User talk:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation

Untitled

May I suggest taking this to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and proposing any changes needed to that policy? Fagstein 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're suggesting. Should Delta IV rocket be called Delta IV? I believe it's already in the MOS to not use parenthetical disambiguation unless strictly necessary. >Radiant< 16:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Delta IV rocket should be moved. I couldn't find anything in MOS, but if you can, please let me know as I only had a quick look. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be moved? What is inaccurate about Delta IV rocket? They are called by that phrase (e.g. The Seattle Times, August 23, 2006, Pg. C1, "Expansion pushes tug giant into East; Profile - Foss Maritime, Seattle-based marine-services company", Alwyn Scott, Seattle Times business reporter). -- JHunterJ 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read what we are talking about before commenting on it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I did. Please don't assume ignorance where there is simply disagreement. -- JHunterJ 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for this. Avoid instruction creep. There is a case to be made for consistency in naming similar types of things, even though it might entail unnecessary disambiguation for some of the items. Although there are many who despise it, the U.S. city naming convention specifies including the state name with the city/town/village name. This has been challenged on a case-by-case basis to allow some of the most well-known places to appear at the simple name. There is fairly strong support for some modification of the rule to avoid having to address on a case-by-case basis, but such proposals seem to get hijacked by extremists and end up going nowhere. Similarly, there was recently a big to-do over U.S. state road naming conventions, where mobocracy prevailed and there are now prescriptive and preemptively-disambiguated naming conventions in place for each state. I think royalty is another case where the article titles are often more fully disambiguated than strictly necessary. Now, for the particular case mentioned here, the problem does appear to be one of consistency. Why is Delta II not disambiguated where and Delta IV is. Simply because Delta III required disambiguation? I mean, personally, I don't see any problem at all with naming them all as "Delta 'N' rocket", but at the same time, I don't have any problem with them all being at simply "Delta 'N'" and using a hatnote to disambiguate the Delta III Russian submarine. And I certainly don't think we need yet another rule developed to address a special case. older ≠ wiser 13:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, I'm against this. But "disambiguation in the title" is, well… ambiguous. How does one decide what part of a title is disambiguation? Are you saying that a title should always be as short as possible not to be ambiguous? So, for example Skokie, Illinois would be at Skokie because there is no other Skokie, but Evanston, Illinois would be at Evanston, Illinois to disambiguate from other Evanstons? Seems like a bad idea. Better to put a redirect at Skokie. And at Delta IV. Both of which I see we have. - Jmabel | Talk 19:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

We need something like this

I agree we need something like this. There is too much ambiguity, and resulting conflict, about when what is appropriate in a title where. The rules should be more clear.

Personally, I think that when the most common name of a given subject is identifiable and does not conflict with others uses of that name, it should be used. If the most common name is not identifiable, or there are conflicts with its use, then, and only then, would category-specific naming guidelines come into play. --Serge 04:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Consistency

Many people think that the consistency criterion says that article titles should have the same format. USPLACE is a notable example in which all cities, towns, counties, and other places ought to have the state name added using the comma convention (except for some major cities like New York City, Chicaco, Los Angeles and others cited from the AP stylebook).

The problem is, consistency does not really mean "the same". Here are relevant definitions of "consistency":

• steadfast adherence to the same principles, course, form, etc. —Random House Dictionary
• agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another or a whole; correspondence; specifically: ability to be asserted together without contradiction —Merriam-Webster Dictionary
• consistent behaviour or treatment; the quality of achieving a level of performance which does not vary greatly in quality over time —Oxford English Dictionary

Thus, following the practice of avoiding unnecessary disambiguation, can be considered consistent because you "adhere to the same principle, course", there is "correspondence" and there is no "contradiction", and there is "consistent treatment".

