Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 37

ANI thread on Stripping wikilinks to dab pages
Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

This has arisen at ANI. Should wikilinks to DAB pages, where there's either no or only a redlinked target, be removed entirely? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To summarise the debate (which is inappropriate for AN/I, and better discussed here), I was disambiguating links to Flank. The meaning of flank in some of the articles which linked to this dab page either did not have a corresponding meaning in the dab list (e.g. the side of a frog, see ) or the meaning in the dab page was little more than a dictionary definition with no corresponding article and no article likely to be created in the future (e.g. "the side of either a horse or a military unit", see ). Per WP:DPL point 8, for these I either changed the linked word flank to an unlinked side, or just removed the link (later changed to a Wiktionary link). Andy's concern is that this approach causes "bulk damage" by making it harder to introduce links to these delinked words in the future, if and when a suitable article is created. Bazonka (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat here (with some condensation and clarification) my comments in the other discussion: A link to a disambiguation page is an error waiting to be fixed, and it is always an unnecessary error. Consider the wide range of alternative possibilities. Merely linking to a disambiguation page is no better than adding a factual error just to make an article look like it contains more facts. All of the above are better options than keeping an errant link to a disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the intended subject of the ambiguous link is really merely being used as a dictionary definition, the link itself might be overlinking. However, if there is some value to providing the definition, then link to the Wiktionary entry. If Wiktionary's entry lacks the sense being used, remember that Wiktionary is a wiki too, and add the appropriate sense there.
 * If the intended subject of the ambiguous link is a notable topic, link to an article discussing the topic. If possible link to an article section that encompasses the topic or dicusses it with enough detail to accommodate the link.
 * If the intended subject of the ambiguous link is a notable topic, and an article that should or could encompass discussion of that topic (even if it would only take up a line or two), add that topic to the encompassing article and then link to the section to which the addition was made.
 * If the intended subject of the ambiguous link is a notable topic which should have its own article, change the ambiguous link to a redlink with an appropriate disambiguator signifying that an article needs to be made.
 * Actually make the article that needs to be made, or (in the case of terms unlikely to merit an article but deserving some encyclopedic treatment), make a glossary of related terms within the topic and link to the appropriate section of that glossary.
 * Andy's main concern seemed to be the removal of links.
 * In the Northern Dwarf Tree Frog article, the text was as follows: "The dorsal surface is green and is bordered by a bronze stripe that runs along the flanks, from the shoulder to the groin". There is no article for a frog's flank, nor is there likely to ever be one. I could have changed the link to a Wiktionary link, but instead I decided to simply change the word to an unlinked, plain-English "side".
 * In the Oscillating turret article, the text read: "In French doctrine, light reconnaissance vehicles were heavily armed and expected to also fulfil a role in defending the flanks of a main force." Whilst "flank" had a line in the dab page of "the side of either a horse or a military unit", this meaning had no corresponding article. Again I felt that this meaning would never have an article. Therefore I removed the link, and on reflection I later changed it to a Wiktionary link. (NB the Flank dab page has since been updated.)
 * Do you think these were good or poor decisions? Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that frogs have "flanks" per se, but if the word "flank" has an applicable general meaning, then this could be added to the appropriate section of Anatomical terms of location, and links could be redirected to that section. I don't think your solution was wrong, but I generally try to find an informative link before unlinking. A similar solution might be avaiable for the second article, although I think the best link would be Flanking maneuver, since that seems to be what the vehicles referenced were defending against. Cheers! bd2412  T 21:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "A link to a disambiguation page is an error waiting to be fixed, "
 * Agreed. However we aren't always able to fix these, so some will need to keep waiting. Per WP:IMPERFECT, we have to do a lot of that, around far more issues than just disambig. "Fixing" these must (by definition) involve improving the link. If it's not an improvement, there's no benefit to making the change. These links will have been here for some time already - the wheels won't fall off if they stay here a bit longer.
 * If there's a better link available, then use it. If a better link can be made available, then use it. If there's no better link available, then leave it undisambiguated until we scan again, when there may be.
 * Flank has recently been edited for some reason, possibly to create a link target. However the side-effect of this has been that what was previously an adequate dicdef of the military context on the disambig page (maybe not ideal, but there are worse things) has now been replaced by an incorrect definition: a flanking maneuver exploits an enemy's flank, it's not at all the same thing as one. If this sort of edit is made solely for the purpose of stamping out these intolerable links to disambig pages, then that's a bad and harmful edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, if a word does not need to be linked within the context of an article, then restoring a disambiguation link that has been removed is no better a solution than, for example restoring a link to John Adams when the link is clearly not referring to the president. bd2412  T 02:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You describe two situations, neither of which are that to which I refer.
 * If a word doesn't need to be linked, then it doesn't need to be linked - this is independent of whether the ideal target exists or not. The toad's flanks are probably not a significant aspect of that article. Linking Flanking maneuver to some definition (hopefully under flank (military)) is however crucial to the understanding of that article.
 * John Adams is a single president. A reference to "John Adams, the inventor of the time machine", should not link here and would be better moved to a redlink at John Adams (inventor) or even the pre-existing disambig at John Adams (disambiguation). It's a straw man argument to say that the prime article is the wrong topic for the link, because no-one is claiming that this should be used as a target.
 * My point here is still the same: links for the inventor pointing at John Adams (disambiguation) are being removed entirely, rather than redlinked or simply left alone.
 * Linking to a disambiguation page is not a fatal error to be removed at all costs, especially not the cost of losing the link altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing to do is surely to convert the link to John Adams (inventor) and add this redlink to the dab page, with a bluelink to the page which mentions him. That way the reader who wants him and types "John Adams" will find him, and the next editor wanting to write an article about him can see clearly from the dab page that we have an established name for him, and doesn't start a new article at John Adams (time traveller). Pam  D  09:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree more with Andy than BD2412 here. The need to link another article is subjective, and here we're talking of cases where somebody else felt the need to add it. In such cases creating a redlink would be more sensible than removing the link entirely. I'm not sure about leaving the link to the disambiguation though - it wouldn't serve any purpose if there's no valid link there to represent the right meaning. In those cases a wiktionary link would be the best option. But removing the link? Andy is right that most times it's likely not a good idea. Diego (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that it is rarely appropriate to deliberately link to a disambiguation page outside of a hatnote or see also section. If there is no article, the options are A) leave as a redlink, which as PamD suggest should then be added to the disambiguation page along with a blue link that substantiates the usage; B) create a redirect for the term linking to an article or section that contains relevant information (and again the redirect should be included on the disambiguation); C) link to wiktionary, f it seems unlikely that an article beyond a dictionary definition would be possible; D) remove the link where the term is a common word and WP:OVERLINKING applies (there's a fine line between building the web and making a tangled, bewildering maze). For the persons performing the disambiguation, if it is not clear which option to use, then dn can be used to tag the link as needing further attention. I think it is incumbent on a person wanting to use a deliberate link to a disambiguation page to justify that usage and if there is no consensus for that usage, to try a different option or accept it and move on.  older ≠ wiser 12:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also remind editors that where a link to the disambiguation page is appropriate (for example, if an article uses such a link to point out that a certain word has many meanings), then per WP:INTDABLINK the link should be piped through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect to the disambiguation page, so that it is understood to be an intentional link, and not an error requiring correction. bd2412  T 15:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two issues further to Bkonrad's point:
 * Once again, no-one is adding links to disambig pages. This is about what to do if we already have links to disambig pages.
 * It's not always possible to create a redlink. For Joinery, the link belongs at a very obvious primary topic of Joinery, but that's already taken up by a disambig that ought to be at Joinery (disambiguation) instead. That can't be moved because it already exists and the rename request at Talk:Joinery is stalled. See also WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring for even more pointless farce. It would not be sensible to create a redlink at Joinery (joinery).
 * Flank has a similar problem, because the disambig is also already at the primary topic name, so links need to be either disambig'ed from the start as Flank (military) (reasonable) but the evident primary topic of flank as the side of an animal is blocked similarly to joinery. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup of Flank
Seeing this topic on ANI led me to notice that the Flank page was in need of cleanup per our guidelines, in part because it had just been edited clearly to try to meet the concerns described above. However, the resulting page included several entries that were dictionary definitions that were heavily wikilinked, but none of the linked articles used, defined or described the word "flank." As far as I can see, that contradicts both our guidelines and the basic purpose of a disambiguation page, which is to direct users to the Wikipedia article with the information they're looking for, not to add information that doesn't exist in any Wikipedia article. A disambiguation page is not a list of definitions of a term, despite the apparent conviction of many people that they're interchangable.

I did the best I could to find articles that could be used to support those entries, and was able to keep most of them in my cleaned-up version. This was reverted by User:Andy Dingley as being "not an improvement"; I have now reverted it back. The thing is, if you're upset about a definition not being included on the disambiguation page, all you have to do is add that definition to an article instead of adding it to the disambiguation page, and then that article can be linked, at least as far as I'm concerned. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted Flank, not for any reason of policy, but because the changes had dumbed the terms down to the point of inanity.

I presume that this dumbing-down came from a view that disambigs shouldn't be dicdefs. Yet if you read WP:DABNOT, rather than just quoting it blindly, it states, "A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context." This does not mean replacing a useful contextual explanation of flank speed with "it's some timey-wimey stuff". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a disambiguation page is to provide links to the page that the reader may have been looking for or intending to link to. Disambiguation pages are not articles, and there is no reason to link to ilium, for example, because ilium is not another name for a flank. Our descriptions of the meanings of terms do not need to be any more elaborate than is necessary to direct the reader to the page they intended to find. In fact, flank is a poor example of an ambiguous term, because it has a predominance of dicdef meanings (although these might be discussed in broader articles). The sensibility of these rules is more apparent in pages like Mercury and Phoenix and John Smith, where there are actual articles for which the term alone is the title. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending the originals - ilium was about three links too many and military unit shouldn't be linked either. However abdomen is just wrong - it's anterior, when flank (for most vertebrates) means posterior. Nor was there any reason to dumb down to "a nautical term". One of my dictionaries is "A Sailor's Word Book" - it's a right old doorstep, size of a Concise Oxford. I'm sure that half of the words on that page could be said to be "a nautical term" in some context. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the nautical term. bd2412  T 17:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I try to follow the principle from WP:MOSDAB that "the description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." As far as I could tell, "a nautical term" was precise enough for that purpose, particularly because the name of the linked article was Flank speed and not just Flank. If a user looking for one of the meanings of flank is going to be confused by the entry "Flank speed, a nautical term", then it should be changed; that does not mean it needs to be long and detailed enough for the reader to later be able to define the term on an exam.
 * In regard to your other complaints, as I said earlier, for several of these entries, I spent quite a lot of effort trying to find the best, or any, article, that provided any kind of information on that usage. It seems the best way to satisfy your concerns about accuracy and completeness would be for you to add the correct information about these usages of "flank" to the appropriate articles, and then we can link from the dab page to those articles. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree to an extent with Andy's propostion above that there is a primary meaning of the word, flank. After all, the meanings on the disambig page are all "Flanking" or "Flank something". Perhaps we need a brief article on the idea of the "flank" as a sort of indefinite term meaning the side, from which the cut of beef, the military maneuver, and the nautical term are all derived. bd2412  T 21:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit like it'll be no more than a dictionary definition. Bazonka (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then clearly we need a dicdef. Fortunately it shouldn't be hard. It can be here, or it can be at wikt. However we clearly need something to put at the end of that link target. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is the only place for dictionary definitions. A Wikipedia article like that would be quickly (and rightfully) deleted. Bazonka (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But for DABs where the common English word is the primary meaning for the term, it makes sense to begin the page with a short definition of the basic meaning, even if there's no article for it; it would work as the required description associated with a link, for the link to Wiktionary. That would be adequate for the DAB, in special because DABs are not articles. For a DAB to work best, it doesn't make sense to exclude the major meaning from the list of topics available - it would left the reader wondering whether one of the available articles will cover the primary meaning of the word or not. Diego (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is OK for the dab page to have a short definition (provided it is substantiated by common reference works). WP:DABNOT says as much. What is a little problematic is creating links to the disambiguation page when the dictionary definition is intended. Those should go to wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 00:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this sums it all up. Diego (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Messy situation in Talk:Talk Talk (band)
To summarize, talk talk redirects to Talk Talk (disambiguation), and Talk Talk redirects to Talk Talk (band). To make matters complicated, in Talk:Talk Talk (band), people opposed the disambiguation on the British band. Also, I have withdrawn the move request from Talk Talk (band) to Talk Talk because... "Talk Talk" may be ambiguous and case sensitivity complicates matters. I tried redirecting "talk talk" to the band, but it was considered disruptive and unilateral. I wonder if anybody here knows what to do. Well, at least one suggested moving Talk Talk (disambiguation) to Talk Talk. --George Ho (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's the name of at least 4 songs and a novel, besides the band and the telecomm company. A name this ambiguous should go to a disambig page.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "this ambiguous". Being ambiguous is like being unique -- a title is or it isn't. A title that is ambiguous might have a primary topic, whether it's ambiguous for 2 topics or 2,000,000 topics. Up until a brief undiscussed move-and-recant-by-retargeting in January, Talk Talk was the title of the band article. I've restored the stable arrangement of Talk Talk, talk talk, and Talk Talk (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * |+%22word+*+less+ambiguous%22 Fundamentalist claptrap, JHunter. You should try facts sometime. Quite bracing! ☺ N oetica Tea? 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Facts? Such as the arrangement of the articles prior to January? Yes, please do try facts instead of name-calling. (You can also Google "very unique" for mis-applications of that word, Noetic.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's no name-calling, Hunter. That's showing up your ignorant assertion for what it was – and now also your continuing refusal to look at and learn from evidence. Dicklyon had a good point to make, and you uncivilly attempted to counter it with an unwarranted put-down. This is a brief appearance from me, at a page that I prefer to stay away from. My reasons should be obvious: I prefer to work with people who can follow an argument and who respect evidence. And other people's well-argued opinions. O yes, check out this Googlebook search on "more unique" intitle:linguistics. I would be cautious about using it myself; but many academic linguists and others are quite happy with "more unique". It is fundamentalism to believe that there is One Way, and that other ways are Plain Wrong. Without argument, I mean. The world is more complex than you appreciate, it seems. N oetica Tea? 12:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There was nothing uncivil or put-downy in my response to Dicklyon. While you and Dicklyon are often in agreement in your conclusions for a particular title arrangement, Dicklyon is easy to engage in discussion. Your ignorant, uncivil personal attacks are what they are, and they reflect poorly on you. But, please, do look at the stable arrangement of those pages for years, and also try to understand the guidelines here on primary topics (since your lack of understanding apparently keeps you from following the arguments or respecting the evidence, and to believe that yours is the One Way): it does not matter if there are 2 topics ambiguous with a title or 2,000,000 -- if one of them is more used than all the others combined, and much more used than any one other, it's the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And now, not only is Dicklyon's opinion to be dismissed as counter to Orthodoxy on the flimsiest folk-linguistic grounds, mine too are to be dismissed as ignorant because I can (and do) analyse issues with the present guidelines that elude you. I can see through them; you cannot. Or perhaps you will not, which is a worse failing. It seems you have not noticed: There are long-running debates at WT:TITLE, and on this present talkpage, in which the failure to capture consensus is obvious to all but the ideologically committed. The current provisions are not simply working in the interests of readers. When that consideration is raised in RM discussions, you ignore it. You cling to the old ways (which in some cases you yourself have put in place, with minimal or no discussion). Well, if you and a couple of other wielders of power have so little respect for genuine discussion, I will stay away from this talkpage. Don't be surprised or affronted if I drop in from time to time though, to correct some of the more flagrant expressions of factual ignorance or insular bias.
 * Do you really think I am unable to understand the present arrangements for titles on Wikipedia, and your particular role as an admin (heaven help us all) in perpetuating the status quo? Well, I must respect your opinion: as sheer, fundamentalist, unbending, and irrational opinion. When you show yourself capable of fresh and responsive analysis, I will review my opinion. You see, I can do that. But I'm not holding my breath for you to anything of the sort yourself.
 * N oetica Tea? 13:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you disagree with the current consensus for the primary topics and disambiguation, and rather than build new consensus, I think that you twist and misapply it, or simply apply your personal guidelines, and attack anyone who disagrees with you. I will only be surprised if you drop in to engage in constructive conversation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there is a current consensus. There are some points of agreement, on motherhood and the like. And then there are provisions that have been put into place by very productive and vocal purveyors of rules and algorithms. Comforting to some, no doubt: but having little to do with how information is actually exchanged on the real world, or how readers actually do encounter Wikipedia's articles. I am perfectly willing to discuss. I am known for doing so, and for moderating discussions to maximise wide consultation and consensus-building when it falls to me to do so. I have absented myself from WT:TITLE for this year so far. How have things developed there? What progress has been made? And look at this page. What progress has there been here? Don't blame me for any failure to move things forward. Look at your own manifest failure (or inability) to deal with real hard facts, and their consequences, at RM discussions. I am not alone in requesting that you stay away from those. But you listen to no one. You seem to like what you are able to do at RMs, answerable to no one and oblivious to the very discourse that that RMs are intended to promote.
 * I hope you enjoy that role. Because it does precious little good for anyone else, least of all the readers whom you deprive of easy access to articles. The articles that people labour to produce here, and hope readers will be able to find by the simple expedient of a title that tells them what the topic is.
 * N oetica Tea? 13:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC) ☺

As it says at the top of this page: This means both of you -- stop sniping at each other and limit yourselves to discussing content. Please. I'm asking nicely, once. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith
 * Avoid personal attacks


