Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Disambiguation  
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Disambiguation pages with titles differing only by caseEdit

I did some digging and found there are almost 500 pairs of disambiguation pages which differ by case. I've listed them all at User:Colin M/Disambiguation pages differing by case.

A lot of these look obviously problematic (perhaps the result of editors working on different case-variant titles without realizing the other page exists). e.g. Dream hunter - Dream Hunter; Scid - SCID; Baptized By Fire - Baptized by fire (disambiguation); Green-striped darner - Green-striped Darner. These should obviously be merged. (Almost all pairs that don't include an acronym variant fall under this category.)

I'm going to start with trying to tackle these obvious merges. If anyone else is interested, feel free to grab a chunk.

There are also a lot of cases that seem like they're on the borderline of acceptability. WP:DABCOMBINE says Terms that differ only in capitalization... should almost always share a disambiguation page but If a combined disambiguation page would be inconveniently long, it may be better to split the disambiguation page into separate pages. Does a pair like Use/USE, where both pages are short enough to not need section divisions, meet that criterion for splitting? What about Wohl/WOHL, where the former page is fairly long, but the latter has only two entries? Would be interested in people's thoughts on these sorts of judgement calls.

A pattern I see with a lot of these is synchronization issues. e.g. entries that get duplicated between Foo and FOO (some pairs like Core/CORE seem to overlap deliberately), or an entry for a "FOO" entity is listed at Foo but not FOO (Argus/ARGUS has a few of these currently). Which makes me think these sorts of splits should be avoided except in extraordinary circumstances. Colin M (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to approach these on a case-by-case basis, considering the length of each page, and whether there is a real difference in expected meaning rendered by the capitalization. I would think that there would not be for the Dream hunter - Dream Hunter example, but for something like Xi - XI, I would expect that there would be. BD2412 T 22:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding length, I'm wondering if there's a reasonable rule of thumb we can use for identifying split dabs that are too small to be worth it. e.g. If one out of a pair of case-variant dab pages has only, say, 2 or 3 entries, is it fair to say the pair should be merged by default? A lot of pages would fall under this threshold, e.g. AMLA, ANDRA, ANGUS, ARGH... Colin M (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
ANGUS is short but Angus isn't. The all-caps dab saves readers who know they seek an acronym from wading through a long list. Certes (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
So you would evaluate the suitability of a split/merge based on the total number of ambiguous terms combined across case variants? I guess one thing I'm finding confusing is a lack of consistency in existing practice. Why do Cop, Cab, and GNU (disambiguation) get combined dab pages, but we split Cou/COU and Cid/CID? On the whole, it seems like a combined dab is much more common. If you think of a trigram that's plausible as a word and an initialism and look it up, you'll probably find it has a combined dab page. Which is why I would lean towards achieving consistency by merging some of these split dabs, rather than by splitting the many more combined dabs. Unless there are particular properties that make certain cases specially suited to splitting, but like I said, it seems pretty arbitrary at the moment. Colin M (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think consistency matters here. It's true, there has been a strong tendency to combine the different case forms on the same dab, but I believe that at least partly, this is down to historic contingency rather than deliberate decision. See, all dabs start out small and then incrementally get bigger when new entries get added as the encyclopedia grows. At each step of the way, it's easiest to just add the next entry to the existing page; splitting would be a positive action that requires more effort. – Uanfala (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
As a start, I just merged in case variants for Yud, Yup, Zah, and Zer. These seem like they should be uncontroversial merges (given that, in each case, the combined list of entries is still quite short), but if anyone objects to these examples, please speak up before I move further up the alphabet. Colin M (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
That's a really useful list! There will probably be a lot of cases of accidental duplication that we'd need to resolve, but I'd echo the comments by BD2412 and Certes that separate pages are often better for readers. If someone has typed "CID" in the search bar, then they're almost certainly looking for an item listed at CID and we won't be doing them any favours by sending them to a big list with a lot of lower-case entries mixed in. So if the lower-case dab has more than a few entries, it's usually best for readers if the upper case is dabbed separately (though it's a separate question whether the lower-case dab should also list the individual upper-case entries or simply refer to the upper-case dab; the latter is certainly less work for us). If both dabs are really small, as with Zer, then I agree it's best to merge them. Merging will also work if all the upper-case entries fit neatly into a single section (like ISLA, which now redirects to Isla#Organizations), or when the lower- and upper-case forms appear to sometimes be used interchangeably for the same topics (like at Intec).
Consistency can help the user experience (say, if a search strategy works in one case, it should be expected to work in another), but when its effects are neutral there's no point in pursuing it as a goal of its own. Now, there's one place where consistency matters here: if we have two separate dab pages, should they point to each other in their "see also" sections, or with hatnotes? – Uanfala (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that a split benefits users who search for something like "CID" (at least under ideal conditions). But there are a couple of related downsides that make me question whether it's a net benefit to readers in most cases:
  1. Some readers will type "Cid" into the search box even though they're looking for an initialism. (Most readers access Wikipedia from their phone, so they might do this simply because it's easier to type.) They might skim the listed links and give up, without realizing they need to click through to CID (disambiguation) at the bottom of the page.
  2. The aforementioned synchronization problems. Sometimes a thing called "CID" will be listed at Cid but not CID (because editors are also susceptible to the pattern described above), so even a reader that uses the proper search term might not find the article they were looking for. If entries are included on both pages (e.g. because they're sometimes referred to as Cid and sometimes as CID), there are the general DRY issues that come with that, where a fix to the entry on one page needs to be mirrored on the other page.
re if we have two separate dab pages, should they point to each other in their "see also" sections, or with hatnotes?: That's a great question. My default would be to use the "See also" section, because that's currently the approach that's most commonly used, but I don't have a strong opinion on the merits. I do agree that we need consistency on this though. Colin M (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
See also is usual. Hatnotes on dabs are rare, except to refer between sections of the same page as at Lincoln#Places or as self-reference to a project page as at ANI. Certes (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Under which spelling should the disambiguation be?Edit

