Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 26

message: Isn't there a rule that no external links should be used on disambiguation pages? Has it been discussed before? I would find it quite useful, because otherwise disambig pages tend to get clogged with stuff that nobody cares to write an article about, but of course there is some website about it that somebody wants to promote (see HOS (permalink)) for a vivid example . -- 790 23:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: This guideline states "When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?". What if the reader is ignorant of the "thing" that technically belongs to that name? Do we put up a disambiguation page at that term saying, "this means this but you probably think it means that". Or do we put up the correct article for that "thing" and add a DAB link at the top saying, "Most people think this means this other thing". Should an encyclopedia defer to ignorance and throw in disambiguation to get around it? (This question seems to be coming up at Talk:Milky Way#The "Milky Way" and "The Milky Way Galaxy" are two different things.  Halfblue 22:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should accommodate ignorance.  Without it, the Encyclopedia would be unnecessary.  (John User:Jwy talk) 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful -- sounds like a recipe for making every single word into a wikilink. Ewlyahoocom 05:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're talking about the exception rather than the rule.  Every so often, some situation comes up where the guidelines don't quite fit.  It's quite normal, we can't cover everything.  I'm sure you and the contributors at the Milky Way and Milky Way Galaxy articles will find a solution.  (I have to say, I learnt something today.)  Neonumbers 09:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still remember Neonumbers' remark of December 19 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 29#Proposed exemplary Human name dab that "We allow for confusion, but not stupidity". That struck me as being just about right. However, a certain level of ignorance that falls short of stupidity might be accommodated. After all, I read Wikipedia as well as editing it. Chris the speller 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Not knowing the "Milky Way" distinction is not an extreme level of ignorance - its something you would expect an Encyclopedia to help one out with.  But we need not go to extremes.   I like what I currently see at Milky Way. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about ignorance? 

message: Are there any policies or guide-lines concerning the placement of pictures or images in disambig pages? I found two on the Syracuse disambig & I removed them, here are before and after links. Naufana : talk 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:DAB#Images. You were right in removing them from the dab page. – sgeureka t•c 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To directly anwer the question of guidelines concerning the placement of pictures or images in disambig pages, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Images. The short answer: place them elsewhere. Chris the speller 01:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in disambig 

message: I came across the new look of , and I don't really like it. I would like to go back to the old style and explained my reasons at Template talk:Disambig-cleanup#Ambox style. More comments? (Reply there.) – sgeureka t•c 09:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambox style for dab templates 

message: First of all, "hence" is a word that few people use every day. Also, removing "the process of" leaves us with "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is resolving conflicts in article titles", which can be taken as the answer to "what is dismabiguation currently doing?" as well as "what is disambiguation?". This is removing clarity, not adding it. The deeper question here is what the editor finds unclear in the opening; let's discuss and jointly decide if a change is warranted. Chris the speller (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of rewording in the opening 

message: Here is an interesting case at AFD involving a disambiguation page that disambiguates foreign language (non-latin) characters. I've voiced my opinion there, so I won't repeat it here, but I think it raises interesting questions for disambiguation on WP:EN. older ≠ wiser 15:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting case at AFD 

message: There's a major pitfall, and the need now for "CJKV disambiguation pages" is very real.  We have long had redirects (Wikipedia-wide) for non-Latin script names, redirecting to their corresponding English Wikipedia article, such as 中国 and 東京.  We believed that this worked within the guidelines of WP:ENGLISH.  However, there was a large pitfall in this reasoning, because not all Chinese characters map to a unique English Wikipedia article name.  And in such cases, disambiguation becomes necessary.  We are now faced with a rude awakening that, short of banning all redirects from foreign scripts, we must now disambiguate between foreign scripts names, outside the frameworks of WP:ENGLISH.
Previous discussions never led in the direction of eliminating dab for CJKV scripts:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mon (currency) (Discussed Sept. 4 thru 11)
*Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/archive7#Creation of a CJK Taskforce to handle Chinese characters (Discussed Sept. 5 thru 13)
*Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#What's the policy on non-Latin characters for article titles? (Discussed Nov. 18 thru 19)
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/東北大學 (Ongoing discussion, since Nov. 23)
I believe the consensus so far is that we cannot ban or eliminate such dab pages.  Hence we find it necessary for WP:WPDAB to cover (and regulate) dab's using foreign scripts.
At this point, Chinese characters (CJKV characters) are the only ones I know of, which urgently needs some DAB guidelines.  We propose a joint DAB task force as discussed here, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals‎#CJKV disambiguation pages.  WP:WPDAB will be the main parent, and we will need to create a subpage under WP:WPDAB.  Please discuss the feasibilities there.--Endroit (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CJKV]] disambiguation pages 

