Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Breeching

After some discussion (now on Talk:Breeching (boys)), I made Breeching a dab page. Help disambiguating the incoming links, and also improving the dab page, would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Una, I've tweaked the dab page a bit, made the two links to dab pages into links via redirects, and edited the {{Clothing}} template which provides the vast majority of the links. Edits to templates like that seem to take time to feed through the system, so I suggest you let it take its time and then clean up the remaining minority of links. PamD (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks PamD. I had not found the template yet (I see you added it to Breeching (boys)). Lately it seems to be taking 3 days or so for template links to catch up. --Una Smith (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Category:Ambiguous place names

Not my idea, but figured some here might have an interest. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 20#Category:Ambiguous place names. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Throttling process

Could someone turn this into a proper disambig page?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

done (John User:Jwy talk) 21:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC).

Cool beans. Thanks.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

James Cary

We need more eyes on James Cary. Sesshomaru is insisting on including Jim Carrey on the disambiguation page as James Carrey, even though that's not the name he is known by. An attempt to discuss the matter on Sesshomaru's Talk page was removed without discussion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not listening. Like I had already announced, a thread has been initiated at Talk:James Cary. Everyone is invited to express any thoughts there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What you announced, was that you had changed the article without discussion or consensus, then edit warred to keep your version. You also rudely removed any attempt to discuss the issue on your Talk page, without discussion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So I'm rude? Didn't mean to come off that way, and I apologize for the misinterpretation, but I was clear on taking the matter further to Talk:James Cary. Didn't you see my edit summary? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have shown it as: *Jim Carrey (born 1962), Canadian actor, born James Carrey

so that both names are there - it may help the user. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the dab page is for James, readers there looking for Jim Carrey (although unlikely) would be served by * James Carrey or Jim Carrey (born 1962), etc., and that entry should be low on the list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I second JHunterJ's view. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Link Anima to Anime?

Anima, a disambiguation page, happens to be a relatively common typo for anime, Japanese animation. I tried to find out what the consensus on linking from anima to anime would be in this case, but wasn't able to get any clear answers. Any thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 20:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a {{distinguish}} hatnote in Anima. Would that work? --Tesscass (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have put them in a see also section, but a distinguish hatnote works is also good. I've started some simple cleanup, but more could be done -- seems odd to have so many short sections. older ≠ wiser 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Aah, that works. I don't do much work with dabpages, so I decided it'd be better to ask. —Dinoguy1000 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ace (disambiguation)

There's a red linked entry on this page which is missing a blue link mention, but I'm unsure which would serve best. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Any of them would serve better, so I added one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Moxon

The page Moxon used to point to Moxon Huddersfield and I have now redirected it to Moxon (disambiguation). Ideally I would prefer to have the disambig page as the main page, but cannot remember the process, and the steps that I have taken are obviously incorrect. Guidance to the right process would be appreciated. Thx. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Because there's history, you can't just do a simple Move of Moxon (disambiguation) to Moxon but have to go through the Wikipedia:Requested moves system - there are instructions on that page for the process. I'd reckon you could list it as an Uncontroversial move. PamD (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had my moves back to front, now all complete. :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Batman (manga)

Who agrees that this should be merged to Batman (disambiguation)? I'd have done it by now, however, I'm not 100% comfortable performing this merger without some discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I could easily see it fitting as a Manga section on the Batman disambig page. It definitely is not worthy of a separate disambig page with the existing MOS. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, incomplete dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hydrogen spectra

Hi, I think some disambiguation is required for Hydrogen line, Hydrogen lines and Hydrogen spectral series, but not sure of the best way to do it. There may be some other articles that could be put into an umbrella disambig page too. OrangeDog (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the ambiguous phrase that might refer to either of them? Hydrogen line doesn't mention "hydrogen spectra", and Hydrogen spectral series doesn't mention "hydrogen line". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The emission spectrum of hydrogen consists of a number of lines, all of which could be described as hydrogen lines either collectively or individually. These lines are grouped into spectral series. Hydrogen line talks about a specific line in the emission spectrum, which isn't a member of any of the spectral series. Hydrogen line would seem to be the ambiguous phrase, but I'm not sure if other merge/disambig issues with Emission spectrum, Atomic emission spectrum, Emission spectrum (fluorescence spectroscopy) and Molecular radiation should/could be dealt with at the same time. OrangeDog (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You could add a {{for|the spectral series|Hydrogren spectral series}} hatnote to Hydrogen line. What are the issues with Emission spectrum, Atomic emission spectrum, Emission spectrum (fluorescence spectroscopy) and Molecular radiation? Are they also referred to as "Hydrogen line(s)"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a merge/disambig discussion going on on talk pages about whether Emission spectrum should refer to Atomic emission spectrum, Molecular radiation (fluorescence spectroscopy being an example of this), or both. The hydrogen articles being an example of an atomic emission spectrum. Thanks for the hatnote suggestion. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So Emission spectrum is the potentially ambiguous phrase? When the primary topic has been decided by consensus, or the lack thereof determined, then the appropriate merges, redirects, and/or moves can be performed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

REDIRECTs to disambiguation pages?

