Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/Archive 9

message: I didn't want to add it to the page since it's a redirect, but it needs some help.  For awhile it redirected to Billboard (magazine).  It was (properly) redirected to Billboard (advertising) about a month ago, and now most of what links there is meant to Billboard (magazine) instead.  If someone could help out with this, it'd be a huge help.  ShadowHalo 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just change Billboard back to point to Billboard (magazine)? It makes sense to have article names follow the most common use of a term. -- Hongooi 16:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems like a person searching for "Billboard" would want the Billboard (advertising) article.  But that's a good point.  I'll request a move from Billboard (advertising) to Billboard to see what consensus there is as to where to put the articles and redirects.  ShadowHalo 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Billboard]] 

message: In some cases of linking to dab pages, the most relevant content is not any of the articles listed in the dab page, but the definition in the dab page and/or the linked dictionary definition on Wiktionary. What is considered best practice these days for these sort of words, at least for those that are not basic-vocabulary words?
* Replace the link to the dab page with a link to the definition on Wiktionary.
* Remove the link.
* Retain the link to the dab page.
* Reword the article.
For example, I'm currently working on dabbing Terrestrial. A fair few of the pages are simply using the word terrestrial in the adjective sense of being earth-based or land-based (in contrast to water-based or air-based, depending on context). In these cases, linking to Earth isn't really the answer, and Land is itself a dab page. If I was disambiguating a common word like "land" then the answer would be easy - remove the link, on the basis that anyone reading WP:en should know what "land" means. But "terrestrial" is not a basic-vocabulary word - I know what it means without looking it up, but I could imagine high-schoolers or people who have English as a second language not knowing.
To pick an example, here is a sentence from Handoff:
::In terrestrial networks the source and the target cells may be served from two different cell sites ...
What would be the best replacement?
* Replace the link to the dab page with a link to the definition on Wiktionary (using  ).
::In terrestrial networks the source and the target cells may be served from two different cell sites ...
: (or, using  ).
::In terrestrial networks the source and the target cells may be served from two different cell sites ...
* Remove the link.
::In terrestrial networks the source and the target cells may be served from two different cell sites ...
* Retain the link to the dab page.
::In terrestrial networks the source and the target cells may be served from two different cell sites ...
* Reword the article.
::In terrestrial (land-based) networks the source and the target cells may be served from two different cell sites ...
:(or)
::In land-based ("terrestrial") networks the source and the target cells may be served from two different cell sites ...
:(or)
::In land-based networks the source and the target cells may be served from two different cell sites ...
I've deliberately left out other options like creating a page containing the dicdef, since WP is not a dictionary so we don't need a whole lot of stub pages like Terrestrial network (radio), 
To make things clear:
* Simple words should be de-linked.
* Words with a relevant WP article (that is not a dab page) should be linked to that article.
* The question I'm posing is only about words that are not simple, and do not (and are not ever likely to) have any suitable WP article other than the dab page we're trying to remove links to.
* I am not seeking specific advice about handling "terrestrial" but looking for general principles that could apply equally to other words such as "eclectic" or "sage" (per User:extraordinary's comments on the May 27 dump).
Opinions? -- Paddles TC 07:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your caution and concern are commendable. But I get the creeps from a doctoral candidate dumbing down an article for am imagined undergraduate reader, or a 15-year-old editor dumbing it down for an imagined audience of 10-year-olds. If you really think a word will be unknown to the general reader, then rewording to "In land-based networks" might be best; no need to use the more obscure synonym (if it can be called obscure). I doubt that many people reading about cell phones will be flummoxed by "terrestrial". "Eclectic" and "sage" shouldn't be much of a problem, either. Even if there are a few readers who fail to understand these, any reader who can access WP can also access one of the numerous online dictionaries. The WP:CONTEXT guideline about "Plain English words" doesn't say "English words known to most 10-year-olds". What level of education should be assumed? Chris the speller 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question. I can see arguments for and against all of those options. Unlinking is the obvious solution, but is the most vulnerable to other people coming back and adding links back in (the tension between WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW). (Aside: Are automatic translation tools smart enough to know when to translate "sage" as a wise person, and when to translate it as a plant?) In any case, I thought it worth seeking out some opinions other than my own - plus it could help new people joining the project. Paddles TC 15:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I interpret "Plain English words" to mean words that are not jargon (technical terms or terms of art).  So, in general, my approach would be to delink, and a reader can use a dictionary.  In specific, however, I think your "terrestrial" example is actually a term of art-- "terrestrial radio" meaning radio where the broadcast node(s) originate on the surface of the planet earth, as opposed to an orbital satellite.  I.e., it's an earth vs. space dichotomy, not an earth vs. sea dichotomy as the word terrestrial would normally imply.  Unfortunately, this usage isn't made entirely clear anywhere on Wikipedia or Wiktionary currently... Terrestrial radio was a stub that would have been nice to link to in this case, but is now a redirect to radio.  So what to do for jargon that does not have a wikipedia entry?  Add a DAB entry for "Terrestrial radio, radio that is broadcast from the surface of the earth (as opposed to from a satellite)"?  Hardly seems like that is actually ambiguous with "terrestrial".  "See also" fodder at best.  Re-expand the stub for terrestrial radio?  This seems like the best course to me, but is beyond the scope of DAB.  Add a wiktionary entry for "terrestrial radio"?  Maybe, but I feel like it is still jargon, and not really plain english.  print server, radial arm saw, and valsalva maneuver are all more or less terms of art that have wikipedia pages and (more or less) don't have wiktionary pages.  Is this intentional, or is wiktionary just not there yet? AdamMorton 05:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that may be it, Wiktionary is just not there yet (and I have my doubts about whether it will get there anytime soon). And I like your interpretation of "Plain English words" being words other than jargon. Chris the speller 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicdefs and wiktionary 