I, personally, tend to write all words as close to the original as possible,

  • in order to make it visible where the word originated from (like: Greek, Latin, French, Yiddish) and
  • out of respect for the land and people of the original.

In this sense/attitude I have suggested a change on: Talk:Schmendrick.
Steue (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

commented there. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:SS (disambiguation)#Requested move 13 April 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SS (disambiguation)#Requested move 13 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Usage, primary topics and the ghost train RMEdit

Some of you may be interested in the RM at Talk:Ghost train (folklore)#Requested move 3 April 2022. One of the questions there is whether in deciding primary topics we should take into account all relevant entries on a dab page (possibly with different weighing) or restricts ourselves to only those where the respective article has the dab term in its title.

Another of the questions is where we should be getting usage data from. One of the participants believes that the best we have is the WP:Clickstream/Wikinav, which shows the number of clicks received by each link on the dab page (which is currently at the base title), while another has stated that this data is useless and instead argues for promoting the article to the primary topic and then comparing the pageviews that the article and the dab page will receive in the next couple of months. – Uanfala (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Merging similar dab pagesEdit

Hi – an editor has recently set up the dab page Re:member, but both topics on the page are already listed at Remember (disambiguation), and reading WP:DABCOMBINE it seems like the new dab page is unnecessary. Am I right in thinking the correct thing to do is simply redirect the former dab page to the latter established page? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Although we don't normally duplicate entries in this way, Re:member may be a useful page. A reader who types "Re:member" with a colon probably wants to find one of the two pages listed there without checking a long list of entries without colons. Certes (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MASN (disambiguation)Edit


The article MASN (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Is this page even necessary? I don't think so. Moving Anthropology Student Network was recently deleted and it's doubtful the Mission Area Sub Network is even notable enough to be worth mentioning, especially since it's not mentioned at all in the Link 22 article. This leaves the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network as the only one left, thus making this page pointless.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

MASN used to stand for Moving Anthropology Student Network. Link 22 has no WP:DABMENTION. In my opinion, the dab was useful when created but no longer needed. Certes (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)