 * I don't know why all the snark, but the band looks like a clear primary topic. The other things the OP presents (case sensitive, spacing, and punctuation) are good things to include on the dab page but their existence doesn't preclude the primary topic. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * "There's no such thing as "this ambiguous". Being ambiguous is like being unique -- a title is or it isn't": "more ambiguous" does make sense: according to how many meanings the ambiguous text may have and how likely it is that a reader or listener will take a wrong meaning. (For "more unique" see http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/some-more-unique-thoughts/ ). Something (e.g. Talk Talk (band)) may seem more or less important to various people according to their experience and interests: some people like pop music and to them the band may seem important; but others have no interest in pop music. Currently Talk Talk (band) redirects to Talk Talk. It is clear that "this ambiguous" hereinabove means "having so many possible meanings". This seems to boil down to a plain disagreement about whether the band is a dominant meaning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, shall Talk Talk be moved back to Talk Talk (band), and shall talk talk be redirected back to Talk Talk (disambiguation)? As Noetica points out, the whole matter is fully ignored. --George Ho (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not until someone shows that Talk Talk (the band) isn't the primary topic. Server statistics for views are useful here. There is a competition here between three things being disambiguated, the band, the company, and the book. Everything else on the dab is minor (no article) or subsidiary (albums by the band, shell ownership by the company). The book is clearly not a primary topic. That leaves the band and the company. Without page view statistics, I'm going to guess the band is the most likely target of readers entering Talk Talk into the search bar. That is what JHunter restored, and that is how it should stay until shown otherwise. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * (ec) In this case, the long-standing arrangement (other editors' actions, not mine) prior to the botched undiscussed move and unmove in January, and since it is controversial, editor(s) seeking a new consensus should use WP:RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And, R'n'B, the assumed good faith has been eroded in the recognition of the reality in a long line of Noetica's attacks (even here, as listed earlier). AGF does not mean that I can't call personal attacks personal attacks, incivility incivility, and doing so is not itself a personal attack. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ, you've done enough, all right? I was going to post statistics that prove the band is the popular topic, but what's the point? Sometimes, arguments in that page and this page must be considered, but I don't know what else to say to you... --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What statistics are you using? The page views are roughly the same for both the company and the band, with both in the range between 100 and 200 visits a day (same level of magnitude). If you group the stats for the articles about the band and song and all the articles about the business, it looks that about half the readers are looking for the company; that makes it difficult to assume that the band is more likely to be sought. Unless there are historical long-term reasons why "Talk talk" is recognized primarily as the band's name, I'd say that it's not a primary topic as both the band and company are comparable by usage. Diego (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Talk Talk (band)" since there is some confusion. --George Ho (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Yes, that's about 10x more usage for the band; together with its historical significance it looks like a primary topic. Diego (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Messy situation in Talk:Talk Talk (band): part 2
The company is the primary usage of TalkTalk and Talktalk (no space), the band is the primary usage of Talk Talk and Talk talk (with space), and both can - and do - have hatnotes pointing to the other and to the dab page which mops up the other uses. I think that's OK now. The dab page perhaps needs tweaking to show the primary usage of the non-space version ... perhaps just moving the song below the telecomms group, putting it alongside the other songs, will work ... done it. Pam D  22:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since "TalkTalk" (no space) isn't ambiguous, I don't think that it needs to be emphasized on the Talk Talk disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * People have many things to remember, and may not fully remember details of spaces and cases in each use of "talktalk" and similar when looking for them. All may as well go in one disambig list, similarly to the 3 spellings listed in Loving You (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * People won't need to remember. All of the topics are on the page and no one is talking about splitting them. The question is whether the unspaced one needs to be emphasized. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Turning Season  into disambiguation page?
The current move request at Talk:Season 4 (30 Rock) is still ongoing, and many oppose the move to Season 4. If consensus is reached as "not moved", shall the redirect page be turned into a disambiguation page under the title Season 8? --George Ho (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that "Season 4 (30 Rock)" stays and has "no consensus to move", what are we going to do with "Season Eight" and Season 20? --George Ho (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitive primary topics
Not sure if I'm right, but shouldn't a name (in this case Frida) be a primary topic? As it is Frida links to a 2002 film, surely either Frida (given name) or Frida (disambiguation) would carry more weight? I would have thought the name itself is primary but then I see Frederick is a disambig page over Frederick (given name). I don't know if there's any definite rules, but it could be similar to 8 which has precedence as a year over 8 (number). Anyone know?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly the film looks like an arbitrary choice as the primary topic for that name. Based on historical significance, Frida (given name), Frida Kahlo and Frida (opera) would take precedence over the film. By usage alone, Frida Kahlo is definitely the most visited. Either Frida Kahlo or the disambiguation page should be located at Frida. Diego (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Frida Kahlo is heavily visited is irrelevant, as she is not known by her forename alone. The film has a lot of incoming links, though many of these are from the template  Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score 1990–2009; I don't see any reason for the opera to have precedence over the film. It might indeed be reasonable to rename the film article and move the dab page to Frida, but if anyone decides to do so, please remember to update all the incoming links which currently point to Frida (eg from Leon Trotsky).  I've tidied up the Frida (disambiguation) page a bit.  Pam  D  09:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. If the criteria for primary topic (long term notability & educational value, readership usage) do not (or no longer) support the film as primary, the ambiguous topic (not partial title match) that they do support should become primary, or the dab page should go to the base name if none is primary. But just being a name doesn't make a topic primary; there's no definite rule for names either being or not being primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Examples of different possiblities:
 * Name-as-primary: Robert, Susan
 * Individual-with-only-single-name-as-primary: Adam, Muhammad
 * Name-holder-as-primary: Barack, Elvis
 * Other-topic-as-primary: Clay, Rose
 * No primary topic: Mary, Scott
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 May 2012
 * I would like to propose that where other uses of the name are for works depicting a particular user of the name, the person depicted should be presumed to be primary relative to the works. Specifically, both the film and the opera titled Frida are named for the artist. This seems to me to be pretty strong evidence that she is, in fact, known as "Frida". bd2412  T 16:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all: Iris Murdoch is a well-known "Iris", and the film of her life is Iris (film), but I don't think anyone would claim she is known as "Iris". Pam  D  16:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would compare Frida more readily to Elvis than to Iris. Granted, it is probably somewhere in between them with regards to commonality of the name (there are a few other notable people named Elvis), but iris is also a flower and a part of the eye, so that is not a primary topic debate we would be having anyway. bd2412  T 17:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, it's a question for Talk:Frida et al. The question for here, "Is there a rule for names as primary topics?", has been answered "No, there's no special handling for name topics." -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That clears it up a bit. So yes, I see that a given name isn't always the most important as seen above with examples like Elvis and Rose. It's a case by case basis I guess in that even very common names such as Adam have other higher uses. In this particular case, I would think now that the dab page for Frida should be primary, since there's no one more obvious usage and the given name page is pretty woeful (amzingly only created this year).--Tuzapicabit (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Turning Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone into a disambiguation page?
Americans would type in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" because they are American. Also, I have created a redirect, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (novel). You don't mind if it is turned into a disambiguation page, do you? --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think people would mind, since WP:CONCEPTDAB suggests that where a title refers to several related works, and not to any unrelated topic, a disambiguation page is not appropriate. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing that a disambiguation page be located at Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone? If so, on what basis?  There apparently is consensus that each novel in the Harry Potter series is the primary topic for its title (despite the existence of films and other adaptations).  That the first book happens to have two English-language titles (one of which is U.S.-specific) is irrelevant.  The same logic applies to both.  —David Levy 21:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see that you've proposed that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone be moved to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (novel). I'm confused as to why you came here to ask about the U.S. title separately.  —David Levy 21:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, true that there are two titles and that the fact may be irrelevant. However, I just am proposing this out of studying statistics, because it is more convenient than an Autosearch function, and because... well, I'm not sure if searchers want to type in either "Sorcerer" first or "Philosopher". I more frequently think "Sorcerer" than the other. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't follow.
 * English versions of the book and its adaptations are titled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, excepting those published in the United States (and apparently India, in the case of the film), which are titled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. A reader is likely to type whichever title is more familiar to him/her.
 * This is irrelevant to the issue of whether the novel is the primary topic. You've suggested that it isn't, but I don't understand what distinction you seek to draw between the two titles (leading you to initiate this discussion in addition to the move request).  The same works (book, film and video game) exist under both titles, so the book is the primary topic of either both or neither (the former, according to the established consensus).  —David Levy 22:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is disingenuous to bring this here without revealing that you have nominated the main article for renaming, against all previously accepted usage. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * True, I should have mentioned earlier that I did requested the move there concurrently, so I would not look "disingenuous". However, I did not mention it because this is different from renaming there. Why making a connection between renaming request of "Philosopher" and the disambiguation page of 'Sorcerer'? --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you read my 22:40 reply? —David Levy 00:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Closed the move request per WP:SNOW. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway example
The current wording states: "The rule about linking through a '(disambiguation)' redirect does not apply to redirects to disambiguation pages: do not create a double redirect, but make a redirect to the disambiguation page directly (thus Ann Hathaway, a redirect from an alternative name, redirects to the disambiguation page and does not go through the redirect Anne Hathaway (disambiguation))." The long-standing consensus on this has suddenly changed. Fans of the actress have rapidly overturned the situation described here, so that Anne Hathaway now points to their favourite actress. Either the status quo ante should be restored or the example here should be changed. Paul B (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The example should be changed. The Anne Hathaway article was moved as a result of a requested move discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we need a new example. And Paul, your summary is unfair.   It's absurd to suggest that the article was renamed because people wanted Anne Hathaway to lead to the article about "their favourite actress".  Legitimate rationales were provided.  (For the record, I'm neither a fan of the actress nor a participant in that discussion.)  —David Levy 19:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. I was being flippant, though it seemed pretty obvious to me that the change was "fan" driven. Mrs Shakespeare has so very few fans, even among her hubby's devotees. My intent was to draw attention to the fact that the example no longer works. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I disagree that "the change was 'fan' driven".  —David Levy 21:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was indirectly, in that fans drive who-searches-what, I voted for, with gritted teeth, in that once the "popular" topic becomes 100x more searched for even Britannica would probably give up. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I replaced the example by Bill Cox. Certes (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Example Talk:Cambridge
Does WP:PRIMARYTOPIC need improving? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No? Why do you think Talk:Cambridge indicates a problem with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? A possible improvement could be coming up with a different name for "primary topic" to indicate "what do most readers most expect to find when they search for X in this encyclopedia", since "primary" so often gets confused with "original" here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that is probably a too open question. When I asked it I hadn't myself worked out what if anything might be. But now realise that I probably fall in the category of those who, rightly or wrongly, would weight "original" in with the two criteria, so a third


 * Note that my 2 examples are "wrong" and my thinking is evidently at odds with wp reality here.
 * This is something I hadn't really though about before, so it is only a question.In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually there are many aspects that are usually evaluated with respect to primary topics and their disambiguation pages. Some others that appear frequently:
 * How is the article titled? Is the title match with other articles partial or exact?
 * What would people type in a search query when looking for the topic?
 * Is the name a common English word?
 * Is the topic a city, country or other populated area? (this has been used at Java, Nice and Las Vegas for example).
 * If so, is the city known primarily for an installation or plant commonly know by the same name? (again Las Vegas Strip, and University of Cambridge).
 * Of these, most are not included in the guideline even if they are often relevant to decisions. So yes, I think the guideline should be updated to reflect actual use. Besides, this is why I defend that primary topic should always be decided by local consensus - there's no way the current guideline can support a unique solution. The main concern at primary topic discussions should be "what's best for this case?" instead of "what is the solution more in line with the guideline?", since the guideline is too vague. Diego (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Is the name a common English word" lines up well with long-term significance, which is why Apple is about the fruit, not the tech & media company. My main concerns at primary topic discussions is "what's best for the readership in this case?", which is often at odds with "what's preferred by the editors who know enough about this topic to watch it?" The editors watching a page are often very familiar with that particular topic among a set of ambiguous topics, to the point of believing it must be the primary topic or that at least no other topic could possibly be primary over it. There are two similar questions that often get conflated, one for every topic with multiple possible titles and one for every title with multiple possible topic:
 * "What's the best title for this topic?" (WP:NC) -- and WP:COMMONNAME works alongside the second bullet
 * "What's the best topic (if any) for this title?" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)
 * Current naming conventions take the second question into account: if the best title for a topic would need to be qualified (because it's not the best topic for the title), sometimes a second-base title is selected, rather than the qualified variation of the best title. Often editors try to work the other way: if the best topic for a title would have a different title (because it's not the best title for the topic), we should use a second-best topic (or no topic -- base name dab) for the title. That's part of how I read your first bullet, but it's not helpful for the readership. The efforts that produced the current criterion reflect (as far as I know) that goal: get most readers where they're most likely to go most easily, but balancing that against unduly surprising readers who are looking for topics that are "more encyclopedic" (long-term significance, educational value, "common English word") even if they happen to be less popular. But aspects like "original" and "is populated area" (counter examples include Reading, Winkler, Phoenix, Mesa) should or can be boiled down to those two (maximize readership navigation, minimize readership surprise). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

DM
Someone may wish to organize the DM dab page. It may need more categories and sub-categories. One thought I had is a new 'Entertainment' one with the one movie, games and music. The 'Other' section seems to be getting a little full as well. I don't know if this is the correct page to post this so feel free to close it an link to the proper page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This or WT:MOSDAB. Or you can apply appropriate organization to it, or change the dab template to disambiguation cleanup. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think. Someone else may want to look over the way I hacked, butchered, and re-created from the twitching parts on the floor.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

At what point would a renamed venue lose its "primary status"?
About a year ago an editor argued that CircuitCity.com could arguably have the primary topic since it was the one currently out there, while the brick and mortar retailer had gone out of business. (My effort to make the B&M store the primary did not go through.) The reason I ask now is because MCI Center redirects to Verizon Center. It's been six years since it's been renamed. Wouldn't the passage of time at least arguably make it a disambiguation situation, kinda like how neither Ford Center venues are primary, or do you think readers would be more likely to think of the Washington D.C venue than the L.A skyscraper? hbdragon88 (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If a change in usage (or I suppose a change in long-term significance) accompanies the passage of time, yes. It all depends on what most current readers are most likely to expect to find when they search for the title (whether "CircuitCity.com", "MCI Center", or "Ford Center"), balanced with whether many readers would be unduly surprised to land at the otherwise most likely topic when they search for the same title. The passage of time itself does not automatically strip or grant primary-topicness. -- JHunterJ (talk)

Realism
I came across this page Realism which was sort of a DAB, but sort of not. I created a DAB here Realism (disambiguation) but it's incomplete; I'm not sure how much more we should disambiguate since the term is used in a lot of different ways. Feedback/thoughts welccome.--KarlB (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Gianfrancesco
It is currently a redirect to Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini. However, there are other gianfrancesco (or Gian Francesco) people in Special:Search/intitle:gian francesco and Special:Search/intitle:gianfrancesco. Shall it be converted to the disambiguation page? --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Converted into an anthroponymy list article perhaps. As far as I can tell, the matches are name holders. They use given name instead of disambiguation. Talk:Gianfrancseco would be the place to check consensus if needed, although probably few editors watch that one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Season 2 vs. Season 4
I still don't get it. Season 4 is a disambiguation page by consensus, while Season 2 is a page of some album. Both have only one article, yet circumstances vary? If "move requests" are no substitutes for changing rules, then there may be something blurry about "Precision" policy and "primary topic" guideline. --George Ho (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The policies are clear enough. The "oppose" votes on Season 4 didn't follow those policies, and the closer went with "no consensus". Since Season 2's move request just finished, we should re-request Season 4 (30 Rock) to be moved to be consistent. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hunter, it's not the same as All That Jazz; it doesn't contain "Season ". Why not taking "Season 4 (30 Rock)" to closer then or WP:AN if you are still concerned? --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * George, since you posted about not getting it, why do you project that concern on me? Are you the only one allowed to re-request moves? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that I'm the only one. However, I did say that I "don't get it" because... well, situations are totally weird, to I was referring. As for the policies, sometimes they are not totally strong against opposition, especially since I "opposed" the move. Policies can be followed, yet arguments about ambiguity of "Season 4" gets in the way because examples about "Season " were not mentioned in pages, as far as I know. --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, before re-requesting a move on some 30 Rock episodes, let's wait for others' comments, as I have contacted closers of these move requests. --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have proposed for deletion Season 2. I couldn't find any sources proving its notability anyway, so the most adequate solution in this particular case is deleting it (no need for "consistency" being different cases). Diego (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots and lots of serieses have a 2nd season and a 4th season. The current Season 2 (which is nothing like the best known of second serieses) may as well be moved to Season 2 (Andra and The BackBone album) or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Typo sorry: "(which is nothing like the best known of second seasons)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The plural of series is "series", by the way :) Jafeluv (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we just redirect all of these to Television program, which addresses season numbering. bd2412  T 23:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So someone who searches for a TV episode, or other piece of media, by its exact title (such as "Season 4") should not be able to find the article about that piece of media, while we cater to a hypothetical user who would be frankly stupid enough to look for the fourth season of some TV show by searching for "Season 4", or who would be unable to understand that the phrase would generally refer to the fourth season of a TV show? Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PROD on Season 2 has been contested. --George Ho (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Season 4 redirect
Why was Season 4 redirected to 30 Rock episode if consensus is against scrapping out "(30 Rock)"? And why WP:IAR? --George Ho (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I have created Season One as a disambiguation page for two albums. --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Because this is not a valid disambiguation page - it doesn't disambiguate anything. Unlike Season One, it contains one article link so it makes sense to target it directly. And this redirect is needed because of the decision to keep the "(30 Rock)"; the topic article Season 4 (30 Rock) would be located at the base name Season 4 if not for this decision to ignore the article title rules. On the other hand, why do you think the "not move" decision supports having an invalid disambiguation page? It only applies to the article title. Diego (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a valid disambiguation page, but it's not a valid redirect to "Season 4 (30 Rock)" either -- with that arrangement (i.e., with the 30 Rock episode as the primary topic for the title "Season 4"), the article would be moved to the base name. Since the requested move ended up with the wrong (IMO, obviously) conclusion, we're stuck with the subpar arrangement of pages as the lesser of two invalids. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Padang
On the disambiguation page Padang. I think Padang, Indonesia is the primary topic and should be renamed just Padang. So when someone search Padang its direct to article about city of Padang in Indonesia, while we add Padang(disambiguation) to the top of the article for other search. See Jakarta for example. Thanks. &#42;Annas* (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can use WP:RM to request a move of the disambiguation page to Padang (disambiguation) and Padang, Indonesia to Padang. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Silver Creek
There are three in BC. Two communities and one creek. Only one has a redlink now and no links to the other two. No real rush, but it may be best to sort the three names now before it spreads.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I started a section on the Silver Creek DAB talk page. That may be the best venue?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I adjusted the names and removed the redlinks. There may be more creeks/rivers/mountains that may come up as another editor mentioned. I marked this section resolved.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hatzic
Every landmark around it has a page except the community itself? (trying not to laugh, I have been there and know how small it is). Should a new dab page be created with just the name 'Hatzic'? The Greek dance seems like someone may slap a 'not a dictionary' delete tag on it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hatzic, British Columbia is a redirect to Mission, British Columbia. Hatzic could be as well, unless the partial title matches are actually ambiguous with the one-word name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just wondering that since there are 4 articles for Hatzic, that they should be listed on a DAB named Hatzic. There is a lake, island, mountain, and rock all named Hatzic with their own articles. Hatzic itself is in the Mission article. Those looking for more detail on the Hatzic area may not know there are articles on the others from the Mission page. There is also a Hatzic Prairie red link.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the lake referred to as "Hatzic", or as "Hatzic Lake"? (And similarly for the mountain, island, rock, and prairie.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all diff names. I will just add links from the Mission section that includes Hatzic. I may write an article on it someday and then they can link from there. I am going to reslove this section, and try to avoid the discussion on the section below. --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRIME
I have suggested re-appropriating the WP:PRIME shortcut for use with Prime objective, a page we can point to in reference to Wikipedia's primary mission(s). I note that the WP:PRIME shortcut doesn't appear to have gotten much usage over the years, perhaps because its not intuitive for use regarding disambiguation topics. Any comments are welcome at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 113. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would rather do that than try to sort Hatzic out. Far simpler and makes more sense.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With the fixing of the bulk of the incoming uses of WP:PRIME to mean this page, I'm in favor of removing the shortcut from this page. "WP:PRIME" never seemed to me like a good fit here -- "prime" doesn't appear in our description of primary topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection here. older ≠ wiser 12:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's redirected here for four years. It links to useful information. This article says WP:PRIME links here. You proposed linking it to a (very short) essay you wrote with no immediately apparent value (I don't mean that as an insult), the same day you wrote it. Your essay states (probably unintentionally) Wikipedia's prime objective is imagining a world. Nothing is sourced by anything. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, on the matter of prior usage: In four years, the shortcut was used about only 50 times. Ive gone ahead and changed most of those links, leaving just about ten or so links on protected archive pages. So it was not a well-used shortcut. I understand that if it had been used more, it might be unfeasible to reappropriate it. Thats the first point.
 * Secondly, Im suggesting that WP:PRIME be used for something more important than just a DAB issue: something that talks about our primary mission. Henceforth we could reference PRIME on talk pages and meta issue debates in a simple and direct way. I think PRIME will get as much usage as CIVIL, a policy page I originally created, based on other's writings.
 * Finally, I don't think its improper to reappropriate shortcuts. In fact I'm the one who created the first shortcuts in the first place, because back in the old days we used to write out "Wikipedia:Policy name x" etc., and that was just untenable. Hence I think I have a fair idea about what they are for. Hope that explanation helps. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not. I still cannot see the purpose or point of your essay, or how it can be considered "more important" than the current linked policy. It would be wiser to improve the page first (if possible), THEN go about changing established links. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * the section in question has 3 other redirects already. per JhunterJ, PRIME doesn't seem like a good fit anyway - though it is a good fit for the essay. Which is, fwiw, useful IMHO. --KarlB (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

