Template talk:Set index article/Archive 2

Template edit request
Could someone please add "mathematics" to the types of set index articles, linking to Category:Set indices on mathematics. Thanks, r.e.b. (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --- what sort of math articles do you think are SIAs and not dabs? They would have to be math concepts or theories with the same name but multiple meanings. —hike395 (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Category:Set indices on mathematics now has a few examples of such math articles if you want to see what they are like. r.e.b. (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice. I think Irreducibility (mathematics) is a good example of an SIA. —hike395 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 March 2016
I would like to add "rivers" as a group of set indices, linking to Category:Set indices on rivers, so that one could simply write and have the page added to this category. Thanks and cheers

LittleWink (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. If you need any help, let me know. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Sandboxing such a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Set_index_article&diff=592541240&oldid=591260612 small change]? Anyways, I applied my edit request to the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASet_index_article%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=707924156&oldid=707923970 sandbox]. LittleWink (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . Sorry, not familiar with this template. Safer this way. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my mistake, but the 'mathematics' code vanished from this template. Can you re-insert that, see the sandbox. LittleWink (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added it back &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Current template makes it unnecessarily difficult to add new sort keys
Will someone please generate revised code that allows this template to place articles with into Category:Set indices on ? The SIA category tree is woefully underpopulated, because right now, automatically adding SIA's to a new category requires either developing and requesting an edit to this protected template, or creating a whole new template. — swpb T 14:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Add DISAMBIG
Per mw:Extension:Disambiguator, please add __DISAMBIG__ somewhere in the template text so that the pages are correctly identified as disambiguation pages. I've checked Special:ExpandTemplates and the current revision of this template is not including the required magic word. Nemo 14:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Set index articles does say that this template is used on pages that are not disambiguations. Now, I do think there could be a difference between a disambiguation in this sense and a disambiguation in this sense but I'd like a second opinion - also whether other templates need to be altered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, set index pages are deliberately not considered as disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; SIAs are much more flexible in their formats than disambiguation pages, allowing images, multiple wikilinks per line if appropriate, etc. They are a subset of list articles, not a subset of disambiguation pages. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Switch aliases
Could we add some aliases for the switch "animalia"? The following ones I've found in the wild: insects, fish, birds. We can fix those when we encounter them, but due to similar switches on related templates (e.g. "fish" for Disambiguation) editors will keep confusing those. Seems like a simple, non-controversial fix? Thanks. --Azertus (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea, but I think most of the cases where the animalia switch is being used with this template should be changed to use the Animal common name template instead. And that template could perhaps take switches for different kinds of animals. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur. It's better to be more precise than to make imprecision easier.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that's a better solution! --Azertus (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Saints switch
I've requested some input from the folks over at WP:SNT about possibly adding a Saints switch to the template. --Azertus (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got the impression Talk pages for WikiProjects aren't that well-monitored. Are there any objections/thoughts on here about adding a switch  (or Saints?) to place articles in the category Set indices on Saints? There's a bunch of articles (about 10) that could use the switch currently in Wikipedia disambig or set index box parameter needs fixing. --Azertus (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

add ancient Greece and ancient Rome
There are many set indices about people from ancient Greece and Rome incorrectly added to the sub-categories of Category:Articles about multiple people. I propose two new switches, "ancient Greece" and "ancient Rome", to add articles to the respective categories Category:Set indices on ancient Greece and Category:Set indices on ancient Rome (to be created). Thanks. --Azertus (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Would these categories be used just for people? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I imagine people would comprise the lion's share of the articles in this category, but there may be exceptions. Are you thinking of using Greeks/Romans in the name instead? I haven't yet encountered an article that belonged here and wasn't a person, but maybe we shouldn't needlessly narrow the scope of the category? --Azertus (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking that perhaps the category should be narrower, but I don't have a strong opinion. However, I see that "Greek mythology" already exists as a possibility, adding to Category:Set indices on Greek mythology. So I'd like to be clear how the "ancient Greece" category would be distinguished. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It seems like there's some dispute about the category tree created by this move. Feel free to discuss further, but I'm going to close this until a consensus about exactly which categories are going to be added/removed/etc. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead The difference should be that ancient Greeks/Greece are historical figures, while the other are mythological subjects. In the articles I moved from Category:Articles about multiple people the difference has always been clear, with the exception of two where the article covered multiple mythological figures and at least one historical person. In those cases the article can manually be added to a second set index category (if at all), in addition to the one provided by the template. Those two are currently in Category:Set indices on ancient Greece. As an aside, I already created that category because I mistakenly assumed this edit request had gone through (and I forgot that I manually added the category to those articles).

To verify the need for these keys, refer to the difference between Category:Articles about multiple people in ancient Rome and Category:Articles about multiple people in ancient Greece‎. I've cleaned out all set indices from the latter category, leaving only "articles about multiple people", while the former is still full of articles that are really set indices. --Azertus (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't disputed the value of these keys, just what the categories created by them should be called. If a category is called "Set indices on ancient Greece", it would reasonably be expected to include Greek mythology as well. Surely the category should be "Set indices on historical figures in ancient Greece" or something like that? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense! I think your suggestion is spot-on. Do we wait for further input? --Azertus (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I reopen the edit-request for the switches "ancient Greece" and "ancient Rome" with the respective categories "Set indices on historical figures in ancient Greece" and "Set indices on historical figures in ancient Rome"? --Azertus (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion has gone stale; would you agree to create the switches as detailed above? --Azertus (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , just to double-check: are the #switch lines going to be  and , OR   and  ? Primefac (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * the former. The short terms as switch with the full description in the category name. Thanks! --Azertus (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Primefac (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like you forgot to include s, which caused these categories to show up on unrelated pages. Hopefully fixed now. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 5, 2016 ; 19:44 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 April 2017
Change  to

Reason: "Set index article" provides more depth, and the initial "Disambiguation" of the link part can be misleading to someone who just hovers over it with their mouse. It also would not be left at the mercy of the section title, because if the section is renamed the link won't take people to the section but the top of the page. This would be bad and misleading since the page is named "Disambiguation", defeating the whole point of the section, which is to say that set indices ≠ disambiguations! Sending readers to the page averts this risk. Thus, my suggestion would be better. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done They're both guidelines, so I don't see a problem; the rationale is also reasonable. Izno (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)