Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation: Difference between revisions

Disambiguation

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disambiguation page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

There is so much disambiguation that is required relating to the New York City Subway. There have been attempts, but they look rather inconsistent. Rather than give specific examples, I will point you to the section List of New York City Subway stations#Stations with the same name, and look at the column "Name of station." Those entries are links to disambiguation pages, many of which either have the suffix (New York City Subway) or redirect to another general disambiguation page. There are about 100 pages that I am asking to review. Also, there is a separate but related issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Two mergers to consider. Tinlinkin (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages of the form "Ambiguous title (disambiguating phrase)" are incomplete disambiguations. They should redirect to "Ambiguous title" or "Ambiguous title (disambiguation)" as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. For example, Third Avenue (New York City Subway) should be renamed Third Avenue (disambiguation) and Atlantic Avenue (New York City Subway) should be merged with and redirect to Atlantic Avenue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another question: for example, there is both 18th Avenue (New York City Subway) and 18th Street (New York City Subway). Should these entries appear in 18 (number) (redirect of 18th) and how? And should 18th Avenue and 18th Street be merged into one? Tinlinkin (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would convert 18th from a redirect into a disambiguation page, if there are ambiguous articles. Are 18th Street and 18th Avenue ambiguous with 18th though? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense at all:

"Links to other disambiguation pages should use the '(disambiguation)' link"

Requiring the use of a redirect is just plain stupid. If you can link directly, why shouldn't you? Whether or not the link has "disambiguation" in the title is completely irrelevant. This is just process for the sake of process, and is completely instruction creep. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing it this way means that readers can see that the page being linked to is a disambiguation page (which might not actually be necessary information, but it makes navigation more transparent, and doesn't cost).--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So just do a piped link in this one case. Sending them through a redirect is pointless instruction creep and actually obfuscates the navigation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best reason is that linking through the redirect makes it easier to distinguish between intentional and mistaken links to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it just plain stupid, completely irrelevant, process for the sake of process, or instruction creep, nor does linking to a (disambiguation) redirect obfuscate navigation. To expand on what Bkonrad said, all intentional links to disambiguation pages (in hatnotes, other disambiguation pages, or even in the body of an article, if that is useful somewhere) should use the (disambiguation) title, redirect or no, because that makes repairing links to disambiguation pages easier -- "What links here" will show the pages that link through the redirect, so the editors who are using their time to fix the unintentional links to disambiguation pages don't have to waste their time checking them. Links to redirects are not broken in general, and intentional links to disambiguation redirects are even more useful than that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this absolutely clear. According to the latest daily report, we have 1,101,672 disambiguation links in article space. Most of those need to be cleaned up, which is practically a full-time job for the dozens of Wikipedians who work on them. We rely on the "what links here" page to see what actually needs to be fixed, but are helped enormously when links that don't need to be fixed are taken out of the equation. An intentional link to a disambig page should not be made to occupy our time, so where those exist (which is predominately in the see also sections of other disambig pages), they should go through the (disambiguation) link so that we can ignore the hundred-thousand or so intentional disambig links and concentrate on the million or so incorrect disambig links. bd2412 T 00:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While looking for information on the programming language, I came across Java (which should have a hatnote redirect linking to the article on the programming language, BTW) and got interested in disambiguation. A quick look through discussion archives turns up the Georgia case quite prominently, as well as a slew of biography articles. Something that strikes me in all these cases is that a lot of the disagreements could be kept off the individual article discussion pages and collected in a single location (and in some cases, flat-out settled!) if the "bare name" was always a redirect in these cases. For example, Georgia would (currently) be a redirect to Georgia (disambiguation) and similarly for ambiguous person names, etc. That way, discussion about where Georgia should point could be kept on a single discussion page rather than being spread across the discussion pages for a number of different articles. It would also minimize the disruption caused by people changing the redirect (and reverting it back) since it wouldn't involve renaming any of the actual articles. It wouldn't cause any problems for readers, since the redirect is automatic. Links would continue to work just fine — and in fact there'd be the added benefit of easily identifying which links go to an ambiguous name. It seems like a win-win-win all around. Why isn't this the policy? --Lewis (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Java has a hatnote. I'm not sure what a hatnote redirect is. I don't understand how having the base name always be a redirect will minimize disruptions of people changing the redirect -- if the primary topic is at the base name, there's no redirect to change. I don't think it would necessarily cause any additional problems, but I don't think it would reduce them either, just change their process. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified my point about the hatnote (which is just a personal opinion, unrelated to my other point here so I'll not mention it again) and my point about minimizing disruption is that when a base name is given directly to an article (the "primary usage") and there's dispute over whether that article really is the primary usage, then when bold editors rearrange things to their liking, actual articles get renamed, their associated talk pages get renamed, and there's generally a big mess to clean up afterwards. If the base name is simply a redirect to a particular article (or to a disambiguation page identified with "(disambiguation)" in the title) then when people disagree about the primary usage and boldly make changes, only the content of the redirect changes, and nothing actually moves around. It's easier to revert because it's just a content page, there's no chance that talk pages will get moved improperly, nobody will accidentally do the move incorrectly because they cut-and-paste content, etc.

