not a single or an especially good song, but it was on the seminal White Album and does have a lot of insider references. Glass onion bottles look to be pretty obscure and I seriously doubt they will attract as much interest as a Beatles song 20, 50, or 100 years from now.

So if we had to have a primary topic it would be the song I guess. But we shouldn't. Sucks for the people looking for the film, but we don't have a "primary topic for the next 18 months" policy. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

1)What makes you think the reader won't be able to find the article for the film? 2)If things were switched around wouldn't it suck for the readers looking for the song? Oh wait - that is what the DAB page is for. MarnetteD|Talk 00:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I think we're in agreement -- a search on "glass onion" should take the reader to the disambig page. There isn't a primary target (long-term) IMO. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Not all terms have a primary topic. In particular, if one topic is primary with respect to usage but another is primary with respect to long-term significance, we may be able to serve our readers best by putting the dab at the base name. Views for Glass Onion just rose from a steady average of under 100 per day to 3,307. Either there's a huge surge of interest in the Beatles, or 97% of visitors to that page were looking for something else. Certes (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The movie. Let's agree to check back in 2027 or 2032 and see what is going on then. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Vector 2022 skin

Editors who maintain dabs may be interested in WP:VPPR#Defining a process for the discussion of making Vector 2022 the new default. In particular, dabs which use {{TOC right}} will now show the table of contents bottom left, typically off the screen, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury?useskin=vector-2022. Certes (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding link of disambiguation page on a disambiguation page

Special:Diff/1099386430, here I am trying to Add link of disambiguation page on a disambiguation page.

Now I am getting notification from Dab bot. Not sure how I can fix this. Please help. Venkat TL (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You just need to mark the link as intentional, see WP:INTDAB. – Uanfala (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

...or transclude the dab contents using {{Transclude list}}. No such user (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL and Uanfala: Except that as there is already a link to Zubair (name), we don't need a link for one particular given name. PamD 12:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the helpful response. Venkat TL (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Public school#Requested move 22 July 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Public school#Requested move 22 July 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

List of disambiguation pages by size

A few people might remember that I used to have a tool listing disambiguation pages sorted by size. Although it stopped working some time ago, I have now revived it at [5]. I originally intended it to find extremely long disambiguation pages; however, I have found that starting at the other end of the list (extremely short pages) turns up a lot of garbage and vandalism that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. I may, at some point, add an option to reverse the sorting order. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Anyone interested in the shortest pages, they are (currently) here. Tassedethe (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed automated test for G14

WikiProject members may be interested in Wikipedia:Bot requests#Proposed automated test for G14. Certes (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Russian constitution (disambiguation)#Requested move 8 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Russian constitution (disambiguation)#Requested move 8 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Formosa (disambiguation)#Requested move 6 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Formosa (disambiguation)#Requested move 6 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC affecting dab entry criteria

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RFC on WP:NOTDIRECTORY and notability has opened, discussing a change to criteria for inclusion in lists, including dab entries. Certes (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#RfC on change to MOS:DABMENTION has also opened, on a related topic. Certes (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Title (Disambiguation) redirects at RfD

Two multi-page RfDs at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24‎‎ may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. They concern redirects of the form "Title (Disambiguation)" with a capital D, where the target is or is not a dab respectively. Certes (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at CfD about SIA category titles

There is a proposal to rename certain categories that contain tropical storm set index articles, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#Tropical storm "disambiguation" categories, that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Dab needed

Nobody Else but You (Trey Songz song) - a 2017 song
Nobody Else But You (Tremaine song) - redirects to the 2017 Album containing the above song
Nobody Else but You - a 2011 film
Nobody Else But You (song) - redirects to the 1946 song Nobody Else but Me

Does anyone want to sort this out. I doubt that the film is the PT here, so a dab probably belongs at the base name and redirects need adjusting. MB 21:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I've had a go at sorting this one out. Certes (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

FC Barcelona (disambiguation)

Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at FC Barcelona (disambiguation)? It's not clear whether some recent edits to the page are appropriate. DAB pages typically don't require citations or "References" section per WP:DABREF and the "See also" section seems a bit odd as well since a DAB page is essentially one big "See also" page (at least it seems that way to me). I was going to try and clean things up myself, but wanted some feedback from others more familiar with DAB pages first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I removed the reference and added a cleanup tag because, although many of these are partial title matches, some of them may be called simply 'FC Barcelona'. It's not an area I know anything about. Leschnei (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Leschnei. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Spin (disambiguation)

A discussion is underway regarding the disambiguation page for Spin, particularly about how to set up the introduction. To participate go here: Talk:Spin#Main use of the term "spin". Any input is appreciated. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Nahida

There is no disambiguation for Nahida, there seems to be quite a few names that could be related to that. Could somebody create it? ReyHahn (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Certes (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"Most often refers to"

Entries at the top should be "significantly more likely to be the reader's target" (MOS:DABCOMMON). But these targets are often introduced with "[Title] most often (or most commonly) refers to...", which is not the same thing. Taking Spin, it's probably true that "spin" most often refers to rotation generally, or textile spinning, or propaganda, depending on the corpus--and those entries have been put on top. But WikiNav shows that readers are actually overwhelmingly looking for Spin (physics).

