Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation: Difference between revisions

For discussion related to disambiguation on Wikipedia but not to the project, please see the Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation (general disambiguation) or the Manual of Style (specific style questions).

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• Updates of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages seem to be flagging. • Ling.Nut

No, they are two differnt questions. The question of whether to move domestic pig to pigs is a different question. There are other possible solutions; many of them have been suggested. We have to determine the answer to this question and then determine the next step. That was the problem last time. I am not trying to determine the primary target for pig; that is a complicated question that could be solved as you suggest, directing them to the disambiguation page, or other suggestions. We have to determine exactly what we do/don't have disagreement about. Chrisrus (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could use some help sorting out a disambiguation issue currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Odd redirect. Please leave your comments at the opera project so that the discussion is not happening in two places. Thanks in advance for helping the opera project out.4meter4 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone at the dab project should have a look at this: Special:Contributions/UncivilFire. Regards. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem: the orchestra's article is at its French name, which its website, even the English language pages, uses. Redirects from any imaginable alternative name are a Good Thing - any mixture of accents and capitals is a harmless addition. Ah, looking again, perhaps the problem is that the editor doesn't understand how to create redirects so is moving existing redirects to create them! Will leave them a note. PamD (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and I ended up creating OSQ dab page over a redirect which didn't go to the orchestra. PamD (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion at the Village pump(s), has led to this idea, which is currently in the initial drafting/pondering stage.

Synopsis: A potential style change for disambiguated titles. For example:

Please see WP:VPR/Styling disambiguated titles where a draft page has been set up, with various options for style (size and/or color changes), and to list potential problems and potential implementation methods.

I've copied across the discussion from the village pumps, to the talkpage there. Please help analyze and consider this idea further. Find us more examples to ponder upon. Once firmer conclusions have been reached there, we can potentially bring it to a more formal RfC, back at the VP or elsewhere. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page used to contain a rather long list of entries for the various versions of The X Factor (TV series), each country's version and any season articles if they existed, but someone came along and said there were too many links and the link to The X Factor (TV series) was sufficient because it contains all the links anyway. Is this correct? To me it seems not, I think all the links should be there. Just wanted to check, thanks. (This is how it was before.) AnemoneProjectors 11:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? AnemoneProjectors 21:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all ambiguous topics should be listed. Groups and sections can be used if the list is long. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. It might be better to just link to the original version, and a second link to that primary list of subsequent franchise shows. Like this diff. Much reduced maintenance and redundancy issues (including issues of whether to list items that don't match the title exactly, and what order to list items in (translated or original language, by alphabet or chronology, etc)). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that would reduce maintenance and redundancy. I disagree that that is a good thing here though. The reader looking for one of the ambiguous articles doesn't benefit from that maintenance efficiency -- here the redundancy is a good redundancy, placing a slight burden on the project in exchange for reader utility, which is the trade off for all the project burdens. Disambiguation pages should disambiguate all ambiguous articles for their title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not ambiguous, that's the point. A reader looking for a particular article on any one country's version of X-Factor is not going to be confused by the current format, they just have the inconvenience of one extra click. A reader looking for one of the non TV show meanings on the other hand, is going to be inconvenienced when presented with a dab page which previously looked for all intents and purposes, like a list of X-Factor editions, and not a dab page differentiating actual, properly unrelated and properly ambiguous uses of the term 'X-Factor'. When I arrived at that page it took me a good few minutes to even realise that it actually was a dab page, and not just a list of X-Factor edition articles. If there is a pressing need for this sort of redundancy of listing by having the exact same list in two places, then we should do it with a sub-list in the way that long lists of surnames/places are often sub-paged out of their 'parent' dab page, such as how the dab page Rooney is not dominated by just a long list of surnames. If there is some specific aspect of DAB that prevents this (I've not seen it specifically barred), then I say we should invoke WP:IAR, because stuffing dab pages with 95% closely related entries is not the best way to do provide quick and easy navigation for the people looking for the other 5%. I would also suggest that without active monitoring of the main list and dab page, it will easily become less than optimally useful for people looking for X-Factor editions too (and having it like that only encourages really novice editors to treat the dab list like a list article and add all sorts of notes and refs to it also, as they don't know it's a dab page, and don't realise there is a comprehensive list article elsewhere). MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible solution is the compromise that was reached on the dab page Big Brother: The main list includes only the entry for the article for the franchise, with a note directing users to the See also section for a list of the international versions.--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's even worse imho. Something's very wrong in the universe when a See Also section is bigger than the notional 'main' content. Just wow. MickMacNee (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual, but not inherently wrong. And useful to the reader. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison could be made to items like people's names, eg Blunt, where instead of duplicating a list, we use a {{Main}} link. Also set index pages. See many of the entries at Liberty (disambiguation), for example. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't use {{Main}} links. Also, people with surnames are anthroponymy lists, not ambiguous, and set index articles aren't disambiguation pages. Blunt has been updated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points, but we're still pointing to a different page, for all surname-items that would otherwise be incorporated into the Blunt disambig page. As we currently do at Wilhelm (which will eventually be split off into a separate anthroponymy page).

