Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 22

message: I'm trying to figure out the best way to make a top link that heads in two directions, without creating a disambiguation page.  In specific, Bros.  It currently goes to the boy band, & links to Brös, which makes sense.  It misses out on the sub-culture, Bros, however, & while all three are completely different topics, it seems that a disambiguation page might be a little much.  Am I wrong in thinking that, & if not, how does one go about making a staggered disambiguation?  I've seen doubles before (like Ariadne), but those were two different templates.  --mordicai. 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it frowned upon to go about it like Ariadne does?  That seems to work out okay. -- Natalya 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Normally I would say that the three meanings is enough to merit a disambiguation page. Ariadne is unique because one of them is of type "Foo redirects here", which does need to be present, as well as the usual disambig note. However, I agree that Bros is a bit unusual as well and may merit the double dab. Bro is the odd man out there, and wouldn't really belong on a Bros (disambiguation) page, nor would the other two really belong on Bro (disambiguation). I don't like pages with multiple dablinks because I think they look messy, but this might be one case where it's merited. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that Bro (disambiguation) does in fact exist, and that Bro has been listed for deletion, which may in fact render the discussion moot. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be of pretty similar minds about this.  I mostly was curious, intellectually, since it did seem strange to have a situation where (I felt) a double disambiguation was needed.  That said, I still don't have any idea how I would go about doing it.  --mordicai. 19:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a full disambiguation page is in order. As another related term, Bros. redirects to Brothers.  older ≠ wiser 01:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Disambiguation 

message: Quick gathering of opinions: does Referee (disambiguation) need to exist?  Neonumbers 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the primary usage is not the only usage, and remaining uses on the disambiguation page are too much to try and capture in a hatnote. older ≠ wiser 04:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess.  I added a Wiktionary link, and the uses on the page seem kind of like dictionary definitions, but there are valid articles, so I guess it makes sense to have it. -- Natalya 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Brilliant.  Thanks all.  Neonumbers 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Referee (disambiguation)]] 

message: Would folks please take a look at talk:Moot to comment on the debate there.  Is it legitimate for a disambig article include topics that have no articles? --Concrete Cowboy 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted at Talk:Moot, but per MoS:DP#Redlinks, redlinks are allowed, as long as the subject is notable enough that an article could be written on it. -- Natalya 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moot 

message: I have been trying to find out how to make a dab page, but I find it tricky. So would anyone be so kind as to make a dab page for 'Stephen O'Brien'. There used to be only one but there are 2 now. (one a politician, the other a musician) The links are the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_O%27Brien 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_O%27Brien_%28musician%29  Many thanks in advance! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emmi1988 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Emmi1988, please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen O'Brien (musician) and Wikipedia:Notability (music) and see if you can add to the article to establish notability.  The situation may have changed since August 2005.  Thank you.  CarolGray 10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DAB page needed 

message: I've been itching to propose , , et al for deletion.  I see that it was proposed about a year ago, and that no consensus was reached.  I'd like to revisit that decision in a friendlier forum than TfD.
Why do we need any disambiguation templates other than ?  If you really want to categorize n-letter combinations, you can make a category  and add it to the appropriate dab pages. --Smack (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single disambiguation template 

message: On  and the like, it would be nice if there were some sort of html "magic" that a user javascript (and maybe eventually a standard script perhaps controlled by preference) can automatically hide it if the page was not reached through the redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it?  Those things can get annoying (and confusing) if you got to the page normally...  Neonumbers 09:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hide "redirects here" 

message: Speed (disambiguation): a colleague adds iitems like J. B. Speed School of Engineering claiming that it is called simple "speed" and refusing to provide references. I consider this a violation of the very basic wikipeida policies WP:Verifiability & WP:CITE. Please comment. `'mikka 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O.o it has the word speed in it, so it sounds like reasonable logic to me. I do not believe this is an issue for WP:V or WP:CITE. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but I gotta ask: why does this bother you so much? It seems like a very minor issue that could go either way. -- Ned Scott 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I'm with Ned on this.  Let it slide for a month, then go change it if you think it's a problem.  I put up with a lot of irrelevant crap on dab pages, and then clean it all out in one hit.  That way no-one takes it personal, like. Josh Parris 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I normally do too. This one makes sense though, especially since search on Wikipedia is not that great it helps for users to find this school. Garion96 (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely agree with mikka that the school of engineering doesn't merit inclusion on that disambiguation page.  (Having the word "speed" in it isn't enough — disambiguation pages are not search engines.  We have a search engine for that purpose, and my search of "speed school" gets me there fine.)  Though "cleaning it all out in one hit" after waiting a while as Josh Parris said could work better (from a productivity perspective).  Neonumbers 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; without any proper evidence that it really is referred to as just "Speed", it really doesn't belong.  I echo many editors thoughts though, about dealing with semi-irrelevant material.  If we think about it, leaving the entry there for a bit isn't going to do a whole lot of harm, and knowing all our work with disambiguation pages, it will soon be removed.  Sometimes a slightly laid-back attitude towards entries (while of course removing the really ridiculous ones right away) can make things not too antagonistic, while still keeping the pages clean.  And if you don't remove the entry right away, someone else may also take care of it.  -- Natalya 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration needed 

message: There are two places in New Jersey called Society Hill, so I redirected Society Hill, New Jersey to the Society Hill disambiguation. Alansohn took offense and has changed it to a redirect to Society Hill, Middlesex County, New Jersey, where I moved it. Who is in the right here? --NE2 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The present solution of having a hatnote at the top of each page seems about right. The CDP article probably could have stayed at Society Hill, New Jersey, unless it can be demonstrated that the development in Jersey City is commonly known as "Society Hill, New Jersey". Generally neighborhoods within cities are not referred to as placename, statename. I'd support moving the article back, but don't feel all that strongly about it. older ≠ wiser 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The neighborhood in Jersey City is often known as Society Hill, and an unknowing editor could easily link it to Society Hill, New Jersey, as I almost did on Journal Square Transportation Center. --NE2 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why hatnotes are useful. Having Society Hill, New Jersey redirect to the general Society Hill disambiguation page, as you suggested would not have helped. older ≠ wiser 23:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it would have helped, since eventually someone fixing links to disambiguation pages would have come along and corrected it. --NE2 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be disambiguated?

message: ...has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Let.27s_clarify_with_the_various_CC_templates_once_and_for_all (goodness that is a long link!).  Just in case you don't watch both pages, please add your opinions there! -- Natalya 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The four CC templates are now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 9, in case anyone hasn't already seen. -- Natalya 19:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A discussion on CC templates...