Template talk:One other topic

History
The discussion which led to the creation of this template can be found here Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote/Archive_3. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding entries or removing DABs
Currently, this template's focus seems to be on adding entries to the DAB page, however in my experience DAB pages tend to suffer far more from over-zealous adding of WP:DABNOT entries. "Helping" with a DAB page is rarely searching for new entries, since that often just expands the page with irrelevant cruft.

Further, the wording is wrong about deletion – in some circumstances (namely where the title doesn't contain "(disambiguation)" the correct action would be to replace the DAB page with a redirect, not delete it.

Thus I propose changing from this...


 * This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. Please help by [ editing the page] to expand it with additional topics to which the title can refer. If no other topics can be found within a reasonable time, the disambiguation page may be deleted.
 * Also consider adding the look from and in title templates to assist searches for the term in other articles' titles.

...to this...


 * This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. If there are no other topics to which this title can refer, this page may be deleted or replaced with a redirect to the primary topic.
 * If a reader may come to this page when looking for some other article, please [ add that article to this page]. Also consider adding look from and in title templates to assist searches for the term in other articles' titles.

Any thoughts or objections?

—me_and 10:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree; the problem that led to the genesis of this template was very serious topics like Sexual harassment being hatnoted with trivial "See also Sexual harassment (The Office episode" which several, including myself, found distracting. This template was a sort of compromise, to allow two-dab dab pages, and give other editors time to expand them. I don't think it's a question of cruft, it's a question of whether there are legitimate other disambiguators that can be used here. I'm fine with the "may be deleted or replaced with a redirect to the primary topic" bit, but its a bit of an edge case, because if there was a determined primary topic, it should already be at the non dab'd title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen a few cases where there's a primary topic, and a disambiguation page at a similar name. For example Sephiroth used to disambiguate between Sephirot and Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), before it was replaced with a redirect. (Everyone was clear that there was a primary topic, but there was a lot of discussion about which was the primary topic...)
 * The reason I'm interested is ASOS; this disambiguates between Automated Surface Observing System and ASOS.com. I believe the latter is clearly the primary topic, and as such ASOS should redirect to ASOS.com with a hat note to Automated Surface Observing System. There's currently discussion about whether that's the right thing to do, but in any case, I'd like to flag on the DAB page that its current state is (probably) temporary. This template would be the obvious one to use but I think currently has the wrong focus.
 * That all being said, I agree that the current wording is entirely appropriate and sensible for the cases you're talking about, and that it's useful to have this template for those cases.
 * I think the two situations about are sufficiently different that trying to use the same template for them doesn't really make sense. And the case I'm talking about is probably sufficiently rare that it's not worth making a template for at all. So I think it'll just be a case of living with the current situation and doing nothing.
 * —me_and 17:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, I don't think you need the template frankly. It is optional - I'd just do the hatnote. This template really was intended as a compromise solution in those cases where a "trivial" redirect in the hat was considered less optimal for the reader.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem
I think this template has a problem. It says that one subject is the primary and the other secondary? Is there any reason to assume this is always the case? Debresser (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's because the disambiguation page is at divine soul (disambiguation) and not divine soul, it is assumed that divine soul is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That can be changed, but it would require a couple page moves. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked a general question.
 * Regarding that article. This edit, with the edit summary "moved Divine soul to Divine soul (disambiguation): There is a primary topic" seems to agree with you. I also think that "Divine soul" is the primary topic, and would be fine with whatever change is needed. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was easier to explain with an example, but this would be the case with any such disambiguation. Cheers, -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't always have to be so. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec), what is the problem you see with this template? The use case is limited, almost by definition. If there is more than one topic other than the primary topic, the template is not applicable. Similarly, if there are only two topics with neither as primary topic, the template doesn't apply. Perhaps the template name is a little misleading in the latter case, but I've no ideas for a better name. In cases where there is no primary topic, there is no fundamental concern with the disambiguation page. An issue only arises when there is a primary topic and only one other ambiguous topic. Such cases can be addressed by a hatnote and the existence of a separate disambiguation page is questionable. older ≠ wiser 21:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is indeed the misleading name in the case there is no primary topic which is what I perceive as problematic with this template, or more precisely with its title. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Encourages partial title matches
This template encourages editors to add partial title matches to dab pages.

