Wikipedia talk:Disambiguations for discussion

Duplication of ideas from WP:MOSDAB

My first concern at seeing this is that it is repeating (and altering?) some of the ideas/guidelines found elsewhere (like WP:MOSDAB). It would be better to reference these through links (unless you are proposing REPLACING those pages with this one, which I don't think is the plan). Saying that, I do think there might be a place in Wikipedia space for further guidance on some of the more contentious aspects of dab pages. Something like User:Jwy/Primary Topics: Why and Which, which I've intended as a guidance essay rather than a guideline. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to have this as a centralized discussion place to which problematic disambig pages can be brought, it should really simply follow the setup of something like WP:RFD. The policies need not be delved into here, just linked to. bd2412 T 04:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Standard method of discussion or escalation

I think most discussions of the type suggested should take place on the appropriate article/dab page talk pages and that this should be an escalation path after significant attempts at consensus elsewhere have failed. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That does make sense, but I think we'd get more consistency by having the discussions in one place. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Consistency in itself is not a useful goal. What kind of consistency are you talking about and how will it help the users?

I guess I am asking, what problem is this trying to solve? I can see getting more input on some DAB discussion might be useful, but having them all moved to here seems unnecessary, unwieldy and just adds to the number of places that such discussions COULD take place. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts.

We should outline the difference between a disambig page and other oft-confused formats such as the set index articles (like Dodge Charger), and the occasional general topic article disguised as a disambig (like High priest). bd2412 T 04:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea -- also {{given name}} and {{surname}}, where there's no actual dab tag on the page. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Does seem reasonable, but is this the page to describe that? I thought this page would discuss the PROCESS for discussing DAB issues, not describe/tutor the policies about the DAB pages themselves. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The primary purpose of this page should be to list specific disambiguation pages requiring resolution of specific concerns. The policies already exist, and this page should only point to them. bd2412 T 20:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Reasons not

The previous reasons not to make a topic primary were in contradiction of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so I have placed them correctly under reasons to make a topic primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the section title, which was wrong - they aren't reasons not to make a topic primary, they're just not valid reasons to make a topic prikmary (if you see what I mean). I really think, though, that the two sections should be worded much more in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or simply refer to there for the definition of primary topic and other criteria - we don't want to be saying the same thing twice in potentially contradictory ways.--Kotniski (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it does not disparage (or even mention) any living person; it is a proposal in project space, and should at least be preserved for historical value. --bd2412 T 23:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)