I think the phrase "most often/commonly refers to" is leading editors to misinterpret DABCOMMON in a way that leaves dabs less helpful than they would otherwise be. Should we encourage something like "Readers searching for [title] are most often looking for..." instead? —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No, just treat every item the same and use the term "may refer to". The Banner talk 18:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "treat every item the same"? Are you saying, abandon DABCOMMON entirely and just sort entries by name and/or subject area? —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 19:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I take that to mean having a single "Foo may refer to" line, with the few most common entries at the top and then the sections following immediately without another "Foo may also refer to" sentence. Uanfala (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Saba#Requested move 8 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saba#Requested move 8 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

DAB expert needed

Hello. I moved, expanded and added to South Eastern Freeway (disambiguation) because of problems on the Queensland freeway page with a redirect, then noticed a couple of US freeways popping up so added them to the list, and was about to create another redirect from this term, but found Southeast Freeway. I'm not sure how best to resolve these, with their various redirects, so thought I'd ask for further advice. Should they be combined, or each separate with See alsos, or...? (About to go out for a while but if anyone responds, please ping me and I'll do what needs to be done later.) Thanks. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems that there are 5 entries on each list, but of the ten there are only six unique. I would just handle all on Southeast Freeway since the quantity is so small and the differences in the names are minor. MB 02:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, will do, thansk MB. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Invisible Woman (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Invisible Woman (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

"(writer)" or "(author)"?

Has there been any discussion as to which of these is preferred? Looking at Category:20th-century English novelists and Category:20th-century English poets they are both in common use. I've just created Glyn Hughes (writer), although another editor had disambiguated him as Glyn Hughes (author) (the more important things being that I've created the Glyn Hughes dab page, and distinguished the footballer from the rugby union player, and fixed a misspelling in the name of a hospital commemorating the soldier ... all because another editor disambiguated the link in Ammon Wrigley which was on my watchlist!). PamD 12:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm interested in this one too! I keep coming across both. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There's also "novelist", "poet", "playwright", "screenwriter", "letter writer", "pamphleteer", and probably others. I'm not aware of any guidance. To me, "writer" is the broadest category, while "author" suggests someone who writes books, and "novelist" writes book-length fiction. This may be one of those things where we need to decide what's most recognizble on a case by case basis. Station1 (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I usually use the most specific (what the person is most known for or produces most of) where possible, especially if it's a common name. But it would be handy to have a guideline on it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I tend to use a wider term, like "writer", so that it's more likely to stay accurate even if the novelist then diversifies into poetry or journalism. But I hadn't thought of "author" as being specific to book-writing: interesting. I see that Category:Authors redirects to Category:Writers, and Wiktionary lists them as synonyms. PamD 20:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

National anthem

I am breaking my head about the templates Template:Culture of Macau and Template:Culture of China. Both have a link to a disambiguation page regarding their nation anthem. Both templates are not recently edited, nor are the involved links National anthem of Macau, National anthem of China (redirect)/Anthem of China. So I have no clue where the warning on the maintenance list "Templates with disambiguation links is coming from. Leading me to fail to solve them. Anybody having an idea how to solve those links? The Banner talk 10:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

As you said, both templates are linking to Dab pages - so isn't that the explanation for the warning? National anthem of Macau was changed from a redirect to a Dab about a year ago. If this is a new error, something must have recently purged the template for the first time since then. If the template is only used where it refers to present-Macau, the link can be changed to March of the Volunteers. If it is also used on colonial Macau, then it should link to National anthem of Macau (disambiguation). I don't see any changes in a very long time to China one, but the fix is the same. MB 14:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Culture of region changed recently to fix the check for a national anthem page, which may just have percolated through. Certes (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