Name pages, and set index pages, are "disambig similar" in the wording of MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage.

I suppose I'm suggesting that The X Factor (TV series) could be thought of as "set index similar", and that this might provide a healthy solution.

The alternative, is to go back to something like this diff, and discuss whether items like "Le Facteur X" and "Sekret Uspekha", and even "The X Factor (UK series 3)", belong in that page or not. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames are given special treatment, MOS:DABNAME, yes. Set indexes are welcome; disambiguation pages still need to disambiguate ambiguous articles even when set indexes exists. If the set index is at the base name and if all the ambiguous entries are in the set, then a disambiguation page isn't needed, but otherwise, there's no reason to remove ambiguous articles from a disambiguation page even if they are redundant with a set index. I agree that unambiguous items like "Le Facteur X" should not be disambiguated, although they might be in the set index. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that all items still have to be on a dab page, if a set index exists? That seems rather counter-intuitive to the purpose of a set index, and WP:SETINDEX seems to specifically allow what people are suggesting here, using a set index list for these television edition articles, and linking that in a one line entry from the dab page: "Sometimes there will be a disambiguation page and a set index article for the same term. If the disambiguation page carries the name of the term (as with Signal Mountain), then the set index article should be named "List of XXXs named YYY" (as in List of peaks named Signal Mountain". That suggests to me that there should be a set index article named something like List of television shows named X-Factor, and that would go in the See Also section of the dab page (I would prefer it go further up, but that's what it suggests). Alternatively, and I would not be averse to this, it also says that if the WP:PRIMARY topic of X-Factor could be argued to mean 'List of television shows named X-Factor', then the set index can go at X-Factor and the other entries can got at X-Factor (disambiguation), duly hatnoted. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that disambiguation pages should disambiguate ambiguous Wikipedia articles, and everything else follows from that. This looks like another case for moving the set index info over to the list project where it belongs. If editors and readers are happy with a set index link, then everyone's happy. If an editor or reader wants to explicitly include any given ambiguous Wikipedia topic on the appropriate Wikipedia disambiguation page, though, that should also be fine and make everyone happy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and I don't think it matters where SETINDEX is located in that regard, what matters is what it says, and the logic behind it. And the logic to me supports not duplicating material in a dab page when you also have a set index. And to do so would add a third place duplicating this material, which editors have to actively monitor. I would frankly rather have a sub-optimal super-long dab page than spread this over three places. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the third place? I see the disambiguation page (which I'm interested in), the set index article (which I'm not), and ??? I do not want to have to complicate the maintenance of the disambiguation page by introducing a dependency on the set index article -- the SIA can be used/linked as needed, but ambiguous articles can still be disambiguated on the disambiguation page, regardless of what articles they are also included in. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor (TV series). The fact that you personally are interested in dab pages but not set indexes is really not relevant as to whether (the Royal) we, or our guidance, recommends we need one, or the other, or both, to best serve readers in this case, and the consensus is definitely leaning here to a set index linked from the dab page, because of what a set index actually is, and because of the sheer pointlessness of having both a set index and a full dab page which ignores the existence of the set index. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since set index articles are not disambiguation pages, the point stands: the content of disambiguation pages shouldn't have a dependency on the content of set index articles. The fact that I personally can be part of the disambiguation project but not part of the list project points that up. The disambiguation guidelines do not support removing ambiguous articles from the disambiguation page. If the set index article is linked as well, that's fine. Having both isn't pointless; the reader looking for an ambiguous article can find it on the disambiguation page; the reader looking for the article about the set or list can find it too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see third place. I agree there is some bad redundancy: we don't appear to need a set index article separate from The X Factor (TV series), which serves the purpose of the set index article. A disambiguation page is still needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple set indexes are acceptable for use as dab pages in any sensible, non-dogmatic, non-wiki-turf reading of the above discussion. Common sense will overide any such objections all the time frankly, it's a core principle of the pedia. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've reached the name-calling stage, I suppose this sub-thread is done. If that was just a temporary glitch, yes, a base-name set index that includes all ambiguous terms can obviate the need for a disambiguation page. If a disambiguation page is needed, though, any ambiguous article can be added to it in any sensible, non-dogmatic, non-wiki-turf reading of the disambiguation guidelines. Common sense should be applied before legitimate entries are removed because of misplaced worries of maintenance or redundancy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply disagree, based funnily enough on a common sense reading of the guidelines and this discussion, but I think we've long since gone past the stage of assuming that makes any difference whatsoever. Where I called you names I have no clue, but yes, I would very much like to stop pretending this is a worthwhile sub-thread anymore. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Just to clarify a few things:

X factor

• X Factor, is a disambig.
• The X Factor (TV series), is a normal List article, but it might also be thought of as a "set index page". (I'm suggesting it should be.)