I am confused by these REDIRECTs: Hans Müller-Einigen, Hans Müller (pentathlete), Hans Müller (CSU). They all redirect to Hans Müller; the pentathlete has a circular link on that target page. I couldn't find any guideline regarding REDIRECTs to disambiguation pages, but these seem confusing and misleading. I think they should all be deleted. Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have put all three at WP:RfD. PamD (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed (disambiguation)

Was there any point in moving Ed to this title? I couldn't find any legitimate reason for this so I tried to move it back, but am unable to do so. Is there some discussion I'm unaware of? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the move summary shows that the editor who moved it didn't understand WP:DABNAME. I guess it needs to go to WP:RM. PamD (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

CFN (disambiguous)

Can anyone verify the reference to CFN as a "notorious downtown street gang"? There seem to be no external references to this. link to CFN page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.221.4 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Dabs don't need external references, but they do need internal articles to link to. Thanks for pointing this one out! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Grosch

Should get disambiguation for Groschen, Grosch's law, Herb Grosch and maybe more. --82.212.30.135 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Groschen doesn't mention the term "Grosch", and "Grosch's law" technically isn't a to-be-disambiguated term, so all that's left are four people with the surname Grosch. I therefore turned the page into a surname page instead of a dab page. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin help requested

Could an admin please move Thomas Brock (sculptor) back to Thomas Brock? It should be the primary dab, at least for now. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

‎Db-move added, whichever comes first. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For info the previous discussion was on the other talk page.PamD (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

2-for-2. I'll move this over to the right page. :) Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jim Jeffords (disambiguation) - help needed

I think I have gone and made a mess of this. I looked at the (disambiguation) page and decided it needed to be a redirect, or even {DB}. I removed the hatnote from Jim Jeffords, and went to edit Jim Jeffords (disambiguation), but found there was an inline comment about another Jim Jeffords (boxer) [redlink]. I think the redlink should be in, but that seems to conflict with MOS. Can someone wiser please help. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous redlinks are out. If there are already pages point to the redlink/target page, then it is in THOUGH there generally should be a live link in the line as an interim measure (to give it context). MOS:DABRL I find the Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups tool really useful for doing disambig. You can enable through Preferences > Gadgets. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not simple here: Jim Jeffords (boxer) is a redlink in a list of boxers, so justifies his place in a Jim Jeffords (disambiguation) page, but there is no third Jim Jeffords so such a page doesn't seem justified. If the boxer had an article, we'd make a hatnote to point to it from this primary usage Jim Jeffords article. A further complication is that there is a redirect from Jeffords to Jim Jeffords, with no hatnote or links to Harrison Jeffords, Tom Jeffords or Elza Jeffords! There perhaps needs to be a page Jeffords (disambiguation), which could be linked from a {{redirect}} hatnote on the politician's page, and which could include the boxer as well as these three blue links. PamD (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, if we think the politician is not the primary usage for the whole surname, then the dab page (or is it a surname page?) goes at Jeffords instead of the redirect currently there. PamD (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we just put a hatnote on Jim Jeffords to point to List of bare-knuckle boxers? And, right, Jeffords (disambiguation) should not be created. Jeffords should be changed from a redirect to a surname list, or if one of the Jeffords is the primary topic for the last name (which seems unlikely), make the surname list as Jeffords (surname). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Grant:to move or create disambig page

Before I go in and do things, seeking opinion from fellow DBers. With Alexander Grant my preference would be to move that page possibly to Alexander Grant (administrator) and then build a disambig on the straight page. Of the links, they are basically all to the LieutGov navbox. Any better suggestions? -- billinghurst (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• There certainly needs to be a dab page, though I wouldn't know whether or not this gent is the primary usage. If he's to have a disambiguation, I don't really like "administrator" as a dab - how about "Canadian politician" or "Lieutenant-Governor"? There are a handful of redlinks at Grant Baronets for your dab page, and I spotted an Alex Grant too. Among the incoming links I spotted a 1992-writing historian linked from Robert II of Scotland to add to the fun. PamD (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the primary topic is the administrator, which is perfectly workable. If there is some objection to that page being at the base name, I'd go with (politician) as the dab phrase; "Canadian" is unneeded unless there's another politician as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fasa, FASA, FASA, &c.