message: For anyone who's been missing CorHomo, Jjvaca from the Spanish Wikipedia has written a fix to get around the problems originating from the changes to Whatlinkshere. The .exe file can be found on his user page at . Happiness! Dekimasuよ! 10:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happiness, indeed, and it seems to have better interlocking to prevent pasting the contents of one article into another by mistake. The status messages have not changed, though, so there is always the possibility of amusement, as when it offered "The Man Who Came to Dinner loaded". Chris the speller 19:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CorHomo back up 

message: One thing about this project: you sure find out where the fights on Wikipedia are taking place. -- Hongooi 03:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stumbling into brawls 

message: Please see:
Wikipedia:Requests for verification
A proposal designed as a process similar to  to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.
It reads:
This page has been listed in :Category:Requests for verification.It has been suggested that this article might not meet Wikipedia's core content policies Verifiability and/or No original research.  If references are not cited within a month, the disputed information will be removed.
If you can address this concern by sourcing please [ edit this page] and do so. You may remove this message if you reference the article. 
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 30 days.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, improve the article so that it is acceptable according to Verifiability and/or No original research.
Please help [ improve this article] by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole  
and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.
I would encourage your comments in that page's talk or Mailing list thread on this proposal  WikiEN-l: Proposed "prod" for articles with no sources
Signed Jeepday (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Requests for verification

message: Dabbing right-of-way ought to be the simple process of distinguishing the instant sense from the enduring sense.  But actually, people use "right-of-way" in the nearly circular sense of "the route of a road".  Legally "right-of-way" means the easement (a right), and I've been directing a lot of them there.  This is okay when the easement sense is still close, but as the meaning drifts this link becomes more and more surprising.  A most egregious case is found in Triborough Bridge: "The Triborough Bridge is a complex of three bridges connecting the New York City boroughs of the Bronx, Manhattan, and Queens, using what were two islands, Ward's Island and Randall's Island as intermediate rights-of-way between the water crossings."  Here "rights-of-way" has lost the easement sense entirely.  A more typical case is something like "the right-of-way was relocated west".  Here, the local authorities will purchase property to provide an easement for the roadway, but the easement sense is quite distant, and linking to "easement" is more surprising than it should be.
So what should we do with these?  The article at Right-of-way (railroad) could be renamed and slightly recast as Right-of-way (roadway).  Perhaps a separate article?  — Randall Bart (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right-of-way 