super
I can't believe we may need protection on a dab page. I just wasted time fixing it and had one vandal blocked. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Various dabs, especially adjective-type ones like Super, have needed protection now and then in the past. Isolated vandalism should be handled like you did though: cleaning it up and dealing with the vandal directly. Thanks, though, for handling this one! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. --Canoe1967 (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a rationale?
Look at Talk:Big. Is citing a section of this page wrong or not wrong? If not wrong, why am I seeing inadequacy on rationales, especially closing ones? --George Ho (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not wrong. I don't know what inadequacies you're seeing. Is this to be a rehash (or sidehash) of Move review/Log/2012 June 18? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss this later after "Big" move review is over, okay? --George Ho (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my point. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary link for main title in disambiguation pages
The policy on disambiguation pages says there should be no external links. However, I've noticed it has become a common practice to include a Wiktionary link for the main title of the page at the top. For example flower (disambiguation) includes a wiktionary link. Should we consider amending the policy to make this an exception? Coastside (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSDAB includes that. I don't know if it needs to be repeated here, but I have no problem seeing it here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the exception and cross-reference. Coastside (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with a thorny dab question
I have been asked to not disambiguate links to Las Vegas, Nevada since I don't know what I am doing. So I need some advice, or maybe help in cleaning up the inbound links to that article. Much of this probably traces back to the fact that when this move was done, a cleanup of the inbound links was not done. In summary, Las Vegas is inherently ambiguous. So the question arises over how to correctly disambiguate the links. Ten of the largest hotels in the world are not located in the city proper, but in the township of Paradise, Nevada with an additional one in Winchester, Nevada with not one in the city. When the city article was moved to the primary name space, it was with some discussion of the fact that Winchester and Paradise are somewhat related to city. However that logic did not address the issue of how to correctly disambiguate the links.

What I have been doing, prior to being told to stop since I was doing it wrong, was linking in line uses of Las Vegas to Las Vegas Valley since that is the article that covers the area generally considered as Las Vegas. Since then, I'm seeing editors using Las Vegas area or Las Vegas-area in the running text. I finally decided to bring this here when I found a new article, 2012–13 West Coast Conference women's basketball season, that links this in a way that is more confusing to readers. It hard redirects Las Vegas to Paradise, Nevada which is the venue for this event, but as a redirect is confusing for readers.

There are three options that I see. One is to link everything to the city, but since most of the articles are about things or events are not in the city but in one of the ten or so other places that are commonly know as Las Vegas and any definitions to include more of the area as links to the city would be WP:OR. This in my mind is completely wrong. Another option is to link the running text to the Las Vegas Valley which covers all of the common uses of Las Vegas (in Nevada) and is generally 100% correct as a target. The other option is to link to the formal place name which is more confusing due to the common name issue. Most infoboxes use the correct location so if anyone looks at the article for the building where something happens, they see generally see both, the correct location in the infobox and a link to the the Las Vegas Valley in the running text and maybe the physical location like Paradise or Winchester. Or in some cases Clark County, Nevada since some popular venues are in unincorporated Clark County.

So any comments on what is the best or most correct option here? For the record, before the move my estimate is that 95% of the inbound links for Las Vegas where not about the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not just edit Las Vegas to note that people, when referring to that name often include surrounding areas in the Las Vegas Valley, and drop a citation (it should be easy to find one)? Then the article will at least generally point readers to the next higher level of geographic abstraction as the possible answer to the link. bd2412  T 14:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting that the links should point to the city and the readers would need to decide if they should use a hat note for the correct place named Las Vegas for that article? Linking to the Valley is always correct and if a reader wants details on the city they could do that.  Even the recent move discussion basically argued that the city is not the primary use unless you assume that two of the nearby townships, out of I think 8 townships, are consider to be in the city.  I thought links should get you to the best article with hat notes to offer other options.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * . Perhaps we could break all rules and put a three coloured map on the dab page showing the city, the valley and the strip? Then readers could have a little more info as to what they truly seek?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That would mean changing all the links to Las Vegas (disambiguation), which wouldn't solve anything. Linking to Las Vegas Valley seems most appropriate to me, except where the link really should refer to the city proper. Bazonka (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I should have clarified. I don't really care which the main goes to, but looking at the dab page for the first time it seemed a little confusing to me. I grew up in Vancouver and most of us still refer to the whole area that way, not just the tiny city in the middle.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is the same in Vegas as far as I'm concerned. But that is not the case are the last move.  I hope that in time, the current arrangement will be changed.  The biggest problem that I see is that there is no clear primary topic and yet the term is too heavily used to be a dab page. So I guess you are saying that when appropriate, dabbing links to the valley in the running text is OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the current article titles are to be kept, then yes, I think that dabbing to Las Vegas Valley would be OK. But I think the best solution would be to move what's currently at Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas (as primary topic), and what's currently at Las Vegas to Las Vegas (city). There are parallels with London and City of London. Bazonka (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is an entirely reasonable suggestion. The primary topic should be the one that is generally in the minds of readers looking for the article. bd2412  T 19:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this is the way things are as the result of a WP:RM discussion which moved the dab page from the primary topic. I hope that this can be changed at some time in the future.  However I don't believe that in RM discussions there is much consideration on how dabbing articles will be handled after a move when the case is complicated.  I guess that on proposed moves, those who are involved here may need to look at the RM nominations and comment where they see an issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A move can always be proposed again, although it might be wise to wait a while. In the meantime, I suggest changing most of the links to point to Las Vegas Valley. If and when sanity prevails, and the Valley article is moved to Las Vegas, then these links will still be pointing to the right place, albeit via a redirect. Bazonka (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Postmodernism
I created a DAB page at Postmodernism (disambiguation), but I'm not sure how populated we should make it. The reason is, we have a ton of articles on postmodernism, all named differently - for example: Should we list all of these on the DAB? A related example is Liberal, but that doesn't list all of the uses. --KarlB (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Might be a good spot for a broad concept article at the base name instead, since probably many of those other articles are about different aspects of the same broad topic "postmodernism". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The broad concept article is at Postmodernism, more or less. But there's also a more complex merge discussion going on there. In any case, is it acceptable to have both a broad concept article (longer, exposition etc) and a DAB (short,sweet, give me the links)? --KarlB (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Must have gone cross-eyed for a moment there. No idea how I missed that the dab wasn't at the base name. Yes, a dab for the ambiguous topics other than slices of the broad-concept topic would be necessary. I'm less sure about repeating the slices of the broad concept as independent topics on the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. If there were an independently notable book or album titled "Postmodernism", that would be ambiguous to the philosophical concept, which envelopes all the other meanings. Different expressions of the philosophy of postmodernism are just not ambiguous any more than glass bottle and plastic bottle are ambiguous to bottle. bd2412  T 19:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the language here again, and Perth
Part of the problem seems to stem (again) from the watery language here, which (if they're right) renders the primary topic guidance useless for guidance. Either we need to give usable guidance here (primary topic is determined by usage and surprise-avoidance) or we should finish the job and make it explicit that every page can determine its primary title independently, and if they have consensus to use any of these guidelines (usage, surprise, age, population, size, weight, recentness, whatever) they may. The middling approach fosters drama when the guidelines are applied in closing move requests. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:Perth, Western Australia ff.
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth‎
 * Move review
 * Well I think I have argued many times that there is nothing wrong with a dab page being at the primary location, if there is no clear primary topic. Define clear how you want.  Clearly 50% in favor is not supportive, also in my opinion neither is 60%.  At 70% you might have a case and at 80% you have a strong case.  But those numbers need to be tempered by the policies and guidelines they are saying apply.  That is the more difficult part of the argument to judge. However many editors believe that is not acceptable.  Directing to the wrong page can be confusing for readers especially where there are multiple other uses of the term, especially in a case were renaming another article to the primary name would really help readers. Also we need to make clear how to use the inbound links in discussions.  While generally reliable, they are not always.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is what the guidelines currently say: no primary topic = dab at base name. And if the current guidelines aren't up to the task of determining what's primary, I'm absolutely earnest that we should junk them. Of you possible definitions, 50%-80% of what? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of the !votes. Of course you could have a case where the opinions are 50%-50%.  But those on one side are citing policies and guidelines.  While those on the other are WP:ILIKEIT.  In that case, I think the result would be clear.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think counting !votes is a bad gauge. Not just because of WP:NOTVOTE, but also because we couldn't determine a primary topic without a move request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it is obvious. If it is not obvious to virtually all editors that there is a single primary topic (especially if established, experienced editors make well reasoned arguments for more than one topic) then there is no single primary topic and the dab page should be at the primary topic. It isn't a vote, dabbing is the best option to stop this place becoming solely a popularity/google search/recentism competition. The-Pope (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you are in agreement that we scrap the criteria given here and simply leave it the consensus of virtually all editors at each title's talk page? Perhaps with the further clarification that any absence of clear consensus for one topic is a (possibly new) consensus for no primary topic (dab page at the base name)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The current guidelines are fine, usage and long term significance are both appropriate to use (I note that you avoided to mention long term significance above) but unless one article is overwhelmingly leading in both criteria then the dab page should take the primary page. The-Pope (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right; there's nothing to scrap, only to clarify what the current consensus for PRIMARYTOPIC is. The guideline is here to instruct the participants which criteria they should contemplate in the move discussion, not to define a hard rule by which any particular article can be tested against (as I don't think there's ever been a consensus to use it in that way). I think that if several competing criteria are listed at the move discussion, and participants roughly agree that all them are relevant to the case at hand even if they don't agree which one is the strongest, that should count as consensus that there's no primary topic. Diego (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) "surprise-avoidance" is another term for "long-term significance" (or maybe it's just mine). The reason we have a "long-term significance" criterion is to avoid surprise for readers who look for "apple" and find a tech company (based on readership stats), or to avoid having a current event's skew of traffic result in too many page moves (and surprises when the event fades). And there is no "overwhelmingly leads" bit to the significance criterion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no "overwhelmingly", but there's "more likely than all the other topics combined" and "substantially greater enduring notability... than any other topic", which points to the same direction of primary topics being the excepcion, not the rule. I think we all four are in essential agreement right now; I don't see any base difference, only the degree at which a primary topic can be assessed. That's why I think it's a good idea to have a clarification that it should be determined by clear consensus in the move talk, with a remark that the default is having no primary topic when consensus is not reached. Diego (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ... the result of which would be the same as if we simply remove the criteria from this guideline, since they are moot. The consensus as to whatever is the primary topic at each title, by any criteria that can get that local consensus, is to be used. We can leave the tool links and ideas for determining the best reader experience, but we shouldn't mislabel them as "criteria" if they are only to be applied when local consensus selects them (which will be when they fit the conclusion, instead of finding which conclusion meets the criteria).-- JHunterJ (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you understand that this is exactly what we have now in the guideline as it's written? It explicitly says that there is no single criterion for defining a primary topic and that there are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors. The point of listing these criteria in the guideline is to guide editors, not to dictate their behavior.
 * Following the current wording, editors mentioning the criteria listed in the guideline should have a slightly stronger position that editors using any other criterion, since there's a global consensus that those are valid criteria - and because the guideline lists good practices that are accepted in the Wikipedia community. This means that using the criteria explicitly lidyrf is usually a good idea; not that any other criterion should be discarded as forbidden by policy. Per the Wikipedia does not have firm rules and consensus pillars, this is exactly how all guidelines are expected to be followed; never as hard rules that should be followed to the letter.
 * (The current wording does not call them "criteria", if that helps. They're referred first as "aspects commonly discussed" and later as "Tools that may help to support ... a primary topic"). Diego (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To me surprise avoidance is another usage consideration rather than long term significance, which has the actual comment of "enduring notability and educational value", regardless of usage. My request is to add the unless overwhelmingly leads bit to both criteria.The-Pope (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the benefit to the encyclopedia or its readers in that change? If there are two topics that both have long term significance (so neither should surprise a reader to be found from the search term), but one of them is overwhelmingly sought by readers, it seems better for the encyclopedia to put that one at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clear now that you see the two criteria to select or determine a primary topic as being "or" logic whereas I see them as being "and" logic. As for the potential benefit of readers, one benefit of the"dab them all" outcome is that it eliminates the chance of mislinking a secondary topic to the primary topic (which would be a surprise for reader, say reading an article about a Scottish nobleman and being linked to an Australian city). We will now get the occasional links created to Perth that should be to somewhere else and will not be detected as easily as if they a were linked to a dab page. I've had my say, it's been overruled, so I'm not going to contribute to the current RM as it is heading fast towards being a candidate for WP:LAME. I just hope someone out a bot eventually updates all of the links, subpages, templates etc that now link to redirects. The-Pope (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Preference for natural disambiguation
Question about WP:NCDAB's "If there is a choice between using natural and parenthetical disambiguation, such as Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics), there is no hard rule about which is preferred". I've often used the preference for natural disambiguation from WP:PRECISION's "Parenthetical disambiguation: If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses ", and these two seem to be in contradiction. Can we change the language here to show a preference for natural disambiguation? Also, I just noted that my lumping of comma-separated dab as a type of natural dab is not how WP:PRECISION sorts them. I may take that up there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This topic is being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Let's not split the discussion. Please post any comment about this topic there. Paolo.dL (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why did you split the discussion by raising it there? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not. I started writing my comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles even before editing this article at 16:03, much before you initiated this discussion (by the way, I guess my edit is what attracted your attention on the above mentioned contradiction). It took a lot of time for me to write my comment, so eventually I posted it after you started this discussion, but without being aware of your contribution here. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're right about drawing my attention to it. No problem for me -- I watch both pages already. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Fighting
(relocated from here...) hi! was this wise? i thought, that there should be just one step between Fighting and Fighting (film)... before it was (IMO) a little bit non-intuitive: Fighting, combat(automatically), Fight and then Fighting (film)... Thx. Bye --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * is it a rule that the verb with -ing points to its version without -ing? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fight (disambiguation) also exists, overlapping. There are two albums called Fighting as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Combat is probably the primary topic. Talk:Fighting would be a good place to, ah, fight over it. If the primary topic is restored, the hatnotes on Combat could be updated to say "Fighting redirects here, for the film see Fighting (film)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And, no, there's no rule about the merging or not of -ing verbs to their roots. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Before seeing the discussion here, I redirected Fighting to Combat again because that has a hatnote to Fight (disambiguation) with meanings of Fighting which were cut off from readers by Homer Landskirty. If Fighting is turned into a disambiguation page then it has to mention the other meanings of "Fighting". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * what if we redirect from fighting to fight? i still find it un-good that that film is hidden so much... :-) --Homer Landskirty (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would we redirect from fighting to fight? The film isn't hidden any more than the Fighting albums are. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. because it is more natural... 2. because mr. tatum is so cute... 3. those albums shouldnt b hidden that much 2... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * i did that now... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And I undid it. All the uses of Fighting are now handled by the hatnoted dab page Fight (disambiguation). There's no reason for the film to have its own hatnote.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  18:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:ShelfSkewed. The primary meaning of fighting is combat, and all other meanings are correctly addressed on the disambiguation page. bd2412  T 19:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

ok - i still find it too complicated... but if u all prefer it that way, i cant do anything about it... :-) bye bye --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Health forecasting
I came across the following:
 * Health_forecasting
 * Health forecasting (disambiguation)
 * Health Forecasting (UCLA)

There is also the related field of Healthcare forecasting, for which we don't yet have an article.