More then likely, but how to get them fixed? The Banner talk 17:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I looked into Macau further, and {{Culture of Macau}} uses {{Culture of region}}. The second template generates these links automatically (if they exist): Flag of Macau, Coat of arms of Macau, and National anthem of Macau. I don't see anyway to override this and it just doesn't seem to have contemplated that any of these could be a dab. It looks like {{Culture of region}} needs to be modified. MB 19:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The other links in the Symbols section of Culture of Macau are Flag of Macau and Coat of arms of Macau, each of which leads to a current symbol of the PRC SAR. However, the template is used in both modern and historical contexts, notably in History of Macau. This may be an XY problem with the underlying question being: why is National anthem of Macau a dab when those links aren't? It's debatable which is wrong (if either), but they're inconsistent. Certes (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems like the template is designed to be used for the present country. We could change National anthem of Macau from a dab to a redirect, add a hatnote there to the A Portuguesa, and create National anthem of Portuguese Macau as a redirect as well. This would be easy and would resolve the inconsistency. MB 22:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Lots of countries have had multiple national anthems. I just checked Afghanistan (first on the List of former national anthems and the culture template links to National anthem of Afghanistan which redirects to National anthems of Afghanistan which is not a dab, but short list-like/BCA-like article. {{Culture of Afghanistan}} also links to Flag of Afghanistan and Emblem of Afghanistan which are both articles that cover present and historical. Is just not having a dab at any "Flag of/Coat of arms of/National antherm of country" title a hidden requirement of this template? MB 22:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

At the moment, yes. {{Culture of region}} has a series of override parameters such as |histoverride=Old Foo to link History to Old Foo rather than History of Foo. There are no override parameters for the symbols, probably because it would complicate the coding which determines whether to show the symbol section at all. Certes (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I have added flagoverride, armsoverride, anthemoverride to {{Culture of region}}.[6] I leave it to others to decide where the links should go. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope I have done it correctly. Thanks for the overrides, Primehunter! The Banner talk 17:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all. MB 16:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Explanatory redirects

Besides articles, Wikipedia's article space contains many redirects and disambiguation pages. What if something falls in the cracks between these clearly distinguished categories?

An example is the page OTRK, which I started when I read that acronym in the news. I put the one explanation that I found in the article, with a link to a typical example. For me, as a news reader, that was basically what I would have hoped to find. I had some hope that someone more familiar with the subject could add some details, such as what the acronym abbreviates, and maybe why it is only used for Russian arms. That didn't happen, but I still felt it was helpful for other people reading the news these days.

Now, though, the page has been WP:PRODed in accordance with WP's due process, because it's not an article. What others often do in cases like this would be to create, instead of such an explanatory redirect, a hard redirect. That is, however, an inferior solution, since it forces the choice to either – as many do – leave the redirection term out of the article, leaving the reader scratching her head why clicking on the term produces an article that doesn't even contain it, or artificially introduce the redirection term in the target article, and ideally even create a section for it, even though it may be outdated or uncommon. I recently had a discussion on another wiki with someone who was even more unhappy about that asthan I am. We reached the conclusion that such pages more closely resemble disambiguation pages than redirects, just with the difference that the number of target articles is <2. Is there something for that here on the English Wikipedia? ◅ Sebastian 13:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that OTRK was not a valid article. It also would have been wrong to convert it to a hard redirect to an article that did not mention the term as you said. You could have added the term into the article as you had a source, to not "leave the reader scratching her head" about why they were redirected. I don't think that would have been "artificial". In this case, I was able to convert this to a standard dab page. MB 16:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The page has now been converted into a "normal" dab, and that's good. At the time of creation, it looked like this. If no other meanings for the term had been found, that would have been an alright page in my opinion. Turning it into a redirect wouldn't have worked, but not so much because the term wasn't mentioned in the target article (that would have been easily remediable), but because it's bad practice to redirect a term for a general concept to an article about one (among many) specific implementations of this concept. A single-line page explaining what the term means is in my opinion perfectly acceptable, but only as an interim solution (until a suitable general article eventually gets expanded with relevant content) and with the source explicitly given in the page (all content should be sourced: dabs are only apparently an exception, as the information they contain is expected to be sourced in the linked articles). The trouble, of course, is that most editors who review new articles will invariably take an objection to such a page, and for this (and only this) reason I think it's generally best to save everyone the trouble and avoid creating such pages whenever possible. Uanfala (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, both for your replies here and your edits to the page, which is now hugely improved. I also agree with Uanfala that it's bad practice to redirect a term for a general concept to an article about one specific implementation.

So, if I may use that page's development as an example: The current process would not easily have produced this result. Certainly not with its favored solution – deletion, and less smoothly with the other options mentioned. Wouldn't it be much more sensible to allow a page to start as a one-target disambiguation? If, as was the case here, other targets exist, it's easy to add them later. If not, is any harm done by leaving it with just one target? ◅ Sebastian 06:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)