Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

Dera /DERA

These two pages (Dera and DERA) seem a little weird to me. Significant overlap, primary topic of the DAB is the sentence-case form... I don't know which rules apply here and I don't know how best to resolve it, but putting it here for the experts to have a look at and opine. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dera. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nine Regional#Requested move 2 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nine Regional#Requested move 2 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. From Bassie f (his talk page) 08:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Nitrate reductase

If there is a biochemist in the room, please can you look at my query at WT:MCB#Nitrate reductase? Thanks, Certes (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll settle for anyone who can spell "biology" or knows what a molecule is. Certes (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Useful template: {{srt}} or {{Self-reference tool}}

Today I spotted an edit to Intelligence (disambiguation) which is on my watchlist, and learned about a splendid useful little template: {{srt}} will add the "Lookfrom" and "Intitle" links to the "See also" section of a dab page, in just a few keystrokes. Brilliant little shortcut. Perhaps most of you know about it already but I doubt that I'm the only dab page creator/editor who hasn't seen it. Thank you Shhhnotsoloud for introducing me to it. PamD 18:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of most notable person individually on disambig page rather than only a link to everyone with that surname

Please see discussion at Talk:Waterhouse#Most notable person with name not linked? regarding this reversion by Gerda_Arendt and her statement that people go in the surname list and John William Waterhouse should not be mentioned as one of the most common if not the most common meanings of Waterhouse should a user search for that. I gave the Washington disambiguation page as counter-evidence, where not only is George Washington linked at the very top, but there are several individuals mentioned explicitly along with the link to Washington (name) in the "People" section.

I think we should limit discussion either to that talk page or to this section (if which happens I will insert a reference on that talk page that discussion has been moved here). —DIYeditor (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion has ensued on that talk page, let's keep it there unless there is some wider principle that bears discussion here. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion has ensued there before I even got the ping to here (which I don't watch). I believe it's a general question to be discussed here: in which cases do we need a separate surname list, and if we have one, should any people be repeated on the general list. Feel free to copy my comment if you think it helps. My belief is that no people should get extra treatment (like the famous painter), and if any person should be repeated, it could rather be the famous bassoonist who played in the premiere of Britten's War Requiem, as the other will be found anyway. In the Waterhouse case, I think we don't even need a surname list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Washington sets the tone and handles it right.

1. Overwhelmingly most common meaning of term goes right at top of disambig page (usually refers to George Washington) (gets extra treatment)
2. Other commonly searched people with that name listed individually in People section (get somewhat extra treatment)
3. Link to Washington (name) with exhaustive list of all articles on people with that name, which would be too long to list (direct user here for a exhaustive list of people with that name)

I don't think a user searching for "Waterhouse" which a google search will reveal refers almost entirely to John William Waterhouse the painter should have to dig through a list of names to find what the term most often refers to, whether that list is on another page, or right on the disambiguation page. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

A relevant guideline is WP:NAMELIST: To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it. We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is listed only at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article.—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a question of editorial consensus what is "reasonably well known by it". We've had a fair few RMs about anthroponymy lists and primary topics related to mononymous use of given names and surnames. There seems to be a fair bit of disagreement and confusion among editors about what constitutes good navigation WRT human name lists. Maybe we should try some technical helper methods instead. Maybe a template to show like an [expand] button next to those, or a [name search] box that let's readers easily go from e.g. "Julia" to "Julia Roberts" or in this case from "Waterhouse" to "John William Waterhouse". Some editors seem to balk at the very notion of showing a list, they want all ambiguity somehow short-circuited, and it's possible that such behavior extends to readers as well. --Joy (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a related issue as to whether it's sensible for a surname list to include links to disambiguation pages. As I see it, someone going to a surname page to look for a "Stephenson", knowing they were a major railway engineer, should be able to scan down (or even search) a list of people with descriptors, but shouldn't have to branch out into umpteen disambiguation pages to check first the Benjamins, then the Georges before they find their engineer. On the other hand,maintaining two parallel lists of names is a recipe for problems. There was a suggestion at one point for a clever bit of template which could include the contents of Benjamin Stephenson (disambiguation) etc into the display the reader sees at Stephenson, which would have been brilliant and would help the reader, which is what this should all be about. PamD 12:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

{{transclude list}} works quite well in that situation. However, that one still does it expanded, there's no visual retraction mechanism so you can't e.g. transclude the entire name list back into the disambiguation page with a nice expand mechanism. --Joy (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The template is used on 28 pages but never hit the big time. We could easily add an optional |collapsible= parameter, but beware of violating MOS:DONTHIDE. Certes (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, there would be a conflict between the guideline and the manual of style. At the same time, it could be said that the guideline recommending these moves of generally valid content out of sight is kind of already causing a conflict. It's very hard to say which of these methods of dealing with ambiguity is the best because we're woefully underequipped - for example WikiNav has barely entered the general conciousness of the editors yet it has already been unmaintained for over a year. --Joy (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I maintain a list of about 100 surname articles where the primary topic is clearly one prominent individual rather than the surname itself. (For example, 99% of references to Pevsner intend Nikolaus Pevsner.) I'd support putting the obvious meaning at the top of those lists. That list only covers articles; there will be many dabs in a similar situation. Certes (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bhandara (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bhandara (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)