While it is not debatable that the USPLACE comma convention certainly makes titles consistent with each other, my argument is that avoiding unnecessary disambiguation, especially since it is applied consistently in most of the rest of Wikipedia is still a form of consistency. So, even though the following three U2 songs don't have the same format, they are still consistent because they do not contradict the policy and guidelines and they adhere to the same principle (don't disambiguate unnecessarily):

• Sunday Bloody Sunday
• New Year's Day (song)
• Another Day (U2 song)

—seav (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Seav (talk · contribs), yep. This section of my user page is dedicated to this point: User:Born2cycle#Examples of naming consistency. --B2C 23:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I included the examples on this page... WP:UNDAB#Examples of titles consistent with avoiding unnecessary disambiguation. --B2C 23:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert of examples

Dicklyon (talk · contribs) reverted the example section [1] which I had added[2] as per the above discussion. The comment summary of the revert was: "Sorry, I thought these were discussion edits; now that I see it's a project pages, I object to this expansion on a somewhat controversial theme."

Well, of course adding an example section to an essay expands the content of the essay, but how is that a reasonable objection? There is no policy or guideline or convention against expanding essays with example sections, so far as I know. Why is it a problem to provide these examples? --B2C 02:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I find nothing in the above discussion to support such an extension, which included a statement about what wikipedia editors strive for, which I disagree with. There's no particular need to further shore up this essay, which as you know is not completely uncontroversial. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an essay, so consensus pre-approval is not required for changes. No "particular need" has to exist to "shore up this essay". Again, if you think this essay says something inappropriate or contradicts policy and conventions, including in anything recently added to it, just point it out. I removed the "we strive" wording as soon you pointed it out, prior to your revert. --B2C 04:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus pre-approval isn't needed for anything on WP, per WP:BOLD. However, consensus approval is needed for changes to stick and that includes essays in project namespace. If B2c wants to WP:OWN this, it should be userspaced.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

recent edits seem to not have had any discussion. But then it's only an essay. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If you think this essay says anything contrary to policy, guidelines or conventions, please let us know what it is.

As I've noted before, I, for one, use it as a shorthand argument in RM discussions. In theory I could copy/paste the entire thing into the RM discussion, or an abridged version of it, and thus I would have presented an argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions. But it's more efficient to just link to this essay, with the WP:UNDAB shortcut. Other essays are often linked via shortcuts like this as well, like WP:BRD and WP:JDLI. --B2C 23:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WE strive?

Dicklyon (talk · contribs) made a comment on the essay itself, which I'm moving here, along with some context, and a reply.

In each case, the reason for the apparent inconsistency is the same:

On Wikipedia we strive for titles to be consistent with disambiguate only when necessary.

That's your own striving. Not everyone would support ambiguous titles like Limerick, or titles as uninformative as Laeken or Lorca. Others of us strive more for other things, including decent styling of dashes; I see you have no cares about that, with lines like "Spandau (locality) — Mitte (locality) - Wedding (Berlin) — Britz" and all those spaced em dashes. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger. My views about titles are formed by actual practice on WP which presumably reflect consensus. Funny you should choose Limerick as an example, given my views about that title[3]. These examples are real actual titles, and are typical, not cherry-picked. Many are supported with links to the relevant categories to facilitate easy verification of these claims.

As to the dashes, I'm not aware of what should be used there. Please fix it.

I've reworded the final statement to be simply factual:

On Wikipedia most titles are consistent with disambiguate only when necessary.

--B2C 01:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem isn't the examples, it's the conclusions you're trying to get everyone to draw from them. You're angling for establishment of a rule you can use to change articles to names you'd prefer, based rarely on anything but how short they are, when few other editors agree with the primacy of the criterion - not here, and not in RMs where you repeatedly cite yourself. I don't have a problem with people citing essays they're the principal author of, as long as they make it clear that the essay reflects an opinion and/or summarizes some arguments, and the essay also has a lot of buy-in vs. a lot of refutation. If you're saying "per WP:UNDAB" instead of "because x, y and z, which are covered in more detail at the WP:UNDAB essay", then you're making a mistake, and others are going to notice. If an essay's talk page is full of people agreeing with it and providing examples and suggesting improvements based on how they've applied the essay in real cases, that's a good sign. If the talk page is full of people disagreeing with its premises and using logical arguments to do so, as is the case here, then it's usually a good candidate for userspacing, especially if many months have passed and nothing's really changed, and the essay has made no acceptance headway at all, again as is the case here.