My point about keeping the discussion in one place is that, using the case of Georgia as an example, the discussion over where Georgia should point is spread across multiple discussion pages, depending on which article was named "Georgia" at the time the discussion was taking place. If Georgia had always just been a redirect to one of the other article pages (or the disambiguation page) then the discussion could've been kept in one place and wouldn't irritate people working on the actual articles. --Lewis (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In line with the above suggestion, I propose the following change to the wording of the page:

The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself followed by the tag "(disambiguation)", as in Term ABC (disambiguation). If there is no primary topic, then a page should be created at "Term ABC" that redirects to the disambiguation page at "Term ABC (disambiguation)".

When a disambiguation page combines several similar terms, one of them must be selected as the title for the page (with the "(disambiguation)" tag added); the choice should be made in line with the following principles:

• A word is preferred to an abbreviation, for example Arm (disambiguation) over ARM (disambiguation).
• When no word can be formed all capitals is preferred. For example, the disambiguation page for "ddb" is DDB (disambiguation) not "Ddb (disambiguation)".
• English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages.
• Singulars are preferred to plurals.
• The simplest form of the term is preferred to those containing punctuation, diacritics and articles; for example SA (disambiguation) is preferred to S.A. (disambiguation), and Shadow (disambiguation) is preferred to The Shadow (disambiguation).
• The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives.

What do you think? --Lewis (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this would turn current practice on its head and I'm not sure I understand what problem this is supposed to solve. older ≠ wiser 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It solves several problems:

1) Collateral damage caused by improper moves (and reverts) associated with disputes over which article is the primary topic. For example, instead of moving Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation) (over an existing redirect) and Georgia (country) to Georgia (or Georgia (US state) to Georgia), plus all the associated talk pages — and then having to revert it all — all that would happen in such situations is that Georgia would change its redirect destination, and everything else would stay where it is.

1b) It simplifies the process of changing the primary topic in legitimate cases as well.

2) It would give a clear location to hold discussions as to what the primary topic is. This has been a problem for Georgia, as evidenced by the fact that all of the various talk pages for the related articles have a big notice that informs editors where they should hold such discussions.

2b) It would keep such discussions off the talk pages for the articles themselves, which would remove a source of irritation for many editors of those articles.

3) It would take away at least some of the "prestige factor" of having an article at the base name, which would remove some of the tension in these disputes. If none of the articles get to be named with the non-qualified bare name, and it's just a matter of which one the bare name redirects to (for the ease of the readers) then there's less to argue over.