Could someone take a look at the article Fasa on the Iranian city. The present hatnote is longer than the actual article. Is this an instance where creating a dab page, perhaps FASA (disambiguation), would be appropriate? Aramgar (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Will take a little juggling, though will get it done soon. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I put the corporation back at FASA. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it confusing having Fasa and FASA and relying on case to separate the two? As the proper name of the company is FASA Corporation, and there were numerous references to the latter, it seemed to me appropriate to have that as the primary reference for the company. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alf Bentley

I would appreciate thoughts on how the two Alf Bentleys should be disambiguated. They were at Alf Bentley (footballer born 1887) and Alf Bentley (footballer born 1931), but have been moved to Alf Bentley (1887–1940) and Alf Bentley (1931–1996) respectively, with the reasoning that "footballer" does nothing to disambiguate (since both are footballers) and that both years of death are known. However a talk item at WT:FOOTY suggests moving them back to the original names. Note - there's also Alfred Mulock Bentley, but I guess he should only be considered in terms of the Alfred Bentley dab page. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess my questions are a) should we add "footballer", to anticipate the creation of Alf Bentley (some other profession) and b) should the dates of death be included if both are non-living?. Or, as an alternative, could we go with Alf Bentley (forward) and Alf Bentley (goalkeeper)? --Jameboy (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

First, IMO, it doesn't matter too much as people will not be guessing what the words should be. They'll only see them when they have found the right page or from the dab page (where there will be more words to help them). That said, something that helps the reader recognize "this is the one" would be best: forward and goalkeeper would make sense to me. (John User:Jwy talk) 08:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The names of the footballer articles and how they're disambiguated is a call for WP:FOOTY, I think. Different projects have different ways of preferred disambiguation phrasing in article titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

DABs with only one link

Ok, I'm being really lazy asking here instead of looking it up, but doesn't it require there be more than one article for a DAB to link to? I have the page DISD in mind in particular, which DABs to Dallas Independent School District, among no others. And when I say I'm being lazy, I mean, I don't know how to fix it, if I should fix it, and I'm not going to find out. But if it needs to be fixed, maybe someone else will fix it. (hint hint) ;) Eaglizard (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If it had been the only use of DISD, I'd have made it into a redirect. But as there are half a dozen or so others, I'll add them to the dab page (found them by doing a search for DISD). PamD (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Though now I look at it, the previous version was quite neat - there are at present no uses of DISD other than many of the Texas "D... Independent School District"s, and I think it's probably quite random whether or not DISD is used in any one article, as I suspect they are all locally called DISD, so the original idea (16 May 2007 "link to List of school districts in Texas to prevent redundant list") was probably sensible, in an IAR sort of way! I think I will now go back to that, perhaps wording it more clearly. PamD (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's not going to list them out, because that would be redundant (although redundancy is often okay in navigational pages), it might as well go ahead and redirect to the list section, to save the reader time. So edited. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clearer for the reader to explain why we're pointing to that list, so have reverted. Anyone else got a view? PamD (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be a soft redirect. It's not a disambiguation page unless it's disambiguating articles. Another solution would be to make letter subpages on the list article, and have them transcluded in the list and then in each of the AISD, BISD, CISD, etc. page. Avoids duplicated effort, if that's the goal of not having a proper dab page there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Founder and Founders

I am guessing that these two pages Founder and Founders should be merged and displayed as the one disambig page. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes plural and singular forms are combined, and sometimes they aren't. These are short enough to be merged if you think it's beneficial. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Template request

I know we are not supposed to have disam pages for dicdefs, but I think there is room for a few exceptions, Inshore, Ensure and Insure for example. If we accept that position, then I think we need a {{Homonym}} (or {{Homophone disambiguation}} if we want to be really pedantic!) disam template. I would put one together if I had the skills, but I don't. Any takers? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Greater use of Special:PrefixIndex/ and Special:Search?search=intitle:

I would like to start the discussion about greater inclusion of the Special:PrefixIndex/ {aka {{lookfrom}} and Special:Search?search=intitle: {{intitle}} on disambiguation pages.

I am seeing more and more the addition of general terms onto disambiguation pages, where they add a term that includes the keyword, though it is not a disambiguation, as the full phrase does not need disambiguation. I think that this is that people are often unsuccessful in searches, and do not have a ready means to more easily find something, or know the correct means to search to isolate their result. I would like to propose that in a SEE ALSO section of many (all?) of our disambiguation pages that we consider adding both or one of the links

{{lookfrom|TERM}}	All pages with titles beginning with TERM
{{intitle|TERM}}	All pages with titles containing TERM