Duplication

Regarding duplication: We do not typically duplicate all the items from a set index page or anthroponymy page, in a disambig.

• eg. Liberty (disambiguation), does not include all the entries from Liberty (magazine), USS Liberty, Liberty, New York, Liberty, Pennsylvania, Liberty, Wisconsin, Liberty County, Liberty Township, Liberty City. It simply links to those SI/DAB pages.
• eg. Washington (disambiguation) does not include all the entries from the numerous locations, nor entries from Washington (name)
• eg. Mud Lake does not include all the entries in the set index lists that it links to.

Set indexes, and name pages

The concept of "Set indexes" essentially exists to allow for additional information or links, that disambig styleguidelines do not permit. Eg HMS Victory (disambiguation)

Name pages are usually short disambig-similar lists, but some can develop into prose-filled articles. Two examples: William (name) leaves all the specific examples of people back at William (disambiguation). In contrast, David (name) lists all the specific examples, but there is also a partial duplication at David (disambiguation).

The guidelines and precedent are unclear, and under constant flux. Possibly they should all be clarified, or possibly commonsense and case-by-case discussion will continue to work.

Conclusion

Hence, I still believe that the short version of the X factor disambig page, is a valid state to leave it in. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no ambiguous entries on anthroponymy list articles, only partial title matches. In the cases where the person is commonly known by the single-word surname or given name, they do indeed appear on both the list article and the disambiguation page. Why? Because they are ambiguous with the disambiguated title. We do not automatically copy over all the content from a set index article to a disambiguation page, but if an editor finds it useful to do so, we also do not prohibit their inclusion nor do we remove ambiguous topics from disambiguation pages. Conclusion: I still believe that any ambiguous topic introduced to a disambiguation page should remain on the disambiguation page. It's simplest if we keep the first goal of disamiguating ambiguous Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Fwiw, I completely agree that either state (duplicated or separated) is valid, and that neither state is recommended nor prohibited. It boils down to a subjective decision of what will best assist the hypothetical readers. And editwarring is harmful. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol ask a simple question.... so basically the conclusion is that either way is fine but since it was changed it's probably better to leave it that way. That's all I needed to know! :-) (I hadn't heard of index lists before though) AnemoneProjectors 22:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's "Either way is fine but once an editor includes ambiguous topics on the disambiguation page, it's better to leave them on it" (so, not the current version). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm confused now. AnemoneProjectors 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this version? That's with redlinks and season-lists and Sekret Uspekha removed. Minimal info, and starts with the link to the index page. Agreeable? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that. Though expect people to add the others back in the future. AnemoneProjectors 22:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Suggestions for name disambiguation was a project set up by Quadell, using a bot to identify all pages needing disambiguation. The ones which showed people who needed to be added to a dab, or that a new dab was needed, were done fairly quickly, but the smaller style issues were mainly left. As Quadell is no longer very active, does anyone else know how to set one up? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Wonder Wheel (disambiguation) created, and {{Other uses}} hatnotes added to Wonder Wheel & Wonder Wheels. Thanks. 86.147.206.66 (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wonder Wheel (disambiguation)

Should this dab page be created or not? I can see why maybe it shouldn't, then again I can see why maybe it should.

The redlink does have multiple links from other articles, and all the blue links are to articles that describe a use of the name Wonder Wheel and provide some relevant information about it.

Interested to see what others think.

Thanks. 86.147.206.66 (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)   (previously 86.162.163.210)[reply]

I'd let it be created. The album has incoming links, the software is a whole section of the article, it could usefully also include a See Also to Wonder Wheels. Why not?PamD (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me too: all the entries belong and the layout is good, and it will help anyone typing Wonder Wheel into the search box looking for something other than the fairground ride.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the dab page so that I could add a See Also hatnote to Wonder Wheel. I hadn't considered Wonder Wheels, thanks for pointing that out - I'll add it to the dab page proposal and resubmit it. 86.147.206.66 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made a stub for the album! PamD (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've added two more Wonder Wheels listings and linked to this discussion from the resubmission, I think it will be accepted this time. 86.147.206.66 (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article Summer Girls for the song by LFO. There is also a (better) song of the same name by Ralph McTell which is not covered anywhere on Wikipedia. Assuming I'm not going to write that article now, is it appropriate to mention it in a hatnote with a link to the author? If so, what should it look like?