4) It makes it easier to protect against unauthorized changes of the primary topic. Currently this would require protecting an article itself (whichever one has the base name) whereas if the base name were always a redirect, the base name itself could be protected (and thus prevent unauthorized changes) without having to lock down any actual articles. Per JHunterJ's point below, pages can simply be protected against moves without protecting the content, so this is a non-issue. --Lewis (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these may be enormously important considerations, but since I can't come up with a single reason in favor of the status quo, I'd ask why not turn the current practice on its head. It doesn't seem to make much sense to keep it the way it is, at least to me. --Lewis (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I do not think making this change will reduce the collateral damage any; the damage will be relocated to clean ups of the target of the base name redirect, instead of clean ups of the position of the primary topic. Splintered discussions is a problem outside of the realm of disambiguations as well, and won't be cured by this either. The prestige factor will remain, just in which article is the target of the base name. Articles can be protected against moves without having to lock down the actual article. So I still see no reason to turn this on its head and require redirect usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that pages could be protected against moves without having to protect their content; thanks for clarifying that. So that makes point 4 above a non-issue. I still think it's easier to change the target of a redirect (either for legitimate or cleanup purposes) than to move multiple articles, so I stand by points 1 and 1b. I also think organization of the discussion will be helped by this change (points 2 and 2b) because the natural place to discuss a change of redirect target is on the page containing the redirect, whereas there's no clear place to discuss a potential change of primary topic (on the current base name? on the ones that people would like to make the new primary topic?) As for the "prestige factor" I think it's more an issue for biographies, and I'll look for some examples of people arguing over just this point (I came across some in my original research on this issue but I don't recall which articles I looked at.) --Lewis (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What reason is there to keep things the way they are, other than avoiding change? I realize that unnecessary change is bad, and that a case needs to be made to institute this kind of change, but I'm genuinely at a loss as to what the benefits of the current setup are. I've outlined a number of positive benefits to the way I'm suggesting, and you can dispute the merits of them, but I'd genuinely appreciate somebody listing some positive benefits of the current setup as well. --Lewis (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's the information implicit in the current arrangement (if the dab page ends in (disambiguation), there's a primary topic; if it doesn't, there isn't) and, I suspect, a reduction in the amount of cleaning needed, since only confirmed users can move a page but any editor can retarget a redirect, so when there's no primary target, unconfirmed users can't introduce one (without making a move request) in the current arrangement but could in the new arrangement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That second point is particularly interesting, since you're basically saying that my original point 4 should be reversed rather than just struck out. Since (I'm assuming) the move protection is automatic for unconfirmed users, this provides some default level of protection against unauthorized changes of primary topic, without even having to explicitly set stricter protections. I'm not yet convinced that your first point is all that important, since if there's a primary topic I'm figuring it should be indicated as such on the disambiguation page anyway. What's more, readers would only lose this implicit information if they arrive at the disambiguation page via a link, since if they go to the base name (under the proposed new setup) they would either be immediately redirected to the primary topic or to the disambiguation page, which would inform them of the (non-)existence of a primary topic even more directly. So I'll grant you the revised point 4 as an argument for keeping the status quo, and raise you one additional point in favor of change:

5) Consistent naming is simpler. Disambiguation pages would always be at Term ABC (disambiguation), and individual articles would always be at the most specific disambiguated name. The naming conventions would no longer need to take into account whether there was a primary topic; that would be a matter solely for consideration with respect to the target of the redirect.