Worse yet for your positioning on this, you only apply the ideas in this essay when it suits your personal wikipolitical purposes. I've noticed you immediately pop up in almost any titles-related debate involving me as a participant and !vote against whatever my position is, even when I'm strongly arguing against unnecessary disambiguation! This is going on right now, as we speak in at least two different forums, WT:AT and Talk:Mustang horse, and it's hardly the first time. So, I'm "calling shenanigans" on this. And on the WP:OTHERPARENT activity of trying to push the core of your User:Born2cycle/Concision razor failed proposal in here as a second venue for it. WP is not the Land of Endless Idea Resurrection. Sometimes you just have to let an idea go, especially a titling one. I pushed for a long time (and was not alone) that parenthetical DABs should always be descriptive of the subject - John Smith (biologist) - not the field or supra-topic of the subject - John Smith (biology). While about 95% of our articles are named the former, objectively better way, the entrenchment of a few wikiprojects on using confusing disambiguators that they just happen to like and won't stop using has been too deep to overcome, and I just had to give up. Live moves on. I got over it. You will too. WP will not fall apart because you don't get your way on this or any other such issue.

The only actual striving here is, Born2cycle, your dogged insistence that everyone agree with you on this concision stuff, and it's just not going to happen. The community already understands that concision is generally desirable in a title, it's just not the #1 concern and never will be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I had not seen this comment until now. I had not ever noticed a pattern with respect to how much you and I agree or disagree on proposals. This sounds a little personal, which might explain why you're being so harsh at the mfd. Anyway, I just asked at your talk page for you to identify something specific in the essay that contradicts policy, guidelines or conventions. I don't see it here. The fact that you think I went against UNDAB at Talk:Mustang horse suggests you really don't understand me or this essay. I would like to fix that, if you're willing. --В²C ☎ 17:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Intro wording

The current intro is as follows:

Unnecessary disambiguation is the use of a title, comprised of the name of a topic of an article along with additional descriptive information that is not necessary to disambiguate the unadorned name from other uses on Wikipedia. For example, since the city in Ontario is considered to be the primary topic of Welland, adding ", Ontario" to that title, or, moving it to Welland, Ontario, would be unnecessary disambiguation. When the reason given for such disambiguation is to "preempt" conflicts with other uses some time in the future, this is often referred to as preemptive disambiguation, and often considered unnecessary per WP:CRYSTAL.

I revised it to the following:

Unnecessary disambiguation refers to descriptive information in a title that is not necessary to disambiguate the unadorned name of the article's topic from other uses on Wikipedia. For example, since the city in Ontario is considered to be the primary topic of Welland, adding ", Ontario" to that title (i.e., moving it to Welland, Ontario) would be unnecessary disambiguation. Since the reason sometimes given for such disambiguation is to "preempt" conflicts with other uses some time in the future, this practice is sometimes referred to as preemptive disambiguation, and often considered unnecessary per WP:CRYSTAL.

Dicklyon (talk · contribs) reverted[4] with the following edit summary: "Sorry, I thought these were discussion edits; now that I see it's a project pages, I object to this expansion on a somewhat controversial theme."

Dicklyon, please explain how this change to the intro is an "expansion", and why you object to it. My goal was only clarity, not expansion.

Although this is an essay, it is well-grounded in community consensus as reflected in policy, guidelines and conventions. If you believe it does not do that well, please explain how and where so we can correct it.

