Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/Archive 7

message: Whilst attempting to improve some links to disambiguation pages, I often find that I am not able to determine which of the specific meanings is the right one. The obvious thing to do is to leave the link ambiguous.
I was thinking though, that it might be an idea to mark the ambiguous link in the article so that it is highlighted so that other readers, who might be able to disambiguate the link correctly, would have a suggestion that they might be able to help.
This is analagous to the way  /  works.
So I've created , with a short form of , and also put up a documentation page at .
The idea is that the tag  can be placed directly after an ambiguous link like this: "I live in Reading", which will appear as "I live in Reading".
The tag currently links to WP:D, but I'm thinking that it would be nice for it to point to a page which had this text:
:Please remember: it is more important to disambiguate correctly than to disambiguate quickly. Make sure you make the best choice; if you're not sure, leave a note on the talk page and let someone who is more knowledgeable fix it.
(from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links) writ large so that we would discourage people from changing links where they weren't really sure of the proper target.
Any good? —Duckbill 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, if we decide we like this idea, then we would want to consider changing the text above to mention something along the lines of "if you're not sure, leave a note on the talk page and/or tag the link with  and let someone who is more knowledgeable fix it." —Duckbill 11:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds good - there are many disambiguation links which are nigh-impossible to fix without an in-depth understanding of the subject, which is why I avoided most of the music articles while working on repairing links to Key. Using a tag like this will remind those experts that understand the meanings of highly technical ambiguous links to fix them. On the other hand, this shouldn't be overused - most links should be fixed rather than merely tagged. If there's a disclaimer on the instruction for use only for difficult disambiguations, I support this. Nihiltres 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it too.  It's a way to address tricky dab link repairs and it also serves to alert editors to the dab link issue and this project.  The only down side is that it may clutter articles, so I agree that there should be some caution against overuse. -Kubigula (ave) 15:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Great idea! —EdGl 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like the concept, if used as a last resort.  I have seen some discussion about  being considered too intrusive by some editors, and this would be liable to the same objection.  I would suggest changing the text "disambiguation needed" to "ambiguous", so at least it's shorter.  As Duckbill suggests, this ought to link to a page that explains how to fix the problem.  --Russ (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there could be something in that. I think "disambiguation needed" and "ambiguous" both have merit. It would be interesting to see what people think. It shouldn't be a problem because it's transcluded and can be changed at any time. —Duckbill 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there any way to automate the tagging of ambiguous links?  The above discussion sounds like the template/tag is intended for cases where an editor working on fixing problems, from a known list, is unable to make a decision, and so tags the link as being unfixed.  But it would be far, far more useful to have an automated way to stick this tag on ALL ambiguous links, potentially enlisting hundreds of thousands of editors to fix the problems.  (In other words, is there any way to go from the list of known problems BACK to the articles where the ambigous wikilinks exist, automatically, and apply a tag/template?)  John Broughton  |  Talk 00:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, it would be impossible to add an ambiguous link to an article in the first place - the software would require the original editor, who certainly knew what they meant, to indicate the intended target. Alas, any software changes supporting this would be slow in coming. For the record, I like the tag, but prefer "disambiguation needed" to "ambiguous", because the latter may be misunderstood as referring to the entire sentence or phrase. Deco 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging links to disambiguation pages 