I was going to make an additional point about the names of articles being more stable over time — which is true — but that's not particularly useful, since people can just link to Georgia (disambiguation) under the current setup anyway if they want to immunize their links from the possibility of Georgia getting a different primary topic, and it doesn't matter whether it's the actual disambiguation page at that name (as I'm proposing) or a redirect to it (as it is currently) so it's not an important point. --Lewis (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I still don't see the advantages you claim for the proposal. #1 presumes that editors would simply change the target of the redirect, however if history is any indication, it is far more likely that pages would be moved. Editors with a vested POV tend to want their preferred article at the base name -- having Georgia be a redirect to either the country or the state would likely be just as unacceptable since the title of the articles do not reflect their preference. #1b, I'm not sure I understand -- are you suggesting that a primary topic would not have the base name and would only be indicated by a redirect? That is a much bigger change than only this guideline -- it would affect several other naming conventions, for instance, WP:UCN as well as other aspects of WP:Article titles. I'm sure there are other guidelines this would impact as well. #2 As with the mistaken assumptions about #1, this assumes that editors would bother to pay attention to such details. For example, editors wanting either the country or the state to be at the base name would still be just as likely to propose and discuss moves on the respective talk pages. #2b, see response to #2. #3, see response to #1 -- not allowing the article title for a primary topic to have the undisambiguated title is a much bigger change than only this one guideline. #5, the current convention is consistent. Primary topics are at the undisambiguated title. Disambiguation pages are at the disambiguated title except when there is a primary topic. That the rule includes an qualification does not mean it is inconsistent. older ≠ wiser 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding moves vs. changes of redirect target (#1), history isn't a good indicator here because historically, the only way to change the primary topic has been to move/rename articles. I'm proposing a new way that wouldn't involve moves at all, and while some editors would presumably use the old methods, this would hopefully diminish over time. Regarding #1b, I am indeed suggesting that the primary topic not be given the base name, and if you think it would be helpful to raise the topic on those other pages, I'd be happy to do so and bring in more input. Regarding #2 I think history is again not helpful here, since there historically hasn't been a single place where such discussions could be held, except by explicit convention. If (in situations where disambiguation is needed) the base name is always a redirect, then it is the obvious place to hold discussions over where its target should be. It's the only page that would need to change when the primary topic changed, and so there'd be no reason to discuss it anywhere else (except perhaps to make people aware of the proposal.) Anyone who was mistaken about where the discussion should be held (perhaps because they were accustomed to the old way) could easily be pointed at the correct location, and I believe they would find the reasoning acceptable ("You're talking about changing the redirect target on page Term ABC.. go discuss it there.") As for #3, you actually seem to be agreeing with the point, since you acknowledge that there's some significance to the primary topic having the base name. If that significance goes away, so does at least some of the reason for argument between parties to a dispute as to what topic is primary. As for #5, it clearly is inconsistent, but I don't mean to say it's logically inconsistent or incoherent or anything like that. I just mean that sometimes it's one way, and sometimes it's another way. Always being the same way is more consistent. --Lewis (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History is a good indication of the issues involved and the types of editors who get passionate about such things -- and I respectfully suggest that your proposal would likely have little or no bearing on the actions of such editors. Editors who think that the country named Georgia is the primary topic would very likely not be satisfied only with having Georgia be a redirect to the country. I think the proposal is well-intentioned, but perhaps naive. I see no compelling reason to change the status quo, which actually functions quite well with the exception of a handful emotionally charged topics (such as Georgia, America, Tyre, Cork). One might hope that editors using "old methods" would diminish over time, but again history does not provide much basis for hope of zebras changing their stripes. If an editor expects their article to be located at the base name, they are unlikely to be satisfied with a redirect. For #2, the discussion will typically ALWAYS take place on the talk page of the page an editor want moved, regardless of whether some other editors might think there is a more logical place for such discussions to take place. With your method, there would need to be an entirely new mechanism invented to facilitate such discussions. Since no pages would actually be moved, WP:RM would be of no use. WP:RFD is a relatively isolated backwater of Wikipedia. Your approach to #3 is rather unintuitive, since the basic principle of page naming at Wikipedia has always been to use the most familiar name. Your proposal stands this on end and suggests that primary topics would NOT be located at the common name, but at a disambiguated title. I would not support this and I very much doubt this would garner very much support from other editors. By your proposal, the article on the prime minister of the UK could not be at Gordon Brown because there are other articles about people with that name. Similarly, the article on the largest city in England could not be at London because there are many other ambiguous article titles. And so on. Do you really think such a proposal is going to have widespread support? Your approach to #5 would merely introduce a different variety of what you see as inconsistency -- sometime the base name would redirect to an article (which most everyone would expect to be located at the title of the redirect) and sometimes would redirect to a disambiguation page. I don't see any clear advantage. older ≠ wiser 20:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point about history not helping here is that there's nothing to compare to. It's like arguing that electric cars will never sell very well, because historically most people have bought ones powered by internal combustion. The only way (adhering to policy, at least) to change the primary topic, historically, has been to move pages around — so of course history will show that people have done it by moving pages around. Most of the rest of your position seems (to me) to amount to "that's the way it has always been done, so that's the way we should keep doing it." With the exception of the revised #4 (default prohibition against unconfirmed editors moving pages makes protecting primary topics simpler, under the current setup) I haven't seen any other reasonable (IMHO) arguments in favor of the status quo. However, I also clearly haven't managed to convince anyone that my reasons are worth the trouble of changing policy, either — and that's really the important point here. So I'll drop the issue until I can come up with a better line of argument, or unless somebody else chimes in to say they support the kind of change I'm proposing.