message: I've been assuming that the PROBLEM with excessive links into (certain) dab pages is that this somehow screws up wikipedia software or makes it opperate poorly. Is that true or not? Or is the only reason we're trying to redirect links away from dab pages is simply to direct them properly the first time, and thus save users of wikipedia one (less) click? SBHarris 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to save someone a click, and more importantly save someone from staring blankly at a dab page trying to figure out what to click. — Randall Bart (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but perhaps it may do a person good to see a dab page, if they previously thought that there was one and only one possible use of the term they're pursing. You know, like some people don't know about the Primate of England, and think (hilariously) that this might mean Darwin was right? But who then get an education about where the word primate comes from and find out (as usual) that there are very few true good puns. SBHarris 23:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Particularly for readers who aren't native English speakers and readers who aren't very experienced with computers, reaching disambiguation pages can be frustrating and can cause them to give up on the information they were searching for. It isn't a big problem for experienced Wikipedia users, but it's enjoyable/entertaining/educational/relaxing for me to fix links. Dekimasuよ! 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes a disambiguation page is quite baffling.  When I do a dab page, I take a few minutes (and occasionally hours) studying those options and learning what they cover.  Often I add items to the dab page; sometimes I reorg it.  Even in the simplest case, we're not saving the reader a click, we're saving the reader look and figure out which of these they want.— Randall Bart (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And--- why do we care? 

message: I am shocked -- shocked I tell you -- by the mislinks which should go to primate (religion) but actually go to an article on chimps.  I just stumbled on one while doing Salvador, then searched and fixed 26 more.  It is really embarrassing when Wikipedia calls the Archbishop of Canterbury the gorilla of all England.  The obvious fix is to make primate a disambiguation page.  Primates has a big project and there are 1457 links to fix, so I've started a discussion at Talk:Primate#Disambiguating Primate.  I invite all the disambiguators to join in. — Randall Bart (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see any obvious references to the religious meaning in the 1,000+ links to primate. Unless you've fixed them all already...? -- Hongooi 04:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've fixed 52.  See Talk:Primate#Disambiguating Primate. — Randall Bart (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primate 

message: I need some help from someone who is clever with AWB or Twinkle or whatever to disambiguate this (destinations are mainly Bright Eyes (band) or Bright Eyes (song) - is this the right place to beg for help? Neil ╦ 13:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the better places to beg for help. First you can put a cleanup tag on the page with  since the formatting doesn't really fit WP:MOS-DAB. Next, Bright Eyes (song) redirects back to the dab, because there's more than one song with that name. Is one a much more prominent song? Dekimasuよ! 09:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned it up and now I'm working on it. It seems that most of the links should go to Bright Eyes (band) and a few to Bright Eyes (film), and so far I haven't encountered any instances where it should go to Bright Eyes (song). Thaurisiltc 07:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bright Eyes]] 

message: This doesn't appear on the generated lists because it's not marked as a disambig page, but it has around 370 links into it, most of which should go to Commonwealth of Nations. I sorted out the vast majority last year, but the numbers have built up again. Colonies Chris 14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Commonwealth]] 

message: There have been a number of words recently where I have made heavy use of "remove this link".  If it's a common word and there is no obvious article, it goes.  Sometimes I spend a whole hour researching something, but more likely it's gone in a second. 
I've decided it's a matter of respect.  I respect science, history, geography, politics, religion (in about that order).  I don't respect art, fiction, music, movies, television.  And the two things I hold in lowest regard are comic books and badly written articles.
<rant>So I was doing convention and ran into an article about a comic book.  I found an imparsable sentence where I simply could not tell whether it meant fan convention or convention (norm).  I was about to leave a  and a note on the talk page explaining my conundrum, but then I said "NO! You are comic book.  Your link deserves nothing but oblivion." </rant>
And when I say I don't respect fiction, I mean I have a little bit of respect for classics, but not much.  If Hamlet sends someone to Fooburg, and I am wondering whether it's Fooburg, Norway or Fooburg, Scotland, I will surely delink it.  I don't care if he was William Shakespeare (or if he wasn't), whoever thought this was worthy of a link, should have linked it correctly.
I strongly support the convention (norm) in Popups that changes are minor but delinks are not.  In theory, a change only improves someone else's link.  If you think it might be in the least controversial, you should uncheck the minor edit box.  But delinks should never be marked minor.  When you delink you are saying the prior editor was wrong to link it; anyone watching the article should take a look.
Should I have redlinked thirty articles to transmutation (fiction)?  If I had, would some comic book fan write the article?  I just don't care enough about comic books.  Let them write the article and put the link on the disambiguation page, then I'll fix their links.
In most cases, the first time I encounter a puzzling link, I just pass (close that page of my browser) and move on.  After I've gone down the entire list of links, I reload the page, and look at the ones that remain. Often, I have learned something from looking at the prior hundred articles (they play tennis in the other Halle).  Sometimes I realize I have several links that there should be an article for and I hunt it down.  Well, I didn't exactly hunt for medical specialist, it was at the first name I tried, but I added it to the dab page and directed 20 links there.
Place names I don't delink.  If some obscure little town is mentioned twice, I add it to the disambiguation page.  Sometimes I do it when the town is mentioned only once.  In fact I added Córdoba, Phillipines when it had no links at all.  (Okay, that was a brain fart.)
People I try to redlink, though when someone in a Goth band is named some common noun (I think "Meridian" and "Royal" were names) and hasn't already gotten on the dab page, I delink.  I have no respect for Goth bands. 
I'm not saying everyone should freely delink; if you are not comfortable making a change, don't make it.  And as I said, it's good to pass and come back later (after seeing a hundred articles) before you delink or use .  However, many people link words without much thought; I am almost always putting more thoguht into the delink. 
— Randall Bart (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delinking and respect (and rant) 