-- billinghurst (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think both of these form useful "See also" additions to many pages - most especially to (a) pages where the term being disambiguated is a geographical term so can have many organisations, sports teams, banks, etc which start with it, and (b) terms which can be used as a forename. PamD (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like using the templates also, especially in the cases PamD identifies. However, some care is needed to avoid reflexively removing items simply because the article title has a particular form (often precisely for the purpose of disambiguation). If an item is commonly known as simply the base term (or could reasonably be confused for the term), it should be listed on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting modifying the content needed on the page to disambiguate. I am looking to a means to get over the hurdle like with Hungarian and the resultant List of ... page. I was looking for a ready, convenient, and more standard means for assisting people find things from the disambig pages. Something we can write into the guidance for disambig pages. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that you were -- however, despite best intentions, guidelines are sometimes interpreted in ways that are in stark variance with the original intentions. older ≠ wiser 14:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Empire Builder

Someone has requested Empire Builder be moved to Empire Builder (Amtrak), and then to turn Empire Builder into a disambiguation page. Please see Talk:Empire Builder --Tesscass (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Kabarovsk

I have started a discussion on Khabarovsk being renamed Khabarovsk (city). speednat (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Template Issues

Hi,

I'm having some difficulties with DAB links in templates. I fixed a link to the Punjab DAB a couple of days ago in template:Airports in India but I'm still getting some Indian Airport articles listed on What links here for Punjab. I can't find any Punjab links on the pages. Is it just taking a while for the change to filter through all the articles?

I'm also hoping that someone's familiar with template syntax. I think there may be a problem with template:Infobox Indian Jurisdiction. I asked WikiProject:India for help and one of their members altered the template so that the links in the infobox to Punjab direct to Punjab (India) rather than the DAB page. But for some reason they're still showing in What links here for the DAB page. Is this a time issue as well? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly remnant memory, see Help:Dummy edit. Force a save without making changes and see whether it disappears, if yes, that is the issue. If you are disambiguating with something like AWB this becomes really easy. These remnants disappear in time. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This does appear to be a problem at present. See the recent additions to the thread at WT:Disambiguation pages with links#Template changes slow to propagate? too. AWB doesn't help for me, because it sees the link as corrected so I'm just prompted to ignore the page. IS there a trick I'm missing? --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Turn off SKIP? In AWB I sometimes separately call up the pages that link to the template and save each page in turn. Crude though effective when you are doing other things. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The forced save seems to sort it. Thanks : ) Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

At the thread AndrewHowse mentioned, here, I posted a workaround. In short: off Wikipedia, in a text editor use sort and diff tools to filter out all the transcluded articles, paste the resulting short list into a sandbox or preview, then use your favorite dab tool to fix articles on the short list. The transcluded "ghost" links remain on WhatLinksHere, but you can ignore them. --Una Smith (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic and bird of paradise

On Talk:Bird of paradise (disambiguation)#Requested move is a debate over which of two candidates, a bird family or a plant family, or neither, is the primary topic for Bird of paradise. --Una Smith (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

List building for general terms?

I regularly disambiguate Hungarian and due to its growing length and irrelevance to disambig took the axe to the plethora of Hungarian blahblah terms that had accumulated. I have place them on the talk page for the moment in the hope that someone will get miffed and build a List of terms using Hungarian . Has anyone seen something similar and point one out to me? Otherwise a recommendation of what to do with the morass of links. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To help people looking for such adjectival forms, you could include {{lookfrom|Hungarian}} and {{intitle|Hungarian}} in a see also section on the page. I agree with basic gist of your removals though. The page should only list subjects that are commonly known (or might be confused with) the precise term "Hungarian". older ≠ wiser 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC

I think most of the removed terms (except the Literature section) seem terms where "Hungarian" is a distinct variety of whatever the thing is, and in many cases will be more memorable than the whole name, so that someone may have a half-remembered "Hungarian missing years theory" when they want "Hungarian Calendar", etc, so that this list is a useful set of "See also" entries. Certainly it's useful to offer the "lookfrom" list, but I'd be happy to see the rest of the entries too, as harmless and potentially helpful. PamD (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To me, it depends on how many. If there are a lot, it makes it hard to find the things that clearly require disambiguation. I'm not sure about this case. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, only 4 terms were being used for Hungarian, and the other 20-30 or so were noise, which was a nuisance with the Disambig tools like PopUps or AWB. FWIW I created the page List of terms incorporating Hungarian to take all the extra links with {{SIA}}, and added a See Also hatnote. Nobody gave evident feedback on the naming of such a page, so I took a punt. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When disambiguating links, often I find it necessary to compile a list of the "usual suspects". And I expect other editors and readers would find the same list useful. See for example Weymouth and Enfield. The concept of a "set index page", as distinct from a disambiguation page, in many cases seems less than useful. Billinghurst's idea of "usual suspect" vs "noise", in contrast, is very useful, but I cannot think how to codify it. This is something that emerges from the work of disambiguating links. --Una Smith (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting end game too. I pulled the page separately, and in the end it was nominated for deletion and instead has been put designated to be transwiki'd. Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms incorporating Hungarian. In the end, I simply recommend that as a practical measure that we paste the beasts to the Talk Page, and leave them there annotated as why they have been moved. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity that no-one alerted this list to that discussion. I don't see what your problem is with having many of these terms as "See also" within the "Hungarian" dab page. Most of them strike me as terms where someone might well remember the word "Hungarian" but not the precise word which follows (looking for Hungarian hound as Hungarian dog, perhaps). The argument that this "noise" is "a nuisance with the Disambig tools like PopUps or AWB" is irrelevant, surely: Wikipedia is written for readers, not editors. Lists of terms like these are potentially useful, and harmless in a "see also" section of a well-structured dab page, where the more specific diambiguations are more prominent (ie come first). PamD (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have expected Hungarian hound to be a "usual suspect", but linked to Hungarian by virtue of being coded [[Hungarian]] [[dog]]. --Una Smith (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Una, I don't understand what you're saying. Do you mean it would be on the Hungarian dab page, or what? PamD (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that if I found links to Hungarian that intended Hungarian hound, then I would include Hungarian hound on the dab page Hungarian. --Una Smith (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But dab pages aren't just there to mop up undisambiguated links: they're also for the reader who inputs the term they want and hits "Go". So if someone finds there isn't an article on "Hungarian dog" then they might well look at the "Hungarian" dab page and find "Hungarian hound". PamD (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re But dab pages aren't just there to mop up undisambiguated links, of course not. I do properly disambiguate incoming links. What I am saying is I use those links to guide what I put on the dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

languages

In disambig pages such as French, German, Italian, etc etc, I think the language is the overwhelmingly most likely thing for people to be searching for when they type these terms. This is because a term such as "French" by itself can be a noun referring to the language, but the word by itself isn't a complete phrase synonymous with most of the other titles. (At the very least it would have to be "the French" for French people.) So I suggest putting the language in bold on all of these disambig pages, to make it quick to find the most popular option, particularly as some of these disambig pages are now quite long. NB I am not necessarily suggesting always putting them at the top of the list, as sometimes the definition refers back to a country mentioned in a previous item. — Alan^✉ 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly a likely target, but so is nationality. Consider 'Pierre Leblanc is a [[French]] [[football]] [[player]]'. So that raises the question of where to draw the popularity line. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to make a global statement about it. Why "codify it." If it is the overwhelmingly most likely, make it the primary target. Is there a particular page you think is a problem? If your term is one of a few "top hits," put it near the top. Also, links from Wikipedia, as in the Pierre Leblanc item ,are not really relevant here - or not strongly so. What wikilinks in may or may not match up with what people will use in the Search box, which is what we are most interested in helping out with. The links can be piped to the proper article. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think French is great as it is - German and Italian, in my opinion, have a lot of links that are not appropriate for a dab page. reduce them and you reduce the problem you are trying to solve. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I won't change anything if others are broadly happy with how it is at the moment. But on a slightly more general point, it would be very interesting if there are access stats available with HTTP-referer URL (at least as regards internal referers from other Wikipedia pages), so as to see what wikilinks people actually follow. This would be very useful for informing the discussion about what best to put on disambig pages. Anyone know about this? Thanks, — Alan^✉ 19:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lebrón, etc.

Lebrón (with accent) is a dab page, not just for Lebróns, but also for LeBron James and others. But Lebron (no accent) redirects to LeBron James. Is James *so* famous that I should just put a "for" header on his page, or should Lebron instead redirect to the existing dab page? For that matter, should the primary dab page be with or without the accent? (LeBron also redirects to James, but that seems fine.) Ma^t_chups 17:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say the dab page should be called either Lebron or (if Mr James really is primary) Lebron (disambiguation). Then Lebrón should redirect to there.--Kotniski (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that just over 60% of the ghits for "Lebron" are for "LeBron James." Is there a guideline that will tell me whether that is enough for him to be considered primary and the dab page require an explicit "(disambiguation)" in the title? Ma^t_chups 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the hatnote in LeBron James for now. But I think it would be better if Lebron is the dab page and not a redirect because typing "Lebrón" isn't that easy, and it is logical to assume people may be looking for one of the other Lebrons. LeBron, on the other hand, should still rerdirect to LeBron James. --Tesscass (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Crystal (disambiguation)

I found this to be a rather questionable edit. Any thoughts on how to deal with situations like these? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD. I reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian McCann