My suggestion is, we have Health forecasting be a general description of the field (with redirect for now from Healthcare forecasting), with a link at the top to the UCLA and UK programme, which would each have their own article. What do others think? --KarlB (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Full service
Should it become a disambiguation page? Right now, this is really unsourced. Or should it be disambiguated into something, like "(term)"? I see Full Service (band) and full service (radio format), not to mention Full Service: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars. --George Ho (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WP is not a dictionary. Just delete it.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was nominated as AFD before. Can you do it now? --George Ho (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have nominated it for deletion. We'll see if anyone has a reason to want to keep it...  Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been cleaned up as a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Out of date example
In the section Disambiguation, it says "the Canton disambiguation page legitimately has an entry for Flag terminology". The Canton disambiguation page no longer has such an entry. It has been replaced by a link to the redirect Canton (flag). A new example needs to be found for that section. I couldn't come up with a good one. Thanks. SchreiberBike (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I boldly changed the example to Set →‎ Volleyball. Certes (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chemistry disambiguation pages and Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages
We currently have at least five "chemistry disambiguation pages" on our most-linked list - Sodium citrate, Sulfur oxide, Butyllithium, Manganese oxide, and Benzoquinone - and another one, Lead acetate, has come up near the top of today's Daily Disambig. A previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 28 seemed to be leaning towards the conclusion that these types of pages are not properly classified as disambiguation pages per WP:DABCONCEPT, because they only list related variations of either chemical compounds containing different mixtures of the same kinds of chemicles, or molecular formulas containing different organizations of the same atoms. These are not going to go away, and some will continue to be link magnets that are unfixable without either intentionally linking to the page or at least employing highly specialized knowledge.

I would therefore like to formally propose that all pages in Category:Chemistry disambiguation pages and Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages be changed to set index pages, to more accurately reflect the relatedness of the articles listed on those pages. Please note that this change, if implemented, will not affect the substance of any of these pages, but will only entail switching the existing family of   and    tags for    and    tags to be modeled after the existing tags. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. bd2412  T 20:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; these are not truly disambiguation pages, because they are lists of related compounds, not unrelated topics that coincidentally have the same names. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Exactly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I propose to keep this discussion open for seven days from its initiation (that is, until 20:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)) to give all interested parties a fair opportunity to respond. If there are no substantial objections by that point, I will implement this proposal. Cheers! bd2412  T 18:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  Oppose , at least partially. I think these are two distinct types of pages that should be discussed separately.  For Molecular formula disambiguation pages, I think these truly are disambiguation pages.  They list unrelated topics that coincidentally have the same "names" (molecular formulas).  Any incoming links will almost always be intended for one specific item on the list, and should be disambiguated.  On the other hand, the Chemistry disambiguation pages are often a class of compounds with similar properties - they may legitimately have incoming links that are meant to refer to the class, but not necessarily to a specific member of the class.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that molecular formulas are more clearly related, but there are, at least, a great many chemical name pages that are also so closely related that an index would be more useful than mere disambiguation. For example, Sodium citrate, Sulfur oxide, and Butyllithium, could all be considered classes of related chemicals. Having glanced through the current chemistry disambiguation pages, that seems to be the case for far more of them then for those for which the same name is used for completely unrelated things coincidentally. Even in the latter case, the differences could be addressed on an index page with a table of information, something which is not useful for truly ambiguous concepts like mercury or battery. bd2412  T 19:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You said, "I agree that molecular formulas are more clearly related". Actually, I think they are less related.  I guess I didn't make myself clear.  Chemical compounds with the same molecular formula generally have no other connection to each other - they just coincidently have the same "names" (molecular formulas), in the same way, for example, that two albums by different artists may have the same name, but no other connection.  If a disambig page works for the albums, it should work the same for the molecular formulas.  For the chemistry disambiguation pages, I think we agree that pages like sodium citrate are not really disambiguation pages, but rather an articles about classes of compounds. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, if there were only two albums at issue, our policy would by to apply WP:TWODABS and not have a disambig page at all, because it is just as easy to navigate to the other page by a hatnote in that situation. (This is often the situation even where there are three possible targets, if one is more prominent and the links are short). While I understand that two molecules can have the same formula and be very different in effect, it seems to me that anyone with knowledge of chemistry would know to look up the common name of one particular formulation or another, so that somebody looking up the formula itself would be looking for information about what different substances share that formula. bd2412  T 20:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What you say makes more sense to me now in the context of a molecular formula as a search term, rather than the way I was thinking about it in terms of incoming links. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As a rule, the molecular formula pages do not have incoming links. I checked a dozen at random, and the only page I found linking to any of them was List of compounds with carbon number 22. bd2412  T 22:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support mostly. Generally a good idea per above and SIA should be the way to go: if Benzoquinone were a garage band, that would be a dab. However, each case should be reviewed prior to a bulk set of template changes, to determine if the incoming links should go primarily to the set index article or primarily to a primary topic thereof (in which case move the SIA to "(dab)", I think). If the decision is to keep large numbers of incoming links to the SIA, that should not occur just because sufficient dabbers have not been found: if the problem is manpower the pages should stay as dabs (thus oppose slightly) and a special backlog section of WPDAB should be set up instead to perform the review necessary. JJB 19:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is not so much manpower (we have plenty of dab fixers now) as the best distribution of manpower, and the need for chemical expertise to figure out which Butyllithium is being referenced, or if all of them are the same for the purposes linked. Since I plan to do the indexing myself, I will be careful to avoid de-disambiguating something that is truly ambiguous, and does not fall under WP:DABCONCEPT. My thinking on this is that most of these pages seem to be best served by indexes which can provide more information, so I would move those over first and format them into tables as I went. I would also note that there are a dew dozen chemical pages, but hundreds of molecular formula pages. bd2412  T 20:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Initially opposed but after reading comments and discussions.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but links to these pages may still be a problem, and for some it is possible that there should be a primary page for the most likely or common use and links for there to the others instead. {[Sodium citrate]] could easily be expanded as an article to cover the food additive use properly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * R'n'B has generated a list of all incoming links to these articles. There are about 300 incoming links all told, but that includes many articles having only one or two links to a long list of MeSH codes. With respect to the molecular formula disambigs, over a hundred of those are linked (through redirects) to Dictionary of natural phenols and polyphenols molecular formulas. bd2412  T 23:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The basic recategorizations have been done. I will clean up the pages and any incoming links this weekend. Cheers! bd2412 T

Lewis Lapham
We have articles on: A Google search for "Lewis Lapham" finds Lewis H. Lapham as the top result.
 * Lewis Henry Lapham (1858–1934 ) about 20 hits a day
 * Lewis Abbot Lapham (1909–1995) about 6 hits a day
 * Lewis H. Lapham (1935– ) about 60 hits a day

Lewis Lapham addresses Lewis Henry Lapham with a hatnote "Not to be confused with Lewis H. Lapham or Lewis A. Lapham."

Should I rename Lewis Lapham to Lewis Henry Lapham and redirect Lewis Lapham to Lewis H. Lapham with a hatnote pointing readers to the other two? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the hatnote on Lewis Lapham, using about, so it now reads:


 * I think that should help people find the right person quickly. Pam  D  07:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that most of the incoming links to Lewis Lapham are from links in references where this is the author cited, ie should be to Lewis H. Lapham. I'm beginning to agree with the idea of him being the primary usage, as outlined above: redirect "Lewis Lapham" to the writer, and rename the leather/oil entrepreneur to Lewis Henry Lapham (there are just a couple of incoming links to him, eg from List of castles in the United States). Pam  D  07:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the contemporary editor is the primary topic for this name. bd2412  T 13:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the feedback. I'll proceed with what I outlined in my opening post unless I hear objections in the next few days. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry to show up late, but it looks like half the links into Lewis Lapham are wrong; we should make that a disambig page and signal the need to disambiguate the incoming links. There's no need to declare a primary and hide the errors that way.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah. If you're referring to WhatLinksHere&target=Lewis+Lapham, I can go through that list and pipe the links off to their appropriate articles, if that would help. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Sixteen instances of "Lewis Lapham" meant Lewis H. Lapham, four referred to Lewis Henry Lapham, and one Lewis A. Lapham. Given that, and the Google hits, I think the present arrangement - "Lewis Lapham" redirecting to Lewis H. Lapham - is appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad Wikilink
In the section Disambiguation, the link "name for the disambiguation page" doesn't go to the right place in the article because it references a section heading which has been replaced. I believe it should link to Disambiguation. If I'm understanding that correctly, I'll go ahead and make the change. If I'm misunderstanding, please let me know. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Change made. SchreiberBike (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical primacy
I'm new to this page, so apologies if this is a debate which has already been had ad infinitum. There are currently just two criteria listed for determining a primary topic: usage and long-term significance. It seems to me there should be a third: historical (or chronological) primacy – i.e. the one that came first, and from which the other example(s) take its/their name(s). In practice, this is often the case: thus Casablanca, the city in Morocco, rightly takes precedence over Casablanca (film), even though the former gets only 50,000 hits a month to the latter's 96,000 (and, after 70 years, the film can't really be regarded as a bit of ephemeral popular culture). I quite accept that this shouldn't be an absolute rule (Perth/Perth, Scotland being a case in point), but I think it's a factor to be considered, and one that should be mentioned in the guidelines. GrindtXX (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a recurring thing. The third, where relevant, is included in the two we use. If the chronologically first is the one the readers are looking for or is the only one with long-term significance (in my mind, the only one unlikely to surprise users searching on the term and landing at the article), then it's primary. That it happens to get that usage or significance from being first chronologically is interesting fact, but not useful by itself, and as you not, it wouldn't be absolute either (see also Boston, Winston Churchill, Hamlet, Obama), so adding it here as a third criterion would not help discussions. Unless, as noted above, reword it so that it's clear that none of the criteria are to be applied to all RMs, and each RM can select whichever criterion(s) they can agree on, in which case we should make the list longer. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Awkward_(TV_series)#Requested_move_.282012.29_II
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Awkward_(TV_series). KarlB (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Neighbours / Neighbors
Odd one here:
 * Neighbours - aussi TV series
 * Neighbour, Neighbors, Neighbor - dab page.

any reason they shouldn't all go to the DAB? --KarlB (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable: for the AUs/UK spelling, plural, the TV series is the primary usage and a hatnote points to the dab page for other uses. (I would certainly say that in UK context this is primary usage). For the 3 other variants there is no primary usage, so they all go to the dab page. Pam  D  07:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, too. The TV series is likely a much more popular target than any of the other meanings of any spelling or pluralization. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A sudden passion for unnecessary disambiguation
A new editor seems to have come on board mostly for a recent redirection-creation spree: of their ten total edits, seven were:
 * Timor Car ‎ (←Redirected page to Kia Sephia)
 * Samsung (electronics) ‎ (←Redirected page to Samsung Electronics)
 * Facelift (car) ‎ (←Redirected page to Facelift (automobile))
 * Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren ‎ (←Redirected page to Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren)
 * Hyundai (conglomerate) ‎ (←Redirected page to Hyundai)
 * Hyundai (automobile) ‎ (←Redirected page to Hyundai Motor Company)
 * Hyundai (car) ‎ (←Redirected page to Hyundai Motor Company)

...with a grand total of no links to any of them. (I only noticed they'd done this because edit #10 changed an existing dab page to a redirect).

The two without dab terms seem maybe of some minimal potential use, but the others are cruft.

I know redirects are cheap, so is it even worth requesting deletion?--NapoliRoma (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems harmless to me. I think as a general rule, any "Foo (automobile)" or "Foo Automobile Company" page should have "Foo (car)" redirect to it, so I think those are fine. bd2412  T 14:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Andre/André
Any reason to not merge these? The contents seem to overlap pretty significantly.--KarlB (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no problem. I would use Andre as the main dab just to avoid anyone trying to find an accent key when typing in the search box. André could be a re-direct to Andre. Just my useless opinion as usual though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think they should be merged but the given name list hived off, probably to André (given name) as it's the more common. Long, inevitably incomplete, lists of given-name-holders have no place in a dab page; lists of surname-holders are of possible use, but they should come after the true dab page entries (place, wine, car, bands, and people known by the single name). Pam  D  22:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Istra
Does anyone agree with User:Ezhiki's description of this hatnote at Istra, Istrinsky District, Moscow Oblast?


 * the title is not ambiguous, which is why the hat is not to a disambig page but to a set index, which lists entities with similar (or, in this case, exactly the same) names (and that's "names", not "article titles"

Firstly, I don't see where WP:SETINDEX says that set index articles should be linked from eponymous article titles in hatnotes. Because of the existence of WP:NAMB, I was pretty sure we don't do that at the English Wikipedia. I know other language Wikipedias litter their eponymous articles with hatnotes like that, but we don't. If we name the Istra in Istrinsky district to make that explicit, then that title isn't ambiguous with the one in Krasnogorsky District at all and there's no need for a hatnote. If anyone wants to reach the set index article, they do it by looking up the root - Istra.

I think this is a misinterpretation of WP:SIMILAR. The only way I see such a generic rule would apply would be if there was for example a redirect Istra, Moscow Oblast that pointed only to the referenced article. Otherwise it seems like top-of-the-page link spam, exactly the kind that WP:NAMB was meant to prevent. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, since it's not a dab page, a dab hatnote is out of place (and WP:SIMILAR doesn't apply since we're not talking about two articles one of which is at the base name and the other is qualified -- these are both qualified). The set index should instead be linked from the See also section or the body text, if at all. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Were the dab page Istra (inhabited locality) to contain at least one article (aside of itself Istra, Istrinsky District, Moscow Oblast), then such hatnote would be a bit useful, probably. But now this hatnote is completely useless and should be <&#33;-- -->’ed out. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the WP:NAMB's provision stating that a hatnote pointing to "tree (disambiguation)" is unnecessary in the "tree (set theory)" article makes perfect sense, but how is that the same with two places called "Istra", both located in the same Moscow Oblast? Can you honestly claim that there is no potential for confusion here whatsoever? Consider a reader looking for the smaller Istra (the one we have yet no article on)—that reader has a very good chance of landing in an article on the larger Istra, if all they have is the name and approximate location (i.e., the oblast but not the district). And they wouldn't even know that's not the right one! The least we can do is to point out that perhaps this isn't the right page, and that another place by the same name exists nearby. What better place to do it than in a hatnote? Show me how this is an impossible scenario, and I'll agree that this particular hatnote is useless "top-of-the-page link spam". If the hatnote linked to "Istra (disambiguation) instead of the set index, the spam argument would have made a lot more sense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 18, 2012; 12:48 (UTC)
 * I don't see any potential confusion for readers who actually reach one of the articles, since Istra leads to a disambiguation page and Istra, Moscow Oblast leads to the set index, either of which then leads each reader to the article that reader sought. How would a reader reach Istra, Istrinsky District, Moscow Oblast otherwise? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no potential for confusion because you made the ambiguous link point to the set index article at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istra,_Moscow_Oblast&oldid=502953198 Like I said before, had anyone pointed it to the Istrinsky district article, that would have created a potential for confusion. Instead, it's already done unambiguously, and the hatnote is pointless. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See, your argument is strictly in terms of Wikipedia infrastructure. The readers, however, reach our articles from all sorts of external places and aren't necessarily familiar with Wikipedia's rigid arbitrary rules of disambiguation upon arrival, or know which title can be considered ambiguous and which can't be (and it's not like we are consistent, anyway). Do a google search for "Istra", "Istra, Russia", or "Istra, Moscow Oblast", for example, and imagine yourself in a position of a reader who is searching for a smaller Istra but isn't aware that another, larger, Istra exists nearby. And if one bit of information that reader is searching for is the name of the district in which Istra is located, they are going to be royally screwed with almost 100% certainty. The easiest way to prevent that scenario is by adding a hatnote. And google searches is just one of the ways to arrive to "Istra, Istrinsky District, Moscow Oblast" directly. The article can be linked to from any other external site. If all those people arriving from external sites are excluded from the definition of "readers" as defined by the disambiguation framework, then of course your argument makes perfect sense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 18, 2012; 13:56 (UTC)