--B2C 01:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Per User:Dicklyon I also have concerns about this expansion. And also the increasing citation of this essay by User :Born2cycle in recent RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And the basis of your concern is what? More people will find out there are sound policy based reasons to oppose unnecessary disambiguation which reflects how a majority of WP titles are actually named, contrary to your desire to change that, and make titles more descriptive? --B2C 00:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are "sound policy based reasons to oppose" what you call unnecessary disambiguation in many situations. If there are reasons in a policy page, they are not sound, but rather because you have so diluted the value of precision and recognizability at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. To call these policy-based is ridiculous. Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this an April Fools joke? Just in case you're serious, what you or I think does not matter. What matters is community consensus and practice, as reflected in policy. We know what happens when proposals are made to change policy (yes, it's policy, supported by community consensus) to your liking - they are unanimously rejected[5]. --B2C 15:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Time to Userfy?

This essay seems to be increasing cited by the main editor. Time to userfy? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Aye, this is an alternative venue to push B2c's invented idea that concision trumps other concerns, at his failed User:Born2cycle/Concision razor proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Then formal proposal: Userfy without redirect, per also similar problems with WP:Yoghurt (already useryfied) WP:Concision razor, and mention cannot be avoided, related examples of time wasting by self-editing then self-citing, and so on. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  I’m surprised it’s not in userspace, considering that it appears to be almost entirely written and supported by a single user. @In ictu oculi: How are these things done? WP:RM, same as articles? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dicklyon:@SMcCandlish:... answer; I don't know. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The "yogurt rule" was dealt with here: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt_Rule Omnedon (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an MfD matter. I would cite this discussion when nominating it. Nominate Wikipedia:Concision razor at the same time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that B2C's concept of "Unnecessary disambiguation" does way more harm than good. He has built his WP career on redefining title policy, against the wishes of most editors, and tools like this are part of how he maintains a disproportionate influence in crafting policy changes that he claims are consensus. Let's put an end to it, or at least slow it down, by rejecting this essay. Dicklyon (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, should be userfied (or deleted if he doesn't want it), but requires a history split to restore the 2006 version. It was not ok to write a personal opinion essay over a rejected proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: 174.141.182.82@Omnedon:@SmokeyJoe: okay, not familiar with MFD but happy to follow that precedent. Question: is it appropriate/inappropriate to mention (a) previous case at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt_Rule (@SMcCandlish: says it is) and/or (b) the topic ban at IncidentArchive839#Born2cycle to be referenced in the new MFDs? It appears that B2C has not made (or barely) 1 single article space edit since coming off the topic band, so the MFDs are not going to solve the overall pattern, but at least it will prevent other users being fooled as they were by WP:YOGHURT into thinking these are real consensus guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's all relevant, but an MfD shouldn't focus or dwell too intensively on user behavior/POV issues; rather, they may be relevant as to whether to delete, userspace or keep in WP space, because they can elucidate a pattern that may not be apparent from simply looking at the MfD'd page in question. I don't want to see Born2cycle demonized; this isn't an editor who is always wrong on policy/guideline matters, or naming/styling matters more specifically, nor one who's uniformly problematic. What is problematic is proposing and promoting, under multiple names and with slightly variant approaches, in WP space, this long-rejected principle that the shortest article title must be preferred, even though this actually contradicts WP:AT policy in various ways. That's the contra-procedure both this and the concision razor thing are pushing. The yogurt rule MfD actually has a large number of arguments/observations that pertain to both of the extant essays, despite it (now at User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle) being about something else (how to determine consensus at XfDs and RMs).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Then Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor as discussion above. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I must be misreading this

I’m sure I’m misreading the section “But making a title more descriptive is not disambiguation, so it's not unnecessary disambiguation”… does it really counter that argument with “Well it could be!”? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I’ve removed that circular logic of “After all, if it were disambiguation, it would be disambiguation, so it’s disambiguation.” Unless I misread it completely, in which case, please rewrite that, B2C. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The removed section is in red:

However, just because the purpose of adding descriptive information to a title is to make the title more helpful, not for disambiguation, does not mean it's inappropriate to refer to this as unnecessary disambiguation. After all, if the name was ambiguous with other uses on Wikipedia, and the topic was not primary for that name, then disambiguation would be necessary. So if the name is primary or unique, the additional descriptive information is unnecessary disambiguation, even if it is also more helpful.

