Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 31

message: I have noticed that many disambiguation pages are now linking to Wiktionary for no apparent reason. A page should have only what is necessary, in my opinion. An example of an unnecessary, and improper (at the moment), link to Wiktionary can be found at "interest (disambiguation)". The only times I can think of when a Wiktionary link on Wikipedia would be helpful is when a term could be nothing more than a dictionary definition, so a soft redirect to Wiktionary is created. The second situation is when one or more important meanings of the term are not represented on the page because the articles would be just dictionary definitions. The first situation does not even involve disambiguation pages, and the second situation is a poor reason because disambiguation pages are strictly for disambiguating articles, not providing information on every meaning of a term. Therefore, I would expect Wiktionary links on disambiguation pages to be very rare. Instead, they seem to be common and increasing rapidly. 
You might say "who cares?", but these links bug me because they are unnecessary and take up a lot of room. I hate things that are unnecessary. In addition, since they take up a lot of room, the links usually cause the entries on a disambiguation page with good descriptions to take up multiple lines instead of just one. In my opinion, a disambiguation page is easiest to read and looks its best when its entries are thorough, yet concise, and only take up one line per entry. -- Kjkolb 10:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I very strongly disagree. Dictionary definitions are a constant plague on disambiguation pages. A link to wiktionary is a simple and direct solution. The page you mention interest (disambiguation) had a malformed link to wiktionary. The wiktionary link to interest certainly seems appropriate to me on that page. As for taking up too much room, sorry, but I don't see that--the boxes float to the right, which is generally whitespace on most disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree as well. I remove a lot of dictionary definitions from dab pages as I clean them. If a person doesnt see something applicable on the list, they may decide to try clicking the wiktionary link. Besides, the box does not "take up a lot of room". I bet you'd have to search hard for even one dab page that has its article text one line longer because of a wiktionary box. - grubber 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While on the topic...  the current guidance for wiktionary linking is a bit dated, I think.  Notably, the  template has taken an argument that is the word to be linked to for some time now.  It's not deprecated and works fine.  The only times  is needed are the rare times two words need to be linked in the same box - and even then, it often looks better to simply have two wiktionary boxes.  Would there be any objection to changing the wording on that to reflect this?  ("Wiktionary" is, after all, a much nicer name for the template and easier to remember.) SnowFire 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've got nothing to add, other than that I fully agree with older ≠ wiser and grubber above...  dictionary entries in disambiguation pages are a big problem, and anything that can help reinforce that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary (and that that applies to disambig pages too) is a good thing.  --Interiot 18:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think wiktionary boxes often cause "good descriptions" to wrap to the next line. The only good description is a short description. Chris the speller 00:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) -- Natalya 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to Wiktionary for no apparent reason 

message: What do people think about the recent addition of  at Mayfield diff ? Personally, I'd have put the link at the bottom under "See also".  But I'm reluctant to change it because I can't see anything in the style guide discouraging toplinks on disambiguation pages. CarolGray 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and changed it as I would expect it to be most useful, reasonably consistent with how other pages work. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  I'm glad it isn't just me.  Should we add anything to the guideline about this?  CarolGray 17:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline already covers it, under 'The "See also" section'. You were right when you made the original post. Chris the speller 17:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toplink 

message: I'd appreciate any comment on This Is It at Talk:This Is It.
Generally, I'm not quite sure if red links are really such a bad thing. Isn't the number of "What links here" pages of a yet unwritten article indicative of the urgency with which it should be created? <KF> 17:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again: Red links in disambiguation pages 

message: Per the decision at the TfD discussion, all of the CC templates (, , , and ) now redirect to , and no longer need to be used.  The guidelines will be updated accordingly.  Thanks to everyone participated in the discussion - I know we all don't agree, but hopefully we will be benefiting disambiguation pages overall.  -- Natalya 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CC templates now redirect to {{tl|disambig}} 

message: Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but is the intent of a first name dab to really list everyone who has that first name, whether they are known by it or not?
What prompted me to ask this is [Alfred], although I have found others in my travels.  Why on earth would anyone looking for Weird Al Yankovic use "Alfred" as a term?  Is the intent of this page to catalogue every notable person listed in WP whose name contains Alfred?
Please educate me.  -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a separate Alfred (name) page for these entries.  In my opinion, Alfred the Great is the only person who could reasonably be referred to as just "Alfred". CarolGray 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Name dabs - redux 