 * Well, we can only control the information we actually control. If Google is going to direct all searches for "Istra" to the wrong Wikipedia page, we can neither predict nor prevent that. Adding the hatnote to the mess has the potential to make users believe it's actually correct to think that "Istra, Istrinsky District, Moscow Oblast" is ambiguous - which it isn't supposed to be. On the other hand, if you want to talk about the Istrinsky district article as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Istra, Russia", then you have a case for a hatnote. But I don't see you arguing that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not the point I was trying to make. We cannot, of course, predict how our articles will be linked to by external sites, but we should at least recognize the fact that our articles will be linked to by external sites in some manner, and that a good number of our readers neither know about, nor care much about Wikipedia's disambiguation/hatnote guidelines.
 * I still fail to see your point. If we were to try to counter all the weird access vectors people use to get to articles, we'd get nowhere. I bet if you google for "istrinsky" and "russia", you're likely to get to that article, too. Does that mean that we should also add a hatnote for Istrinsky as well? Don't you see the slippery slope? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I keep failing to convey my point clearly. Perhaps your "Istrinsky" example will help: first, if you search for that, you will most likely end up on the Istrinsky District page (which is no help in the scenario I described), and second, no, you wouldn't get to the article about the smaller Istra, because there is no article to get to just yet (and without a hatnote all the leads lead to the larger Istra). What do you think is a better outcome&mdash;having a reader land on a page which is completely wrong (i.e., the one about the larger Istra) and not even hinting that it might be wrong, or landing that reader on the same page and at least having a hatnote which makes it clear that the page is not necessarily the right one? I understand your arguments from the dab guidelines standpoint, but I can't comprehend why upholding a piece of bureaucratic rule should be more important than preventing the possibility of a reader's confusion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2012; 16:32 (UTC)
 * But it's not wrong in a manner that the user can't grasp. You tell the people in the article title that this one is in Istrinsky district, which in and of itself already indicates that there's a reason why the district is being mentioned. In real life, millions of toponyms are naturally disambiguated, and practically everyone understands the concept of duplicate short location names being added more information to disambiguate them from other eponymous locations. You seem to be treating all readers as if they will get so utterly confused by ever landing at the existing town article that it will cause them never to even try to get to the village article. That's just not a legitimate approach to the reader of an encyclopedia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, regarding the statement that our readers will "think that 'Istra, Istrinsky District, Moscow Oblast' is ambiguous" because there is a hatnote, that's exactly the problem with Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines. Trust me, no reader outside the circle of those who had a chance to participate in WP:DAB's increasingly esoteric discussions will think that. Ask five non-Wikipedians around you what they think about a hatnote in that article, and if one of them says "I think it means the article's title is ambiguous", I'll eat all the buttons of the shirt I'm wearing, videotape the process, and post that video on Youtube.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 18, 2012; 14:19 (UTC)
 * Well, I flatly disagree - the disambiguation procedures at the English Wikipedia are largely self-evident and logical, and readers are helped just fine by them. In addition, people love our categorization, which helps achieve similar goals. If this wasn't the case, there would have been much more backlash; instead all I ever hear is people thinking Wikipedia is actually usable and navigable, much unlike the rest of the Internet. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, with all due respect, you obviously never asked normal people to read the disambiguation guidelines, or their perplexed and puzzled faces would tell you a different story (and that, unlike your statement, is empirical&mdash;cruel as it may be, I love pointing people to WP:D to see their reaction). Mind you, there are, of course, both self-evident and logical pieces here as well, but a good chunk of the rules is nothing but bureaucratic redtape which no one but their designers can clearly follow (the "primary topic" discussions alone already rival the medieval debates about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin). With that in mind, go ahead, do ask several non-editors what they think the meaning of the hatnote in Istra is, I dare you :) If that wouldn't put a dent in your flat refusal, then nothing else probably will.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2012; 16:32 (UTC)
 * I see no coherent argument in there, only anecdotal evidence that conflicts with my own anecdotal evidence.
 * Primary topic discussions can be annoying, but it's the real world that makes it annoying - the readers who expect the one major Perth at "Perth" or one major corn at "corn" come asking that we move their intended meaning (i.e. not disambiguate that one), and then there's haggling over the calculated/estimated/perceived/guessed ratios of all other readers who would be positively or negatively affected. However, the amount of people asking for more disambiguation via hatnotes is relatively small, and those debates are far less contentious. That indicates to me that hatnote rules have struck a much better balance than primary topic rules. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, note that there is no benefit to the reader to direct them from a disambiguation page to a set index article in order to find one of the two entries on the set index article. The disambiguation page needs to list all ambiguous topics, regardless of how pointless that makes the set index article. And I have so tagged the dab for cleanup, since Ezhiki has reverted the fixes twice now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you mean that the red linked one shouldn't be there at all, since it has no coverage on Wikipedia? I'm OK with that approach too, but Istra, Istrinsky District, Moscow Oblast needs to be listed on the Istra dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is one of the things I meant. Another one is that removing a link to a set index is hardly productive. If you absolutely must list all dab-compliant entries on the dab page as well (something I think is completely redundant, but oh well), why not do a bulleted list with the set index on top and the qualifying entries below it (like so)? However, I wish you all the best luck in sorting out which entries from, say, this page belong on this dab, and which ones don't (and then check back periodically, because the status of some of the previously unqualified ones may have changed). I sure ain't helping with that :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 18, 2012; 13:56 (UTC) 13:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The set index article is likely not the topic sought by a reader reaching the disambiguation page. I did incorrectly assume the inhabited locality was mentioned on the blue link from its entry on the set index page. Yes, maintaining disambiguation pages to keep up with changes in Wikipedia does require work, just like maintaining maps in the real world to keep up with changes requires work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, does this mean I can count on your assistance with copying the qualifying entries on the Alexandrovka set index to the Alexandrovka dab? Should a taskforce which would copy all qualifying surnames from the surname set indices to corresponding dabs also be set up? And one for ships, too? The Peterson dab, for example, is currently listing none of the entries from Peterson (surname), and I doubt that most people arriving to the Peterson dab are there to find the article about the surname; they are much more likely to search for a certain person with that surname.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2012; 16:32 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression you "ain't helping with that"? No, no surname-holders should be duplicated on a disambiguation page -- surname-holders are only listed on a disambiguation page when there is (as yet) no surname article (not set index article) for them. Once a surname article exists, it should be listed on the dab page like any other ambiguous topic article. The surname is ambiguous, but the name-holders are typically not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I sure ain't, but in five or so years you are literally the only person whom I'm seeing doing that kind of work, so I'm just bringing it to your attention, is all. Other people seem to be just fine with the set index links included on the dab pages instead of individual entries.
 * As for the surname articles, they actually are set index articles, and they've been for a while. So perhaps if we start calling the Russian sets "the toponym articles", it would make it possible to apply the same kind of logic? After all, toponyms are just like surnames, only for places... And the entries in the "toponym articles" typically aren't ambiguous either (because they are supposed to have been properly disambiguated prior to inclusion).
 * And my question about Alexandrovka still stands, by the way. I understand if you don't want to work on that task yourself either (after all, it's a lot of work with unclear benefits), but could you perhaps comment if you think it should be done at some point (and how)? The reason I'm asking is because I have about 17,000 other set indices modeled after that one waiting in line to be created once other groundwork is laid. Someone should probably start planning for incorporating them into dabs...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2012; 17:37 (UTC)
 * We've hashed some of this out before (Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 31). I do not believe there is consensus for excluding ambiguous entries from a disambiguation page just because they happen to be listed on a set index article. You're literally the only person I've seen object to the inclusion of ambiguous topics on a disambiguation page. If anthoponymy articles (covered by their own Wikiproject) are for some reason categorized as set index articles (and the link you provided Category:All set index articles says "Note that currently and  also put pages in this category, and such pages perhaps are not really set index articles."), the disambiguation guidelines still hold, and the disambiguation guidelines treat surname- and given-name-holders differently than actually ambiguous topics. So it may be that some set index articles list only ambiguous topics, others list none, and other list a mix; regardless, whichever entries are actually ambiguous would be disambiguated on the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not so much against it as I simply don't see the point, and I'm afraid your approach is simply a waste of time, both yours and mine (but I'd also love to hear other people comment on this). There is a reason why I keep bringing up Alexandrovka as an example: sure, one can comb several hundred entries there to see which ones belong on the corresponding dab page; sure, one can return there every couple months to do it again to catch the entries which became blue or now meet DABRL; and sure, one could even simply mechanically copy the whole set index onto the dab page and reformat it to meet the dab guidelines (like you did with Istra), but what is ultimately the point of doing so? The only reason you are giving so far is that "the entries must be listed on the dab page", but apart from satisfying the bureaucratic requirement of the disambiguation guidelines, do you really believe there is much practical value in that approach? You'd waste hours and hours on linking and maintaining the 17,000 set index we will eventually have (and ultimately they will all contain blue links, too), just so a rule is satisfied and one click is saved? If you enjoy that kind of work, then, as we Russians say, have a drum and a banner to wave, but I just won't be convinced that the time it takes is the time well-spent. Nor am I convinced that, when it comes to populated places, a raw listing of links is a better navigational tool than a well-structured list with useful metadata (such as location maps, coordinates, and references) which is located one more click away.
 * Regarding Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 31, I find it interesting that at the time the surname articles weren't considered to be SIAs at all (except, perhaps, indirectly by yours truly), but now they are included into the "all set index articles" category (albeit with the provisional note you mentioned). The note itself is linked to a 2009 discussion; the "SIAs again" discussion is from 2010, and seeing how nothing has changed since then (and how another discussion you tried to initiate after one of our encounters not too long ago generated zero interest) I'd say it's a good indication that there is no real consensus either way. The subject could certainly benefit from more discussion, but unfortunately no one besides you and me seems to be all that interested in it. With that in mind, perhaps the best course of action would be if we leave each other alone, observe which approach is adopted by others as time goes, and perhaps re-visit the issue a couple years from now?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2012; 20:25 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "leave each other alone". My editing of disambiguation pages in line with the current guideline is not an encroachment on your solitude. Joy is also interested just now, and I assume the other editors who contributed to the guidelines have interest. The small sampling of pages that you and I happen to have overlap on is hardly indicative of Wikipedia as a whole. The best course would be to continue to improve the encyclopedia with the current consensus as reflected in the guidelines, or to improve the guidelines if they do not reflect current consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I think you got me convinced that gauging the existing consensus is a good first step. As a starting point, I have one question. In discussions, you, as well as some other participants of WP:DAB, often put forth an argument that the purpose of the disambiguation pages is purely navigational. While I don't subscribe to the mechanical interpretation such position often leads to, I do sympathize with it to some extent. However, I was unable to find that statement on the Disambiguation page (the closest match is the nutshell description, which implies but does not explicitly spell that point out). If it's located somewhere else, could you please point me to it, as well as to the original discussion thread which established a consensus for it? Thank you in advance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2012; 15:40 (UTC)
 * It's my summary of the lede for WP:D: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous ... Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." and for WP:MOSDAB: "Disambiguation pages are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term.... Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are aids in searching." Since they are not encyclopedia articles, they do not have encyclopedia article content. And (AFAICT) that's the consensus from the discussions in the project pages, not just my & some others' argument. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you; this is most helpful. I've missed the MOSDAB wordage completely. Should be enough to get me started, although if it's not too much trouble, I'd really love to see the actual thread(s); the kind which one could quickly look at and say "yup, a consensus has been established here". Or is it not something that can be located in one place? If so, then gauging the current consensus is doubly necessary, because it's too easy to slip bias (often unintentionally) into the interpretation of various scattered discussions. Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2012; 16:39 (UTC)
 * Here are some, just from searching the archives on "not articles" "are navigational" or "purpose of":
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 6
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 12
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 12
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 30
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 30
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 30
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 33
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 33
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 34
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 34
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 34
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 34
 * Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 34
 * or try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=%22purpose+of+disambiguation%22+OR+%22purpose+of+dab%22+OR+%22navigational%22+OR+%22not+articles%22+OR+%22aren%27t+articles%22+prefix%3AWikipedia+talk%3ADisambiguation%2F&fulltext=Search
 * and parallel searches at the MOSDAB Talk and the WikiProject talk pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Extra navigational step" mentioned in Twodabs section. And two dabs with no primary topic.
The WP:TWODABS guidance states that a disambiguation page is not needed when there are only two topics, and one of them is a primary topic, a hatnote can be used instead. "This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page." Huh? The readers still have to go through the other article. Unless they go directly to the correct disambiguated article name, then they'll still have to click on an extra link, and if this is another article, it would undoubtedbly be larger than the dab page and take longer to load. (These latter considerations may be important for users with slow internet connections or a monthly download limit.) I suggest we remove the sentence about the extra navigational step. And on a separate but related subject, I don't think we ever fully got to the bottom of what happens when there are only two topics and neither is primary. My view is that a dab page is a better solution than hatnotes for precisely the reasons above, i.e. loading a short dab page is quicker and smaller than loading an inappropriate article. Either way, something should be mentioned in these guidance notes. Bazonka (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The extra link language is applicable where there areonly two topics and one is primary because the reader would 1) arrive at the wrong article, 2) have to click to the disambiguation page, and 3) click to the other article. What TWODABS suggests is that in cases such as this it is preferable to link directly to the other ambiguous article in the hatnote. older ≠ wiser 10:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, yes that makes sense. Bazonka (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we ever fully got to the bottom of what happens when there are only two topics and neither is primary 
 * I'm pretty sure we did - when there's no primary topic, a normal disambiguation page is in order. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * … by default, as a rule of thumb which meets its exceptions. First, some ambiguous titles do not contain a dab page, but are ambiguous redirects. Second possibility, although rare, is redirect directly to an article, where two valid meanings is related (or confused) in such way that a separate dab page for their distinction is impractical. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation page is still in order. The ambiguous title without a primary topic should lead to a disambiguation page, either located at the ambiguous base name title, or targeted by a redirect at the ambiguous base name title. Either way, a normal disambiguation page is in order. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Joy, I entirely agree with you, but others do not. See Talk:Engelbert Humperdinck and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 35. I think your suggestion is entirely reasonable and I propose amending WP:TWODABS to clarify this point. Bazonka (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding Engelbert Humperdinck, that discussion alone doesn't seem to indicate who is the primary topic. Someone should go through the entire list of Special:WhatLinksHere/Engelbert Humperdinck and see if there are mismatches - articles linking to the singer while we have composer as the primary topic. If that number is significant (e.g. more than 20%), then the assumption that the composer is the primary topic is gone. The amount of links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) also needs to be assessed. If the numbers are comparable, then that also pretty much does away with the assumption. I sympathise with the argument that the singer named himself after the composer, but the problem of the ambiguous title has arisen in the real world already - if we're going to pretend it's not there, that's only going to be confusing a lot of users arriving at the ambiguous title. I also saw the argument of how we're going to be spending the time of users arriving at a disambiguation page - but these users aren't confused, they are directed to the information they want in a straightforward manner, and they're also quickly informed about the ambiguity. It's an acceptable waste of user time - the purpose of the encyclopedia is to spread knowledge, not to optimize Internet searches or whatever. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My suggested amendment is to add the clarifying sentence "Where neither topic is primary, the base article should be a disambiguation page". I know this is sort of stated at the start of TWODABS, but it would be worth repeating it at the end, because the rest of the section is entirely about situations with a primary topic, and this could cause the original message to be lost. Bazonka (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are indeed pages, and belong to articles' namespace, but are not articles. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. And your point is...? Bazonka (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume the point was that "Where neither topic is primary, the base article should be a disambiguation page" would be inaccurate, and that it should be "Where neither topic is primary, the page at the base name should be a disambiguation page". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Finding longest disambiguation pages
Just wondering if anyone might know a way, such as searching or with an existing automated tool, to find a list of the longest disambiguation pages, or perhaps all disambiguation pages that are above a certain size. Or, if not, would anyone else be interested in such a list (if I weren't the only one, maybe I'd put in a bot request)? My thinking is that the longest pages are more likely to be in need of cleanup, such as pages with paragraphs of text, or pages where someone has taken it upon themselves to dump hundreds of partial title matches, or articles mistakenly categorized as disambig pages, or pages that are just long because there are a zillion legitimate entries, but thus need more attention to try to make them easily navigable to users. Anyone know how to do this, or would have any interest in seeing it? Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the 25 longest, courtesy of Toolserver, to get you started:

+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
 * page_title                      | page_len |
 * Communist_party_(disambiguation) |   27951 |
 * St._Mary's_Church               |    23778 |
 * Himno_Nacional                  |    23173 |
 * Smith_House                     |    22685 |
 * Vyacheslav                      |    22568 |
 * First_Presbyterian_Church       |    21721 |
 * O'Neill                         |    20605 |
 * Dollar_Lake                     |    19029 |
 * Jones_House                     |    19003 |
 * Live_at_the_Fillmore            |    18995 |
 * William_Smith                   |    18383 |
 * Cone                            |    17007 |
 * John_Smith                      |    16550 |
 * Union_Township                  |    16474 |
 * Central_District                |    16130 |
 * First_Baptist_Church            |    15716 |
 * C._elegans_(disambiguation)     |    15656 |
 * Saint_Paul_(disambiguation)     |    15370 |
 * Saint-Pierre                    |    15097 |
 * First_Lutheran_Church           |    14897 |
 * Angel_(disambiguation)          |    14406 |
 * Union_Station                   |    14366 |
 * Moore_House                     |    14198 |
 * Chapelle                        |    14072 |
 * Istanbul_(disambiguation)       |    14036 |
 * R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have them complete and on my desk by noon. I will give you another 50 after lunch.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info! I'm actually surprised there aren't more pages bigger than 15k. Also, one look at Cone makes me want to kill myself. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to update the list at any time, you can use ~russell/cgi-bin/long_disambig_pages.py. (I've taken a hatchet to Istanbul (disambiguation) since generating the initial list....) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wisdom needed
There is a discussion about re-naming 2012 Aurora shooting on its talk page. This may be the wrong forum but I have noticed that those that participate here are wise in the ways of naming guidelines and policies. Any help will probably be appreciated.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation redirects
A question about principles, but probably most easily discussed in the context of a specific case.

Wikipedia has articles on two men named Morten Rasmussen: they are both Danish, both footballers, and both born in 1985. That means that we are down to about the fourth level of disambiguator. The articles are at Morten Rasmussen (footballer born January 1985) and Morten Rasmussen (footballer born March 1985), which is OK for anything that links to them, and the info at the disambiguation page is adequate for the searching reader. But would we/could we/should we do the reader a service by avoiding them needing the disambiguation page as often? Presumably most readers who are not following a link, either from within or outside Wikipedia, find the article they want via the search box. Once one has entered morten ra into the searchbox, there are only the three pages already referred to here in the drop-down box. What is opinion on having redirect pages entitled Morten Rasmussen (former Celtic footballer) and/or Morten Rasmussen (FC Midtjylland) player (both of which refer to the slightly elder player), and Morten Rasmussen (AC Horsens player) to help readers find the younger man through the search box. I'm not suggesting these club disambiguators as page moves: that would require page moves every time they transfer, and might fail to serve the purpose (they have both played at various times for one club, so Morten Rasmussen (Brondby player) would be no use).