I suggest we remove the last line:

"... Also consider adding the look from and in title templates to assist searches for the term in other articles' titles."

The problem is that these templates are search tools. Dab pages are not search indexes. As per WP:PARTIAL, only ambiguous terms are supposed to be in dab pages. This problem is especially prevalent with lists of people added to dab pages, but it's true for many other entries as well.

Dab pages are navigational aids for people looking up articles on ambiguous terms. They are not search indexes for all articles containing a term.

As per the Disambiguation Dos and Don'ts, editors are not supposed to "include every article containing the title." The template basically guides editors to do just that.

If this template includes guidance about search for pages to add to the dab page, it should also include clear guidance to avoid adding partial name matches for articles that do not have ambiguous titles. Coastside (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The /doc suggests that editors add the templates to the dab page for the reader's use per MOS:DABNOENTRY. If it were to suggest that editors use look from and in title to find PTMs and then add those PTMs explicitly to the dab, that would be wrong, but I don't think it's giving that advice. Certes (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see where in the /doc it refers to MOS:DABNOENTRY or to WP:PARTIAL. Even if it did, the banner itself encourages adding articles based on the search templates without any advice on avoiding PTMs. The banner gives advice that can be easily misinterpreted by editors who don't understand these policies. Coastside (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The doc doesn't mention MOS:DABNOENTRY or WP:PARTIAL, but I think they're all in agreement. Perhaps the banner could be clarified by referring to them. Certes (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can edit the banner, and even the doc, but I wanted to request additional input before I went ahead and did that. Unless I hear pushback, I'll propose something here and then make the changes if there is consensus. Coastside (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If this template really does lead to PTM entries, I don't think the solution is to remove the last sentence, but to address the point directly and add a reiteration of WP:PARTIAL. look from and in title appear at the bottom of many dabs – if this template encourages a PTM mindset, then so do those two. (I'm not saying they don't, but if they do, this isn't the right place to address it.) — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 18:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How about the following:

"This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. Please [ expand it] by adding additional topics to which the title can refer. However, please be sure to follow Wikipedia policy for disambiguation page entries, including policy on entries that should not be included. If no other ambiguous topics can be found within a reasonable time, the disambiguation page might be deleted. Also consider adding the look from and in title templates in the See also section of the disambiguation page to assist searches for the term in article titles that aren't ambiguous and therefore not included in the page." Coastside (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You know what? On seeing how much that lengthens the template, I'm starting to feel ok with dropping the last sentence after all. Not that it encourages PTM per se, it just doesn't seem important enough to mention here. Your new text is good. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 19:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's see if we get some additional input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastside (talk • contribs) 21:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing the last sentence, for the reasons originally posted. It just encourages keeping non-beneficial dab pages. The longer text seems unnecessarily detailed and potentially confusing. Station1 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion on whether the use of intitle or lookfrom should be encouraged in this context, but these two templates, annoying though they might sometimes be, can be useful to readers: there might be relevant articles that are not listed on the dab page (there are at least 14,000 dab pages with missing entries that we currently know of, and it's likely there might be twice as many that we can't track yet.) – Uanfala (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the usefulness of these templates, especially in set index articles where relevant titles may not be included in the list. For example, look from is very helfpul in finding people with a specific given name. The problem here is that it encourages fleshing out a dab page inappropriately (such as when it might be better to delete the dab altogether). Coastside (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, dust seems to have settled. I'm tempted suggest we reached a consensus to delete the last sentence. Here's my suggestiong with a few additional tweaks:

"This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. Please expand it by adding additional topics to which the title refers, being sure to follow MOS guidelines. If no other topics can be found within a reasonable time, the disambiguation page might be deleted.

Coastside (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

reverted change
I changed the notice in this template as per the discussion above on this talk page, and I explained the reason for the change. You reverted it, and your explanation only mentioned "fixing duplicate args CAT:DUPARG" which doesn't address the concensus discussion. Can you please explain in more detail why you made this revert? Coastside (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The change accidentally left a }} with no matching {{, which had the side effect of moving two date parameters into the same template, raising "duplicate argument" errors. I think I've fixed it. Certes (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thank you for fixing it.Coastside (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)