message: A problem I come across a lot of the time is people linking to articles that have names which have one similar word or maybe a similar root but really don't need to be disambiguated. Bohemia (disambiguation) does not need a link to Bohemian Rhapsody because no one calls Bohemian Rhapsody "Bohemia". I think the guideline should address this. Recury 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro of WP:D says In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title.. The intro of MOS:DAB says Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term. It's clear: Bohemian Rhapsody has no place on Bohemia (disambiguation) and can thus be deleted then. :-) – sgeureka t•c 19:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the guideline is especially clear about this issue at WP:D#Lists: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here... Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title." --Paul Erik 19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was looking for I guess, but I didn't see that when I scanned it. I don't see how "Lists" as a heading make any sense there. How about  "Links that only contain part of the title" or something catchier? Recury 19:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer leaving the header alone, if only for the reason that I have quite often (and at least once today) used that anchor to point other editors there (to WP:D#Lists). My descriptions and notes on user talk pages would lose their effectiveness. Chris the speller 02:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing ===Links that only contain part of the title=== would solve the linking problem. – sgeureka t•c 09:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good info. Thanks. Chris the speller 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary links 

message: There are several pages with Alexander the Great in their title , and the disambiguation link at the top of the page only links to the 1956 film.  Would there be any objections to creating Alexander the Great (disambiguation)? (of course this would change the example given in this article) --George100 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My rule of thumb: if there is one other article besides the primary meaning, use hatnotes. If there are two other articles associated with the primary meaning, a new disambiguation page can be created instead of using hatnotes. If there are three or more articles, a new disambiguation should definately be created. In this case, you have ATG (primary meaning), a film, a board game, and a song. – sgeureka t•c 18:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved Alexander the Great (1956 film) to Alexander the Great (film).  I would have created the dab too, but I wasn't sure if you (George100) would prefer to do it yourself. Yes, the dab is definitely warranted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I've created the DAB page, and changed link at the top of Alexander the Great to  --George100 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander the Great disambiguation 

message: I'm not exactly sure where to put this but there's a lot of links to Environmental Protection Agency that should be moved since that page was turned into a disambig (see Talk:Environmental Protection Agency).  I think most links should point to United States Environmental Protection Agency.  On a related note, it would nice if the direct external links to WikiMapia were replaced with a template. I don't think we should promote one mapping service over others.  (Check Special:Whatlinkshere/WikiMapia--many of the links also link to the WikiMapia article)
(It would also be nice if the links to pdf were also changed, seeing that "PDF" is an acronym) Jason McHuff (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Environmental Protection Agency should be moved to Environmental Protection Agency (disambiguation) and the redirect from the base name to the primary topic United States Environmental Protection Agency restored.  I've commented on the Talk page, but the earlier note by Dekimasu seems to have gone nowhere.  I'll see if anyone responds to the new comment, and then perhaps execute the moves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to fix 

message: Are there any guidelines relating to an article having a section of disambiguation links? Should there be? Case in point: Criticism of Microsoft#Product criticism - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a section of disambiguation links, it's an article directory.  It's probably not very good style, but I don't think it falls under the disambiguation umbrella. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is not disambiguation material.  My guess is that it might be best to have a summary paragraph of each subject and have these links be there via the  type template - or just have them listed in a "see also" section. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation sections 

message: Am I correct in saying that external links (other than interwikis, of course) are forbidden on disambiguation pages? If this is not the policy, we should make it so and state it in the strongest terms. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: External links and citations are unneeded on disambiguation pages, yes.  WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries says so, although without the strongest terms: "External links should rarely, if ever, be given entries in disambiguation pages. Including them as comments or on a talk page is a way to mention URLs that might be helpful in the future." I would favor making that stronger too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the wording is too weak. There is never a case for an external link. If anyone can come up with an external link that would make WP better, they can put it in a stub, at least. Chris the speller (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - I've cleaned up more than my share of DAB spam links that could never be articles, and would like to have a policy to point to that expressly forbids their inclusion. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now "never". :-) -- JHunterJ 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good - now, could someone generate a list of dismbig pages that contain external links (excluding other wikimedia projects), so I can pick 'em off? Cheers! bd2412 T 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: As previously mentioned above (at #CJKV disambiguation pages), we are in need of a guideline which covers Chinese characters.  Here are my 2 proposals, 
;* Option 1, "DAB of CJKV character names":  Common CJKV character (Chinese character) names should redirect to their corresponding acceptable article name per WP:ENGLISH as much as possible. However, if a CJKV name maps to multiple Wikipedia articles, disambiguation is required, and all the normal rules for WP:DAB apply.
...or...
;* Option 2, "DAB of foreign script names":  Common foreign script names which do not pass the criteria of WP:ENGLISH should redirect to their corresponding acceptable article name per WP:ENGLISH as much as possible. However, if a foreign script name maps to multiple Wikipedia articles, disambiguation is required, and all the normal rules for WP:DAB apply.
If there are no objections, I would like to add Option 1 (above) into the WP:DAB guidelines page.  Please discuss.--Endroit (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New guidelines for [[CJKV]] disambiguation pages 

