User:Dpleibovitz/sandbox/Converting disambiguation pages to broad-concept articles

Many disambiguation pages could (eventually) represent broad-concept articles as their primary topic, and this incremental conversion should be promoted and facilitated (especially to WikiGnomes). However, there are many different ways to recognize broadness and start this conversion, and Wikipedia is filled with haphazard attempts and fragmented guidelines (if any) that do not facilitate initiation nor completion.

In this draft proposal, relevant material is brought together and analyzed. Then, initial policy/guideline recommendations will be made. However, at this time, all ideas and commentary are welcome. Note that User:Dpleibovitz (a WikiGnome) is completely new at discussing and proposing with fellow editors, except on an individual article-by-article bases. Suggestions here are also welcomed.

Preliminaries
Terminological preliminaries...

Naming Conventions
This proposal is geared towards disambiguation pages with titles that look like Title X rather than Title X (disambiguation). The latter, if it exists, should redirect to the former (if its the primary topic) - although I've been supersized at times!

Types of Disambiguation
Discussions seem to suggest that there are two types of disambiguation entries. In this proposal, they are called

lexical disambiguation:   entries that help readers disambiguate based on similar spelling conceptual disambiguation: entries that help readers disambiguate based on similar concepts

While both of these affect the style of disambiguation pages, most of the guidelines appear geared for the lexical case. Where this becomes problematic will be highlighted. In both cases, a generalization of the disambiguation entries could represent a potential primary/broad-concept article.

Should Title X (disambiguation) pages should always be on the lexical/literal use (except for the first line linking to the primary topic)?

Background
This background is ordered by pages related to disambiguation and broad-concept articles, and to related templates and categories.

WP:Disambiguation
WP:Disambiguation is an editing guideline and the go to place for all things disambiguation. The lead says Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic. For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to a chemical element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things. The article does not distinguish between lexical and concept disambiguation types, but the example of Mercury is clearly lexical. In a later example, Thus, the history and development of the general concept of football can be explained in its own article. Football (disambiguation) describes the various literal uses of the word including the actual balls. So literal disambiguation would align with our lexical terminology???

WP:Disambiguation and WP:Disambiguation talk about how one ought to create the primary broad-concept article (in the first place) instead of a disambiguation page. In many cases, a disambiguation page is created first for two reasons, WP:Disambiguation does mention without offering guidelines - can anyone at any time add these tags?
 * 1) A broad concept article is hard to write, and WikiGnomes prefer the easy route - WP:BCA notes that editors often create disambiguation pages for such titles, even though there is an unambiguous meaning that can be discerned from the relationship between the listed topics.
 * 2) It might not be obvious that a disambiguation page represents a broad concept, until it has collected sufficient entries.

WP:Broad-concept article
WP:Broad-concept article should have more detail. However, it only states Pages needing to be expanded to describe the concept may be tagged with. Category:Broad-concept articles can be used for tracking. So two ways of going forward and no guidelines. See also.

Template:Broad-concept article
The usage notes in Template:Broad-concept article offer some info

Again, some technical guidelines, very little guidelines on when/how to use, nor how to slowly build up (by WikiGnomes) the disambiguation page so that it evolves into a broad scope article.

Template:Dabprimary
The template was created in 2011, copied into  on 2013, while the redirect  was created in 2017. The first four items in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Broad-concept article were nominated as on: Yet, none of these have yet been converted to a primary broad-concept article. I could have also looked in Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles
 * Peace process:
 * Maintenance:
 * Random number:
 * Splice:

Template:DabprimaryExpand
The use of is not indicated anywhere. It was created in 2015 and used in only 15 places,e.g., Importance. See also It seems spurious to as the discussion seems to indicate that it is to be used before the page has been converted to an article. I recommend it gets changed back to and that its category be removed.
 * Category:Former disambiguation pages converted to broad concept articles.
 * WT:Disambiguation pages with links/Archive 14 (2015)

But the discussion does highlight an issue about incoming links. If the incoming link is for a lexical disambiguation, then it should be disemboweled as current policy suggest - simply use the correct name. However, if the incoming link is to a broad concept article that has yet to be written, then perhaps the rules should be relaxed? Indeed, it is the growth of such links that can help a future editor create the broad concept article though the accumulation of minor WikiGnome changes.

