Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 25

message: This is a proposal for addition to the project page. Another way to determine whether to disambiguate may be to enter the term in OneLook reverse dictionary search and see what comes up. The OneLook dictionary results may provide guidance on whether to disambiguate. Thoughts? -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another way to determine whether to Disambiguate? 

message: Arbuthnot (surname of today's front page featured article) could use a disambiguation, and has had one, but other editors feel a redirect to a category is more appropriate.  Anyone else mind taking a look? Arbuthnot -- JHunterJ 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed that Arbuthnot (disambiguation) be renamed and moved to Arbuthnot. It's been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and discussion to support or oppose the move is on "Talk:Arbuthnot (disambiguation)#Requested move". -- JHunterJ 12:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbuthnot 

message: I'm getting some negative feedback related to my edits to these pages, and I'd like some suggestions from the people around here. First, here's the summary of the situation that I posted at WP:DPL: "On December 6, Standard (disambiguation) was forked out of Standard in an apparent attempt to turn Standard into an article, although the resulting stub was basically a dictionary definition. Since that time Standard has turned into a (messy) dab page itself, so there are parallel dabs. Standard (disambiguation) is in much better condition. The first thing we need to do is merge the dabs back to the plain title."
I performed that merge, but since that time, the dab was pulled back out again and the plain title restubbed. I took that as a primary topic claim and now I've redirected the dicdef to Standardization and remarked the dab page as a dab. Does that seem like the ideal solution, or should the dab be at the plain title as I originally intended? At the very least these changes are making it very difficult to sort out the page histories. Dekimasuよ! 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Standard]] and [[Standard (disambiguation)]] 

message: A not uncommon confusion over  is that it should be used for all redirects that go to a disambiguation page, instead of only deliberate links to generic topic disambiguation pages.  The primary source of this confusion is obviously the name:  unless you read the guidelines/documentation, there's no indication of its somewhat specialized purpose.
So, should we rename this template to something less confusing?  I'm thinking something like "R from (disambiguation) page" or "R from (disambiguation)".  --Piet Delport 05:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the docs need to be more explicit -- redirects to dabs (other than the ones from "(disambiguation)" pages) should also be tagged as unprintworthy, but that can be done with the  tag instead.  I don't know much about template coding -- can it check the "ARTICLENAME" suffix and tell if it ends in "(disambiguation)" and use the proper categories based on that? -- JHunterJ 10:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you could have a template check the page name, you'd have to have someone put a template on the page to start with!  What could be done (but might annoy people) is to change Template:R to disambiguation page to display a big, ugly warning message if the string "(disambiguation)" is not found in the page title, or put the page in a category of "mislabeled disambiguation redirects" or something to that effect.  (Just ideas off the top of my head, not really thought out....) --Russ (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think we should over-engineer this:  the simple course of fixing the misleading name could be enough to practically solve the problem.  --Piet Delport 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Over"-engineering, when done voluntarily by people with the type of disposition to be Wikipedia editors in the first place, isn't bad at all -- as long as the (over-involved, too-contrived) solution doesn't cause more problems than it solves. :-) -- JHunterJ 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, but why use an overly complex solution to a symptom (inappropriate use of a template) when there's a perfectly good and simple solution to the cause (the template's misleading name)? :)  --Piet Delport 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is the documentation for this template, anyway?  --Russ (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The template itself, the category, and Generic topic and Links to disambiguation pages in the guidelines.  --Piet Delport 05:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over R to disambiguation page 

message: Can I please have a third opinion on ? Pennsylvania Route 19's primary meaning is designation existed for at most three years, while the U.S. Route 19 designation has existed for about 80. Thank you. --NE2 00:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that Pennsylvania Route 19's primary meaning is probably U.S. Route 19, therefore it should redirect there. Then add a hatnote to U.S. Route 19 with something like , which produces: – sgeureka t•c 08:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion requested 

