Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 8

message: Any comments on which version of IMP works better?
*
*
--RoySmith 18:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IMP]] -- which do you like better? 

message: I'm finding a number of articles that it is useful to include a linkage to Wiktionary on using the Sisterproject template  where the passed parameter is a lower-case version of the page name or a bare page name without "(disambiguation)".  Also, in the case of abbreviations,  is suitable to use without forced lower case.
I propose the following:
* EFFECT: passes TLA value to wiktionary as an unmodified parameter (example usage:AAA)
**modification of  to include  as part of the template; this would replace in large part  which I created a while ago
* EFFECT: passes a lowercase pagename to wiktionary as a parameter
**introduction of a new template  that is the same as  but with  as a part of the template ... however, I don't know how to force lowercase as part of the code so that a lowercased pagename is passed as a parameter.
* EFFECT: passes a lowercase bare page name to wiktionary as a parameter
**introduciton of a new template  that is the same as  but with  as part of the template ... however, I don't know how to strip the " (disambiguation)" from pagename to pass a bare word as a parameter
Thanks for the input. Courtland 11:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems terribly complicated. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that'd make life a bit easier, except that I don't think there's a way (though admittedly I'd have no idea).  Neonumbers 07:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed templates and template changes including Wiktionary linkage 

message: I occasionally run across disambig pages that desperately need "cleaning" (i.e. check "what-links-here", and edit all the pages to refer to the proper targets). A good example is league - see Special:Whatlinkshere/League. However, I don't have the time to stop and do it right now, but I'd like to flag it as needing cleanup. Is there some category, something like :Category:Disambigs needing pruning, or something, that we can tag them with, so they are noted as needing work? Noel (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not propose this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation? Sounds like a great idea to me. But first see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links —Wahoofive (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation devoted to "pages needing adoption" and "major adopted pages" and "pages that might be needed".  The first is for things that need a lot of work, the second for things that have been adopted but need some real time to finish (really an unnecessary section) and the third is for things that might be needed but are non-trivial to do right. This was what I was thinking, at least, when I created these subsections. Courtland 08:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a substitute template,  for this purpose.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't run across this page, but since there were a huge number of sports articles linking to league, I created a article called sports league (since league system isn't quite the same thing, but the two deserve to be separate articles) and I fixed the link for all the sports articles I could find.Kevin M Marshall 03:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How about a "needs cleaning" category

message: I've changed the former dab page N Train to a redirect to N (New York City Subway service).  This contravenes some input from Talk:1 Train, but I'm think I'm on relatively good footing by positing that "one link does not a dab page make" ... or am I?  I've not looked through the archives to see if this has been addressed previously.  Thanks for the input. Courtland 03:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's certainly no reason to have a one-item dab page (or even a two-item dab page), but I can understand the view on Talk:1 Train that there must be other trains in the world called "N Train". I support the redirect at the moment; it's not an ambiguous term yet and there's no reason to make a page because there might in the future be other meanings for the term. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They were originally redirects, and someone took them to RFD because of the ambiguity. Thus they were turned into disambigs. --SPUI (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One link does not a dab page make ... ? 

message: I had a thought for improving disambig pages. <snip>
:Debate refactored and moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Please go there to discuss it further. Thank you. :) --Ashenai 14:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we brighten up disambig pages a bit? (Use of image tables) 

message: Maybe this should go under Naming Conventions, and if it has been discussed somewhere already I hope someone will point out where, but I had a thought about disambiguating real and fictional people. This came up before with Miles O'Brien - that page is for the Star Trek character, while the real person is at Miles O'Brien (journalist). The other incident that brought this to my attention was Cylon - he was a real ancient Athenian, but there is also Cylon (Battlestar Galactica), and today the fictional androids or whatever they are were briefly moved to the simple "Cylon" title. 
It seems to me that when a real person is notable enough to have an encyclopedia, like Cylon or Miles O'Brien, they should always get the non-disambiguated article title. Fictional Cylons or Miles O'Briens should not take precedence. Now, supposedly, in these cases the fictional characters are more well-known than the real people, and that's probably true considering who usually uses and edits Wikipedia, but I don't think that should matter. I know there is a rule about using the title that most people will expect to find, but in this case I think that rule should be ignored. 
I don't want to make up a policy about it without getting other opinions though, so we can discuss it here I guess. Adam Bishop 21:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think real people should get priority in close decisions, I don't think I'd want to make a blanket rule. If some 17th-century assistant cheesemaker happens to be named Jean-Luc Picard, that shouldn't give them priority to the article name, since the fictional character is so much better known. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nevermind I guess. I am apparently not going to win the dispute over Cylon, so now it's a disambiguation page itself. Adam Bishop 23:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real people vs. fictional characters 

