Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 33

message: ::Since it is very unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top, like this:
Surely that's a mistake? I think "unlikely" shoudl be changed to "likely". Rhialto 07:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the primary topic were what they were looking for, they are very unlikely to click through from the base page to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ 10:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think "very unlikely" is wrong. They can reach the disambiguation page in different ways, for example from an alternative meaning when they want to find the base meaning. And I sometimes start at the base meaning but go to the disambiguation for a quick overview of meanings, or to make sure there is no better page for my purpose than the base page, and then back to the base meaning (the browsers back button can also be used here). Even if "very unlikely" is considered right, I don't think the two sentences make sense. If something is very unlikely to be used then why should that be an argument for giving it preferential treatment by placing it at the top? And surely there are lots of disambiguation pages where some of the meanings are used very rarely and far more people click on the base meaning. PrimeHunter 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, the reason we consider it unlikely is that if they are looking for X, they will enter X, get to that page and would not have to click the "X (disambiguation)" link.  The question brought up here is how many exception are there to this process?  If the page they want it X and they enter Y, I'm not sure how likely it is they will get to "X (disambiguation)."  They are unlikely to enter "X (something)."  Maybe the article is "X foo" and they enter "X" (or visa versa) and "X" and "X foo" share a dab page.  I don't see many likely cases, IMHO.  Am I missing something?  (John User:Jwy talk) 14:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording is correct. Even if they "start at the base meaning but go to the disambiguation for a quick overview of meanings", they have already seen the base meaning, so "it is very unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for". The phrase "very unlikely" allows for a few cases of short attention span as well as an internal or external search. Chris the speller 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another among many ways to reach a disambiguation page: Searching "dos" redirects to DOS (disambiguation) where DOS is the first link. I estimate I have personally clicked the primary link more times than the average for all the links so "very unlikely" is untrue for me. People use Wikipedia in different ways and we don't have statistics on what users click, so "very unlikely" will remain guessing and it seems we are not going to agree about the guess. I think it is unnecessary to say whether it's likely or not, so I suggest we simply don't speculate about it. The first of the two sentences could be completely deleted, leaving the recommendation: "It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top, like this: ..." PrimeHunter 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think we need to provide a reason.  If you are agreeing to continue with the guildeline as is, but change the wording of the reasoning, that's okay, but we have to have some of the reasoning here.  "Under most circumstances, those looking for the primary article will encounter the article directly without navigating through the dab page, so. . ." or something like that.  Or just drop the "very" from "very unlikely.  If you disagree with the guideline, then we need to discuss it further and figure out how to determine the "likelihood." (John User:Jwy talk) 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the guideline. I prefer the primary topic to be linked first because I think it's a likely target (and because it makes sense to explain the primary meaning first even if people don't click it). It surprises me that some people want to link it first because they think it's unlikely to be clicked. I don't see why likelihood speculation is needed for the guideline, but it's not worth discussing to death. Dropping the "very" that really makes it stand out as illogical to me is acceptable. PrimeHunter 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: primary topic link

message: I've nominated these for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 30 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30. Short rationale, set index pages are an exceptional use warranted for specific types of articles. I don't think there is a good reason to have generic exceptions. older ≠ wiser 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Setindexarticle}} and [[:Category:Set index articles]] for deletion 

message: Interested editors are invited to review an on-going discussion at Talk:Lolita (disambiguation)#Primary topic. --Muchness 01:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lolita disambiguation page

message: This has probably come up before, but should we have DAB pages with no articles that include the title of the DAB page in their title?  I came cross this in Keep on Truckin'; there are probably other examples.  A similar exapmle woud be a DAB that had all red links.  Advice? UnitedStatesian 13:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the dab page (dab is not an initialism, and needs no capitals) helps readers get to articles they are seeking, its existence is justified. Remember that rules may be broken when it helps the reader. This particular example needs some help, for example, linking to "Keep on Truckin' (song)" instead of to Eddie Kendricks. The last entry leads nowhere, and should be removed. An entry for "What's Bin Did and What's Bin Hid (1965 album)" could be added. Sorry to blow your example out of the water, but it illustrates a way to resolve any guilt about a dab page that is in doubt: create a stub where there is a red link and you think an article could be written, or create a redirect to an appropriate article if you doubt there's enough material for an article. For example, create a rdr "Keep on Truckin' (drawing)" and redirect to Robert Crumb. And even a page that only has red links may have merit, for those who know how, by following a red link and then clicking "What links here". A dab page that leads no reader to any useful information should be fixed, if possible, or deleted. But if you actually find one like that, I'd enjoy the challenge. Chris the speller 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a crack at setting it up (just redlinks, though, with bluelinks later in the line).  In this case, the song should be moved to the base name, but that'll take an admin.  I've set up the redirects appropriately though. -- JHunterJ 15:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DABs with no articles 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#naming and linking for a discussion about this. Thanks. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  naming and linking 

message: A LAME edit war, in which I have gotten involved against my better judgment, raises some issues relevant to disambiguation. Your comments are welcome at Talk:ALF#Request for Comment regarding ALF, Alf, primary topic, and appropriate disambiguation standards. older ≠ wiser 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment regarding ALF, Alf, primary topic, and appropriate disambiguation standards 

message: I've nominated several disambiguation templates for deletion. Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Several_disambiguation_templates. – sgeureka t•c 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several templates up for deletion 

message: Hello all. I don't know if this has been proposed before, but to make entries easier to find I think that the the listings on dab pages of people's names should be in order of age, oldest to youngest, i.e. the oldest birth years on top and the youngest birth years on the bottom. That should not only make the page easier to navigate, but should also reduce the incidence of duplicate listings. This is not addressed in the MoS and I couldn't find a debate in the (indexed) archives. Thoughts?—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The preferred sort order is in order of likelihood that the entry is the sought one.  In cases where this can't be determined by consensus, alphabetical is usually a good order.  If the terms being disambiguated would not be distinguished very well alphabetically (a common occurrence), then chronological is a good choice.  Oldest to youngest or youngest to oldest both work well, and again should be decided on on a page-by-page consensus. All IMO. -- JHunterJ 12:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the list of names is very long, though, it should be broken up into groups or sections based on some other criteria (occupation, nationality, etc.). ... according to consensus. -- JHunterJ 12:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So, for examples, on Henry Roberts, I rearranged it so the redlinks were last (which should be the least controversial move).  I also put the "Henry Roberts (disambiguation phrase)" before the "FirstName Henry Roberts" entries.  Those with a disambiguation phrase I ordered by the number of incoming links.  For the entries with a first name other than Henry, one indicated that he was known by his initials (B. H. Roberts), so that seemed less likely to be searched by "Henry Roberts" than the other. -- JHunterJ 12:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! that does clarify things.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing order for people's names