message: The 2006-11-30 database dump has become available (for a preview of disambig pages, see User:RussBot/DPL.  I am kind of hesitant to replace the current dump while we still have nearly 150 pages to go; but OTOH there are a lot of new pages and regrown 'shrooms in the new dump that need to be dealt with, too.  If others feel that it's time to move on to a new list, feel free to copy it from my user page and start it up!  --Russ (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have (unless reverted) fixed two of the top four on that list and left a suggestion for a solution for a third (please comment at Dance music). Dekimasu 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed Padua.  Thanks for fixing the others, although I do suspect that Mediterranean won't stick.  If you look at the links, a lot of them really could go to the other pages besides the sea. --Russ (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's getting down to some really tough ones.  Putting up a new list up would make it easier for people to jump in and do one.  Also some of the tough ones have been partially done, and will drop off the list (only to reappear a few months from now).  Who's for making 80% the point where a new list is loaded?  -- Randall Bart 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I would like to see the links to Production die a horrible death before we switch lists. Dekimasu 01:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look like Production is ever going to be completed, so I changed the collaboration to Spring. Dekimasu 07:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also in a tedious one-man battle at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from categories (check its history) and it would be nice to get that finished off if people are having trouble picking out new topics from the current dump. Dekimasu 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the new dump should be moved over as the ones on this list should be on the new one (right?). With such a long list over at User:RussBot/DPL, it should be moved over here to start a new level of work. I don't think its necessary to wait until we have near 100% completion of this list before we begin working on the other one. --Nehrams2020 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead! There are monsters like Mediterranean that need fixing. Whenever a list is updated, the worst cases, which should be the highest priority, are then fixable. Let's get those worst cases out of the way - if or when we conquer that, eventually minor cases can be fixed. Nihiltres 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, the danger is that the hard ones will never get fixed and we will do the easy ones over and over. Dekimasu 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How is the new list moved over?--Nehrams2020 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple copy-and-paste.  Last time, I just copied those with 100 or more links.  I created a new page with the date of the dump (2006-11-30 this time), and then changed all the links on the main WP:DPL page that referred to the old dump to the new one.  Oh, and then I used dplcount.py to initialize the link counter.--Russ (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's a problem if we keep production as the current collaboration. I'd move the list over except I don't know how to use the script for the link counter. But whenever it is ready to move, I'm sure there will be a lot of people ready to start on a new list. I got a month off for Christmas break in a few days, so I'll knock out a couple. --Nehrams2020 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New dump 

message: I just pointed six links to bass (fish), one to Bass (beer), and two to nowhere.  I believe 98% of the rest would better be bass (musical term).  Many of those could be better still directed to bass guitar, a few could be pointed elsewhere.  I suggest moving the existing bass to bass (disambiguation), and redirecting to bass (musical term).  There are new rock pages every day, and they are not going to stop ambiguously linking bass. -- Randall Bart 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some relevant discussion at Talk:Bass so I suggest you raise this there. CarolGray 10:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bass 

message: I just categorized 47 items in the current list.  I would like to create more categories.  Can I just copy the existing structure, or does the script need to be updated?  What categories would people like to see?  Should there be a categories for mixed things, eg, I almost put Natal into places, until I realized "natal" isn't a place.-- Randall Bart 22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The script just needs the section title and section end comments at the top and bottom so that it can recognize the sections.  The names aren't hard-coded.  --Russ (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current list 

message: I just tried to advertise some Germany-related disambiguation pages on the  template. As that is transcluded on thousands of talk pages, it drowned Special:Whatlinkshere in irrelevant links. Of course I reverted myself, but now I really think there should be a namespace filter for WLH. Are there any good reasons why it doesn't exist other than "other things have higher priority"? Kusma (討論) 07:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tools are not currently set up that way.  The transcluded file itself is labeled "(transcluded)", but link within it just count as part of the page.  It's damn difficult to trace them down now; don't add more.-- Randall Bart 23:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why don't we have a namespace filter for Whatlinkshere? 