This search term currently leads to a disambiguation page with only two people on it, one a minor actor from Late Night with Conan O'Brien, and the other a much more notable major league baseball player. Is it possible to remove the disambiguation page to have the search term go directly to Brian McCann (baseball) while keeping the statement at the top of McCann (baseball)'s page that mentions the actor? Atlantabravz (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current scheme of going to a disambiguation page? There will only be more Brian McCann's, and the primary use for any non-American is hardly likely to be the baseballer of that name. Hardly seems worth the move. If you are committed to a move, run it through the process of a contest move and start reading at WP:MOVE -- billinghurst (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that if one of them is the primary topic, it should be at the base name. The existence of other Wikipedia articles in the future does not mean that there will be no primary topic in the future. Non-Americans are hardly likely to find the minor actor "primary-er" than the baseball player. Hardly seems worth objecting to the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, objecting to it because traffic stats indicate that more people visit the actor page than the baseball player page seems perfectly reasonable. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not sure what the traffic stats are, so maybe you can tell me. I did just assume, whether wrong to do so or not, that the baseball player is more notable and more searched. I mean, I'm a fan of both the Braves and Conan O'Brien and I never knew the minor actor's name until I was looking up the baseball player's page on here. Atlantabravz (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Some 1400 hits for the baseball player vs. some 1500 hits for the actor, in January. There's a link to a page that will run page hits for you, at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is predicated that one of them is a primary topic. The text says well-known primary topic and I would propose that well-known is something that is considered on a worldwide basis, not the context of a domestic sportsman nor minor actor. If next week there is Brian McCann, President of Ireland, do we then move out the old Brian McCann, and move in the new? I am against a move where the reasoning seems to be to gain primacy. I would hope for a demonstration that there is a requirement for the move and that the existing naming isn't working. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There's no strong case here for changing the status quo. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

New parameters

The new parameters for {{disambig}} are now active (see the template documentation for details). For example, on a dab page that includes multiple geographic items AND other items, you can use {{disambig|geo}} to put the page in both categories.--Kotniski (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hndis-cleanup

The {{Hndis-cleanup}} template still uses the old ambox placed at the bottom, rather than the note in the as used in the {{Disambig-cleanup}} template. I reckon it should also be moved over to the new style, not least because it's sat on a hatbox. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. So I did a major cleanup of {{hndis-cleanup}}. I moved the cleanup text and cleanup broom image into the disambig box, just like in {{disambig-cleanup}}. Gave it the new better "whatlinkshere" link that only lists articles. Made so it only categorises when in main (article) space. Made so it correctly handles the "name=" parameter, that is when "name=" is empty but defined it instead sorts on the actual page name. And removed Category:All disambiguation pages since that one is now inserted by {{dmbox}}, which all these disambig boxes uses. And extended the documentation.

And I applied some of these fixes to {{hndis}} too.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. There now seems to be a category sort problem with some of the disambig templates. I think it is my fault since I reworked the categorising code of several disambig templates earlier today. And I think I know what the problem is (category sort keys perhaps may not have whitespace around them).

I just wanted to note that I am on it and will run tests and fix it. So the rest of you don't need to spend work on it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my tests show that we still can not have whitespace around category sort keys. So I have now fixed my mistake in these templates. Now we just have to wait for the pages in Category:Human name disambiguation pages to re-sort. Since MediaWiki runs that as a low priority job that can take anywhere from some minutes to two weeks depending on how busy the servers are.

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Foo School, Foo High School, Foo Primary School, etc.

I've had a search through the archives but can't find anything specifically relating to this issue -- for every Foo School there is nearly always another use of the name in another school as Foo High School, Foo Grammar School, Foo Girls' School etc... should these be combined?

For example, I've been working on cleanup for St. Mary's School disambiguation page... but there is also a separate dab page for St. Mary's Primary School, St. Mary's College (where college may mean higher education or elementary school or anything in between), St. Mary's Academy (ditto), etc., and each of these schools will often just be known as "St Mary's School" anyway. I'd be inclined to combine these dab pages and list all the schools equally in St. Mary's School. Anyone else have any thoughts or pointers on this? Fattonyni (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See also St. Mary's Secondary School, I'm sure there are more... Fattonyni (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And watch out for St Mary's School, Foo, ie without the full stop after the "St"! PamD (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bunch of systems of related dab pages like this, because i do a lot of work on U.S. NRHP sites that often have similar names (lots of places named U.S. Post Office, or First Baptist Church, or etc.). I see at least 3 options. (1) In some sets of similarly named places, there is one clearly most common name. For those, I think it makes sense to make one big dab page listing all of the places (say at "St. Mary's School", and yet also have smaller dab pages with duplicated entries for subsets having less-common variations (say at "St. Mary's Catholic School" and "St. Mary's Academy"). Each dab page in this system should have a See Also section with links to the other dab pages. (2) In some other sets of similarly named places, there is no obviously more common name, so I may create a system of small dab pages without duplication of entries, with See Also sections referring to the other variations. (3) Or, when there are somewhat fewer in total, I may include them all in one page, with redirects from each of the alternative names to this one page, and start of the page with a sentence like "St. Mary's School, and variations such as blah, blah, and blah, may refer to:". I hope this helps. doncram (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. There was a long discussion of NRHP disambiguation, archived now in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 13, in which WikiProject Disambig people helped work out some complicated advice that i have since followed. But that mostly covered how to create a single dab page containing a bunch of NRHP entries, with and without existing articles, and did not focus on designing systems of dab pages. I think i've done a lot of inventing and/or doing what seems to make sense to me, for that. doncram (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge Gutenberg, Gutenburg, Guttenberg