Suggestion 1 (minor)
Not involved in your tools, but I assume there is a tool about such incoming links (say from X) to disambiguation pages (say D). However, for pages indicated by, the tool could recommend at least putting in a reverse link in the see also section (of D). Just an idea, but this allows for automating good from bad incoming links and helps improve the broadness by highlighting related articles. If the revers link does not fit into the conceptual disambiguation page, perhaps a commonly named section in its talk page (Talk:D) would be more appropriate, e.g., "Articles Explicitly Linking to Broad Concept".

Category:Broad-concept articles
The Category:Broad-concept articles was created in 2015 and must be manually added. For example:
 * Boolean: was so categorized to allow the addition of Category:Computer science(on the next update) by removing . However, as the Talk:Boolean still contains, my WP:Metadata gadget still indicates that Boolean is a disambiguation page. This page is still not written as a broad-concept article and does not use.

Many of my own disambiguation pages changes had been reverted because I added a category. I did not know that either of the above two options where available (if applicable)!

Suggestion 2 (major)
Allow c

Suggestion 2 (minor)
I am ambivalent about how this suggestion goes, but in general I don't like to see two different ways (or workaround) of doing things.
 * 1) Insist on only using  until the conceptual disambiguation page has been actually fully replaced by a broad-concept article.
 * 2) Merge Category:Broad-concept articles and Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles
 * 3) Allow such concept disambiguation pages to be categorized (and possibly allow incoming links). See XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Broad-concept categories
Broad concept articles are related to broad concept categories (my name), often those categories that don't have a main article, or suggest a wrong main article because the broad concept article does not exist. For example, Category:Scales says its about Scale (ratio) (from statistics), but lists many things that are not ratio scales (they could be interval or ordinal) and do not belong in statistics, e.g., music. PS. This is not a WP:CFD about any particular category.

WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages
MOS:DAB talks about genuine

WP:Disambiguation dos and don'ts
Disambiguation dos and don'ts WP:DDD has been used as a reason to revert changes on disambiguation pages. For lexical disambiguation, I agree with all guideline.

Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area
Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area

See also: Entries that are related to, but not ambiguous with, the page title, that might reasonably help readers find what they are looking for, such as misspellings, similar words, and search templates like,, and. Do not include every page that contains the ambiguous term. - the broadness becomes more clear, the distinction between similar and related becomes fuzzy - only an actual primary topic article could discern.

Suggestion 3
However, if the change attempted indicates that the disambiguation page should be converted to a primary/broad concept article, then these possibilities should also be shown., e.g., Do consider a primary/broad concept article linked to a conversion policy.

Help:Disambiguation
See also: Template messages for disambiguation and redirection but

Wikipedia: Template messages for disambiguation and redirection
Template messages for disambiguation and redirection list all disambiguation pages

Missing:

Includes non-disambiguation templates:

WikiProject Disambiguation
WT:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 41

Category:WikiProject Disambiguation
Category:WikiProject Disambiguation doesn't have new categories.

Category:Wikipedia disambiguation cleanup
Category:Wikipedia disambiguation cleanup

Category:Broad-concept article drafts
Category:Broad-concept article drafts - where is this described? Juxtaposition is no longer a draft!

Initial Comments/Suggestions
These are my initial comments and suggestions.

WP:Disambiguation/PrimaryTopicDefinition

Conceptual disambiguation articles actually become stubs
When a disambiguation page is marked as (having not yet being replaced by the primary/broad concept article), it reads like a stub. Let's treat it as one.

Nevertheless, it is too easy to use on any disambiguation page, and I suggest the following minimal protocol and effort, say on Article X.