That's not a circular argument. At worst, it's just a tautology. But I'll rewrite it more clearly and without being tautological.

However, just because the purpose of adding descriptive information to a title is to make the title more helpful, not for disambiguation, does not mean it's inappropriate to refer to this as unnecessary disambiguation. After all, when disambiguation is truly necessary because no two articles can have the same title, the way we often disambiguate is by adding descriptive information to the title, which we refer to as disambiguation. So if a title is not ambiguous with other uses on Wikipedia, then adding descriptive information to it is not necessary for disambiguation. In other words, it is unnecessary disambiguation.

Is that clearer? --В²C ☎ 07:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That’s still begging the question (a circular argument). This would be equivalent to both versions, unless I’m still misreading it:

However, just because the purpose of adding descriptive information to a title is to make the title more helpful, not for disambiguation, does not mean it's inappropriate to refer to this as unnecessary disambiguation. After all, it looks like disambiguation, since we do the same thing when we need to disambiguate. If it looks like it could be disambiguation, then it’s disambiguation regardless of intent.

Frankly… this is nonsensical. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dozens if not hundreds of WP editors have used the phrase "unnecessary disambiguation". What do you think they mean by it, and how would you explain it? --В²C ☎ 19:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"Unnecessary disambiguation" is virtually meaningless, given technical restraints on titles. It is used carelessly or deliberately as empty rhetoric. Virtually nothing done is "necessary". Many good things are not "necessary". The meaninglessness of the core cry is probably why the the proposal was rejected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

But one of the few things on WP which ARE necessary is disambiguation when two uses share the same name. Mercury of mythology and Mercury the planet cannot both be at Mercury; disambiguation is necessary because no two articles on WP can have the same title. So, for example, we have Mercury (mythology). On the other hand, disambiguation of Tailtiu as Tailtiu (mythology) is not necessary - if that title were disambiguated; that would be unnecessary disambiguation. Now, being unnecessary is not in and of itself a reason to not do it, but that's a separate issue.

This isn't rocket science, but it should be explained somewhere. It strikes me that WP:Unnecessary disambiguation is the right place to do it. --В²C ☎ 00:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this from the top… if a thing is not disambiguation, then it cannot be unnecessary disambiguation or any other kind of disambiguation, because that is a thing that it is not. But what you're saying in that paragraph is that a thing that is not disambiguation is disambiguation because disambiguation is a thing that exists. Or at least, that's what I get from it. Assuming the MfD leaves this content intact, I recommend removing that section due to how unclear and/or illogical it is. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, okay. It is confusing because "disambiguation" has (at least) two connotations on WP. First, it's the process used to determine how to title articles with names in common. Second, it's used to refer to the addition of precision to a title. That is, the (mythology) component of Mercury (mythology) is the disambiguation in that title. It is in that sense that ", Texas" in Paris, Texas is necessary disambiguation (we have other uses of Paris on WP), but ", California" in Temecula, California is unnecessary disambiguation (we have no other uses of Temecula on WP).

I didn't make this stuff up. This is how people use the term, and used the term long before I showed up. Now, other people claim that Temecula, California is not unnecessary disambiguation because it's not disambiguation at all. But they're using "disambiguation" in a different sense there. It's a disagreement based on semantics. And "unnecessary disambiguation" is indeed meaningless if you insist on interpreting "disambiguation" to mean adding precision only in the context when necessary for disambiguation. In that sense ", Texas" in Paris, Texas is disambiguation and ", California" in Temecula, California is not disambiguation. It also makes sense, but that's not the sense of "disambiguation" used in "unnecessary disambiguation".