I suggest that it might be a good idea to merge these three pages:

• Gutenberg
• Gutenburg
• Guttenberg

(and any other variations that I've missed) into a single page covering all of them (one section per spelling), with redirects from all spelling variations pointing to that one page. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

*There's only one use of Gutenburg, the Swiss village at Gutenburg, Switzerland. So the question is, how much do we cater for mis-spellings? I suggest one of two options:

1. Gutenburg redirects to the village, with hatnote pointing to the 2 other dab pages
2. Gutenburg is a slightly eccentric (WP:IAR) dab page which points to the village and the 2 other dab pages

But we don't want to have a Gutenburg page which is just a duplicate of Gutenberg, as at present. I think Guttenberg is different enough to stand alone, with links to and from the other(s). PamD (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Aargh. I've just found Guttenburg, a ship. I think I'm now coming round to the idea of one grand dab page for all these 4 variants (and any more!). But there's the question whether any of the variants have primary usages: I suggest that we need to recognise the rights of people who spell it right by having Gutenburg go to the Swiss village and Guttenburg the ship, but should Gutenberg direct to Johannes Gutenberg with a "Redirect" hatnote to refer to Gutenberg (disambiguation) for all other versions? I think probably so. I don't see a primary usage for Guttenberg. PamD (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

intitle search - useful tool for dab page construction, especially hndis pages

In case you haven't found it, there's a useful new facility in "Search": if you input "intitle:fooforename foosurname" you get all the articles with those two words in the title (ie including "fooforename initials foosurname", "fooforename foosurname (disambiguator)", etc), with much less noise of other articles than if you just do a plain search. Can be useful in finding entries which below on a {{hndis}} page. PamD (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also the {{intitle}} template, which makes use of this function and can be used in See Also lists (as mentioned at WP:MOSDAB).--Kotniski (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Greene

Not sure if this is the right place but I'm considering moving Maurice Greene (athlete) to the main namespace and adding a hatnote for Maurice Greene (composer). Does anyone disagree? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not obvious that either of them is Primary Usage - current situation seems fine. PamD (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree with move, I'm with PamD. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

California Love (disambiguation)

You know, I really fail to see why a dab page needs to exist. Some hatnoting can solve this. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, though I call it good faith ignorance rather than anything else. One has to even think notability here too. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources?

What's the guideline for including citations in disambig pages? An editor has included cites in (some of) the entries at American, but I fear this has disfigured the page and made it harder to navigate. He's cited nothing that's not found in any dictionary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are NOT article pages, so in that regard should not need references. Referencing would be on appropriate article pages. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion on Talk:American. Yes, Billinghurst has stated the general rule correctly, but this one has good reason to be an exception. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree, I don't think breaking the standard by sourcing a few of the definitions does any service to the reader. But that article is the place for discussion, so please let's weigh in there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Unusual approach - any views?

William Poole has a hatnote leading to William Poole (disambiguation), which is a redirect to Poole (surname) (which includes a good handful of Williams, way down the list). Is this an acceptable way of doing, or should there be separate dab pages for "William Poole" and similar shared names? PamD (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say: keep Poole Surname as is but populate the William Poole dab article with William Pooles. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Double redirect are not meant to exist, so I would agree with Sillyfolkboy, though would consider having one William Poole reference (rather than multiples) on the surname page pointing at the William Poole Dab page. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's my inclination - to copy the Williams from the general list into a dab page, and link to it from the general page. If we leave the full list in both places, then new entries will be added randomly to one or the other: a link to dab page makes it obvious where they go. Will do it. PamD (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rappaport

Rappaport is a strange page, doubling as an article about the name and as a disambiguation page for people with the name. What should be done about it? Shreevatsa (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't pretend to be an official dab page. It seems like a "messy" surname page. Maybe drop the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy a note? (John User:Jwy talk) 19:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

But we do need a dab page for people searching for a person named "Rapaport", right? (That's how I got there in the first place... I don't remember which one I was looking for.) Should Rappaport (disambiguation) be created? Shreevatsa (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the name stuff should be put in a new Rappaport (name) page, leaving the existing page as the disambig page. I left a note for the folks over at WT:WikiProject Anthroponymy. – ukexpat (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding style of DAB entries.