message: Hello, I frequently work on theWP:DPL project. Occasionally, I encounter editors who are slightly to very recalcitrant about having links disambiguated in articles they are involved in. I would like to propose that some version of the following text be included in the guideline here:
:With very few exceptions, creating wikilinks to dab pages is erroneous. Wikilinks are not supposed to take the user to a dab page. They're supposed to take the user to a relevant article. The purpose of a dab page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he's looking for. The exceptions to this are:
:* Dab links in the top of an article — E.g. Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal which carries a dab link at the top to Watergate (disambiguation) for other uses.
:* Redirects from misspellings — E.g. Britian redirects to Britain (a dab page).
:* Links from one dab page to another for further disambiguation — E.g. Britten (a dab page) has a link to Britain for further disambiguation.
:* Certain pages that contain lists of words — E.g. List of Greek place names contains the linked word Britain as a translation of the Greek word "Βρεττανία."
:There is currently a major project underway to repair links to disambiguation pages. You can find out about it here. Creating links to disambiguation pages only results in the page on which they're created showing up on a list of pages that are in need of repair, bringing an editor to the page to repair it.
:Please don't deliberately create links to disambiguation pages.
I've mentioned this at the projects talk page and have received only favorable comments, although not many. Your comments, please?
--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any article that links to a disambiguation page intentionally should use the (disambiguation) page or redirect title (the editor may need to create the redirect if the disambiguation page is at the base name).  I just updated List of Greek place names to do so, with a pipe link so that the displayed text wouldn't change. Redirects cannot use a (disambiguation) redirect, because that would make a double redirect.   I'd rephrase "Dab links at the top of an article" as "Disambiguation links in hatnotes" (and spell out "disambiguation" instead of using "dab" throughout). Britten (disambiguation) (not Britten, BTW) turned out to be a list of surname holders instead of a dab page; I moved it.  A different set you could use is Mali (disambiguation), Molly, and Mallee. I think it's a worthy topic for inclusion here, though -- thanks for drafting it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your thanks, I drafted it in a fit of irritation. I actually drafted the text months ago when Britten was a dab page. Also, you didn't pipe the link in List of Greek place names to the redirect, you piped it to Great Britain, an article about the island, not the country. This seems wrong to me since the link refers to the word Britain, not the island or the country. However, I consider this so rare as to be probably not worth mentioning. I've disambiguated thousands of links and only encountered this once. Your thoughts?--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did what I said, but another editor did what you said.  I undid it. I'm often reverted when I use a link to a (disambiguation) redirect instead of a direct link by editors who are under the mistaken impression that the only good redirect is a Search Box redirect, so I still think the note would be useful. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the discussed edit (some time ago now - forgot to post here when I did it). Other editors please have a look. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new text 

message: Lift is quoted as a prime example of a dab page but its current version has a link to a non-article. This made me think that, since it isn't possible to keep tabs on all all examples all the time, perhaps a quoted example like this should be somehow cast in stone to retain it in its exemplary form. I'm not even sure if this is possible but it seems a good idea to me. Abtract (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, I think, if it's watchlisted by a bunch of editors who are active in the project (I'll add it to mine now). Many eyes will keep it from being assaulted. bd2412 T 09:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime example 

message: Should they ever exist? The article doesn't currently say anything about the usage of "(disambiguation)" in titles.
There are even cases where both "X" and "X (disambiguation)" are disambiguation pages with the same (manual!) content. -Lwc4life (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they should exist.  See WP:D#Page naming conventions for when to use them (no primary topic) and when not to (when a primary topic exists).  Often, when the dab does not have (disambiguation), a redirect with (disambiguation) is created for intentional wP:D#Links to disambiguation pages.  There is no need for both "X" and "X (disambiguation) with the same content.  The (disambiguation) page should be made into a redirect in that case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really short term thinking. What if a year later you'd have a primary topic? Why have the need to do moves and redirects and manual changing of possibly endless links when you can prevent it? -Lwc4life (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not short-term thinking, it's expeditious thinking.  Page moves will continue to be needed in the disambiguation space and in the main article space in general, with all that that entails.  If the manual changing of "possibly endless" links is a problem, note that it will not be avoided by placing the disambiguation page at (disambiguation) -- people will still link to the base name, which will be wrong if there's no primary topic, and possibly wrong if one of the other articles later becomes the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation pages without the term "(disambiguation)" in their title 

