Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 9

message: Should indie be a disambig page? I've disambiguated about 30 pages and 29 of them point to indie (music) and the other one linked to independent record label. The other articles in the dab page aren't very common at all. Is this common? Should I continue disambiguating (I'm fairly new at this)? Thanks. Gflores Talk 03:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indie 

message: Hi:
Forgive my newb-ness.
I want to write an article about a person (Brian Jackson--jazz artist) and there is already an article, "Brian Jackson" about a sociologist.  How do I proceed?
thanks,
Eric
*Name your article Brian Jackson (jazz artist) and start writing.  Make a link at the top of the other page with an indented and italicized note directing users to your page.  If you want, you could also move the existing page (move tab on the top of every page after you've made a hundred or so edits) to Brian Jackson (sociologist).  Then turn the old Brian Jackson page into a disambiguation page that points to both articles. Have fun. SchmuckyTheCat 20:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about duplicate titles? 

message: Hi folks, can I get some community input into a disambiguation dispute at Talk:Greenwich University, please? Snottygobble | Talk 12:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Greenwich University]]

message: I'll start out with a suggested wording revision for the template:
 Current wording: This is a disambiguation page — a list of articles associated with the same title.
 If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
 Suggested revision: This is a disambiguation page — a list of articles associated with the same title.
 If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
 Additional links to articles that do not yet exist may be found on Talk:.
I'm not sure if that last is the right syntax for general deployment, but the point is to provide a link to the talk-page associated with the dab-page.
Why suggest this?: There are lots of voices that ask "why are red-links included on dab pages?" with the underlying reasoning going something like "if dab pages are navigational aids and you want to reduce the off-topic migration of folks, wanting them to stay focused on where they are going, providing links to non-existant articles defeats the aim of generating a minimalist, fit-for-purpose signpost."  I don't 100% agree with this myself, and it's a paraphrase of a couple dozen voices.  My thinking is that putting red-links and (as I suggested above) external links associated with those red-links on the talk-page for a dab-page should be encouraged.  This would both enhance the navigation functions of the dab pages while satifying the need (or desire) to keep information about potential article destinations close at hand.  Part of the dab-page maintenance activity would then become occasional examination of talk-pages for red-links-turned-blue, which could be facilitated by robotic routines.
Your thoughts?: This change is not small and it does come with a significant cost.  The question is whether the direction the change points is right as perceived by the community at large.  What do you think? Courtland 03:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't like the idea of dab pages containing lots of redlinks, it seems impractical to mandate that they be on the talk page, if it's a page with significant other talk content. They'd just be too hard to find, and trying to standardize a place for them seems like too much instruction creep. I just don't see this (redlinks) as a big problem. Putting a redlink on dab page is a statement that the article should exist; if that's not true, just remove the link. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A tiny percentage of dab pages have a talk-page started for them at all, let alone having much discussion there.  I'm not "mandating" anything .. the whole disambiguation scheme is a guideline that is liberally violated .. we can and do mandate nothing here.  As for using dab pages as a way to collect "articles that should exist", there is an entire page set for that; see Wikipedia:Requested articles; lists of meanings belong in Wiktionary not Wikipedia. Courtland 02:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm still trying to decide what problem you're attempting to solve. Someone types in the name of a magazine, say "Mercury" (an astronomy magazine). They get to the Mercury dab page, where they see that we don't yet have an article on their magazine. This may end their search, if they only wanted only that specific information, but that too is a convenience. If they just didn't see the magazine name there maybe they would waste more time looking for it. Our objective is to help users find their info efficiently, even if the info is that we have no info. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If users are genuinely ending up at a dab page looking for a topic that doesn't exist, better that they know that it doesn't exist straight away. Of course there are limits - if there's no reason to think people are ending up at John Smith looking for a baker who made yummy scones in 1943, then don't make a link for it. Stevage 15:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks and External links ... template wording suggestion 

message: For example Black Triangle. Should it have been moved and then a new Black Triangle created? --Gbleem 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you expand on that a bit?  What would you strive to disambiguate? User:Ceyockey 05:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is a primary topic disambiguation. If there are one or two other topics, just link them at the top with a brief explanation in italics (This article is about X. For Y, see Z.). If there are a bunch of other topics, create a disambiguation page at Black Triangle (disambiguation) and briefly link it at the top it italics. Also consider whether one topic belongs at black triangle and another at Black Triangle. Deco 04:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  creating a disambig from an existing article 

message: Lindosland added: "Disambiguation should avoided for articles that only start with the same word, but have a common core of knowledge. For these, the Root page should be used to create a hierarchy of articles, with the Root page serving as a common introduction referred back to from each article to avoid duplication of effort in explaining basic principles." to the page without discussion. I've now removed it.
Gives me a sense of deja-vu - this is exactly like the signpost articles I put up for deletion a month back: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles) and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30#:Category:Signpost articles. I'll list root pages later on this evening. Thanks/wangi 19:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not the same, and certainly not the same as a Disambiguation page, as you have alleged elsewhere as your reason for deletion. It does not add confusion, because those who see reason to use it will put it into effect, and the concept greatly assists editors in avoiding duplicated effort by providing a place to list all associated pages, as well as providing a common introduction that avoids putting basics on every page. Please reconsider, and allow time for others to consider the idea. Sorry if you feel it was not discussed, but I did start a discussion on the Talk page for Root page. --Lindosland 22:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lindosland, this page is a wikipedia guideline and as it says at the top "please use the discussion page to propose any major changes" - I would say adding a new paragraph telling folk to not use disambiguation pages for certain classes is a major change and as such should have been discussed here prior to changing the guideline. Can you please remove the paragraph for now and discuss it here? Thanks/wangi 22:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And worth a read: Wikipedia:How to create policy. Thanks/wangi 22:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lindosland, when you write something about using/editing Wikipedia, it goes in the Wikipedia: namespace. So Root page should have been created at Wikipedia:Root page. That's been fixed now, but just so you know for the future. Now, about the additon. I think it is an interesting guideline, and it ties in with Signpost articles (an idea that's recently been deleted, but may repear sometime) . However, the idea is new and should be developed further before it's included on this page.--Commander Keane 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've removed the text as requested. Please note that the article Wikipedia:Root page has been promtly marked for deletion, and I am looking for support for it staying. --Lindosland 01:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Root pages...