message: Have a look at the discussion here. I fear that the G6 criteria for speedy deletion is being misunderstood. It says that disambiguation pages with only one link can be speedy deleted, but my feeling is that this should only apply when there is only one entry. Someone has interpreted "only one link" as applying to dab pages with one link and several unlinked links. My feeling is that this depends on the disambiguation page in question. Some are obviously not needed, but some are less clear. Even those with only one link may have had more in the past and may have more in the future. Disambiguation pages (especially those for people's surnames) can have great potential for expansion, and shouldn't be nipped in the bud like this. Equally, unlinked entries can sometimes be helpful, and deletion of small dab pages shouldn't be carried out on a robotic basis like this. What do people here think? Carcharoth 13:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, Carch, surname articles are not dab pages, bad example. But I agree that it's not good to speedy such dab pages, and will go a step further: why not just rdr to the one link? This kind of decision should be left to the many good editors who have experience with dab pages, and should not be carried out by bots and general-purpose admins. We perhaps need a template for dangerously short dab pages so experienced dab editors can patrol them. Chris the speller 14:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD G6 and dab pages with potential 

message: I found the second paragraph to this page as it stands today to be somewhat problematic.  It says it's an "example," presumably of disambiguation, but it's really an example of how to create a wikilink, followed by some wording that implies that the act of making a link creates a disambiguation page (funky use of the word "Now").  It does back into part of the subject of disambiguation by giving examples of pages with unambiguous names, but it doesn't really clearly say it's doing so, and then fails to set the stage for the concept of disambiguation paths.
This is my shot at rewording the intro so that it more clearly gives an example of an ambiguous term, examples of unambiguous page titles, and then introduces the crux of the problem, which is how to get the reader from an ambiguous word to the unambiguous pages.
Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to multiple topic pages that could use essentially the same term as their title.
For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to several different things, including: an element, a planet, an automobile brand, a record label, a NASA manned-spaceflight project, a plant, and a Roman god.  Since only one Wikipedia page can use the generic name "Mercury", unambiguous article titles must be used for each of these topics: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), Mercury (automobile), Mercury Records, Project Mercury, Mercury (plant), Mercury (mythology). There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation.
Any objections or refinements to this change?
--NapoliRoma 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  i haven't read it that carefully before and was expecting a definition of disambiguation pages rather than the more general concept.  That might make it easier to grasp the concept, but that's me. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 03:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the next thing I want to tackle. The "Deciding to disambiguate" section dives into what not to put in a dab page before the section describing dab pages appears.  I think the "what not" sub section should be moved lower, so we can define dab pages and dab links first before getting into their nuances.--NapoliRoma 14:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't see that much of a difference in meaning, so I don't mind this (positive) change. Possible exception: I don't know if multiple topic pages is ambiguous at the moment - multiple-topic pages or multiple topic-pages (or is it already clear because there is no hyphen, in which case just ignore me). – sgeureka t•c 08:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to opening paragraphs 

message: Continuing the makeover, while trying to keep the content pretty much the same.
In the Disambiguation Links section, I removed the "Top links" and "Bottom links" subsection -- since we don't want anyone to use bottom links, it didn't make sense to keep them as apparent equal weight.  So, we only talk about links at the top, and moved "don't bottom-link" to a new "guidelines" subsection.  This eliminates the false start in this section of the article.
I redid the template examples to make them a bit clearer.  This still strikes me as incomplete/redundant information, as it's covered in several other pages -- as well as "otheruses" and "otheruses2" getting covered twice in this article.
I also took several other guidelines that were jammed in at inopportune times and moved them into the new guidelines subsection -- for example, the part about not disambiguating pages that are not ambiguous.
A question: the "otheruses2" example seems to be a poor choice, since "otheruses" could have been used in the same place.  Shouldn't there be an example or reason explaining why one should use one or the other at different times?  If there is no reason, the article should err on the side of simplicity and just pick one for people to use going forward.--NapoliRoma 23:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul of disambiguation links section 