message: A user keeps being very adamant about inserting a disambiguation page for Wal-Mart, which is not a true disambiguation page. Disambiguation, IMHO, is not needed, as there is only one company named 'Wal-Mart', and it's not likely to be confused with anything else. The articles listed on List of Wal-Mart articles are really just a collection of 'see also' list items; subjects that are related to Wal-Mart but unlikely to actually be confused by someone searching for the company. The links under 'operations' are actually already in the main Wal-Mart article anyway, so that's redundant.
There was an AfD about a month ago, but unfortunately was closed prematurely by an admin that claimed 'no consensus'. 7 users were in favor of deletion, and four wanting to rename it (from 'Wal-Mart (disambiguation)' to 'List of Wal-Mart articles'); only 3 named users (and two anon IPs with less than 10 edits each) wanted to keep it. In the end, it was ultimately renamed to 'List of Wal-Mart articles'; although that's not good enough for Shaliya waya, who seems determined to engage in a long-term revert war over making sure that the disambiguation page sticks (though no WP:3RR violations have occurred, as for as I know; although she does revert with no edit summary, and no comments on the talk page).
At present, I still don't think that this is a disambiguation page, and I think it would best fit if merged into the 'see also' section of the main Wal-Mart article, since the items listed do seem to be related. I'd like to know what others feel about this. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the redirects.  (disambiguation) pages should not redirect to pages that aren't disambiguation pages, agreed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting input on [[Wal-Mart]] 

message: I am new to Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure that some sort of disambiguation page should be created to make more clear the following entities:  Spencer's (a defunct retailer) and Spencer Gifts (an existing retailer that many customers call "Spencer's").  It seems a bit odd that "David Spencer Limited" went out of business in 1948 but commands the direct article link for Spencer's. I'll be happy to help execute a disambiguation, but I thought it would be best to ask first. - Where I chillax (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is usually asked at the talkpage of the relevant article, in this case Spencer's. You can also make a Move request which gets more input, or just be bold (if you are really sure) by moving the current Spencer's to David Spencer Limited, and then turning the resulting redirect at new Spencer's into a normal disambiguation page. I have heard of neither Spencer's, so I cannot tell you if there is a primary meaning etc. – sgeureka t•c 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't ignore the fact that a dab page already exists at Spencer, which includes both the "Spencer's" businesses.  I'm not sure if a new dab page just for these two articles is needed.  I think that Spencer's should probably redirect to Spencer Gifts, with a hatnote back to David Spencer Limited as well as to Spencer for further disambiguation. SlackerMom (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone was bold, but sadly kind of messed this up, moving the department store article to the grammatically-odd David's Spencer Limited (and redirecting Spencer's to Spencer).  I'm not going to presume which retailer is the primary use, if there even is one, so I created a DAB page at Spencer's (helpful to those typing "Spencer's" as a search term, despite the existence of Spencer), and moved the dept store article to Spencer's (department store) (I'm not from BC, but I know enough from history that no one called it David Spencer Limited).  It seems that all the articles that link to Spencer's are intended for the department store, so I will fix those links.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting input on ''Spencer's'' 

message: Does the fact that the title being used as a placeholder is an actual page bother anyone? --DocumentN (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, it does.  Surely we should be able to come up with an example that will stay red. SlackerMom (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: like this one, taken from WP:redlink ought to stay red. Taemyr (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Implemented.  Thanks for pointing out like this one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "For example, there is some topic [[XXXX]]..." 