I do want to make one last point about #3 though, which I see as the heart of the whole issue. You've made it pretty clear that you agree with my point about the base name granting some measure of importance to the primary topic — although you seem to be of the opinion that the relationship is a good one that should be preserved, whereas it's precisely what I wanted to eliminate. I don't think the PM of the UK should have an article named "Gordon Brown" nor do I think the capital should have an article named "London" — precisely because there are other (noteworthy) uses of those names. Making it such that all articles with ambiguous names (even the primary topic) require disambiguation would put them all on more equal footing. Looking at Georgia it's clear that this "prestige factor" is the primary cause of all the argument over what article should be named what. I think my proposal would go a good way toward eliminating much of that tension.. but you seem to think that it's a bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (because the "prestige factor" is — according to you(?) — appropriate in the uncontentious cases, and might be better thought of as the "common-sense factor" in those situations) and in any event isn't feasible because people won't change their behavior. Does that summary seem about right to you? Thanks for all your thought and discussion on this; I regret that I seem to have been unable to sway your opinion, but I'm glad you heard me out. --Lewis (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary uses biased terms such as prestige factor and measure of importance as well as some use of scare quotes. The point is that from the very earliest stages of Wikipedia, naming of articles has followed the principle of using the common name. Your proposal appears to discard that principle whenever there is the least indication of ambiguity. I think such an approach (assuming that there could ever be consensus for it) would involve far more disruption and inconvenience for readers than the supposed problem it proposes to solve. Regarding history, your analogy is not really apt. Your hope is that the logic of your proposal will somehow compel editors to stop behaving badly about issues that for whatever reasons seem to arouse inordinate passions. One can always hope, but the track record is really not very promising. older ≠ wiser 21:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to irritate or insult you, though unless I'm reading your tone incorrectly it seems that's what I am in fact doing. I'm sorry. I was aware of the biased nature of "prestige factor" and that's why I offered "common-sense factor" as an alternative that I thought you'd find more appropriate to your own position. I meant the quotes to indicate that I'm referring to the phrases themselves, not as scare quotes. I think my analogy to history is apt, because your argument was (and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding it) that editors have historically dealt with disputes over primary topics by moving pages, and so they would continue to do so. My rebuttal is that there hasn't really ever been an alternative to moving pages, so the fact that people have behaved that way in the past doesn't tell us much. Your point about disruption and inconvenience is well-taken, and that's why I'm not going to push the issue. I think perhaps if I had been around here years ago before the current policy had become entrenched, I might have stood more of a chance of making a difference, but as it stands now I not only need to show that the way I'm suggesting is better (which I am still absolutely convinced it is) but that it is so much better that it justifies changing thousands upon thousands of pages and redirects (which I certainly have not shown.) --Lewis (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. I was only trying to be clear that your summary was not exactly how I would summarize things. Regarding history, it is not only about moving pages, but about where the discussions take place. Granted, IF (and that's one humongous hypothetical if) it were accepted that every ambiguous title would require that the undisambiguated title be a redirect to either the primary topic (with a fully disambiguated title) or a disambiguation page named with suffix of "(disambiguation)", then it is possible that might relieve some contentions. But because the expectation of using the common name is in many ways a fundamental principle for naming conventions on Wikipedia, it is difficult to imagine how Wikipedia would operate were such a fundamental principle of naming articles modified. Any beneficial effect from the proposal seems at best a hopeful optimism. older ≠ wiser 22:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have released an album called "for the birds", however I'm unsure how to use disambiguation with For the birds as The Frames have already brought out an album called For the Birds. How should i go about naming The Mess Hall's, "For the birds" album article? Wiki ian 06:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Birds (The Mess Hall album). Cheers! --ShelfSkewed Talk 06:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any discussion about listing in the given name pages?