message: Recently I have been unable to fix any pages with CorHomo. I can log in and the pages load, but without exception, after correcting the link it will tell me that the page can't be corrected. The pages involved are never protected from editing. It's happening with Casualty, Common, Sakai, Japanese... everything I try. Any idea what's causing the problem? Is this happening to anyone else? Dekimasu 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be working again at the moment. I would think it was just a database lock, but it's happened to me several times, so something else seems to be going on. Dekimasu 05:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CorHomo problems 

message: I just mostly did Royal Surgical Colleges (which is mostly redir from Royal College of Surgeons).  Some were easy, some took some detective work to track down.  Some I guessed (if he was born in London and there's no mention of Scotland, it's probably Royal College of Surgeons of England).  I used a bucketful of s for those cases where there must be a specific college, but I can't tell which.  Where the context plausibly means Edinburgh, Glasgow, Ireland, and England collectively, I just left it.  Is Her Majesty an honorary fellow of one college or four?
I know I made mistakes.  I know this in part because I corrcted mistakes from prior disambiguation runs.  I am going to make a pass through the links to Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Royal College of Surgeons of England to see if I can improve some of my work and some prior work, but I would appreciate if sumbuddy else will do the same. -- Randall Bart 10:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Surgical Colleges 

message: I'm new to this discussion, so I apologize if I've totally misunderstood something, but it looks like the general approach here is to do automated searches to identify problems, list the problems on the project page, and hope that a lot of people visit the project page and decide to pitch in and fix ambiguous links.  
Over at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Shadowbot2, there is a discussion going on about using a bot to add a "bad link" tag immediately following a bad external link, in the article with the bad link.  This approach has the advantage that any reader of an article with a bad link immediately becomes aware of the problem.  An interested editor could then click on the "bad link" tag and go to a page discussing possible ways to fix the link.  And, of course, editors with an interest in getting an article to be as good as possible would want to fix the bad link and remove the tag.
The problem with bad external links seems analogous to the current situation with ambigous wikilinks - currently, there is a project page to fix them the problem, but someone reading an article is unaware of both the problems and the project page.  If ambiguous links were tagged, then potentially any reader be involved in fixing the problem - not just editors coming to the project page.  And a lot more editors would become aware of the problem, and (hopefully) would be less likely to create ambigous wikilinks in the future.
So: is it possible (and desirable) to (say) extend RussBot so that it has a tagging function?  John Broughton  |  Talk 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. Perhaps you could post this same thing on the bot request page? --Measure 21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to wait until the bot for bad external links is up and running, then use that as an example when I post my request, I think.  John Broughton  |  Talk 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On bots and more people helping with this 

message: Steward and Chamberlain are quite challenging.  Many are electors of the Holy Roman Empire ("the Arch-Chamberlain is represnted by the Chamberlain", etc), but there are many varied uses of these words.  Alex Haley has the odd formulation "Mess Attendant", which I could disambiguate to Ship's steward, but there's no article for that.
Chancellor isn't a dab.  Marshall isn't, Bailif isn't.  Why are these? -- Randall Bart 06:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right in the case of steward, but there are several significant people with the last name Chamberlain, so I think that one would be harder to change. Marshall is a dab. Dekimasu 06:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steward and Chamberlain 

message: What is the procedure for fixing links not in the article namespace?  I pretty much finished with Documentary (Links).  Do I fix the ones on user pages and article talk pages?  What about archives?  – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can fix user pages if you'd like, but it's not necessary. I'd strongly advise against editing talk pages, because it can anger other users if you copyedit their comments (but I have done it, very sparingly, in the past). I always fix links in the template/category/portal namespaces, and sometimes in the Wikipedia namespace. You can move the page to "Done" without fixing any of them, though. Dekimasu 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I thought as much, but I did not want to do anything wrong on my first disambiguation.  Its is too bad though that there are still 43 or so links left (non-mainspace of course).  – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  09:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd recommend against making any changes to user pages (except your own, of course).  A user page belongs to the user, and it's generally discouraged for anyone else to edit it for any reason, without the user's permission.  The only pages outside of the main namespace that I will touch are Category:, Image:, Portal:, and Template: pages.  --Russ (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, anyway, see WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. I would never make substantial (i.e. content) edits to someone's user page, but I have gotten many notes of thanks and no complaints for retargeting links like "I speak German" or "I am Japanese" to the correct places. Dekimasu 13:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of times you can tell if the link on the userpage is specifically meant to link to the disambiguation page, or if it should go elsewhere.  If you're not sure, it's usually best to leave it, but you can always drop a link to the user on their talk page just letting them know that they might have the wrong link. -- Natalya 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Portals are mixed content and chat.  Some words have a lot of hits in portal space, and it's just chat.  I am here to fix content not chat.  I don't fix, talk and user, and I don't fix portals unless they are transcluded in main space.  Templates should be fixed first, to get rid of the transcluding pages.-- Randall Bart 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing links on non-article pages 