message: I've been doing disambiguation work for a while, but have just started thinking if there were a better way.  Has there been discussion somewhere (maybe in the Wikimedia community) to 1) improve the search mechanism to something like googles, where there is some importance to the order returned and 2) a way of extracting a summary line from the found articles?  Done correctly, this would be a much more useful/efficient mechanism to accomplish what we do.  We may then have to choose the primary article - but beyond that, I'm not sure what use the dab pages would be.  I know 1 is non-trivial both technically and perhaps intellectual property wise.
Or maybe I missing something the dab pages do?
(John User:Jwy talk) 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Dab pages are disambiguating between separate meanings of the same word.  It is a mistake of seeing it as a search mechanism, rather it is a method for getting a direct access to articles when the search term entered can have several meanings.  Specific problems would be that it would be difficult for search functionality to pick up on synonymous words.  Eg. instance can mean Object (computer science).  And we do not want articles where the search term is just a part of the potential title.  Eg. Dark matter should not be linked from Dark.Taemyr (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they are not search pages, but an intelligent search with extracted summaries might be combined (perhaps with a page with some configuration data to cover some indirect meanings) might serve the purpose of a dab page.  (John User:Jwy talk) 20:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have to be very intelligent if it is to pick up synonyms.  Taemyr (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is probably better done at a Wikimedia page or discussion group (anyone know where?).  Synonyms could be provided by editors in the configuration data.  And I think it through a little more and have a better description of the idea (or give up if I can't generate one).  In any even, disambiguation must be a problem with most Wikimedia applications and there must be some technical assistance the underlying infrastructure could provide. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved search and summary page as alternative 

message: Should we include names of schools that can be abbreviated in the disambiguation page for acronyms? I saw in MHS that there were several high schools listed there with such an abbreviation. I've split them into MHS (high schools) but I'm wondering whether or not they should be listed at all. RightGot (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no. Reason: Basically no-one would type "MHS" into the search box or write "Bill Clinton attended MHS" in an article. That would make disambiguation of schools useless. (There are obviously exceptions for very prestigious schools, usually colleges). – sgeureka t•c 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I'd leave some wiggle room on well-known colleges and universities, but no way do we need all the high schools in the English-speaking world dabbed by their abbreviations. SlackerMom (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No, there should not be separate dab pages for types of entries on a dab page.  We've discussed this for things like (song) or (film) before too. If it's referred to as SHS, it should be on the SHS dab page.  If it's a long "cluttering" list, they can be grouped after the main part of the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many more high schools that share the same acronym than there are songs or films that share the same title though. RightGot (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with User:JHunterJ - having seen the SHS page, where the move had been made with no edit summary, I replaced the schools on the main dab page but in a separate section, before realising there was this discussion and systematic series of moves.  I don't see any point in a separate SHS (high schools) page, nor any harm in these schools being on the main SHS page as a clearly separate section. PamD (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone considered that there will be thousands of schools for most 3 letter acronyms?  Does a dab page really make sense in this case? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll only be the schools which have WP articles. If there are a vast number, they could be split by country? PamD (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already split by country on some of the dab pages. By the way, I'm actually for remvoing all the high schools from the dab pages to start with. After all, very few people are likely to type in PHS expecting that they'll get to the local high school. We should just remove them, and add a note at the top of the dab pages not to add high schools. 4.235.111.106 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well if all high schools are going to be considered notable, then it is the entire universe.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't added or subtracted any high schools from their acronym pages, but if an editor adds them there, I really can't see any justification for removing them -- an article to be disambiguated is an article to be disambiguated.  If you feel the schools are unworthy, work on getting the school articles deleted.  Acronym dabs tend towards lengthiness with or without schools. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The thing is however, that no one is going to type in SHS expecting to get to the article on a specific high school. As there are thousands of potential notable high schools, several of them will share the same acronym. RightGot (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are mistaken about what people will type in and expect.  Or, the SHS article can be deleted altogether, since no one looking for Secondhand Smoke is going to search for SHS, etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JHunterJ that we should not make too many assumptions about what people will type into the search box and expect to get. The fact is that schools are (at least in the U.S.) often referred to by their initials. It is not such a stretch to think that someone might come across such a reference and try to look it up in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I'm not keen on cramming the ?HS and ??HS pages with long lists of high schools. I think shifting them off to sub-pages is a reasonable approach. older ≠ wiser 11:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have requested comment from Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Taemyr (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SHS is a good example.  The fact is that it is getting difficult to find Secure Hash Standard, since the dab looks like a list of schools.  Schools is nothing special, in my opinion anything that is likely to push 30 or so similar entries into a dab single dab page is content that should be taken out of that dab page and over to a separate list. Taemyr (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd welcome other editors' input at SHS, where I believe that the non-school entries should come first, and another editor disagrees! PamD (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I applied the usual dab cleanups there, including deleting the entries whose articles didn't indicate they were known as SHS.  I hope this goes more smoothly than MS did... -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronyms that can refer to names of schools 

message: Should Saints be a redirect to Saint (disambiguation) or to Saint (as the primary meaning)?  Please comment at Talk:Saints. --Russ (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought that a reader inputting Saints is more likely to be looking for an article like Saint rather than a specific saint via a dab page. Abtract (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saints - comments sought 