For some time I remember the following practice: to list only persons which are commonly known solely by a given name. For example, the page John includes Pope John I, but not John Lennon. Was there formalized somewhere? If not I would like to start a discussion, because this is so in well-watched pages, such as John or Igor, but not so in many other pages.

The same problem is with pages about given names. They are not disambig pages, but many of them contain a section, like, "List of famous people with given name Nnnnn".

An additional issue to consider is that the name is really rare, then listing such people may have some sense.

I am inviting Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy to join this discussion, to set a common style. There are thousands given names, and we better have them in order. - Altenmann >t 20:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a related question in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#First_names, but got no response. I guess it must be decided here. Mukadderat (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a separate given name article (or list) and disambig page, then the name-holders are not listed on the disambig page. If there isn't a separate disambig page, then name-holders can be listed on the disambig page at the bottom (after the ambiguous articles but before a "See also" section) -- until that list gets long enough and an editor decides to split it off to a name (list) article. Once there is a separate article, the name holders may or may not be listed there; it depends on the consensus at the individual name article talk. But at that point it's separate from the disambiguation project. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Background reading -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but this does not answer my question. The major issue: there are thousands of given name pages, disambig or not, and it is reasonable to have a common policy. If there is an exception, then it may be handled in the article talk page. I would dread to start thousand similar talks in thousand talk pages. - Altenmann >t 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It provides as best an answer as can be given from the disambiguation project. Since the name-list articles are not disambiguation pages, if an anthroponymy-wide guideline is needed, the anthroponymy project consensus can determine it. Even then, of course, the consensus at any given page might still disagree if the consensus is that disagreeing is useful to the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you haven't read my question carefully. It is equally related to both projects, and you didn't andser it. Do you want me to cut and paste it here or oyou care to re-read from the top yourself? I an not asking where to list first names. - Altenmann >t 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement isn't illiteracy. I read your question, disagreed with your assumption, and explained why. And still answered your question. You can re-read it yourself if you like, but I'll take another pass at it:

1. Name articles aren't disambiguation pages, so the anthroponymy project is the proper place to try to form a new consensus (and not here). Dab editors who are also interested in the anthroponymy sister project (not sub-project) can be expected to see it there.
2. Forcing consistency on the thousands of pages isn't necessarily reasonable. It might be useful, but it might also be a waste of time, and the decision left where it is today: with each article.
3. Be civil.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search for an article to help me understand how Jews came to be referred to as "The Chosen", only to be directed to a disambiguation page containg decent sized list on several films and other disambiguations of the term (most actually related to Jews as being considered "The Chosen", yet no actual article on the central question: Why are Jews referred to as "The Chosen"?

Has no article yet been created adressing that central definition? 70.49.69.185 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search for "jews chosen" in WP and you get the following pages:

Jews as a chosen people, Chosen people (disambiguation), Chosen people

These might help (and might indicate that The Chosen DAB page might benefit from a see also link to one of the above).

Incidentally, Chosen people is currently being considered for deletion.

-- EdJogg (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I linked Chosen people (disambiguation) from The Chosen. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases there is an ordinary English usage for a term. The specific example that leads me to make this comment is the damages disambiguation page. When I first looked at the page it started with a "Film and television" section; buried lower down was section "Law" with "Property damage", and "Other" with "Water damage". The article did have a link to the Wiktionary article.

In the case of a word like "damage" with a clear and common meaning in everyday English, that meaning should dominate a 2009 film and a band called "Damage"; a routine link to Wiktionary is not enough to inform a reader not familiar with the term of the meaning (a fortiori, it should not be assumed that readers use English as their main language, or that they live in a typical Western culture). A definition of the word (even if this is really a dictionary definition; an exception to the guideline discouraging such definitions should apply to disambiguation) should head the article, and meanings which are just variants of normal English should appear here; in the case of damage, "Water damage", "Property damage", "Fire damage" are applications of the normal meaning, not truly independent terms, and should be grouped with the main definition.