message: I have read MoS:DAB very thoroughly and have cleaned up quite a few dab pages by now. The only thing that I'm sometimes still unsure with is the "See also" section.
1. Does this kind of section allow descriptions? Because I have never seen a good cleaned-up-by-others dab page with descriptions in that section. But there are cases like when I tried to clean up a short-ish religion/philosophical dab page where I could clearly make out what should go under "may refer to" and what belongs to the "See also" section; yet the concept's article names in the "See also" section didn't make much sense for an outsider without a description.
2. Also, for example, I cleaned up the Einstein (disambiguation) page and moved all people with that surname over to Einstein (surname). However, it is not really clear to me whether I should have put Einstein (surname) under "See also" (because it's like a "List of people with the surname Einstein") or somewhere under "may refer to" (where all the the other Eintein (xyz) types are listed) , or separately somewhere on the main dab page ?
3. Finally, in how far should links in the "See also" section be piped? I have seen several versions, and all looked good somehow. – sgeureka t•c 01:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work on this one. A couple of the "See also" entries cry out for a description, or at least a hint (opera, board game). I only object to descriptions there where the editor is displaying everything he or she knows about the subject (winner of the 1987 Sleazebotham Award for design integrity ...), or where you can smell and taste their pride or interest. Having your surnames at the top is probably good in this case, as I imagine a lot of readers get to that page while looking for people. I wouldn't pipe entries in the "See also" section unless I had a good reason; avoid surprise. Chris the speller 05:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Chris.  Also, I notice you've tagged Einstein (surname) with .  I'd have used  instead.  In my opinion, Einstein (surname) doesn't belong in :Category:Disambiguation because the articles listed aren't called just "Einstein". CarolGray 08:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about See also section 

message: As someone who is constantly editing disambiguation pages to try to make them conform with this MoS, I have come across one that I am not sure of.  In Imitation of Life, there is a new entry:
*Imitation of Life, a 1981 album by Steve Beresford, Tristan Honsinger, Toshinori Kondo and David Toop
Should we:
#Keep it as is, or
#De-link all of the artists but the first one (most significant?), or
#Remove the entry completely
Thanks in advance for your guidance --rogerd 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd do option 1.5 -> The album cover that I see Beresford and Honsigner prominently displayed and no sign of the other two.  Two blue links on this line seems okay to me. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say "Keep it as is", but given Jwy's better research, I concur with his recommendation.  (I changed the formatting of some of the other titles before coming back here, so I haven't made the change suggested.) -- JHunterJ 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed that you removed the indentation of the two film adaptations of the novel.  I have seen the same technique used in other places when there is some linkage.  Why did you do that?  Also, I have always been under the impression that piping was a no-no on disambiguation pages. Thanks --rogerd 15:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piping for formatting is a yes-yes exception to the general no-no -- see WP:MOSDAB#Piping.  The linkage didn't seem strong enough to warrant suborning the movies to the novel; if a user is looking for the movie, the fact that it's an adaptation of the novel won't help them.  IMO.  -- JHunterJ 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure how to handle this one 

message: Template talk:Otheruses#"For other articles, see X (disambiguation)."—discuss there. Thanks. Punctured Bicycle 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new wording of otheruses template 

message: Debate started at the Clinical Medicine Wikiproject on how to name topics that apply generically or specifically to humans vs animals, eg Tooth vs Tooth (human) or Human tooth vs Tooth (animal) - See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine#Human vs. animal?.David Ruben  Talk  12:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human vs. animal

message: Last year, I started down a path to clean out some lists of people by their first name (and other lists of people by their last names).  After several discussions (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 25#Hndis needs its own Manual, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen (surname), Talk:Jennifer), it appeared that consensus was against my view, and I restored the lists I had deleted.  It appears that a few more discussions have taken place since then (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Lists containing people names - RFC, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#first name dabs, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#First name dab pages, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#First Name dabs - redux, with less opposition.  Currently, there's this AfD:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the first name Julie which seems relevant.  Is there a new consensus?  Can I (or anyone else) make an entry in the project page reflecting this consensus?  Thanks. -- JHunterJ 17:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on first names 

message: I'm sure this has been discussed before - my apologies for cluttering the page. I couldn't find what I was looking for elsewhere. The MoS lists "one link per item" as a policy for disambiguation pages... I find myself running across many pages with multiple links-per-line and thinking, "That doesn't seem outrageous... Linking to the author of a book and also the title, or a song title and its artist, doesn't seem all that unreasonable... But I suppose it's policy, so I'd better change it... *sigh*" Can anyone explain the rationale here?
Of course, there are many instances where multiple links are superfluous and distracting. But (it seems to me that) in some cases, doubling or tripling the limit may be in order. Is it okay to make an exception in these instances? How strictly should I be "enforcing" this policy?
Thanks for the attention. I don't know if it'd be "inappropriate" to split the discussion, but you're welcome to respond on my talk page if you'd like, since this is sort of a one-man issue. PaladinWhite 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:D#Disambiguation pages says it best: "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link; including more than one link can confuse the reader." Dabs aren't meant for exploration; they're intended to rout the reader to the article he meant to find.  If the reader wants to continue exploration, the linked page is the place to start, not the dab page. -- JHunterJ 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a link to the most recent discussion about this issue: October 2006. --Muchness 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, both of you... I can see that my opinion has been expressed before, and shot down. I guess I'll just have to "agree to disagree" at this point. PaladinWhite 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only one link per line? 