message: In many discussion on WP:RM opinions to move articles to the primary name, even when there are scores of uses for a name, often assert that being the first or largest is justification to be declared the primary use.  This seems contrary to the wording in this guideline.  Is my interpretation incorrect or do we need to make this point in the guideline. 
Along the same lines, sometimes I wonder if we could avoid a lot of problems by strongly stating that if there are differences of opinion, the default should be to use the dab page at the primary name.  I know the guideline hints at this but it does not defer to using the dab page by default.  Vegaswikian (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making a dab page a default puts a lot of extra work on WP:DPWL, so it should only happen when a primary meaning is not clear. All of this is a case by case decision and can only be solved by discussion. – sgeureka t•c 10:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is the point.  In just about every case, there is no primary use that is clear.  In the case of place names, it would also remove a semantic bias towards the place names from certain countries resulting from their naming convention.  Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to favor the largest or oldest as the primary use even when that is not the case?  Are you also suggesting that pointing to the wrong article for a significant number of users is acceptable?  That is a point ignored in the rename discussions in favor of using the link count to say that the current page is primary based on the number of links.  Which is meaningless in fact since this is the result of editors disambiguating the existing links.  This is happening today.  Vegaswikian (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not participate in any RM discussions recently, and I usually find what I am looking for at a primary meaning page (i.e. not a dab page). Therefore, I am biased to say that I don't agree with "In just about every case, there is no primary use that is clear." Primary use for me is about 80% per common use, not specialized use (e.g. Firefly should always be the insect, not a dab page, and certainly not the short-run TV show as that association is declining). Also, good use of hatnotes usually works quite well for me. Maybe someone else will comment here. – sgeureka t•c 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I agree with Vegaswikian that the default should be weighted towards disambiguation and that there should be a relatively high bar set for primary topic. Was there actually discussion about moving Firefly? I think that is a pretty clear case of a primary topic. But I *think* Vegaswikian is referring to more marginal cases (of which there are legion). older ≠ wiser 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without examples, it's hard to comment. Surely, there are dab pages that I think should/could be replaced by a primary meaning, and there are also not-so-clear cases (usually when popular fiction is involved) where hatnotes work for me because I know that noone want to go the go the TV show in 2 years. That's also why I named Firefly: it's the only article where my specialized primary use is not directed at the insect, although generalized primary use probably is. I guess it all comes down to preference and the required "extra-click". Don't let me speak for anyone else. :-) – sgeureka t•c 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any active place name discussions, so I can't point to one.  However, this discussion is kind of interesting.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a current discussion that seems to be favoring not using a dab page when there is no primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is one that attempts to justify one place in lieu of the dab page since everything derives (allegedly) from the first. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place disambiguation pages 

message: There has been disagreement at User_talk:Uncle_G#Disambiguation_pages_and_articles where to take dab pages for deletion. Since dab pages are self-claimed non-articles, it can be argued that AfD is the wrong place, however, dab pages are in article name space. Per the intro of MOS:DAB, this situation may be comparable to how redirect deletions are handled. Opinions? – sgeureka t•c 12:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it at AfD.  MfD is for pages outside of the article mainspace.  Putting them at RfD might be an option, on the grounds that what is being considered is the deletion of a set of soft redirects.  Dab AfD's should be rare enough that this should not be a great problem.Taemyr (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are dab pages discussed for deletion? 

message: Have a look at Nate Newton (disambiguation).  Nothing links to it (except for a user page and the standard Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages).  I've just inserted a hatnote on Nate Newton that—since there is only one alternate use—goes directly to Nate Newton (musician).  Does Nate Newton (disambiguation) need to exist?
My inclination is to put it up for deletion, but before I do that I just wanted to see what everyone else thought.  Neonumbers (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just redirect it so that it's there if needed later? Abtract (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I usually  those; in theory  should work, but I've found that other admins often don't recognize the issue then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is the wording of .  Admins should be sceptical about stretching the speedy criteria.  Taemyr (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Disambiguation pages don't really cost much so they don't do any harm if left.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when they are around then people feel the need that they should be hatnoted from the primary article. Taemyr (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, even as an enthusiast for hatnotes I'll agree with that one, no point in hatnoting a 2-name dab page. This can be handled better by a hatnote on each article. Until someone finds another notable Nate Newton, of course! PamD (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dabs with two links, one of which is a primary topic 