The article as I found it is at [1]; I left it as at [2], though I don't claim my version to be perfect or definitive. [In the particular case of damage I added a brief clarification of the distinction between damage and damages which isn't directly relevant to my point here, though it does clearly belong where it is (there are many cases of misuse like "the earthquake caused damages to a building and a bridge", presumably mainly by non-native speakers of English).]

I suggest that the guidelines on disambiguation pages be modified to cover this, very common, situation. Pol098 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of your points. I can tell you now that you will get some resistance from other editors who insist that the layout of a disambiguation page or the determination of a primary topic is nothing but a popularity contest, and that whatever the largest number of readers are looking for should take priority. I don't subscribe to that view. Disambiguation pages may not be articles, but they are part of the content of the encyclopedia and they should serve to inform readers, not just send them on their way elsewhere as quickly as possible.

In most cases, I would think that if we have an encyclopedia article about a topic as a common noun, that should be featured before uses of the same title as a proper noun, which are usually derivatives of the common meaning.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is not (as you note) a dictionary, and I don't think disambiguation pages should be filled up with dictionary definitions. Many disambig pages do contain a brief definition of the most common use of a term along with a Wiktionary link, and I have no problem with that, but we should resist the temptation to start adding extensive lexicographic content to these pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Russ. Re your popularity contest point: I don't see that as a problem at all. In, I think, the overwhelming majority of cases the normal English use is by far the commonest; in an exceptional case where this is not so, then I don't see any problem with leading with the commonest, not the usual English, usage. My point is not to disagree with the popularity contest; rather, quite a lot of disambiguation pages don't make any mention at all of the common use, although it should be there, and at the top. In my example of damage, there was mention of "Property damage" and "Water damage" (rightly not at the top), but no mention of the bare word damage itself, which does belong, and at the top.

If there is an encyclopedia article about a topic as a common noun, that should simply be a link on a disambiguation page, and the first link in almost all cases (i.e., if it is the commonest use). However, in many cases there is not a separate article; in such cases my suggestion is not to write a comprehensive dictionary article on the word, but to have a briefish definition which will usually be a single sentence. In my damage example I said "In ordinary English usage, damage is physical harm or breakage to something", which I think is enough; the mention of ordinary English usage might prompt someone who wants to go further to a d(W)ictionary. In the very particular case of damage(s), the frequent misuse and misunderstanding of damage/damages prompted me to add another 3 lines, but this should not normally be necessary.

My "before" and "after" versions of the "damages" page illustrate quite well what I mean, I think. Pol098 (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit: by and large, any word that's in a dictionary (without starting with a capital letter) is an ordinary English word. Where a word, which is a normal but not all that common English word, is more commonly used in a different context, the English use should not come first. For example, Voyager is arguably more commonly used to refer to a variety of other things rather than just an ordinary traveller; so these definitions should come first, but there should be a section which I think should be "Ordinary English usage" rather than "Other" or "Travel" with a brief dictionary-type definition. Indeed, looking at the Voyager entry, I find no mention at all of the ordinary meaning (which I will add, so it will be there if you look and nobody reverts) ; it should be there, even though it's not very commonly used. The ordinary word Voyager is arguably more frequent than USS Voyager (SP-361), a US Navy motorboat. Pol098 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that "ordinary English dictionary definition" (or usage, as you call it) should not be added. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and your new entry does not disambiguate an ambiguous Wikipedia article. To R'n'B's comment, and spinning it back the other way, determination of primary topic is indeed nothing but seeing which topic is used primarily -- I'm not sure why you cast this as a "popularity contest". Disambiguation pages are not articles and there is no reason to try and dilute their navigational function by forcing them to also repeat the information that is in articles. If the information is not in articles, then it should be added to an article or it should remain outside of the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I picked the "popularity contest" word from R'n'B's contribution; it means nothing but seeing which topic is used primarily, and seems fine to me; entries should be in order of frequency of use, whether or not the usual use is the commonest. Taking, say, damage: the purpose of a disambiguation page should be to briefly list as many uses as possible. The page will be accessed by someone who needs to know which of several possible articles (s)he should go to to find the information required. If there were no disambiguation page there would be no need for an entry for the word damage, it is a dictionary definition. However if we have a page with title Damage, it seems perverse to exclude the most common use of the word because of a rigid no-dictionary-definition guideline; the word damage has ambiguity, but we are listing as many uses we can find except the commonest (and most likely) one. [If the dictionary use is not the most common, it shouldn't be at the top, but should still be listed.] In most cases a brief dictionary definition is comparable in length to a typical disambiguation entry; it absolutely shouldn't be a full dictionary discussion. I do get the impression that you (JHunterJ) are trying to enforce rules as rules, rather than consider the merits of the case.