There's also a song and an unrelated album called "Summer Girl." Should those be included in a hatnote? Ma^t_chups 16:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving Summer Girl to Summer Girl (album), and placing an Otheruses hatnote on Summer Girls pointing to Summer Girl (disambiguation), which should list Summer Girl (album), Summer Girl (song), and Summer Girls. If the Ralph McTell song is mentioned in a Wikipedia article, then that article could also be listed. 86.147.206.66 (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I omitted to say - Summer Girl (disambiguation) should be a redirect to a new dab page, Summer Girl, which should take the place of the article being moved to Summer Girl (album). Hope that makes sense. 86.147.206.66 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arrangement of "Summer Girl" is only slightly related to the arrangement of "Summer Girls". Since they are all titled works, the plural and singular don't seem to me to be ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, it doesn't (yet) need to be disambiguated on Wikipedia. If the article doesn't exist, the song should be mentioned on the article for the album it's on. If that article doesn't exist (and you also aren't going to create it just now), the song could be mentioned on the McTell article (optimally with a citation). Whichever article mentions the song could then be linked from the hatnote {{for|the song by Ralph McTell|[[<article title>]]}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This dab page currently has one redlink (userscripts, which has no links from anywhere else) and three bluelinks to articles that contain no mention of scriptwriter or script writer (playwright, script (comics), game design). The only other link is to Screenwriter.

Should Scriptwriter be made into a redirect to Screenwriter? 86.147.206.66 (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, yes, but you can also check at Talk:Scriptwriter -- other editors may prefer to add info on the use of "scriptwriter" to the other articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Input now solicited at Talk:Scriptwriter#Redirect?. 86.147.206.66 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Octet (Martins) on whether these pages should have disambiguation hatnotes. Can I encourage interested editors to contribute to the discussion. Thank you, --MegaSloth (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discuission going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics about whether to delete Semi-infinite or turn it into a (proper) disambiguation page. The present article is not marked as a dab but describes and links to three different concepts of semi-infinite.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regulator is in need of help. I removed a duplicate entry but the entry isn't in MOS:DAB format and should probably be broken into categories. It was very difficult for me to locate what I was looking for here -- eventually I saw it just wasn't there, but it would have been easier if it was in the standard style.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for cleanup. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew about the {{disambig-cleanup}} template. I suppose we just check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Disambig-cleanup every so often? CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us do, yes. I have in the past, but haven't lately -- I've been looking more at WP:MALPLACED and (before that) Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Incomplete disambiguations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at this. Might need a little fine-tuning. 86.180.255.89 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should Qaradağlı, Tartar redirect to the main Qaradağlı disambiguation page? Or should the two villages just have dab hatnotes added for the other? If the latter, which should be primary? --Bejnar (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not merge the disambiguation page into the Qaradağlı page (although both villages can and should also be listed there). No opinion on which should be primary -- Talk:Qaradağlı, Tartar can be used for that, if needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:British Open about whether to redirect or disambiguate the term. The discussion hinges on whether we should redirect to what is by far the most popular topic, or disambiguate because the popular topic isn't accessed that often using the redirected term. The two sides of the argument seem to interpret the guidelines in different ways, and to be honest I'm not sure if I'm interpreting them correctly. Could someone pop along and give us a third opinion please, it would be much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opined (and restored the previous arrangement). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two ongoing move discussions (Talk:Stroud, Gloucestershire#Requested move and Talk:Stroud (disambiguation)#Requested move) hinge on the question of whether Stroud, Gloucestershire is the primary topic for "Stroud". Comments welcome (I'm trying to combine the discussion at the first of those two venues).--Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:AeronPeryton has questioned my familiarity with the disambiguation guidelines, specifically as they apply to Na.[1] If reverted again, I will just tag the page for clean up for fresh eyes, but if anyone would like to chime in before that, please do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an accusation worthy of a smile. Looks well handled, but on my watch list. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have at. If you have a lot of time, you might also respond to AeronPeryton's dissertation on Talk:Na. I suspect any repetition of what I've already said coming from me will be lost. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:Article titles#Non-Roman characters in redirects to articles, where an RfC has been opened on the use of non-English characters in page titles for disambiguation and redirect titles (and there appears to also be discussion about article titles) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]