In general, then, is it allowable/desirable to have redirects that are primarily there to direct readers from the search box to the desired article without going via the disambiguation pages. Kevin McE (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, given that profession, country and year of birth are identical, it doesn't make sense to disambiguate with those criteria. Disambiguation by place of birth would make a lot more sense here, since readers aren't likely to know about their exact birth month but there is a chance that they know their region of origin. As for redirects, they're cheap so they should be created.
 * Another option would be to disambiguate by current football club, as it would be the most informative for readers looking for each player; but it has the problem that it's more likely to change. As long as it's updated every time the player changes clubs, that could be a very good article title, too. Diego (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A major issue here is when 2 (or more players) of the same name play for the same club, whether at the same or different times. Where does the redirect direct to? GiantSnowman 13:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that redirects are cheap; as long as they accurately distinguish the two players, you should create as many as you can think of.
 * I think the suggestion of disambiguating by place of birth rather than month of birth is dubious; why would the average reader be more likely to know one of these facts than the other? Both seem rather obscure to me.
 * How do the Danish sports media distinguish between the two players? That would seem to be the most likely thread to pull on to find a workable system for naming the articles.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that since both are footballers, and there are no other entries (for now at least), you can actually skip that part of the disambiguation, IOW use Morten Rasmussen (born January 1985) and Morten Rasmussen (born March 1985). You'd have to revert to a different, longer form only if another eponymous notable person was found to exist that was born in one of these months but of a different profession - which doesn't seem very likely. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'd keep the "footballer", because otherwise anyone finding either of them will be puzzled as to why they're disambiguated by date. It saves them wondering. I like the idea of checking on Danish media - maybe one of them has a middle initial or is known as "Morty" or something? Pam  D  07:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Err, I don't follow, how will it be any more puzzling than it is now? If you see an entry named person (born month year), then it's fairly obvious that the reason for this is that there's another person born the same year but different month. The fact that they're of the same profession is in their lead sections, I see no obvious value in repeating it in the titles. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a football expert, but their infoboxes seem to say that one's a defender and one a striker - would that be better disambiguation? Pam D  08:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, I had a look at the Danish wikipedia: The dab page at http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morten_Rasmussen lists them as "Morten "Duncan" Rasmussen" and "Morten "Molle" Rasmussen", but the second of those then redirects to "Morten Rasmussen (forsvarsspiller)"! So they seem to have caused difficulties there too. Pam D  08:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Joy - yes, I agree with Pam to keep 'footballer'; that is their primary claim to fame anyway.
 * Pam - I have issues with using positions purely because they are so interchangeable and open to interpretation. GiantSnowman 08:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The pages were moved from Morten Rasmussen (football striker) and Morten Rasmussen (football defender) in 2010 because Disambiguation should ideally be by date of birth, not position. Redirects from the positions remain.  I know what positions my favourite footballers play in, but I have no idea which month they were born.  How about moving them back?  Yes, positions can change, but these two are very different.  Middle names sometimes disambiguate well but are confusing here: striker Morten Nicolas Rasmussen is known as Duncan, whilst the defender has no middle name but is known as Molle. Nicknames Morten Rasmussen (Duncan) and Morten Rasmussen (Molle) might be a possible if unusual second choice, if they are widely used.  I have added positions and nicknames to the dab page for now, to help readers pick the right article. Certes (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, many players play in both positions - Phil Babb is one off the top of my head. Positions also change during the match - it's not a safe disambig to use, whereas at least DOB remains the same. I had no idea which Rasmussen plays in which position as much as you have no idea which was born in which month. GiantSnowman 11:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But people who have heard of the players will know. Surely the point of disambiguation is that it disambiguates between subjects of the same name for people who have a small amount of knowledge in the subjects. I think Danish football striker and defender are the two best disambiguators. Seeing as neither player plays up front and in defence I don't think the Babb issue is really relevant. Every group of players that need disambiguating will have different circumstances. But they can all be disambiguated. Even if it has to be by club (IMO a last resort). Adam4267 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're catering here for those ignorant of the subject matter, who's to say they will have any idea which one is a defender and which one is a striker either? GiantSnowman 14:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point but at least people moderately familiar with one of the subjects will know which ones which. Whereas people very familiar with either won't know if we use D.O.B. Adam4267 (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For this particular example, you may be right - but it's rare to have two players born in the same year, and we really should be looking at a disambig that can be used across all articles - which DOB has done, successfully, for longer than I've been around. GiantSnowman 14:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But what about players born within 1-2 years of eachother. Or even 10-20 years for older players. As I said I don't know whether Andy Gray (footballer turned commentator) is Andy Gray (footballer born 1955) or Andy Gray (footballer born 1964). Adam4267 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew he was 1955 ;)- but seriously, would you also know which one was which position? I assumed both were strikers, and further inspection reveals that while 1955 is, 1964 is described as "Midfielder, Striker." We also need to consider footballers from the pre-mdoern era, where there were very different positions. GiantSnowman 14:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ecx2)I know he was a striker and played for Everton and Rangers and Scotland. Never heard of the other one. But seeing as they are different nationalities you could have English and Scottish footballer. If they were the same nationality you could have footballer turned pundit and footballer turned manager (maybe not 'turned' but along those lines). I know there are two English Andy Gray's so not sure how best to disambig them. But my point is you can always disambiguate between players. Adam4267 (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nationality in football is too much of an issue - all the edit wars and dramah over flags etc. - and we really shouldn't be adding to it. GiantSnowman 15:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly: these two pages were disambiguated by position, without anyone recognizing any problems with that, until May 2010, when they were moved by one user who was apparently acting solely on the mistaken belief that there was some rule, guideline or principle that called for disambiguation by DOB instead of by position. Since this rationale is false, and nobody has any other good reason why the current titles are significantly preferable to the old ones, the move should be reversed (without setting a precedent about how to handle future disambiguations, which should, as always, be based on the most recognizable identifiers for the ambiguous topics). And creating other redirects as originally suggested here is probably fine. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguating by DOB has been encouraged at WP:FOOTY for as long as I can remember; no further moves should be made until consensus emerges for one way or another. GiantSnowman 15:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that would fall under the "if I understand correctly"; I didn't understand that WP:FOOTY had anything to do with the move or this discussion because as far as I saw nobody up to this point, in the edit summary, the article's Talk pages (well, admittedly I only checked one of the two) or in this discussion, has mentioned WP:FOOTY. It might be a question whether WP:FOOTY should be brought into compliance with our disambiguation guidelines. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant WikiProject should have no say on pages moves or relevant discussions? Ridiculous. GiantSnowman 19:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you misunderstood me. To paraphrase, I said, "The move was done using a rule that doesn't exist." You said, "The rule is from WP:FOOTY." I said, "I didn't know that, because nobody in this discussion has ever mentioned WP:FOOTY. If WP:FOOTY contradicts the overall site's guidelines, perhaps that should be changed." Which I think you misunderstood as "WP:FOOTY has nothing to do with this and should do what we tell them to." (If that's not what happened, I have no idea what you're talking about.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did misunderstand. The move - and many thousands more - was done based on consensus. GiantSnowman 16:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Forget football for the moment
The opening question here only used the pair of footballers as an example, while asking whether it was OK to provide one or more disambiguated redirects to help readers find the article they want. I'd never come across this idea before, but now, while looking to see what Naming conventions (sportspeople) could offer (no help on the specific question of footballers of identical nationality and birth year!), I found this interesting section:
 * For sportspeople genuinely notable as players in multiple sports, the article should be at the disambiguator "(sportsperson)", with redirects from any more-specific disambiguations that readers could reasonably expect, e.g. "(golfer)", "(footballer)", etc..

So that legitimises the creation of disambiguated redirects, and the answer to the initial question: "In general, then, is it allowable/desirable to have redirects that are primarily there to direct readers from the search box to the desired article without going via the disambiguation pages." seems to be "Yes". Pam D  16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have created redirects for the Rasmussen's which will hopefully be searchable soon. My one concern is what if there's more than 5 footballers as only 10 links come up in the search box. Adam4267 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is why we should always have a clear, concise & up-to-date disambiguation page, just in case people get lost (as often happens). Oh, and further to the main discussion - I have no problem with redirect disambiguations at all, have indeed used them myself in the past, but I do not believe articles should be located at (position) or (nationality). GiantSnowman 16:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure which section to put this in but the redirects I created for the Rasmussen's don't seem to be coming up in search. Will this definitely work? Adam4267 (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they just take time. GiantSnowman 11:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(athlete) is a really terrible disambiguator
In American English, "athlete" refers to anyone who plays sports -- or, at least, anyone uses athletic ability to do so. We might not call a sport shooter or a race car driver an athlete. Anyway, I've come across a couple of really awful disambiguations that demonstrate this:


 * Carlos Silva and Carlos Silva (athlete). In American English, Carlos Silva the baseball pitcher would be called an "athlete" as well. Carlos Silva (athlete) actually redirects to the baseball pitcher now since there is a hurdler and a sprinter by that name (shouldn't it be a DAB page instead?). This is actually the solution I'd like to see for all track & field athletes -- Foo (runner) or Bar (shot putter). If "runner" isn't specific enough or if further disambiguation might be needed, Foo (sprinter) or Foo (distance runner) or Foo (marathoner) instead. Green-eyed girl  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 03:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jason Richardson and Jason Richardson (athlete). Certainly Jason Richardson the basketball player would be considered an "athlete" as well.

And I can't imagine these are the only examples. I understand that this refers to athletics (a term that's scarcely, if ever, used in AmE). But don't we accommodate BrE with (American football) ? If an article like, say, Eric Brown (American football), were at Eric Brown (football), that would be hopelessly confusing to BrE (or something). Seems like the same principle ought to apply to (athlete). Green-eyed girl ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 21:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The guiding disambiguation principle is that the outcome should not surprise or confuse the user. It is certainly true that in British English athlete means (entirly logically) one who participates in athletics, so Foo (athlete) and Foo (footballer) would be clear disambiguators for a British user (and for many others I suspect). US usage confuses matters entirely, and so its use as a disambiguator is not appropriate in the English Wikipedia because that is international. What is more difficult is to find an alternative, since many athletes take part at a high level in a number of disciplines and eg Foo (hurdler) would rarely work. --AJHingston (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * many athletes take part at a high level in a number of disciplines and eg Foo (hurdler) would rarely work. I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Seems most specialize at least to a specific sort of a event (jumps, throws, sprints, middle distance...) with only decathletes and heptathletes truly playing the field. And for them, Foo (decathlete) and Bar (heptathlete) would be just fine. Those terms are wholly unambiguous. Green-eyed girl  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 02:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely (athlete) is acceptable for people who are athletes. But you could just have (athletics) if it's not. And I agree having (athlete) for people who aren't actually athletes is stupid. I also find it strange that Americans can describe baseball players as "athletes" but that's not really the point. Adam4267 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "having (athlete) for people who aren't actually athletes is stupid": well, no: the problem is that these people "are" athletes in the American English sense of the word. Just as "hockey" in North America is something played on ice, so that the (to other eyes) standard game played on grass (and now on a bright blue surface!) is now Field hockey in Wikipedia. We have to make various compromises in this international encyclopedia. (I've just had a look at Comparison of American and British English: interestingly the only mention of "athlete" is to illustrate prepositions: "British sportsmen play in a team; American athletes play on a team. (Both may play for a particular team.)".  Athletics gets a mention in List of words having different meanings in British and American English: A–L, though not "Athlete" as such - but the definition of the US usage is pretty unhelpful as "Athletic sports in general, (e.g. College athletics)".)  Pam  D  10:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's now led to me spending time upgrading the College athletics so that UK sport is not solely Victorian boat-races and ultimate frisbee but actually talks about, and links to, British Universities and Colleges Sport. Anyone here from any other country might like to see whether their own country's entry in that article is adequate! Pam  D  10:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose (athletics) would be a reasonable alternative (though uncommon in AmE usage, it's not ambiguous), though it raises the question of whether sports disambiguations should be to (sport) or to (practitioner). Most seem to be (sport), with the exception of cycling – Pierre Rolland (cyclist), not Pierre Rolland (cycling) – but maybe that's another matter. Green-eyed girl ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 02:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Silva (athlete) was unused, and it came about as the result of an error - it had been changed to point from the hurdler to the disambiguation page, but then the disambiguation page was replaced with a primary topic - so I fixed it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Jason Richardson (athlete) was used, so I've started a gradual transition. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There are masses of people with the disambiguator "(athlete)" - do a search on the word, and scroll down a little, and they turn up in droves. Some are American, too - eg Bernard Williams (athlete), contrasted to Bernard Williams (gridiron football) and Bernard Williams (footballer). It might be useful to talk about the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports before starting any project to transfer all such disambiguators. Pam D  12:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not really pulling out "It would be too much work to change" as a reason against, are you? Absolutely, get more eyes on this discussion. RFC? And if consensus is against me, then skippy. But I don't think it will be. I think (athlete) was first used as a disambiguator by someone generally (or perhaps entirely) unaware of its much more general use in AmE (seriously, the article for Carlos Silva the baseball pitcher used to contain a hatnote that said "For the athlete, see...." A baseball pitcher is an athlete). And when a practice is accepted here on WP, it doesn't often fall under scrutiny. Certainly, this month wasn't the first time I thought of this, but it was the first time I thought to do anything about it. Green-eyed girl  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a problematic disambiguator if there aren't other eponymous sportspeople, so not all such cases are move targets... And the remaining problematic ones shouldn't really be contentious - for example I don't see why anyone would complain if we moved Bernard Williams from "(athlete)" to e.g. "(sprinter)". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Can someone plz rename the (gridiron player) to (American Football). I don't think anybody calls it gridiron football in general consciousness.  That's a super technical term of whose first use I heard on Wikipedia.  Speaking of which, there's been some move page warring about with Troy Davis (gridiron football), with various (American football), (Canadian football), and (football player) (because he was notable too for his college career) disambiguations used, and now back to (gridiron football). hbdragon88 (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That disambiguator seems to be because the subject is equally notable for American football and Canadian football, which, though quite similar, are indeed distinct from each other. Gridiron football might be a "clinical" sounding name, but it is accurate, and it encompasses the two sports. I'd say that DAB is right on the money. Green-eyed girl  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But accuracy doesn't dictate everything; i.e. someone once proposed Sarah Brown (public relations), which is accurate as a founding partner of a major PR firm, but nobody knows her for her work in PR, as she's more commonly known as being the wife of Gordon Brown, hence Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). No surprise that the title has been subject to multiple RMs, with some (ahem) accusations being thrown about.  Likewise, gridiron football is more accurate/precise, but it's also a lot less recognizable.  Oh, and someone just moved it to (American footballer), which is quite inaccurate, as I believe that's only used for association football players. (and the wars continue...) hbdragon88 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Gridiron as a synonym for (primarily) North American football is not as obscure or technical as you seem to think. Its use is quite common and widespread (try a Google search on gridiron football -wikipedia). With all due respect, the fact that you hadn't heard the term until recently says more about the limits of your interests than it does about the recognizability of the term in general. You are, however, exactly right about using footballer to describe a player of American football: It's just plain wrong.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  21:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe (Amercian footballer) is ok because players of the global sport should be referred to as a (U.S. soccer player}. But I think having some degree of acknowledgement between naming conventions of different sports is needed so we don't have both baseball players and athletics competitios being referred to as athletes. Adam4267 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * {{gi|I believe (Amercian footballer) is ok because players of the global sport should be referred to as a (U.S. soccer player}.}}
 * The term "footballer" is nonexistent in American English and American football. The American term is "football player".  —David Levy 01:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree with your analysis. Most of the search results I see in Google are mostly of organizations, leagues, or newspapers themselves named "gridiron" football, like Gridiron Football League/Academy (many of those), or the Lone Star Gridiron; but in the actual text, in common usage, they just call it "football".  That particular Google search (gridiron football -wikipedia) has only 9.6 million results, while American football brings up 463 million results.  If, for instance, you go to Google News, and put the name in quotes, there are 33 results for "gridiron football" (usually in the "American football, also known as gridiron football") vein, with the only non-trivial result (that of being some actual discussion and not just a name drop) being NFL commissioner Roger Goodall saying that gridiron football should be part of the Olympics. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As a complete outsider here, I do not see any harm in Troy Davis (footballer) as a disambiguator. If another Troy Davis becomes notable as a footballer then there will be a need for further and more precise disambiguation, but that is true for many such disambiguators (eg politician), and we cannot provide for all possibilities. The original point above was that athlete is an unhelpful disambiguator because as a British person I would not naturally expect a footballer (of any code) to be described as athlete, and so would not automatically think that was the person I wanted. But I would not be confused to see him described as a footballer. --AJHingston (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "footballer" is nonexistent in American English and American football. The American term is "football player".
 * I see no reason, however, not to use the title Troy Davis (football) . —David Levy 01:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been noted that an Australian footballer by that name might make his professional debut soon. —David Levy 01:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm an American who knows very little about sports. I've never viewed a professional football game that wasn't called "Super Bowl".  But I'm fully aware that "gridiron football" refers to the American and Canadian codes.  Take that for what it's worth.
 * Is there a good reason not to use the title Troy Davis (football)? If no other notable Troy Davis played/plays any code of football, why is greater precision necessary?  (This applies to any American/Canadian football player whose name isn't shared with a player of a different code.)  —David Levy 01:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree that "footballer" should not be used for Americans (and Canadians, I assume). Regarding Troy Davis (football), in general I think that "football" would be fine as disambiguation for those who have played both American and Canadian football, but I'm not sure about it in this case because of Troy Davis (Australian footballer). Admittedly that is only a redirect, but he could hypothetically make his debut in the next few weeks (without going into too much detail, there is a reasonable chance of this) and the redirect would then be turned into an article. Jenks24 (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for noting that. Indeed, the likelihood of the Australian footballer's emergence as a notable person is a sensible reason to retain the "gridiron football" disambiguator for the American/Canadian football player's article.  —David Levy 01:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase "gridiron football" turns up so few results because it is redundant in most contexts. "Gridiron" is such a common term that there is no need for the explanatory "football". A GNews search on "gridiron" alone turns up 34,500 results.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Worse than that, it was moved to Troy Davis (american footballer) (with no uppercase "A" in "American"). I've reverted.  —David Levy 01:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * David beat me to this. But just to reinforce, "footballer" is not a term associated with American football (I don't know about Canadian fb). I agree that Troy Davis (football) seems just fine. As for the original question, I agree that both "athelete" and "athletics" are problematic terms to use as a disambuator. Athelete in American English can refer to quite a lot of professional sportspersons. older ≠ wiser 01:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Should it not then be (football player) rather than (football)? It seems sensible that disambiguators should accurately describe the subject, and Troy Davis is not a football. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Our use of parenthetical disambiguation is highly inconsistent in this respect; it describes either the subject or something with which the subject is associated.
 * For North American football players, the usual format is "(American football)" or "Canadian football)", presumably because appending "player" would increase the length of a disambiguator that's already on the unwieldy side. —David Levy 01:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure about Canadian football, so I checked some of our articles about its players. All were referred to either by their positions or as "Canadian football players" (not footballers).
 * I agree that "athlete" or "athletics" is a poor disambiguator when a notable person from a different sport shares the same name. (It's fine, however, if no other individual with the name is notable as a sportsperson.)  —David Levy 01:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure about Canadian football, so I checked some of our articles about its players. All were referred to either by their positions or as "Canadian football players" (not footballers).
 * I agree that "athlete" or "athletics" is a poor disambiguator when a notable person from a different sport shares the same name. (It's fine, however, if no other individual with the name is notable as a sportsperson.)  —David Levy 01:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Those worried about the ambiguity of "athlete" might be interested to see that there's a whole hierarchy of categories under Category:Athletes by nationality, defined as "competitors within the sport of athletics, comprising track and field, road running, cross country running and racewalking."! And at a higher level, Category:Athletics (sport) is a subcategory of Category:Athletic sports. Pam D  06:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding football - American/Canadian/ Australian rules players are never called 'footballers', they are football players. Likewise, those who play association football are always 'footballer', never 'football players' - apart from American/Canadians, who we appendage with '(soccer)'.
 * Regarding athletes - I'd always assumed that 'athlete' referred to competitors in athletics as opposed to all sports. Nobody is going to search for a baseball player / swimmer with 'athletics', are they? GiantSnowman 08:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The distinction between football player and footballer in North American usage is not intuitive. It has to be assumed that other international users will be as unaware of it as I was. Football does seem an acceptable term though, as covering the different codes. But the point that for many of us athletics excludes football is one that some of those commenting have completely missed, so if used for a runner it should not confuse people, but for a participant in football it will, and needs substitution. --AJHingston (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's missed that point?
 * It's confusing to North Americans when used to distinguish a runner from a participant in a different physical sport. In North American English, both are "athletes" (and "athletics" refers to physical sports in general).
 * No one is suggesting that it would be appropriate to use the "(athlete)" disambiguator in titles of articles about sportspeople in general. This would be equally confusing.
 * The possible scenarios (in which parenthetical disambiguation is needed) are as follows:
 * "Pat DeBunny" is the name of an athlete (in the non-general sense). None of the other notable Pat DeBunnys are sportspeople.  Therefore, the title "Pat DeBunny (athlete)" is suitable; it won't confuse anyone.
 * "Pat DeBunny" is the name of an athlete (in the non-general sense). It also is the name of a notable participant in a different physical sport (e.g. baseball, golf or tennis).  The title "Pat DeBunny (athlete)" is unsuitable, as the other sportsperson also is an "athlete" (in the general sense).
 * "Pat DeBunny" is the name of a sportsperson (e.g. a baseball player, golfer or tennis player) and isn't the name of an athlete in the non-general sense. Regardless of whether another notable Pat DeBunny is a sportsperson, the title "Pat DeBunny (athlete)" is unsuitable (because it's misleading to those for whom "athlete" carries the non-general meaning).  —David Levy 01:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Slight correction, GS. Aussie rules players are "footballers" and that is the disambiguation generally used. Jenks24 (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies. In that case, how should we disambiguate between John Smith the Aussie rules player and John Smith the Socceroo? Full names of sport? GiantSnowman 11:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, when there's a conflict like that we then move to "Australian rules footballer". For soccer players I think it's normally "association footballer", although there's an argument that "soccer" should be actually be used for Australians seeing as soccer is the common name of the sport in Australia (see soccer in Australia). Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal preference is for either (soccer) or (association football) - 'association footballer' is just not correct. GiantSnowman 12:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'll try to remember to ping WT:FOOTY next time an issue like this comes up. Jenks24 (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, when there's a conflict like that we then move to "Australian rules footballer". For soccer players I think it's normally "association footballer", although there's an argument that "soccer" should be actually be used for Australians seeing as soccer is the common name of the sport in Australia (see soccer in Australia). Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal preference is for either (soccer) or (association football) - 'association footballer' is just not correct. GiantSnowman 12:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'll try to remember to ping WT:FOOTY next time an issue like this comes up. Jenks24 (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "athelete" as a disambiguator -- the issue arises when there are other athletes (in the N.Am. sense) with the same name. The term would not be appropriate in such a case. older ≠ wiser 00:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dab without other articles
I just stumbled upon the redirect Adrian Johnston, moved to Adrian Johnston (musician) some time ago. I always thought that disambiguation is exclusively a matter of arranging existing content, not to pre-emptively prevent confusion with topics/subjects that aren't even covered in Wikipedia. The guideline says nothing about such cases as far as I can see. Should something be added, and if so, should this be discouraged or encouraged? --87.78.5.185 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be discouraged. I moved it back to the base name. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --87.79.41.145 (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Krieger - is it a disambiguation page or not?
Krieger is a page about a German surname. It isn't tagged as being a disambiguation page at present, but effectively it is just a list of people with that surname, and so it is a sort of dab page. Any links to this page are almost certainly wrong (e.g. Cephalus), unless they are specifically about the surname (unlikely), but they do not appear when using DabSolver. A quick look at the page history shows that it was once a normal dab page, but for some reason the disambig template was removed. Should this sort of page have one? Bazonka (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a dab page because it lists others items in addition to people with the surname (I went ahead and added the extra 'disambig' parameter to the page). One might also consider splitting off the surname items to separate Krieger (surname) but there's no rush as the page is still a manageable length. See MOS:DABNAME. France 3470   ( talk ) 10:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought so too, but MOS:DABNAME doesn't necessarily agree: "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them". User:Boleyn2 removed the original hndis template, replacing it with a surname template (see this diff) with the comment "Corr cat". I don't understand this aspect of DABNAME - the article certainly lists ambiguous terms, and most links to the article would need disambiguating. Bazonka (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For me the key part of that statement is "Articles only listing persons". I have always been under the impression that if the disambiguation page lists items apart from those which are names it is tagged as a dab (although the surname parameters can also be applied). If the page lists only names it is an anthroponymy page, and therefore has a different role (ie it is treated as an article page). I suspect this is as much for historical sake as for anything else. Not sure why Boleyn changed the tag, but I've dropped a talk page note. France 3470   ( talk ) 22:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * hndis would not be the correct template to use, as it is specifically for disambiguation pages for complete human names, such as Tom Jones (disambiguation). Page containing only surname or given name info can use surname or given name. Mixed disambiguation pages can use disambiguation with surname or given name as parameters. older ≠ wiser 22:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good way of putting it. I should have clarified that I wasn't talking about hndis pages, only surname and given name articles. France 3470   ( talk ) 22:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks all for looking into this. Sorry, looks like this was started by my error a couple of years ago. As it has non-surname entries, it should have both 'disambig' and 'surname' categories. I had never thought about the issue with incoming links to surname pages, I'm not sure how that could be resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing this. The link to Krieger from Cephalus is now picked up by DabSolver. (I still don't know which one of the Kriegers is the correct one though.) Bazonka (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are incoming wikilinks intending the surname article, the surname article really needs to be split from the disambiguation page, IMO, regardless of length. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the links are intended to reach the surname article - they should be going to the correct X Krieger article. Unless we can identify the correct Krieger and fix the incoming link, then wherever it goes will be wrong. Bazonka (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Help needed at RfC
Help is needed at an RfC concerning disambiguation of upper/lower case article titles. RfC is at Talk:Quantum_leap. --Noleander (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