message: Disambiguation pages are generally not sourced - but there's nothing "official-like" about it.  What's the deal? WilyD 15:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's what deal? What's not official-like about dabs?  If I understand your question, it probably belongs at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, since it's not about the style of the pages. -- JHunterJ 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, disambiguation pages are usually not sourced, and although this makes sense (they're not content), there no where I can find that suggests this is a good or acceptable thing. WilyD 17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOURCE contains a section titled "Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources". Fine. But dab pages are not articles, they are navigation aids, special pages in the article namespace. Articles are never dab pages, and dab pages are never articles. At least, if I see them, they won't be for very long. Chris the speller 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but that's implicit - it's easier to show a disruptive editor something stated directly than try to get them to infer what is (apparently) obvious. WilyD 13:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree with you in that I NEVER let new content stay in a dab page. I move it immediately to a new article, even if it's a one-liner. Them one thing will happen: either it is meritless and gets deleted (and thus proves it shouldn't have been dabbed) or it becomes a bona fide stub and gets dabbed. --maf 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: Is there a branch of policy concerning the use of articles following the link on each line?
*Abbey Road (album), an album (or the album) by the Beatles, vs.
*Abbey Road (album), album by the Beatles
WP:MoS (DAB) seems to favor leaving it out, but doesn't state it explicitly that I can see, and I've seen DAB pages go both ways. (See Water (disambiguation) vs. The Raven (disambiguation)) PaladinWhite 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only policy about dabbing is that there should be dabs where needed; everything else is guideline and, therefore, optional to your taste and your good sense. Re articles, they really don't fit on people descriptors (although they're still used there) and for non-people the indefinite article is by far the most usual because descriptors do not need to be over precise: "Neptune, a planet" is enough to distinguish it from "Neptune, a Roman god" - no need for "Neptune, the ninth and last planet of the Solar System". I would focus more on taking out redundancy and clutter from descriptors; your examples above use "album" twice for each entry; the guideline advises to show the full article title because it also serves as descriptor. Therefore, something like "Abbey Road (album), by the Beatles" is more than enough. --maf (talk-cont) 10:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Note this line in the guideline, "People" section, "Do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role". For non-people, whatever is natural. Which seems pretentious to you, "San Francisco, the city in California", or "San Francisco, a city in California"? There are other cities in California. I usually take out the definite article unless it seems natural, as in "Hamlet (legend), the original Hamlet legends". Chris the speller 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A careless reader might think you are instructing them to make each entry a sentence, and that is clearly not what the guidelines call for. I think you mean that each entry, when appended to the opening line, should be a sentence. I don't think that's necessary, as the disambig page is not meant as running text, but as a list of links, with just enough description to prevent ambiguity. Chris the speller 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what I am saying, and that guidance came from earlier discussions on this very page - that is, the introduction combined with the bullet should be a sentence.  The topic organizations can be added as well ("Apple can refer to, in computing, ...").  And...  I don't know what to say, but I very much disagree that the minimum amount of text is necessarily correct.  As an extreme example, word association would probably work for disambiguating entries (Apple Inc., computer company iPod Macintosh); it'd just look ugly and weird.  That's obviously not what you're recommending, but if we're going to make something close to a grammatical sentence (when completed with the introduction), why not go all the way? SnowFire 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm strongly in favor of an article as well.  Most non-human-name entries include an article, but many human-name entries don't, and it's not clear why there needs to be an inconsistency.  --Interiot 17:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect a lot of editors got tired of seeing entries like "Hiram Quackenbush, the Civil War general". In almost any case, good disambiguation of people can be achieved without a definite article, and the indefinite article adds nothing, takes up room, and then invites more articles. We are used to seeing a description after a comma in the context of people, but it's not so common with inanimate objects; "Dick Schaedel, Attorney" does not make a bumpy ride, but "carburetor, automotive device" does. When an article seems natural for non-people entries, go for it. Chris the speller 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you just leave it at that, it's somewhat okay, but what if someone wants to expand it to "Dick Schaedel, attorney in the San Francisco area?"  In that case, the "an" makes the flow much better for the same reasons as the other cases.  It's especially clear if you imagine a series of Dick Schaedel entries for attorneys in different towns and times - "Dick Schaedel, attorney who worked on the Mordecai affair in Belgium" does not flow, and so on.  (That said, I agree that definite articles should be used sparingly, and "the Civil War general" is a bad example.  "The capital of Rajislava" or whatever is more reasonable.) SnowFire 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of articles following the link 

message: Just wondering what the Wikipedia position is on multiple song or album names. Obviously there are some cases where the alternative name is very notable (The White Album comes to mind) but mostly alternative names are extremely little-known outside hardcore fan groups. Would an obscure secondary name warrant a DAB page or DAB title, regardless of notability or otherwise? I'd argue not, but I'd appreciate knowing the Wikipedia policy on this.--ABVS 23:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked into it and found nothing on alt song names. A few pointers: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, WP:SONG, WP:Naming conventions#Music. But I think it all comes down to this: "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." (from WP:NAMING). I interpret this as allowing The White album because it's the common title, but not allowing "an obscure secondary" title "little-known outside hardcore fan groups", the same fan groups which would most certainly know the official title. --maf (talk-cont) 00:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative song names