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just trying to explain it. I thought I did a good job. Apparently not. Help? --В²C ☎ 02:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your second connotation. It’s used to refer to the addition of precision to a title for the purposes of disambiguation (in the first sense you list). It is not a blanket term for extra precision. Yes, “California” is unnecessary disambiguation if disambiguation is the reason it’s in that title. If it’s there because that’s simply how U.S. placenames are customarily referred to, it is not disambiguation, unnecessary or otherwise. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagree all you want, but know that you're not disagreeing with just me. Propose moving Welland to Welland, Ontario for some reason other than disambiguation, like precision, and it will be never-the-less opposed as "unnecessary disambiguation" (if not WP:UNDAB explicitly). Like it or not, there is a connotation of "disambiguation" on WP which applies to expanded (for lack of a better term) titles like Welland, Ontario when compared to Welland - the former is "disambiguated" and the latter is not, regardless of whether the reason for the disambiguation (see? what other term should I use?) form is not the process of disambiguating with some other use of "Welland".

But don't take my word for it. Look at the 22,868 search results for "unnecessary disambiguation" yourself. Given the common usage of this term on WP, including in cases where the "disambiguation" in question is for improved precision and not "disambiguation" per se, doesn't it make sense to explain it on a page entitled WP:Unnecessary disambiguation? By the way, WP:PRECISION has long said titles should only be precise as necessary, and no more precise than that. That has long meant only as precise as necessary to disambiguate from other uses on WP. --В²C ☎ 18:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, call it what it is: Precision. What you (and anyone else) really mean by “unnecessary disambiguation” in such a context (and applicable in any context) is “unnecessary precision.” You even just said the criterion it’s violating is precision, not (the nonexistent criterion of) disambiguation. Having that all over this essay, and this essay all over your comments, only contributes to that confusion and invites people to call you out on it. A better way to put it might be that the additional precision is unnecessary for disambiguation. WP:Disambiguation is one aspect of WP:Precision, and we universally disambiguate using precision; the two concepts are not synonymous. (On a side note, I [and, it seems, a majority of others at WT:AT] disagree with your stated interpretation of “as precise as necessary.” There is more than one possible factor to necessity.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I get it. If the city in France is the primary topic of Paris, then the page does not need to be at Paris, France - and if the city in Texas is not the primary topic of that term, we put it at Paris, Texas, but not at Paris, Lamar County, Texas. The latter is not inaccurate and is definitely more precise, but is unnecessary. Similarly, we use Mercury (mythology) rather than Mercury (Roman mythology) or Mercury (mythological god); and we use Mercury (planet), not Mercury (Solar System planet). I don't see why this proposition, correctly understood, is even controversial. bd2412 T 00:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the problem is the way it’s presented (both in the essay itself and on Talk pages), rather than the core principle behind it that some would say B2C has obscured or muddied. The problem is that the essay as it stands (and the way B2C uses it) does not lend itself to being correctly understood. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This kind of constructive discussion about the content of the essay and how it could be improved is novel on this talk page. What BD2412 says is exactly right, a certainly all I ever intended to mean in the essay or anywhere else. If the essay or my words elsewhere have been understood to mean something else, then I've been unclear and/or I've been misunderstood. But this should be easy to fix. Again, what specifically in how this essay is presented means something different from the core concept that BD2412 is explaining here, and to which 174 apparently has no objection? --В²C ☎ 16:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it’s useful as a rule of thumb, a sentence or two in a policy or guideline; not as a slowly growing essay. I think conciseness is called for here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an argument for revision, not deletion nor userfying. And I agree with it. --В²C ☎ 19:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry—with that last comment, I was actually saying a whole multi-section essay about the concept was unnecessary. At best, it was an argument for paring it down to perhaps a short paragraph and a couple of agreed-upon examples. If that concept was truly all you ever intended the essay to mean, then that’s all it needs. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

“Unnecessary disambiguation” vs “unnecessary for disambiguation”

Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation

Many areas of human knowledge require special jargon to facilitate effective communication. Thus we have legalese for lawyers, medical terms, engineering terms, etc. Insisting on ignoring the jargon and interpreting their specialty terms with colloquial interpretations hinders communication. A classic example is interpreting the use of "theory" in science (a systemic explanation) with the colloquial meaning (a speculation).