message: I agree with Rich Farmbrough's deletion of these paragraphs:
Ensure that the "(disambiguation)" page links back to an unambiguous page name.  The unambiguous page name should redirect to the primary topic page. This assists future editors (and automated processes).
:For example, the primary topic Rome has a link at the top to Rome (disambiguation), where there is a link back via Rome, Italy (rather than directly to Rome).
Are there editor's being assisted by this?  Are there automated processes that are being assisted by this?  What if there is no redirect to the primary topic page?  What if the disambiguation page is disambiguating a title where the primary use is itself a redirect, and the page it redirects to has its own disambiguation page? For example, Puma redirects to Cougar, and both phrases have (disambiguation) pages. Unless there's a more definite reason to include this guideline, I'd like to see it gone. -- JHunterJ 11:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few situations in which it's slightly helpful. I'm not sure if it's enough to merit keeping the phrase. I did do a little fixup work on the dab page to make it conform to the rule again. If people are encouraged to link to Rome, Italy rather than Rome, then when the primary topic distinction falls apart at some point (say, due to a blockbuster hit film of the same name), and the dab gets moved to the plain title, less links will have to be cleaned up. Dekimasuよ! 03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its useful to keep it.  If you get to the page by a roundabout way, its useful to have the original there to click on and the formatting keeps it from confusing the usual lookup.  What problem is it to keep it? (John User:Jwy talk) 06:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I misread the topic here.  I'm still not sure I understand it (its unclear were the deleted quote ends and the comments begin).  But if the general intent is to have the primary topic line on Rome (disambiguation) reference directly to Rome, I am all for it.  Rome unambiguously points to an article.  (John User:Jwy talk) 05:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What if there is no redirect to the primary topic page?  What if the disambiguation page is disambiguating a title where the primary use is itself a redirect, and the page it redirects to has its own disambiguation page? -- JHunterJ 11:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, .  —Piet Delport 04:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link back to unambiguous page name 

message: The above is an essay on a base system that covers as much as Wiki as possible. No doubt, no matter the method used, there will always be some conflicts and exceptions, but the above is the best means I have found to date to keep these to a minimum. I'm sure that some will provide conflict examples as a criticism of the above, but I'm certain that these will remain infinitely minor in number in comparison to the total weight of Wiki articles. If they're not, well, we've got something more to talk about below.
Another issue may be Consensus-created "exceptions" (such as non-disambiguated "famous" placenames), but this is a second level of debate - and one, in my humble opinion, that should only be imposed upon an already-functional and coherent article naming system.
Fire away. THEPROMENADER 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Issues

message: My first thought was that this discussion should take place on the talk pages of WP:NAME, WP:PLACES and WP:NAMEPEOPLE. Disambiguation cannot be done satisfactorily unless there is agreement on naming conventions. Chris the speller 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the above proposition is a co-ordination of different article-naming conventions, it would be best to discuss this at the root somewhere (between all three). Granted, perhaps here was not the best place for this proposition. I don't think it would be useful to split things up; in a way it is simplification proposition between Wiki's many conventions. Any suggestions about a one place this question should go? THEPROMENADER 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I have move the topic here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. THEPROMENADER 00:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Comments


message: Part of the policy reads, "For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of 'Solaris'." I can't tell you how many times I've ended up at dab pages and been looking exactly for something like the completely unrelated one. Furthermore, if I don't see it, I assume that it isn't in Wikipedia--a lack of link to dab page also hurts. As such I'd like to disagree with the claim that there isn't value to these links and that people don't use them. Pdbailey 13:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not ambiguous? 

message: This may not be the best place to ask, but where else??  I am in Maine, have entered data into Wikipedia many times - now I have a problem. There are 3 [maybe 4] Eagle Islands in Maine, one is a Wikipedia page, another is a link on the Maine lighthouses page, and there are two more maybe [at least one]. How do I do disambiguation and article/pages to cover this geographic conundrum? A reply on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dumarest would be fine, or here. --Dumarest 20:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best place to ask about the naming convention would be the talk page for WP:PLACES, I think. But the guideline itself may be enough to let you figure it out. After the articles are properly named, disambiguation is fairly straightforward. The safest way may be to use a format like "Eagle Island, Somerset County, Maine" if they are all in different counties. Chris the speller 21:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation geographic 

message: I've noticed a user adding links to disambiguation pages in a form I'd not come across before. My initial inclination was to remove them, but thought I'd get some other opinions about what to do with them. For examples, see  or . It seems many of the pages that link to that page  are similar. older ≠ wiser 12:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia:Avoid self-references (or an aquivalent) applies. I see you already notified the wikipedian who added these links (and I also agree with your statement there), and since he stopped, I'd just revert his edits to hndis pages and wouldn't pay it more attention. – sgeureka t•c 21:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguating by links to [[Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people]] 