 * 1) On Article X (to be converted from a lexical disambiguation page to a broad concept stub)
 * 2) * (Optional) first discuss the proposed primary/broad concept article on the talk page Talk:Article X. However, WikiGnomes prefer to be (slightly) bold, and like Yoda, just do...
 * 3) * Change the MOS:LEAD to clearly indicate the primary/broad scope article. It should not be assumed from the disambiguation entries.
 * 4) * Add a hatnote, e.g.,, to link to Article X (disambiguation)and
 * 5) * Copy all off-topic entries from Article X to Article X (disambiguation)
 * 6) * Possibly move some entries into the See also section
 * 7) * Categorize the broad concept stub into appropriate WP:Stubs
 * 8) In Article X (disambiguation):
 * 9) * If this doesn't already exists as a redirect to Article X, create it (without the redirect).
 * 10) * Add a MOS:LEAD to the primary/broad scope topic Article X, e.g, X normally is about Article X. X may also refer to:
 * 11) * Make sure that this (disambiguation) page is indicated as
 * 12) * Copy all off-topic entries from Article X to Article X (disambiguation)
 * 13)  should be the new name of
 * 14) * It can categorize Article X into Category:Broad-concept articles stubs. This maintenance category can help editors find stubs to complete above and beyond all the added stub sortings.
 * 15) * It is no longer a disambiguation page, and none of the disambiguation restrictions apply. In particular the article can be categorized, and it may be targeted by links.

Discuss first? The actual determination of this might need to be made on a page by page basis, and such talking is just one possible recommendation.

Then create categorized redirects to those sections, e.g.,

I believe that many of these cases can be handled by converting the disambiguation into a broad concept article. However, when I investigated this process, I found that guidelines are seriously lacking, and that current practices may present a barrier to the eventual creation of such articles, especially by. discourage the implementation of such articles.

Proposal to clarify use of WP:DABCONCEPT and, and to augment reasons for reverts in disambiguation pages. WP:DABCONCEPT

Revert reasons: Users arrive at these pages with a specific article in mind. So when you edit these pages... It could also be for a specific broad concept, in which case, consider conversion to X via. Addto the DO:
 * WP:DDD = WP:Disambiguation dos and don'ts
 * WP:MOSDAB
 * WP:DBC

I believe that Wikipedia is missing many fundamental broad scope articles on WP:PRIMARYTOPICs, as these have been usurped by easier to create disambiguation pages. Indeed, usurped is a bit harsh, as it may not have been clear at the time that a title has broad scope. However, the current disambiguation rules and guidelines present a barrier to transition a disambiguation page into a broad concept article, especially to a class of editors known as WP:WikiGnomes. I highlight these barriers, and suggest improvements to policy and guidelines.


 * WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages does talk about

Examples of Incremental Non-Disambiguation Improvements by WP:WikiGnomes
This proposals is intended to facilitate the transition (especially to us WP:WikiGnomes) from to, to  to broad concept articles, as it is not easy a) recognize that a title can represent a broad concept, and b) writing a broad concept article at the start is difficult without a lot of editorial effort to prevent WP:SYN.

In the non-disambiguation page case. a) A WP:WikiGnome comes across an article Concept Y that should be connected to Concept X. While this can be talked about in Talk:Concept X, it is easiest to add a reference to Concept Y in the "See also" section of Concept X. Easy peasy, and a better editor can eventually incorporate that concept into the body of the text. b) A WP:WikiGnome comes across an (uncontroversial) Category:Category Y for which Concept X belongs. Easy peasy, just categorize it. For controversial categories, I suspect the body of Concept X should reflect the categorization with a citation.

The real question is what is an editor to reasonably do in the following case: a) come across an article X that should be referred to in a primary topic D, but D b) that primary topic is usurped by a disambiguation page

Analysis
- created 2011; copied into - created 2013 - created 2017

List of first use and not converted
The first four items in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Broad-concept article:
 * Peace process:
 * Maintenance:
 * Random number:
 * Splice:

Two Types of Disambiguation
I contend that there are two kinds of disambiguation
 * 1) Conceptual disambiguation is best served by wide scope articles, (possibly stubs), and
 * 2) Textual disambiguation, which are about articles with a similar title.

I am concerned about the proliferation of concepts that should be conceptually disambiguated, but which cannot move in that direction due to textual disambiguation rules. There is already some work in that direction, but it is missing guidelines. I would like to suggest initial policy changes.

Currently, most of the WP:Disambiguation (restrictive) rules and guidelines are about the textual kind, but work has already started about the conceptual kind.

I propose that both kinds of disambiguation be supported and distinguished as follows - I will give actual examples. If a concept named X Y (it need not be a single word) is written about, then 1) An article titled as X Y (disambiguation), with an explicit "(disambiguation)", be considered as textual disambiguation, and is treated as they are today. 2) But, an article titled as X Y, without an explicit "(disambiguation)", be considered as conceptual disambiguation with a

Analysis
Particle - converted from disambiguation to broad scope article - categorized under Category:Broad-concept articles - why?