message: I am not sure I agree with user:Theflyer on the plague issue. The talk page on Bubonic plague that he refers to seems to have died out with no decision made.  Also the plague disambig page looks to me like it covers things pretty well .  I would like to know in more detail what kind of changes you would propose for the page. Master shepherd 06:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I personally agree with you. I think you can go ahead and fix some of the links if you want. On the other hand, we could wait for him to reply and work on other things in the meantime. There isn't a particular rush to get Plague done. Dekimasu 11:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In almost every case I looked at, I found it very difficult to differentiate the use of the term within the calling page.  Just because the discussion seems to have died out, which I agree it has, doesn't mean the issue is resolved by those more familiar with the topic, it just means the discussion lost energy.  I worry that if we make a big effort to resolving the disambiguation calls before the issue is closed may mean that links get changed away from the basic term "plague" when they shouldn't. While I'm not an expert on the subject, the discussions seemed to me to indicate there should be an article at "plague" and the disambiguation page should be "Plague (Disambig)" in compliance with standards.  If this was true, I think many of the existing links to "plague" would instantly become accurate without any changes.  With that said, there is certainly nothing wrong with resolving links that are clearly associated with one of the other categories of plague.  Theflyer 03:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: follow up, on the article page, Dekimasu, states "[Plaque] will always have to be a disambiguation page in this form, regardless of tehcnically validity in the medical community, because of its use in common contexts."  In concept, I disagree with this statement. I believe an encyclopedia should strive for technical accuracy while also finding a way to address "common contexts".  If Bubonic Plague is but one form of plague then Wikipedia should have an article describing the more generic "plague" and its forms.  Dekimasu's summary would, however, seem to cover most usages so since ya'll have been disambiguators longer than me, I defer to your judgement.  Theflyer 03:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There could be a page called Plague (epidemiology), but there would still have to be disambiguation on the page for Plague. At any rate, since this seems to be causing problems, I have changed the collaboration to Text. I am moving the discussion from that area to the space below. Dekimasu 11:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: plague

message: I said this on the IDM talk page too, but almost all of the IDM links should lead to intelligent dance music.  It might be best to just redirect IDM to that page, with a disambiguation message at the top. P4k 02:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IDM

message: I was working on the Bremen disambig, but it looks like the Bremen disambig page has disappeared.  Bremen now redirects directly to Bremen (city).  Just found it kind of weird.  Bigdottawa 13:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that unusual.  If the vast majority of the links point to one specific article, then I think it's appropriate to make the dab link a redirect to the intended article.  The target article should contain a template like , redirecting to a new dab page.  It's not something to be done lightly, and it may be prudent to propose the change on the talk page first, but it is a legitimate way to fix a dab link issue.--Kubigula (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bremen 

message: Hi, new disambiguation feature was introduced in the latest AWB version. It allows fixing links in semi-automatic fashion with rate up to 3 edits per minute. Please try it and submit your comments. MaxSem 17:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser|AutoWikiBrowser]] 