WP has its own special concepts and associated jargon. From special meanings for ordinary words like consensus, warring and disruption to invented terms like BRD and partial disambiguation. Unnecessary disambiguation is part of WP jargon, and it means "unnecessary for disambiguation". At least that's how Wikipedians regularly and commonly use it. On Wikipedia, calling something “unnecessary disambiguation” is NOT necessarily implying that it is disambiguating the subject from something with which it is ambiguous, and insisting on interpreting it to necessarily mean that is disingenuous, and makes standard WP usage, like Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation, which includes dozens of examples of titles which have extra precision which is unnecessary for disambiguation because nothing is being disambiguated, nonsensical. --В²C ☎ 18:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is people do misinterpret it when used that way in that context, so insisting on doing so invites miscommunication that could be easily avoided. If avoiding jargon and communicating more clearly means adding a three letter word, then why not do so? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I didn't invent the term. Why do scientists use "theory" when it means "speculation" to so many people? In a scientific context I never-the-less use "theory" because that's the accepted jargon in that context. In this context, on WP, the accepted jargon for the meaning of "unnecessary disambiguation" is "unnecessary for disambiguation". So that's how I use it. Not my decision. That's how I found it. --В²C ☎ 20:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

“Theory” is a scientific term that developed a colloquial sense. “Disambiguation” was an existing English word long before Wikipedia. Your comparison is invalid. Anyway…

You make the decision of whether or not to perpetuate it. You have clearly made the decision to perpetuate it, even though you yourself have seen it result in miscommunication and unnecessary disagreements. You can decide to personally stop doing that in your own communications. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I choose my battles. I tend to avoid semantic ones. I just go with common usage. --В²C ☎ 00:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on revising

If there is any interest in revising this attempted guidance essay to more closely match consensus, I’d like to request feedback on the edits I made last week. If not, then I honestly don’t understand (without assuming bad faith) why anyone bothered opposing the MFD in favor of revising, but so be it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Zero activity from anyone in almost two weeks, including the editors who vehemently opposed userfication in favor of revising… I'll just roll back my changes and abandon this as well, then. And I must say that this abandonment is making me seriously doubt the good faith of said editors, that this essay was in fact intended to subvert consensus. So MFD was absolutely the right call. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get back to this. It just hasn't been high on the list. bd2412 T 03:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

On the “redlink basename problem”

Don’t redirects completely obviate that? Seems to me like the section should be replaced with a link to WP:R, or a bit of advice like, “If you make a title like this, make the appropriate redirects to it, too.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• The list mentioned in that section illustrates how often such a redirect is not generated (and that is only a partial list of examples). It would be nice, actually, if the software recognized that someone was making a "Foo (bar)" title where "Foo" was a redlink, and prompted the editor to consider whether the title should just be at "Foo". bd2412 T 15:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hence my suggested advice. As is, it doesn’t really seem like it belongs in this essay. It would make more sense as part of a “redirects are important” than a “unneeded disambiguation is bad.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

    I’ve re-removed it. It really is about redirection, not disambiguation, and so doesn’t belong here. If this essay is to be taken seriously, tangents like this should be avoided. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with this essay

It conflates the act of disambiguating between conflicting titles and the text resulting from that act. Thus, any “extra” text, regardless of the reason for it, is here also considered “disambiguation.”

Recent edits have attempted to address this error, but the essay still seems to have been written under that assumption from the start. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)