Discussion of the appropriate form of a disambiguation entry for items appearing within other articles is occurring at Talk:Morion. --Rogerb67 (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Prefer the redirect that matches the dab phrase when available. I made the edit there and commented on the talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have a question. If such a redirect does not exist, one can always be made. Is that what should happen? As I read the manual of style, the intention is that the only redirects that should be used are those that are are alternative titles and bolded in the lead, and those close to the title of a section likely to become a separate article. As I see it, this does not apply in this case because "Morion" is not in the relevant section's title, and an article "MV Morion" seems unlikely. I am asking this for clarification, so that I understand this going forward. --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As a further concrete example, would you say the link TIE Avenger, which links to TIE fighter#Other TIE craft, which has the briefest mention of the TIE Avenger, is suitable for use on DAB pages? --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Any redirect except for "redirects from misspelling" and similar are suitable for use on Wikipedia, including on disambiguation pages where the linked article or topic is in need of disambiguation. Which dab page is TIE Avenger an issue on? I have created redirects where they seem useful in order to include them on dab pages; I have also not create redirects when they didn't seem particularly useful. Presence in a section title is not required; I don't remember that being in the intention of the guidelines at least. There are two separate possible issues:

• The entry shouldn't be on the dab page at all.
• The redirect shouldn't exist.

The first is a topic of discussion for the dab page's Talk page. The second is a topic of discussion for WP:RFD. If the matching redirect exists and the entry on the dab page should be included, then the redirect should be used. The only remaining point of discussion can arise when the "matching-ness" of the redirect is in question. And I've seen that come up a few times before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

From WP:MOSDAB#Where redirecting may be appropriate: "A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article only if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. This indicates a higher possibility that the topic may eventually have its own article." (emphasis mine). Surely this clearly shows an intention in the guidelines? While MV Morion may be debatable (the section is about the ship later named Morion), it seems to me TIE Avenger clearly fails these criteria. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I do recall some discussion around that, and it seemed to me to be more needlessly restrictive. I've had several wikibreaks from dabbing, too. So perhaps one of the other dab project members may care to chime in? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just from generic principles: Redirects and dab pages are both there to help navigation. A redirect guarantees very little: someone might have wanted to search for or link to this article under this name. Disambiguation pages are supposed to do much more: they should list "articles" with significant coverage of the topic and have one navigable link per topic. They are supposed to be immediate, clear sign posts to the right article. I would say not to include a redirect if the topic is unlikely to get proper coverage, and would suggest comparing it to the policy on allowing red-links on dab pages: they are fine if (real) articles already include those red-links (and intend the same topic). If the redir is reasonable to use in other mainspace articles, then it is probably fine for a dab page.

More specifically: I think "TIE Avenger" is probably not worth putting on an Avenger (disambiguation) page, since the target article does not and probably will not ever adequately discuss this specific model. I might compare it to redirects for fictional characters who are not discussed on the page they redirect to. "MV Morion" seems fine to me; it is one of the names of the ship for which the section is about. It is bad for navigation that "MV Morion" is not more prominent in the target, and so Rogerb67 was very right to be cautious about it. However, as far as which link to use, "MV Morion" seems best. I think "formerly Empire Fang" on the dab page adequately prepares the reader for the surprising section heading.

I am very happy to see that the three of you achieved consensus already, but thought you might like more support. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:All disambiguation pages

There is now a discussion about how the disambig, set index and name boxes should categorise pages. See the discussion over at Template talk:Dmbox#Category:All disambiguation pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bilayer

Hi, me again. Could someone turn this into a proper disambig page? Thanks.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What are the ambiguous Wikipedia articles? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I thought the "see also" links were more detailed. There's the lipid bilayer, as well as a wide array of junctions in solid states physics. Specifically metal-semiconductor junctions (or Schottky diodes), metal-metal junctions, semiconductor-semiconductor junctions (or p-n junctions), and metal-oxide junctions which are often referred to as bilayers of metals/semiconductors/oxides.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the articles metal-semiconductor junction, Schottky diode, or p-n junction mention "bilayer", so there does not appear to be any ambiguity yet. The information on "bilayer" should be added to the articles first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

See [1] for examples. The "bilayer" info shouldn't be in articles first, that WP:BURO at its worse. Bilayer is a plausible search term for any type of material-material junctions (pick from any metal, oxide, insulator, semiconductor, etc... each combination form a different type of diodes). That these articles do not yet contain the term bilayer is irrelevant. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read this project's page. Disambiguation pages are for disambiguating ambiguous Wikipedia articles, not for listing all articles that might be tangentially associated with a search phrase or for disambiguating scholar.google.ca results. Declining to turn the stub article bilayer into a directory or dictionary is not bureaucracy. Insisting that you're right and that the project's guidelines are irrelevant is going to be counterproductive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll do it myself then.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)