John Henry Reynolds
Can anyone advise on the correct approach to take for disambiguating John Henry Reynolds (educator) and John Reynolds (astronomer)? They are both named John Henry Reynolds. There was a hatnote on the educator pointing to John Reynolds (a disambiguation page) where both are listed. I replaced this with a redirect hatnote that tells those who follow the redirect John Henry Reynolds that there is another John Henry Reynolds (the astronomer). Both are fairly notable, but 'Henry' only appears in the article title for one of them, which makes the need for a hatnote at the astronomer article less, IMO. Though possibly the educator article should be relocated to John Reynolds (educator) and a suitable hatnote placed on the astronomer article? Possibly John Henry Reynolds should redirect to John Reynolds instead? For a bit more of the background on this, see this diff. The left-hand side shows that I moved the educator from 'John Henry Reynolds' to 'John Henry Reynolds (educator)' in October 2007 (I'd been looking for the astronomer who didn't have an article at that point). I then turned the redirect into a disambiguation page, not realising that any future creation of the astronomer article would be far more likely at John Reynolds (astronomer). I've now created John Henry Reynolds (astronomer) as a redirect (this will also populate the drop-down element of the search box, though will John Henry Reynolds being a redirect to the educator favour that one in actual searches?). This was a redlink at the time the 'John Henry Reynolds' page was turned back into a redirect (July 2009). Also note that a request for the astronomer article was listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences (7 September 2012 page version), though I haven't looked for when that request was added. Anyway: (1) Could this all have been handled more efficiently? I suspect I should have created a stub for the astronomer back in 2007, rather than making a note to do so and not doing anything (the article was eventually created by someone else in January 2011). (2) What should be done now to clarify things? Note that it is possible that if a future article appears on another 'John Henry Reynolds' that the disambiguation page may need to be resurrected. (3) Can someone check and disambiguate the incoming links for both articles (or ask in the right place) in case the linking is inaccurate? I'll have a quick look now, but might not have time to fix all the links if any are inaccurate. (4) Is there a need for the redirect J. H. Reynolds to be created (it was linked at the request mentioned above)? If so, where should it point to? Carcharoth (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it's no longer a red link, I've restored the dab page at John Henry Reynolds. There were no other incoming links to the base name to be fixed. A search for J. H. Reynolds yields a poet, so there does not appear to be a need for a dab page, although the redirect might be created to point to one of those results (I don't think it's needed). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought disambiguation pages should normally have three or more entries, with hatnotes being preferred to two-entry disambiguation pages? Or am I confusing this with hatnotes pointing to disambiguation pages only being used if the disambiguation page has three or more entries, with hatnotes pointing directly to the other article used if there are only two entries? The bit about the poet I don't understand. All three of them could legitimately be referred to in various places as J. H. Reynolds. I agree a disambiguation page is not needed, but someone may search on that term. I've never been sure how to handle this. All I know is that I have at times come across references (outside of Wikipedia) where only someone's initials and surnames are used, and it can sometimes be really difficult to work out who they are referring to. That is, I suppose, more a problem with the sources than with Wikipedia. It is not really reasonable to disambiguate two-letter initials + surname, though I would create three-letter ones as redirects, such as C. T. R. Wilson (though that is more because that is how he is referred to, similar to J. J. Thomson). Also, the poet is John Hamilton Reynolds and we somehow seem to have ended up with John Hamilton Reynolds (poet) as well. That needs fixing. Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is no primary topic, a disambiguation page is appropriate, even if it contains only two entries. older ≠ wiser 13:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank-you, that makes sense and helps a lot. While I'm here, I might as well mention another example where I'm not sure what should happen. Charles R. Wilson redirects to Charles R. Wilson (judge), but Charles Rivers Wilson also exists. For now, I've put a hatnote at the judge article, but I'm not entirely satisfied with that. I suppose as long as both are listed at Charles Wilson (they are) it matters little. The risk is that someone might fill in a link to Charles R. Wilson, see it is blue, and not bother to check whether it is pointing to the correct one. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Could be referred to" is a tricky one. If they are actually referred to as "J. H. Reynolds" anywhere, I'd be happy creating the dab. For now, I've created the redirect J. H. Reynolds (which was already linked from a handful of articles intending the poet) and turned Charles R. Wilson back into a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Set index articles definition
I believe that the current definition of "Set index articles" is too broad in that it permits the co-option of disambiguation pages without adding any encyclopedic information about the set. In other words it allows an editor to provide footnotes and additional information about specific members of a set, information that is duplicative of information in their articles, without providing value-added information about the set. The result is that pre-existing disambiguation pages that are streamlined for quick identification become encumbered with distracting and duplicative data that does not help the reader find her or his way. Appropriate set index pages seem to fall into two types:


 * 1) Those where there is appropriate encyclopedic discussion of the shared characteristics of the set (class).  This would include articles such as Dodge Charger.
 * 2) Those articles which include encyclopedic information about set (class) members for which no article is appropriate. Such articles generally keep the streamlined approach of disambiguation articles, and thus maintain their integrity as dual-function articles. (One reason for set members to not have an article is individual non-notability but notable as a set member, or for completeness on closed sets. Another such cause is that all encyclopedic information about a non-articled individual set member can be compressed into a single short line, even if they would be otherwise notable.)  An example of this type of page where the value-added information is about non-articled set members is Mud Lake, Alberta.

It is a third type of article that seems to be permitted under the current set index article rubric that is my concern. An example is the change from this old Danilovsky District disambiguation page to this new Danilovsky District set index article. (I am not concerned about the maps, which for geographical disambiguation may be quite appropriate on a disambiguation page.) It is the lack of any value added encyclopedic information about the set, information above and beyond that which could already exist at the top of a disambiguation page in the short introductory sentence fragment, at the expense of visual clarity and the purpose of navigation. In other words, they do not perform a dual function, they do not have any value-added information, and they lack the streamlining for good navigation. (This issue arose over Danilovsky District, and is discussed in part at User talk:Ezhiki.)

Where a set index article does not properly function as a navigation page, the existing suggestion is that there be two pages: there will be a disambiguation page and a set index article for the same term. I think that this should be made explicit, so that where there is significant deteriorization in the navigation function of the set article index page (i.e. this page is not streamlined) that two pages be the default. Individual topical WikiProjects can then deal with whether a particular set index page adds anything to their project. --Bejnar (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

List disambiguation first over set index article with same coverage
On a related issue, where there is both a disambiguation page and a set index article, under what conditions would it be appropriate to have the default go to the set index article? It seems to me that where there are both the default should always be the disambiguation page with the topical set index article listed first. I would recommend such a change to this guideline. --Bejnar (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd only put the SIA at the base name if it fully covered the ambiguous topics (and delete the dab). But where the dab has things that aren't in the SIA, I wouldn't list the set index first on the dab; I'd include the ambiguous topics directly on the dab, and link the SIA in See also, if at all. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this already be handled by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? The SIA is a list article --- if it is the primary topic (unlikely), then it can be the default. Otherwise, not. —hike395 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. And it's unlikely enough that if you never put the SIA at the base name (in cases where the dab has topics the SIA doesn't), you will never be wrong. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

First Commercial Bank
11 red links, only one blue link (and that a redirect). Should this even exist? Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirects are valid links. Red links are valid entries if they have appropriate blue links in the description. I've cleaned the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem disambiguating a link in a template in a table in North Circular Road
North Circular Road contains a load of links to dab pages. These offending links are called from Template:jct which is within a table. I can't work out how to put it right. For example:
 * displays as:

Disambiguating Harrow to Harrow, London with a normal pipe doesn't work (I'm not surprised):
 * displays as:

But using the | pipe gives an even weirder result:
 * displays as:

Any ideas as to how to fix this? Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Use the location params instead of city? Template:Jct/doc -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The template documentation isn't clear, but I figured it out. Thanks.
 * displays as:
 * Bazonka (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

AT&T
Maybe you can help. Consensus is that the 1885 corp is AT&T Corporation and the 1983 corp (formerly SBC) is AT&T (aka "AT&T Inc."), a primary topic for AT&T (disambiguation). However there are probably 2000 links to "AT&T" and probably half of them refer to "AT&T Corporation" instead. My concern is that, even after the 2000 links are sifted in the ordinary way, newly created incorrect links to "AT&T" that intend "AT&T Corporation" are highly probable indefinitely and will not be easy to find among the remaining approx 1000 links to "AT&T" that intend the 1983 corp. My proposal is that we have a convention that the remaining links be changed from AT&T to AT&T, which means that there would be no incoming links to AT&T in WhatLinksHere except for new links, which can be filtered as they appear. If we did not change the remaining links, there would be no easy way to spot new incorrect links. Also, per WP:NOTBROKEN, there is no reason not to adjust these links.

I am wondering if there are any other primary topics that have a similar potential for incorrect incoming links and how this may have been handled previously. And how well would my proposal be received from this project as a general rule? Thank you for your attention. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any broad solution, although I'm sure the problem has come up before. Your proposed approach seems sound, and this might be a good test case for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your saying that, but this issue has more inertia to overcome before it is fixed. It's true that one person can do 2000 links but one IP cannot do every semiprotected article if they are fielded by a random slice of Wikipedians. So far on semiprotection I've gotten a few accepts, and 3 declines from 1 user. Here is the current list of unsorted bare links to "AT&T", about half or more of which are wrong. The argument is that the other half should be redirected silently to "AT&T Inc." so that new incorrect unsorted links can be quickly fielded on an ongoing basis. Can someone please adopt at least the (currently 3) semiprotected articles at the top of this list, and perhaps follow me as I make further edit requests or chip in with dabbing some of the (still nearly) 2000 links? Thank you. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You could of course register an account so that you're no longer an IP. Bazonka (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help Bazonka. Please also see my essay. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NAMB
There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote about whether the rule against a hatnote pointing from an article with a disambiguated title to the corresponding disambiguation page is a good thing. (ie Should we allow a hatnote pointing from "Foo (something)" to the dab page at "Foo" or "Foo (disambiguation)"). Pam D  10:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Brackets or comma?
Queen Charlotte Sound is a disambiguation page linking to two articles: Queen Charlotte Sound (Canada) and Queen Charlotte Sound, New Zealand. It looks a bit odd to have one with a bracketed disambiguator and one with a comma. Which is the preferred method? Does it really matter? Bazonka (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Once a qualifier is needed, typically the specification of how to disambiguate is made by the appropriate projects. (Note that the appropriate project don't, or shouldn't, get to specify that all titles, even unambiguous ones, should be qualified.) WP:PRECISION favors natural qualifiers where appropriate, but geographic names typically use natural qualifiers for towns, cities, etc., and parenthetical qualifiers for features such as lakes, mountains, and (I assume) sounds. So unless there's a different disambiguation spec from the New Zealand project, I'd say that the New Zealand topic should be at Queen Charlotte Sound (New Zealand). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There doesn't seem to be anything at WP:NZ about this, so I have made the move. Bazonka (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is in concordance with Naming conventions (New Zealand). Once upon a time, the convention for all NZ places were disambiguated with the comma convention. This has been updated to use parentheses (brackets) for geographical features and commas for populated places, similar to how disambiguation is done for many other regions. older ≠ wiser 13:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

USPLACE RFC notice
See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Red Links
I've noticed that some disambiguation pages list articles that are red links. Is it okay to remove them entirely? I want to make sure that I should before I proceed. Thanks. -- qwekiop147 →  talk  03:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are confident they are unlikely to ever be articles, okay, but please see WP:Red link, especially:


 * --Born2cycle (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --Born2cycle (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thank you very much! -- qwekiop147 →  talk  04:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding dab pages specifically, the relevant guideline is MOS:DABRL, which says "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." In other words, if a topic is article-worthy, and there is a supporting article that includes the red link, then the redlink can be used on the dab page, with the supporting article linked in the description.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

On dab pages a red link may be the result of work put into disentangling two or more entities redlinked from various pages: the redlink not only helps the reader get to one article mentioning the topic, from the bluelink which should be included in the entry, but also helps ensure that any future links or articles use the established form of disambiguation and thus pick up the existing links. Please be cautious before deleting redlinks from dab pages: if they have any incoming links the dab page entry should be upgraded by adding a bluelink, rather than delete the redlink. Pam D  07:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Path / PATH / Pathway
Currently, Path and Pathway share a disambiguation page, and PATH has its own page.

My thought is that Path and PATH should be the same page, and Pathway be a separate one. What says the hive mind?--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Pathway" could be split, it looks like. I'd leave "PATH" separate, since its list does not overlap with the things ambiguous with "path" (and the exception on path could be moved). -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just split out pathway, it's already split into its own subsection. A dictionary search indicates the words aren't synonymous anyway. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If PATH (acronym) is kept separate from path (word), I'd remove the upper case PATH from "Path, pathway or PATH may refer to:" because it it looks like that uppercase path is an acronym (which is contrary to the hatnote saying "For the acronym PATH, see PATH") - there is only one non-acronym entry (PATH (variable)) that is all upper case.
 * But PATH, which claims to be about the acronym, also includes PATH (variable) - which is not an acronym! Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed PATH so that it no longer claims to be an article about the acronym. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've split Path and Pathway.