message: The dab page Andrew Scott is laid out as a table, rather than the usual bulleted list. I was going to convert it to a list, per the convention, but then I thought that it might be useful to discuss the idea here.
The table doesn't show up as well as a list when using popups (the table contents are not displayed in the popup), which seems to me to a very unhelpful thing ... but OTOH it does allow more info to be displayed on the dab page in a very readable manner.
On balance, I think that the table is a bad idea — more appropriate for set indexes than disambiguation pages — but I'd welcome other thoughts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say get rid of the table unless we are going to convert all dab pages to such a format, and I'm not sure that's useful.  (John User:Jwy talk) 04:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: As per John. – sgeureka t•c 08:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I knew it sounded familiar:  WT:MOSDAB#Tables within dab pages to be precise. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table on disambiguation page 

message: I am having a problem understanding this "A disambiguation page has links to a heterogeneous set of concepts." from 
here. I get the rest of the para which is pretty fundamental dab stuff but it's the heterogeneous set of concepts I am having trouble with. Surely a dab page contains many quite different concepts, (MS) would be a good example. DAB pages have links to articles with the same or similar names not the same concept. ... can anyone enlighten me? Abtract (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct—a dab page contains many different concepts. Perhaps you are mixing up the term heterogeneous with homogeneous? --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well bugger me if you aren't right ... how stupid can a person be. Thanks. Abtract (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen much worse. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably my dimness 

message: disambiguation links — at the top of an article, a note that links the reader to articles with similar titles or concepts that the reader may have been seeking instead of the article in which the links appear.
The above appears in the guideline, but "concepts" are vague and could be interpreted as external links. There are disambiguation pages with external links. Should this be clarified as to whether links are allowed or not? -Wikianon (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a couple of "Wikipedia"s to narrow the possible interpretation, but that sentence applies to disambiguating hatnotes on articles, not to disambiguation pages.  External links are not allowed in the guidelines for either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links allowed? 

message: :Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup has been pretty empty in the past few weeks/months. Maybe this means that the really terrible dab pages have all been cleaned up, but I still come across some dab pages needing attention now and then (I am also slowly making my way through Wikipedia:Links_to_%28disambiguation%29_pages/L-Z). In April 2007, User:Interiot filled the DPiNoC category with his bot (see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28disambiguation_pages%29/Archive_31#Automated_drinking_game) but I have no wikibot experience. Does someone else have an idea for what can be done so that the dab-fixers aren't out of job? – sgeureka t•c 14:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to :Category:Disambiguation, pick a random spot in the alphabet, and then choose a random dab page. My experience suggests that odds are better than even that it will need fixing in one way or another. If not, just go on to the next one. --ShelfSkewed Talk 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying that since I virtually cleared the list {just leaving E (disambiguation) which I couldn't face though I will one day!} and my experience so far has been that most need attention. Abtract (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup]] 

message: The CJKV taskforce has been created to assist in disambiguation of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese when using Kyūjitai, Hanja, Hán tự, Simplified Chinese, and Shinjitai (Kanji). If you wish to participate, please come and help out. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CJKV taskforce 

message: Let's take a dab term like 'HP'. In the top line, the most common usage (Hewlett-Packard) is listed at the top. A user recently asked why it also isn't sited under the organizations section, suggesting that the term isn't as noticeable at the top. I am tempted to think this is lazy, but in retrospect, I thought I would come here for some input. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think there is rarely, if ever, any good reason to link to the same article twice on the same dab page.  HP is pretty clear as it is; anyone who actually reads the page is unlikely to miss the link to Hewlett-Packard.  --Russ (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually this has just come up on Talk:HP (disambiguation) -- while ordinarily I'd agree that there is little reason to repeat links -- some consideration of how this is addressed on disambiguation page like that may be worthwhile. I've commented a bit more on the talk page there, but briefly, HP (disambiguation) is the disambiguation page for two different "primary topic" page. HP redirects to Hewlett-Packard and hp redirects to horsepower. That is probably a pretty reasonable state of affairs. But it may lead to faulty assumptions about how a reader gets to a page and how they read a page to locate the desired target. older ≠ wiser 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And this underlying conflict of intent is what inspired my post here. Maybe there's some tweaking to dab guidelines called for, so as to delineate this issue if (and likely when) it occurs again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Redundant entries on dab pages aren't forbidden (I've advocated for them on Patton and Madonna for instance).  I think the reason given on Talk:HP (disambiguation), because of the different targetting of HP and hp, would mean that a redundant entry (or perhaps two if the intro were expanded to cover both) would be useful. Does it need to be addressed in the guidelines directly? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my post immediately prior to yours, I am wondering this as well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am sure this has come up before (but I couldn't find it) 