Miscellaneous
Issue with synonyms. OR, OS

Misc
Writing a broad scope article is hard, so I want to ensure that the process or protocol is amenable to incremental changes by WP:WikiGnomes. Moreover, I would like the possibility of such conversion highlighted in many cases.

WP:DABRELATED - is conceptual but requires the target to have referred to the literal word.

Printed Book
If (parts of) Wikipedia are ever to be printed as a book, what could the role of disambiguation pages be? Can this shed light on possible guidelines? I certainly know that complicated book indexes have see also, and contexts, and suggest that disambiguation pages use templates for each row, e.g., in Disambig X, have



When converted to broad scope articles, what happens with these?

Issues
If the broad concept is word like? e.g., Shithead?

Discussion
I welcome your comments. Dpleibovitz (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

OLD
I am consider many of your suggestions (in any case), but believe they are not optimal. I will detail here my current plans (in line with your recommendations), and explain why they are not ideal. I believe the best results are obtained when most of these disambiguation pages are converted to broad concept articles.

My Current Plans
And I still need some more suggestions here.

Pejoratives
Many pejoratives are disambiguation pages
 * 1) I will create entries in the appropriate list of pejoratives, and may even have to create a new list. Will need to find at least one source for each new entry which is extra work for a WikiGnome, but it needs to be done in any case.
 * 2) (suboptimal) I will create a redirect to each entry, e.g., Shithead (pejorative)
 * 3) * Categorize the redirect under Category:Pejorative terms for people
 * 4) * Add the redirect as another entry in the disambiguation page Shithead. This is problematic, as it already says Shithead is an insulting term for a person who is ignorant, narrow minded, cruel or unintelligent. It is generally considered to be a vulgar and profane term. Maybe add "e.g., a pejorative."
 * 5) (optimal) convert the disambiguation page to a broad concept article via, and categorize (is this allowed?). No creation of spurious redirects. It is ideal as all uses of the word shithead understand its pejorative meaning.

Nothings
I am creating a user space draft List of nothings. Open to a better word in the title than nothing, but the intent is that each word is categorized under Category:Nothing. Many of these can also be pejorative, and as for :
 * 1) I will create entries for each nothing related word with one source, e.g., mindless, insignificant (which redirects to Insignificance.
 * 2) (suboptimal) I will create a redirect to each entry, e.g., mindless (no mind), insignificant (no significant, or mindless (nothing), insignificance (nothing). Don't like any of these... Suggestions?
 * 3) * each redirect will be categorized under Category:Nothing
 * 4) * add the redirect as another entry in the disambiguation page.
 * 5) (optimal) convert the disambiguation pages to a broad concept article via, and categorize (is this allowed?). No creation of spurious redirects.
 * 6) In the case of articles such as Insignificance (which is about the feeling of insignificance, not the use of the word), I'm not sure whether to categorize that article or still create a categorized redirect. Perhaps I should add a section at the end. Note that insignificance is both a Category:Nothing and a Category:Pejorative terms for people.

Category 6
Optimally, I would convert Category 6 to a broad scope article (or redirect to one) - about classification of things into two or more categories, one of which is labelled 7 or VII. I am creating a user draft Dpleibovitz/sandbox/List of numbered classification classes places many such related broad scoped titles into context. The point is that Category 6 is currently categorized under Category:Category (grouping) and this is not allowed as a disambiguation page.

Steps to follow

 * Finish initial personal draft ### Curently here
 * WP:Village pump (idea lab) for early-stage feedback
 * - request for comments
 * Announce at ...
 * Announce at ...

See:
 * Template:Guideline/doc
 * WP:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance
 * WP:Policies and guidelines
 * Parts of this is
 * Converting disambiguation pages to broad concept articles (details)
 * Converting disambiguation pages to set index articles

My struggles
Like to generalize and connect conceptual articles through categories and disambiguation pages.

However, when I investigated the process of suggesting or actually converting a disambiguation page to a broad concept article, I found that guidelines are sorely lacking, and that current practices present a barrier to the eventual creation of such articles, especially by WikiGnomes. I will make recommendations here as well. Perhaps these should be presented to WP:WikiProject Disambiguation.