To use the same example as I've been using, if you tell me that you've got "damage" at your house, the Damage disambiguation page would offer me (before I edited it) Damage (2009 film), Damage (novel), Damage (band) ... you get the idea. So you might have a DVD, a book, a visit from a band, .... There is genuine ambiguity, but not all possible cases have been included: you might also have been visited by a marauding elephant (and this sort of damage is the most likely one). I maintain that the disambiguation page should give me, as far as possible, all possible resolutions of the ambiguity, without having to write an encyclopaedia page for the usual meaning of damage, which doesn't merit it. Pol098 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to explain the merits of the rules, rather than trying to enforce edits that contradict them without consensus. In this case, the guidelines are clear, which makes them appear rigid to editors who disagree with them. An ambiguous Wikipedia article about the most common usage of "damage" should be listed first on the dab page. A dictionary definition should be available through a link to a dictionary -- Wiktionary, in this case. Damages might be listed high on the damage dab page; the current version with its clunky "ordinary dictionary defintion" section though is less useful and unnecessary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am firmly of the position that an encyclopedia is not a dictionary, and a user should not expect to be able to find information in an encyclopedia about every single definition that is in a dictionary. Which seems to be what you are arguing for: that wherever there exists information in Wiktionary that is not in Wikipedia because it is not itself an encyclopedic topic, we should provide a link to Wiktionary to save the user from some immense imagined burden that comes from realizing Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this or that. You can say, "Oh, it should only be for 'common' definitions that aren't covered in Wikipedia," but to set a standard for which definitions are common and which aren't would be really arbitrary. Propaniac (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you don't know the definition of a word in common English usage, such as "damage," aren't you likely to know you should be looking it up in a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia anyway? By "common English usage," aren't you implying "a word that everybody knows the meaning of"? Propaniac (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following my comments on the need to include ordinary English use in the previous section, an alternative might be to modify the Wiktionary link, which at the moment is not very prominent, instead of adding a definition. There is a smallish and not very prominent box reading "Look up <word> in Wiktionary, the free dictionary" on the right-hand side. Maybe, instead of the approach I described in the previous section, the {{wiktionary}} template should be modified, perhaps to add prominent text at the beginning of the article "<word> is used in normal English usage; click here to see definitions and notes on usage in Wiktionary, the free dictionary". If this interferes with existing use of the template, a new, more prominent, template could be written for disambiguation pages. Pol098 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I propose appending the following to the end of WP:PT regarding unique, initial-use proper nouns:

Occasionally there may be cases where two or more articles would bear precisely the same title but none are the primary topic using the above criteria. If it's not otherwise clear whether X is a primary topic for T, then the decision is sometimes swung in X's favor by the fact that X is the original use of the name T. For example, if there is a novel, followed by a play derived from that novel, a film derived from that play, and a musical derived from that film — all bearing the same title and with none much more sought — the novel shall be the primary topic. In the case of non-derivative works — proper nouns specifically created by blending multiple words together into a unique word (Clannad) or as a portmanteau (Microsoft), creating a new word derived from another (Dracula) or an entirely new word (Jabberwocky), or using a truly unique cluster of words (An American in Paris) resulting in derivative works or an amalgamation of other proper nouns (Goldwyn Pictures) — the initial creative use and popularization of the title shall be the primary topic when the creative initial use of the term is crystal clear.

₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 23:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]