message: There are two George Millers, both of whom are Australian, are film and television director and producers. The page currently lists both, but I want to separate them out and add the second to George Miller (disambiguation). Any ideas for how to name their respective articles? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're lucky, they might have different middle names.  Another possibility would be to add their years of birth and death (if they're not still living) to the article titles.  --RoySmith 10:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thinking. The second one is sometimes called George T. Miller, so I'll go with that. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think that approach is always ideal. Roger Taylor, the Queen drummer, is at Roger Meddows-Taylor, whereas that's really just a formal name that is rarely used. Roger Taylor (Queen) would be a lot better in that case. Similarly, if you do have two John Smiths with similar careers etc, it's probably better to put the name of their major work in brackets, rather than pulling out a middle initial no one has heard of, no? Stevage 15:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two people with the same name and profession 

message: See discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and abbreviations#Lists of Abbreviations and Links to Disambiguation pages. Courtland 17:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of Abbreviations and Links to Disambiguation pages 

message: Please help to fend off a stubborn anon from a disambiguation page Lenin (disambiguation). mikka (t) 21:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  help needed 

message: I need some clarification about when to use disambugation vs a link to the alternative page. I was creating a Lost Eden article about an adventure game but realised there is also an upcoming Lost Eden expansion pack for Anarchy Online. Fortunately, the expansion pack already has an article under Lost Eden (Anarchy Online) so there is no conflict. In my article, I placed a link to the AO Lost Eden and did not create a disambiguation page (see my article if confused). I did this because as far as I can tell, there are currently only 2 Lost Edens. There is a work in progress movie link to Lost Eden on someone's talk page but a quick Google doesn't find anything so perhaps this is incorrect, I did come across a Children of the Lost Eden. Was this the correct thing to do? I have seen disambugiation pages with 2 links only before but there are usually names or general phrases which I suppose are more likely to have more then 2 enteries. 
Given that I would admit, Lost Eden has never been very well popular or well known and the AO expansion pack is already much more popular and more well known, would it be preferble to make Lost Eden into a disambugation and link to the game (perhaps Lost Eden (adventure game)) and the AO expansion even with only 2 links? Nil Einne 07:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What you did was right. Normally there should only be a disambiguation page when there are three or more entries, or when two entries are considered equally important. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambugiation vs link 

message: I was looking for Zorro and didn't know how to spell it so got to Zoro by mistake.  This pair doesn't rate a dab page, but the two articles should reference each other.  Is there a standard template to do that?  --RoySmith 23:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-linking two pages? 

message: An item on AFD has brought up a dispute on the validity of a disambiguation page containing exclusively redlinks. This isn't covered in the guideline, although redlinks themselves are permitted, and I'd encourage discussion here on whether there should be a policy on it. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is, if there's a link to an article and it's reasonable that an encyclopedic article could be written, then there is some level of demand for said article.  That a dab page is entirely redlinks shouldn't be a problem, because normally no-one's going to see a dab page. Josh Parris # 23:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I would not support deleting a page just because it was a dab-page of redlinks, but I certainly would not encourage the production of these pages.  It would be useful (remind me if it is already there) to add a tiny blurb about creation of dab pages, that dab pages are meant to provide navigational assistance between articles and that it is best to create the article(s) first then create the dab page(s) after ... if in fact such dab page(s) is really needed.  The case of a dab-page of all red-links might well arise when one or more related articles have been deleted that were disambiguated by the page; in this case, it can be argued that if all the targets were deleted via AfD process, then the dab page that provided navigation assistance among them should be deleted as well. Courtland 00:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-redlinks dab page