Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages aren't articles

message: Here's a thought: exactly how many disambig "articles" are there? Does anyone know a way to find out? — Jack · talk · 02:38, Monday, 16 April 2007
:Based on a quick check of the three main disambiguation templates using whatlinkshere, I'd estimate about 100,000. I don't know if there's a more precise method of finding out; if there isn't, that is more reason why disambiguation pages should have a unique marker. Punctured Bicycle 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Mostlinkedcategories. 79 072 for today. Mashiah 11:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What was the proposal being voted on? A vote to implement WHAT? (i.e. where did this come from?) (John User:Jwy talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many disambig "articles" exist? 

message: *Agree — as I am the creator of this page — Jack · talk · 16:45, Sunday, 15 April 2007
*Qualified Agree — I agree, but qualify that any #DISAMBIG should be added to the dab template, not individual dab pages. I mainly agree in that the software should ideally handle dab pages as being different from articles - this isn't a huge bug. Nihiltres 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: *While I agree in general that it would be nice if the software could distinguish disambiguation pages and not include them in article counts and lonely pages, I think the suggested solution may be putting the cart before the horse. Simply placing #DISAMBIG at the top of every disambiguation page will do nothing until the developers implement software changes to recognize that. Some developers suggested that that might be possible, but that is a far cry from reality. I don't think I can support such a specific solution without clearer indications from developers that this is the best approach. I could support the proposal if it were limited to identifying this as a problem that should be addressed.  older ≠ wiser 18:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: *You should really discuss this on the relevant bug thread in bugzilla. And gather some strong arguments; the devs are not going to be impressed by a vote count. >Radiant< 11:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugzilla 

message: Another idea would to have Disambiguation:Titlename, instead of Article (Disambiguation) and have everything from the Disambiguation: namespace to not count as articles. It would take a little work to rename everything, but it is better than nothing.Tavix (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The #DISAMBIG command could then be used to redirect to/transclude the article in the "Disambiguation" namespace... or something. SharkD (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Idea

message: *I note bugzilla:6754 has been resolved as INVALID. The Solution section needs updating to reflect this. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution section out of date 

message: It seems this has some bearing on a discussion on the applicability of WP:PROD to dab pages - the discussion can be found at WT:Proposed deletion. B.Wind (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of dab pages at [[WT:Proposed deletion]] 

message: A proposal for removing dab pages from the purview of WP:PROD and extending WP:RfD to cover dab pages is now being discussed at Village Pump anybody so interested are encouraged to participate in the discussion. B.Wind (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of deletion of dab pages at [[WP:Village pump (policy)]]