message: I am mystified.  I discovered that Resident (animal) (6 links), Resident (species) (2 links), and Resident (biology) (2 links) are all redirects to migration.  It's only 8 links, but what are these redirects?   — Randall Bart (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC)When referring to fauna, resident means an animal that does not migrate. All in all, the redirects are pointed to the wrong location since no one in their right mind would expect to go to an article on Bird migration when they are actually looking for Resident bird. They should probably point to Resident, with the proper links to that variety of animals resident article.--Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those links were disambiguations from resident.  I just sent most to resident bird.  I delinked an insect.  In ornithology, one of the first attributes you list about it is whether it's migratory or resident.  The word is used in other fields, but it's not well defined jargon.  It frequently means nonmigratory, but it's often used more loosely.  I see no evidence of the need for an article on resident animals other than birds.  It's not a clear enough concept.  There isn't even an article on non-bird animal migration.  There should be, but there isn't.  Animal Migration and Migration of animals redirect to Migration and Animal migration redirects to Migration#Animal migration.  Where do we send those? — Randall Bart (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delink 'em, I'd say. Obviously there should be an article for mammalian migration, but there isn't one that I can find either.--Bobblehead (rants) 22:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resident  = Migration? 

message: Yesterday I looked at templates for all the words on the list.  There were a few I didn't fix (Ford Falcon, Warhammer Fantasy and something else) but mostly it's clean.  In a few cases this caused the current link count to fall under 100.  Disambiguators should still check  template space, but it should make the task less baffling to the newbies.— Randall Bart (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I just found out about , a useful inline template for cases of mushy writing.  Or am I the only one who encounters mushy writing?  — Randall Bart (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use it, but just like  it's better just to fix it yourself. Those tend to inflame heated editors as if they were insults. ALTON .ıl 20:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Vague 

message: I came across Arrested Development recently, which has a lot of links pointing at it. I wondered why it was not on the list here? Is there a way to add it to the list? Carcharoth 16:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't on the list because it didn't have enough links in the (main) namespace to be included.  (I believe the cut-off is 100.)  But they've all been taken care of now. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 19:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, of course. That count is only for the main namespace. In this case though, have a look at the Wikipedia namespace links. A lot of those need fixing as well. What happened is that the TV series article went through peer review and featured article candidates and became a featured article, and as such was linked from a lot of places. Only much later was the article moved to the "(TV series)" title, and then, presumably, the redirect was turned into a disambiguation page, but the links were not repaired. I think the Wikipedia namespace at least needs tidying up in this case (I know we normally only care about the main namespace, but this is a good example of an exception). What do you think? (Some of the links are in protected subpages of the TFA (today's featured article) archives). Carcharoth 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't change archives.  Let people be confused. — Randall Bart (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these so-called "archive" pages are still in use. The TFA archive subpages are reused at Portal:Featured content. Carcharoth 09:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sometimes pages in the Wikipedia space and archives are better off fixed, but it's important to be selective about it. Dekimasuよ! 04:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrested Development 

message: There are times when someone has made a dab page which slices things too fine.  For many of these I have observed a successful rule of disambiguation:  When there exists an article whose lede says everything that the dab page says, you can probably turn that dab into a redirect.  For example, just today Dekimasu  redirected logical fallacy to fallacy.  A few months ago I did this to carotid artery.  Forward (basketball) and Guard (basketball) were similarly redirected to an article section where the terms are discussed and further disambiguated.  There are situations where a dab page is not the answer.— Randall Bart (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacy rule 

message: Thought I'd drop in to say great work with the edit summaries.  I love the way the participants in this project are adding a little color to what would otherwise be a very boring edit summary.  I've really been enjoying them.  Keep it up.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries 