message: Should references be included on disambiguation pages?  See Bryophyta. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, no.  The disambiguating phrase for that one entry should be slimmed down to just enough to make it clear how that article is different from the other. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In very rare cases it is possible to add inline external links like this to items that are on the disambig page that have no article to make it easier to create that article, but if there is an article, there is never any reason to include a reference. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, those inline external links should also be left off of disambiguation pages, since they either have no Wikipedia article to disambiguate or have one and don't need an external ref. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The manual of style for disambiguation pages shows that these should be put on talk pages or as . 199.125.109.104 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The manual of style for disambig pages says that, pretty much, each entry should only have one link.  However, in actually looking through disambig pages I find that at least 25% of them have at least one entry with multiple linked words, and sometimes all entries do.  Am I correct in assuming that all of these should likely be fixed, and that this is because inexperienced editors are inappropriately attempting to be helpful by linking words all over the place when they actually shouldn't be? It would appear to me that 10,000+ of these disambig pages need to be fixed in this regard. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are right and we are working on it :) Abtract (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this being done in any organized fashion, or just "pick a part of the list and start clicking on articles"?  I fixed (to some extent) a bunch of the disambig pages starting with Pa.  I probably oughta read through the manual of style page on this more thorougly so I can fix whatever else is wrong while I'm at it. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at mos:dab for some clues on style ... look here for pages tagged for cleanup or these and these for a full listing of dab pages. To be honest we are not that well organised with occasional bickering creeping in here and there ... come join us. :) Abtract (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The  category is unintentionally silly, in that the list of disambig pages which don't need cleanup is probably smaller than the actual full list of those which do.  But I might go through and clean that out. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify: It's one navigable link, or blue link, per entry. Entries with a red link on the dabbed term should also have a blue link to an article that discusses, or at least mentions, the disambiguated topic--although this guideline has been debated recently (see the discussion here). --ShelfSkewed Talk 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, actually I was aware of that, I was just being lazy in my initial explanation.  I'm going to read the manual of style on disambig links carefully, though, so I can try to fix everything wrong with the pages as I go along (and so I won't "fix" things the wrong way).  --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only one link per entry? 

message: I just was looking through WP:MOSDAB, and according to that, most of the links in Sexuality should be deleted and redirected to Human sexuality.  However, it has several songs named Sexuality, and any future links to Sexuality would redirect to Human sexuality.  I am not sure if I should leave it like it is, or redirect it, or what. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps most of the links should be deleted, but if you're asking should the page be turned into a redirect to Human sexuality, then no.  It should definitely be a dab page, and should include at least the song and album titles and an entry for Human sexuality.  I'd also add an entry for non-human animal sexuality and that might be it, just those five. --NapoliRoma (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think Human sexuality should be seen as the primary topic for sexuality so the latter should be moved to sexuality (disambiguation) and sexuality should rd to Human sexuality.  The specific instances of Human sexuality, Heterosexuality,Homosexuality etc. should probably be removed from the dab. Taemyr (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I see it like Taemyr, but I also think the current version is alright. – sgeureka t•c 11:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Required deletion? 

message: There's a small dispute on Barack Obama as to whether the current hatnote,  is sufficient to disambiguate the Senator from his father, Barack Obama, Sr., or whether an additional hatnote should be added saying something like:  I can't tell from the MoS what the standard for something like this is.  The only comparison I can think of is Winston Churchill, Winston Churchill (1620-1688) and Winston Churchill (novelist).  Winston Churchill has no hatnote linking to his namesakes, but it does have a hatnote pointing readers to Churchill (disambiguation).  However, I wasn't sure whether that represented an actual guideline or just something that was locally determined. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are two people named "Barack Obama", an additional hatnote could be added, such as  before or after the current redirect hatnote. Churchill should (or could) also have such a hatnote. See also William Shakespeare. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually add dates to hatnotes like that: .  Not sure whether it's in line with the rules, but it seems helpful. PamD (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another option is to use the  template, though I have to admit I don't see this as being a terribly popular template. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, folks.  So should a separate disambiguation page exist for the other three Winston Churchills (I'd forgotten Winston Churchill (grandson)) at Winston Churchill (disambiguation), in addition to the current dab page at Churchill (disambiguation)?  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It could exist, or  could be placed on Winston Churchill to handle it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote question 

message: Currently there is a disagreement on whether it should be a WP:REDIR to Ubuntu (operating system) or Ubuntu (philosophy), or stay as a disambiguation page. Anyone who is neutral on the topic (not me, I use Ubuntu) care to comment? ffm 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion on [[Talk:Ubuntu]] 

message: Please voice your opinion about Jewish question (disambiguation)  	in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jewish question (disambiguation) `'Míkka>t 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish question (disambiguation)