My inclination has always been to combine dab pages like "Path", "PATH", and "The Path", since the reader does not necessarily know in advance which variant they're actually looking for, but I can see the case for having separate pages as well.--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

When disambiguating, should you choose an unambiguous title?
There is disagreement over the correct interpretation of the disambiguation guidelines at Talk:Supernatural (U.S. TV series). Everyone agrees that the article requires disambiguation, but when choosing a modifier should you choose one that is unambiguous and uniquely identifies the article, or do the guidelines permit an ambiguous modifier to be chosen which could apply to other disambiguated topics? The way it reads to me is that COMMONNAME determines the titles of articles, and if they need to be disambiguated PRECISE requires that we uniquely disambiguate each article aside from the the one that is denoted the PRIMARYTOPIC. Will someone please clear this up, because the guidelines are being misinterpreted by one of the sides and the discussion is going round in circles? Betty Logan (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Once it has been identified that a qualifier is needed, it is typically up to the topic project how they want to select the qualifier. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply if any qualifier is needed; it is used to determine which topic (if any) uses an unqualified title. WP:NCTV, in this case, says: "Use the following when there are two or more television productions of the same name. Prefix the country of broadcast – (U.S. TV series)". So, that project's guidelines specify full qualification. I'll make the same statement there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you said at the discussion, but do you think this is something that needs to be covered by the main disambiguation guidelines, rather than left to Wikiprojects? Personally I think disambiguation should live up to its name, and while I agree it should be left to the discretion of projects to choose their modifiers, do you think the main disambiguation guidelines should at least recommend that modifiers fully disambiguate? Betty Logan (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the TV project wanted to use "Supernatural (TV series)" and "Supernatural (UK TV series)", that would also work from a disambiguation perspective -- they are fully disambiguated, in that their titles are unique. Mandating that in the disambiguation guidelines would be best discussed at the village pump, since editors concerned with their projects' qualifiers might not be watching here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Lexington Avenue
An RM discussion where the application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is at issue: Talk:Lexington_Avenue_(Manhattan) --Born2cycle (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing links
I see a lot of newish articles while stub-sorting, and I'm struck by how many have a title "Foo (xyz)" with no link from "Foo" (I aways check). There can be several ways to resolve this:


 * Add (or expand) a hatnote at "Foo"
 * Add an entry for the article to the existing dab page at "Foo" or "Foo (disambiguation)"
 * Create "Foo (disambiguation)" to include this new entry and the one or two which were already in a hatnote, and/or the other unlinked entries found by doing a quick search
 * Move the article to "Foo" because it's the only one of that name and disambiguation isn't needed

Until one of these is done, the article is likely not to be found, or not easily found, by readers wanting the information or by editors about to create a duplicate article.

The same applies to placenames of the form "Foo, Somewhere".

How can we (a) mop up the (enormous, I suspect) backlog of these unlinked articles, and (b) monitor newly-created articles to make sure that they have an appropriate incoming link from the base name.

A bot could presumably help us start to tackle the backlog by creating a category of "article titles with brackets which do not have a link from the item without brackets" (call them "Unlinked disambiguated titles" for a more concise name!), for inspection by WikiGnomes ... though we'd need a tag to indicate "this title has brackets but not a disambiguator", for book titles etc containing brackets, to be assigned manually and keep the article out of future misidentification as an unlinked title. In an ideal world, when a new article title with brackets or comma was created, a popup box would ask the editor "Do you need to add a hatnote to "Foo"?" or "Do you need to add this to the dab page at "Foo"?" as appopriate. Failing that, a regular report of "Newly-created unlinked apparently disambiguated titles" would allow Wikignomes to work on the problem. It could possibly be brought to the attention of page curators and AfC reviewers too.

Commas pose a worse problem as there are so many titles which include them for reasons other than disambiguation - but a similar search on articles which are identified as geographical entities (a "-geo-stub" or a geographical category), and which include one or more commas, might work well.

Any thoughts on this problem? This talk page seemed the best place to bounce some ideas around. Pam D  08:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC), edited 08:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The User:RussBot process that updates WP:MALPLACED might be well-suited to extend to the identification task; it is already examining base-name-to-(disambiguation)-page relationships. I don't know if it can catch "A redirects to B, B does not link to A (disambiguation)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know how I missed this topic when it was created. I think I could develop a report of pages that contain titles with qualifiers (parenthetical or comma-separated) where there is no link from either Base title or Base title (disambiguation) to that page.  Commas are a little bit tricky but I don't think insoluble: a title like "This, that and the other" would look for links from "This", but in the vast majority of such cases the page "This" would not even exist.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Splitting by Capitalization
The current page says that the WP:DAB secion is under discussion, but the relevant discussion has been archived while the link still points here. But rather than just suggest the discussion is closed I will now be an ass and reopen it with a suggestion:

I suggest that we add an example of a split DAB page. Revise to "If a combined disambiguation page would be inconveniently long, it may be better to split the different spellings into separate pages, for example see DO and Do."

And while I'm at it, I wish there was a guideline about acronyms that also form a word, either of which may be disambiguated. I'm thinking of SAP/sap/Sap (disambiguation) and RAID/raid, although I can't figure out what the rule is or should be.--Yannick (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Distinguish
I came to this page looking for how to add a note saying "Not to be confused with …". I eventually found it at Template:Distinguish. Is there a good way we could integrate that info in WP:Disambiguation? Or is it better located someplace else? (If so, where?) -- Benjaminoakes (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think about is often more helpful. Instead of just saying "Not to be confused with John B. Bloggs" you can say "This page is about the guitarist. For the 16th century poet see John B. Bloggs". Pam  D  15:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think "Not be confused with ..." is mildly disapproving to the reader; it suggests that they did something wrong.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Verbal and adjectival forms should default to redirecting to the base noun form.
I think, as a rule, words like Happy, Happily, Happier, and Happiest should redirect to their base noun form, Happiness. I would propose this as a general rule, and apply this to disambiguation pages like Friendly (which I would redirect to Friendship). Cheers! bd2412 T 03:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the current set of guidelines not result in this when applicable, while still allowing adjective and verb forms to have their own primary topic when applicable? I don't think a new rule is needed. If "friendship" is the primary topic for "friendly", it should redirect there; being the adjective form is a possible explanation for it being primary, but being primary is the reason for redirecting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this should be a rule. Looking at Friendly, there appear to be at least six topics that could be legitimately referred to as "Friendly"; why should we assume that someone who searches for that term is more likely to be looking for "Friend" or "Friendship" than for something that is actually referred to by the term they're searching? If there were a film called Happily, why should we think someone who searches an encyclopedia for "Happily" is most likely to be seeking the topic "happiness" but for some illogical reason decided to search for "happily" instead? It seems irrational to me that a user would do that, which doesn't mean it's impossible, but I don't see a reason to align the encyclopedia to try to favor those using it irrationally. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, default linkages to nouns would not be a good idea. Friendly was a mess: I've cleaned it up a bit.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and a reasonable reader will not look up an adjective unless they are seeking one of its other senses (a placename, a surname, a single-name stagename or fictional character, etc).  Interestingly the lengthy definition of "friendly" which I've removed from the dab page didn't link to Friend or Friendship but to Kindness, which shows how inappropriate any default linkages to nouns could be.  Pam  D  15:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That merely tends to demonstrate that Friendly has enough other meanings with substantial enough use to be an exception to the rule. Other examples would be Beautiful or Thinner. The fact that exceptions exist, and that we can agree that a certain page constitutes such an exception, seems to support the notion that this should be the rule where an exception can not be shown. bd2412  T 01:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Adjectives are not normal search terms in an encyclopedia, and I think they will rarely be the primary usage in encyclopedic terms. An encyclopedia user searching for "Happy" is more likely to be looking for one of the other uses: nicknames, film titles, Snow-White's little friend, etc. Directing "Happy" to Happiness is unwise. And no-one seems to have suggested that "Friendly" is an exception: it has been looked at because it was a page you mentioned.  Pam  D  09:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They are, however, linked often enough to be annoying. bd2412  T 12:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oasis (disambiguation)
I just added an entry. It seems to be getting large and many don't seem to be in any order. Should they be sorted alphabetically or is there another standard?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Entertainment media" is IMO too vague a group. I changed it to "Film and television". Alphabetical is an acceptable ordering, but there are others (chronological, alpha by geographical regions, likelihood when it can be determined, etc.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks and good work on it! --Canoe1967 (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

broken toolserver link
http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/dablinks redirects to itself. It should point to http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py. Can someone notify the author? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ship index articles and (disambiguation) titles
Discussion related to the use (or misuse) of (disambiguation) in set index article titles is going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 35. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:City of New Orleans
The article is about the train and is the primary topic. There is a request to re-name to City of New Orleans (train). There is some opposition so I posted here in case anyone wishes to give them some advice. The hat note at the top of the article includes the dab page but not the city. Would it save confusion if the city was added as well?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Categorization of Dab pages
Nowhere is it explicit that disambiguation pages should have no categories other than disambiguation categories. This should be made specific. Why should this be so, one may ask? Because categorization of any non-disambiguation category (such as category:Mountains of Fooland or category:Fooish surnames or the like) treats a disambiguation page as an article, which it is not. There are no references permitted, no substantive information provided; it's merely a navigational gateway to articles where information is provided, supported (we hope) with reliable sources. I propose adding a section as follows:

Categories
Disambiguation pages are not articles and should not be categorized as such. Any categorization of disambiguation pages is provided by use of the disambiguation template and parameters permitted (geo, etc.). No other categories should be used on disambiguation pages. Hidden categories may on occasion appear due to maintenance or other tags and templates, but no explicit categories (such as Category:Mountains of Fooland or Category:Fooish surnames or the like) should be used on disambiguation pages - as each of those would require reliable sources, which cannot be provided in a disambiguation page.

Any thoughts? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But what of the dab pages containing, among other things, short lists of last names (i. e., when a separate surname set index does not yet exist)? I understand the rationale behind the proposal (and mostly agree with it), but in case with the last names it seems that removing a "surname" category would be somewhat counterproductive...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 18, 2012; 20:06 (UTC)
 * WP:DCAT alludes to it. Note that when lists of surname-holders or lists of given-name-holders are included on a disambiguation page, it is acceptable to put the more specific Category:Fooish surnames on the disambiguation page, or to split the list of name-holders to its own article with the more specific category. But the exception for surname and given name categories is the only one I'm aware of, and I clean out any other categories (such as your Category:Mountains of Fooland) on disambiguation pages I clean. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It should not be acceptable to put Category:Fooish surnames on the disambiguation page - a new article with sources must be created to contain reliable sources to show that the name is indeed Fooish - anything else is pure conjecture and surmise, and where applied to living people, strictly prohibited. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ëzhiki surname is a parameter that can be used with disambiguation - it generates the category of "Surnames", which needs no sourcing - what is unacceptable is to "claim" the surname as "fooish" without reliable sources, in the same way that Arras (disambiguation) has been claimed to be an Albanian toponym (I guess the French just borrowed it?). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but since the dab guidelines do not permit sources on dab pages, it's simply impossible to justify a "fooish surname" cat on dabs which include short lists of last names, even as such inclusion is an allowable practice per WP:DCAT. Looks like another example of bureaucracy standing in the way of encyclopedic work, if you ask me. If sources were allowed (at least to address this kind of situations), there wouldn't be a problem.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 19, 2012; 13:12 (UTC)
 * Carlossuarez46, you are welcome to split any surname-lists + surname categories from any dab pages to new surname articles, but there's no "must be created" nor any BLP violation (since having the category "Fooish surnames" on the page "Bar (disambiguation)" does not mean that every holder of the surname Bar is Fooish, only that some might be). Keeping short surname lists on dabs (with their categories, if any) is one of the compromises we reached through consensus. I am no fan of surname-holder lists, but I suspect that changing that compromise is going to be difficult. Ezhiki, whenever your encyclopedic work requires a citation, you are also welcome to split the surname list + categories + citations to a new surname article; there is no problem, bureaucratic or otherwise, standing in your way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources could be added to an article page discussing the surname or whatever and have sources. Statements and categories that need sourcing simply shouldn't be on dab pages, which are not articles and serve to guide users to articles. There's nothing encyclopedic about sourceless information. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not add restrictions to the disambiguation guideline against consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a logical conclusion to ALL categories requiring reliable sources; you seem to disagree with that, now a RFC will solve it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would note that Richmond Township, Michigan is appropriately in Category:Michigan township disambiguation pages, which makes sense because all of the locations on the disambig page are in Michigan, and there are many such disambiguation pages. I generally agree that disambig pages should not be in regular article categories, but if all of the topics on a disambig are, for example, places in a particular state or country, it seems reasonable that the page should be categorized in the general intererst topics for that country. bd2412  T 03:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's appropriate, as long as the cat is a "disambiguation" category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with such a blanket restriction; numerous anthroponymy articles start as disambiguation pages but are nicely categorized, and there is usually zero controversy. I realize WP:BLP sounds like a wonderful stick to beat people with, but it shouldn't be used indiscriminately. If someone wants to actually volunteer their time to split surname pages out of disambiguation pages, that's great, but otherwise please don't destroy existing good work without an actual reason. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed restriction as well, as per Ëzhiki and Joy. Pragmatically, categorization is often useful even on disambig pages - and yes, eventually a disambig may grow into a real article, while retaining a category. Trying to create an absolute strict distinction between disambigs and "real" articles strikes me as a misdirected effort. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I see Carlossuarez46 also created Category:Given name disambiguation pages and Category:Surname disambiguation pages. I've reverted the edits to Template:Disambiguation/cat and Template:Disambiguation/cat/doc. CFD to follow, but not immediately. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The categories have finally emptied. CFD at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 10. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree 100 persent with Carlos Suzrez here. The idea of placing disambiguation categories into categories is just plain wrong.  Most of these pages will have things that are not about the surnames at all.  It is a bad idea.  Disambiguation of things should be in disambiguation categories, not in regular categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are in disambiguation categories. Disambiguation pages that also hold a list of non-ambiguous, partial-title-match name-holders might also be in the appropriate surnames or given names category, per the compromise that was reached earlier. I agree with you that placing disambiguation categories into (other) categories is just plain wrong, so I've proposed that the two categories that do that, Category:Given name disambiguation pages and Category:Surname disambiguation pages, be deleted. You appear to disagree with Carlossuarez46 there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Most notable = PRIMARYTOPIC?
I am currently involved in a dispute on Talk:Ugetsu (film). The article is on a 1953 film that is based on a classic anthology of ghost-stories from 18th-century Japan. It shares its title with the original book, and in Japan there is no question about the book being both better-known and more notable than the film (95+% of Google Books hits for the title are about the book, etc.). Since neither is well-known outside Japan, I contend that the book's notability within Japan makes it the primary topic for the title, but I seem to be alone in this. Can anyone clarify whether one article being on the source material for another, and its being more notable in general, makes it inherently the primary topic? Thanks! elvenscout742 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Being the source material, no. Being more notable, it depends. If being more notable means that it is what (with long-term significance, more than any other thing with long-term significance) users expect to find when they look up "Ugetsu" in an English-language encyclopedia, yes. It would have to be much more than any other topic, and more than all other topics combined. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well under those criteria, the film certainly isn't the primary topic either. Any idea how one goes about proving relative notability on topics like this? Last time something like this happened, the pages got merged (that obviously can't happen here), but we can't have a disambiguation page for two articles... elvenscout742 (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are tools listed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I've created Ugetsu (disambiguation) in the meantime. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Drop
There is no dab page, but one may be needed and possibly a new primary topic. The Drop (sculpture) was recently created and isn't on the list at the top of the primary. I didn't read all the articles nor search for more that may not be included. Note that some titles are in WP:ITALICS. The primary may have to be the dab page if all are about equal in popularity. I fear I may make a mess if I try to sort it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅: The Drop (disambiguation). WP:RM the album away from the base name to see if there's consensus for a change in primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you again! I don't think it matters what the primary is as long as readers can find the sculpture from it. Music fans like to be prime and I don't think art, book, and electrical fans care as much.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Surgeon General
I have started a page on Sir Pardey Lukis who was Surgeon General of India in the early 1900s. I linked to the Surgeon General page and was notified by a bot that I have linked to a dab page. I looked at the SG page and it is tagged as a dab page but doesn't look to me like a dab page, so I'm asking: is the page Surgeon General a dab page? If so, where should I point the link in the Lukis bio article? If not, should I just edit out the dab material from the page? Advice would be appreciated. EdChem (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're quite right; it doesn't look like a dab page at all, it rather looks like a broad-concept article. Feel free to remove the disambiguation template from it.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it works better as a set index in its current form. Diego (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz
Is also a charactor in List of Grand Theft Auto IV characters and mentioned in the article as a girlfreind of Niko Bellic, but not mentioned in his article. Someone brought it up on the talk page. Although it may be rare that a reader may do a search for the cute one it can't be done now without landing on the page of the real one. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's mentioned in List of Grand Theft Auto IV characters, it should be listed on the dab page (with List of Grand Theft Auto IV characters as the blue link in the description). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I see. Right, that needs a hatnote linking to the list on Carmen Ortiz. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, so it can be found by readers. I do not wish to add the hat note because I have washed my hands of that article. There still seems to be heated discussion on inclusion, undue, coatrack, notability, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ural
More problems with set indexes and dabs at Talk:Ural. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Weinberger
This is a re-direct of someone that isn't mentioned in the article. It seems it was a non-notable bio at one point. I haven't googled to see who he is. Is it normal to leave these re-directs if not in the article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit suprised that Michael Weinberger does not have his own article. It seems to me that less notable people have articles on wikipedia...be that as it may, he probably was mentioned on the page at some point, and then the piece was deleted. In it's present form, you may want to put it up for speedy deletion, but you may also want to consider creating it as an article. I'm pretty sure such an article could stand on it's own. Either way is good. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was an article from 2008 until 16 October 2012 when an editor turned it into a redirect with edit summary "(rd promo)". It didn't have any sources except imdb and his page at the Huffington Post, but if you can find a WP:RS then feel free to revert it back to an article and add to it. Pam  D  21:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't want to try and re-create it but someone else may. I agree it is harmless as it stands now, so I won't take any action at this point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)