message: Can somebody please look at the history of Autoroute? --NE2 05:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please! Apparently it's just the French word for "expressway" (or "freeway" or "motorway" -- as if there were really a difference between these) -- does that mean that's it not? Ewlyahoocom 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Autoroute]] 

message: Is there a consensus somewhere that people should not be listed by first names like this? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that page (Amanda) isn't (currently) a disambiguation page, it's an article about the name. And since the list is hopelessly incomplete, it's really kind of pointless -- a "See also" section with a link to  (i.e. ) would probably be better. IF IT WERE A DISAMBIGUATION PAGE, then the only links to people that should be on it are those people who are generally known by just their first name (and none spring immediately to my mind). Ewlyahoocom 18:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is I was going to clean up Robert the same way but what happens to "Robert of foo"? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ISTM that "Robert of Foo" qualifies as a person who is generally known just by their first name, so they could be listed on a disambiguation page (although you should first check to see whether Robert I, Robert II, etc. disambig pages already exist, as in fact those two at least do).  --Russ (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that Míkka mentions it I do remember the discussions. After looking at all the various things I think that Ewlyahoocom's suggestion is the best one. A manual list of people by first names is way too much work and the automatic  would work better for those who are looking for a Robert but are not sure who. Thus the Robert page, for example, could be pruned down. Completely remove all people with the first name "Robert" and move the "Robert of foo" to a disambiguation page as necessary. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First names 

message: I've come upon a disambiguation page (dark side), where there are entries in the list with either no links (because no articles exist for this topic), or links to pages where the term "dark side" is not included. Should these entries be removed from the disambiguation list? Ferengi 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All links that are not about the term should be removed, but there really isn't any harm in leaving the reference to things that could have an article created in the future that need disambiguation. I recently unlinked Edgar Allan Poe from Romance because the reference was for his poem and not the poet, but left the reference even though there isn't an article for the poem. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation list items with no links? 

message: I think there should be clarification in this guideline over whether Primary Topic is considered on a "one on one" basis (Meaning Topic A compared to Topic B is more notable, Topic A compared to Topic C is primary, etc) or whether you take into consideration, collectively all the other alternative usages (Topic is clearly primary over the collective and combined usages of Topics B, C, D, E etc). I ask this because it seems that the current culture of disambiguation has turned Primary Topic into a type of "Prizefight" where there must be one clear, "winner" to hold the Primary Topic crown. Topic A is compared individually to all other usages and is then given the titled of "Primary topic". The ill in that method is that it often discounts the laundry list of articles on a disambig page (that covers a wide range of topics, subject genre and cultural notabilities) and is often a reflection of systematic bias. If Topic A is compared to the collective usage and notability of the other competing usages then it becomes far less clearly a "primary" topic then if it was compared one on one. In those cases I think it would be more prudent for this guideline to encourage the Disambiguation Page to be considered the "primary" location. To that I extent I would like to propose a change to the wording of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic (changes being made are bolded)
The change is essentially one word (any to all) and an extended clarification urging for more consideration of disambiguation page being the primary location over trying to slug it out and declare one article the "Primary Topic" crown winner. I believe this can go a long way to quell some of the discontent that primary topic debates have and in the long be a better service to our broad and diverse readership who may not always be looking for the one single article that has won the "Primary Topic" prizefight.AgneCheese/Wine 19:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with the general point you make here -- that primary topic status should be determined holistically and not through one-off match-ups against potential contenders. But I'm not sure I like the phrasing of or that there is a sizable number of competing alternative usages on the disambiguation page. It is also not merely a matter of counting how many other links a term might also refer to. For example, there is quite a list at London (disambiguation), but few people would argue that London, England is not the primary topic. For me, the line is whether one use of a term is overwhelmingly more well-known than all the others. Admittedly, that is a little fuzzy -- but then I tend to prefer guidelines that articulate general principles rather than overly specific rules.  older ≠ wiser 00:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Topic- Whole vs Parts