message: I thought this would be straight forward but because the disambiguation page actually has "definitions" without actual pages most of the 110 links appear to be largely correct.  I've fixed a few relating to the Ford Escort but they are trivial in comparison to the links.  In other words with the disambiguation page having a "definition" section, it means that it isn't simply a disambiguation page but an amalgam of both a disambig and an article page.  Do we just leave these as is then or try to create actual article pages for each of the definitions so they can be more effectively disambiguated?   Theflyer 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambiguation pages should not have strictly dictionary definitions on them.  (See MoS:DP#Linking_to_Wiktionary)  I've added a link to Wiktionary, which pretty much encompasses all the dictionary definitions; unless they seem appropriate to put into their own article, they should be taken off the disambiguation page, and any links to the page for such dictionary definitions should be delinked.  In terms of dictionary definitions, "escort" is pretty straightforward. -- Natalya 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escort 

message: I don't think it is possible to disambiguate many of these.  A basketball team used to have left guard, right guard, left forward, right forward, and a center.  I think the designations power forward, small forward, shooting guard, and point guard, originated in the 1960s and weren't universal until the mid 1970s.  When it says John Wooden played guard (basketball), that's what he played; there's nothing to disambiguate.  Unfortunately, we have articles on the four positions the game is now played and no article on the historic, less specialized positions.  -- Randall Bart 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forward (basketball) and Guard (basketball) 

message: I've fixed most the disambigs for Ash tree, European ash, Ash Ketchum, Ash (band), Ash (analytical chemistry), and Volcanic ash; and asked for clarification where I wasn't sure. This is a cool project.  But I noticed that there is no entry for one of the most common uses, "The unburnable solid remains of a combustible material left after a fire are called ash." (from the fire article.) 
Should we make a specific entry for this? It could include a common definition, chemical makeup, an outline about ash content/crucibles, and the uses of ash in religions, fertilizers and food preparation. 
If I do this, should the main ash / ashes link then skip the disambig page and go straight to the new ash page? Input welcome!  --Knulclunk 15:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or I could just route the "remains of a fire" links to the Wiktionary entry for ash.  --Knulclunk 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Or, perhaps best, just remove the link entirely, as this meaning is unambiguous. --Knulclunk 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd remove the link, since 1. it's not ambiguous and 2. it's a pretty common ("easy") word and a link to its definition would be unnecessary in most cases. (I did this when I disambiguated links to "Territory".) —EdGl 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the link is probably the best option, although "ash" is a more encyclopedic term than many other such simple terms; for now, certainly remove the link, but if anyone took the initiative to even write a stub article on it (with more than just an dictionary definition), that would be fine too.  Linking to Wiktionary as a regular wikilink isn't really encouraged, though. -- Natalya 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ash Disambiguation 

message: If anyone looks at WP:DPM carefully today, they will see a lot of duplicate entries resulting from the creation of a new 'Abbreviations' category.  I don't know why this happened and I'll have to spend a little time looking at the code to figure it out.  Sorry for any confusion.  --Russ (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone added the main disambiguation category and a sub-category to the various xCC templates. That could be what caused the duplication. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. It was my error in formatting the new category.  I'm re-running the bot now to clear everything up.  --Russ (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance 

message: I am using User:Lupin/popupsdev.js for disambiguation.  I know it works correctly in Template: space, but in portal space it strips "portal:" from the name.  I looked it over, but can't spot the bug.  The only place where "Portal" seems to be missing from the code is setNamespaces, but I can't figure out what that does. — Randall Bart 14:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lupin is very friendly and helpful, I would ask at User talk:Lupin.--Commander Keane 01:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popups and Portal space 

message: I think that people using this page should use :Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup intensively, for two reasons:
# If a dab has many incoming links, people will probably stumble upon it frequently, so it should meet stylistic guidelines (WP:MOSDAB).
# Some of those guidelines (one link per line, and no extraneous links) facilitate link-fixing using Popups.
--Smack (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having one link per line also greatly facilitates the use of CorHomo, in fact, it's nearly essential. A thoroughly cleaned up dab page makes using CorHomo a pleasure instead of a struggle. Add any needed redirects or stubs to the dab page before you start. Chris the speller 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab cleanup