message: Copied from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/2007-08-02 dump'--Bobblehead (rants) 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be to clean the link for Phoenix and use the number of links that are meant for the mythological creature vs. the number of links meant for other uses to determine if the mythical creature is the primary usage or not. Worse comes to worse, you'll end up with a clean redirect to the mythical creature. But then, I just noticed that Bkonrad moved the disambiguation back to Phoenix.--Bobblehead (rants) 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be a dab, but I don't know that it's worth fighting over.— Randall Bart (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenix 

message: Here's a little quiz for everyone.  What was I disambiguating when I came across:
#The world's tallest building
#A supermarket in Beverly Hills
#A shoe store
#A movie named February One
#Barbara Hutton
#Franklin Winfield
—   Randall Bart     Talk   05:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally got it, but had to cheat a little by reading one of the mentioned articles to get a hint. I will put the answer on Barticus's talk page, so don't go there if you are keen on solving it for yourself. Good fun! Chris the speller 20:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good.  Let's keep the answer off this page for a couple days.—   Randall Bart     Talk   22:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I went through and figured it out too, just in case you thought no one else was looking. Dekimasuよ! 11:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fun with disambiguation -- Answered 

message: I was working on mission and I caught one that I was going to change to Mission, Texas, but before I changed that, I noticed Alamo, Texas, so I changed that and then I noticed Alice, Texas, and I realized I had stumbled on a 
Texas sized pile of disambiguations. —   Randall Bart     Talk   03:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It was '''''SO''''' big

message: I find myself sufficiently confused that I'm a bit afraid of making something worse. There are three base articles for The Woman in Red, The Woman in Red (film) for the 1984 Gene Wilder film, The Woman in Red (1935 film) for the 1935 Barbara Stanwyck film and Woman in Red (Nedor) for the 1940's comic book character. 
On top of this there is a page The Woman In Red that pointed to the two films and to which I added the comic book character before I discovered that there is also a page The Woman in Red (disambiguation) which points to one of the films, the comic book character, and a section of the article on the movie The Matirx, which mentions List of programs and machines in the Matrix series#The Woman in the Red Dress, (which I didn't pipe here for the sake of clarity).
Finally, at least in terms of the Woman in Red, there is a page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Woman_in_Red&redirect=no which redirects to the 1984 film article and which itself is linked to some 500 times.
If you want to make this at all worse, the The Lady in Red page contains links to the 1984 Wilder film and the Matrix character's sub article, but not the 1935 Stanwyck film or the comic book character, as well as the woman often known as "The Lady in Red" who turned in John Dillinger, the 1979 film  and a Merry Melodies cartoon The Lady in Red (1935 film) that came out the same year as the Barbara Stanwyk film.
For my money, if a user goes for either "The Woman in Red" or "The Lady in Red", they should get to either a consolidated Lady in Red/Woman in Red disambiguation page OR a page that disambiguates the phrase they typed in which also points to the other phrase's disambiguation page. It is way too easy to remember Dillinger's betrayer as "the woman in red" or the comic book character was "the Lady in Red" or to confuse the names of the two 1935 movies or the 1979 and 1984 movies. Additionally, the Wilder film probably should have the year in its title like the other three, the comic book should be "The Woman in Red (comics)", with an article and without the name of the (first) publisher, since the second is covered as prominently in the article, and who remembers Nedor anyway?
Having expressed that opinion, I might have been tempted to act on it, except that this is only the second time I've dipped into the whole issue of disambiguation, and is a bit more complex than I feel entirely qualified for. I'm happy to help, with a bit of direction or advice, or to point out the problem and flee, as appropriate. --Brons 19:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry that you're new, you just have to be bold.  Check out what I did: , , , ,  --Bobblehead (rants) 20:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (The) Woman in Red 

message: I'm surprised Macro is not here. AWB tells me there is 1084 218 mainspace links to this dab right now. -- Kl4m Talk Contrib 06:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be because prior to September 11 Macro (computer science) was located there. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macro 

message: I just did Junior.  I was troubled how to deal with some.  I realized as I looked at them that senior, and sophomore had been dealt with differently, and freshman is a redirect to first year.
So I punted and created 26 red links to Junior (university).  There are article for the years of high school, but nothing for college.  Sumbuddy else can figure where to go from here. —   Randall Bart     Talk   23:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junior, senior, sophomore, freshman