Wikipedia talk:Is disambiguation simple?

Why this page
This page (like far too much other discussion) came originally out of the discussion as to whether to move the page on New York State away from the base name New York where it has been for quite a long time.

It came by a rather indirect route, from discussion at WT:HLJC and then WT:TOP to WT:AT.

I was surprised (but enlightened) to find that the introduction I wrote to WP:TOP was controversial. It was intended just to express what WP:ATDAB and WP:DAB already said, but perhaps a bit more clearly.


 * The best place to see this intro is probably here, which shows just the intro and its sources and very little else. Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

So it seems to me to show that there is some clarification needed! Some of us have it wrong (could be me), and it's pretty basic to many discussions, not just NYS/NYC.

Most (perhaps all, I haven't checked) of the opposition has come from contributors who don't want the NYS article moved... and that's not to criticise them. It's logical that if they and I disagree on the outcome, we are likely to somewhere disagree on the basics. That's the very thing I am trying to explore. Andrewa (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Ready for the public
This page is finally ready for the public I think.

I stress, its main function is to address the confusion that seems to exist on this topic. It's very straightforward in most individual cases, but you would not know that from some of the recent discussions.

But it's quite elaborate in detail. There are an enormous number of possible scenarios.

In fact, that's one thing I have learned. The policy and guidelines are each straightforward, but in combination they need to cover an enormous range of scenarios.

On the other hand I'm very pleased at the coverage of these scenarios achieved with essentially only three examples! Andrewa (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Now four examples, but they now include a case of comma disambiguation of a geographical name, which I think is important. Andrewa (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Examples
And perhaps Richard Gordon is another good example of no primary topic. There are already two personal names in the four examples given, but they're both atypical. RG is more typical. Andrewa (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Park Sun-young (actress) will also suggest some interesting examples, and one such as this where a non-English name has many roman alphabet versions should probably be included. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Not so simple
I'm a bit disappointed at how long and involved this page has become. This is what I originally had in mind! Andrewa (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I've now combined the long and short versions. That seems the best thing, at the expense of being even longer! It has been quite a learning experience. Andrewa (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Broad concept article
This page does not yet deal with broad concept articles and perhaps should not. The concept and principles seem poorly defined (happy to be proven wrong). There are

If it is expanded to include broad concept articles, perhaps Central station could be an example. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

MOS
Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages reads in part ''In general, the title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is already a primary topic, then "(disambiguation)" is added to the title of the disambiguation page, ... (my emphasis) and links to Disambiguation which reads in part The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term.''

Why is the MOS less definite than the older guideline to which it links? Andrewa (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * AHA! Because the MOS is correct. If there's no primary topic but the term is covered by another disambiguation page, then the base name will redirect to this page, and so the DAB will have a different name to the ambiguous term itself.


 * The older guideline should probably be updated to match the MOS. Andrewa (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It really hit a nerve
I asked at WT:AT whether the lede of this essay should be incorporated into the policy. See WT:AT for the results.

In particular, a long discussion with User:Station1 who argued that my attempted clarification is instead a significant change in policy, and particularly if there is complete consensus that there is no primary topic (of the hypothetical "John Doe"), under current policy we can still choose to name one "John Doe" and the other "John A. Doe".

That's just not true. Under current policy, John Doe would become either a disambiguation page or redirect to one. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated).

They then applied this to New York: ''Using the example of New York, even if everyone were to agree that the city is the primary topic, under current policy there are still legitimate arguments for keeping things the way they are: conciseness, consistency, naturalness, to name just three (I'm not saying they would or should prevail in a discussion, but when enough editors put forth reasoned argument based on current policy, lack of consensus for a move would result). Under the proposed rule, the only factor allowed to be considered would be 'primary topic' and the result would be different (I don't know if that's the motivation for this rule or not); that is not a clarification of current policy, it is a change.'' (my emphasis added and theirs removed)

For a detailed rebuttal of this see WT:AT.

But Station1 is at least right about one thing: The lack of consensus is exactly what has happened repeatedly with regard to attempts to move the New York State article away from the base name New York, and one of the arguments there has been that as the New York City article is well named as is, then the title New York is available for the New York State article.

This is just not true. If there is no primary topic, New York should either be a DAB or redirect to one, as with John Doe. Alternatively, if the primary topic is New York City, then New York becomes a primary redirect.

And I'm coming to the view that this latter course is what should happen (something of a change of heart on my part). Andrewa (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * WT:AT discussion now archived to Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 54. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Or to be precise, at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 54. But the rest of the archive is worth a read too. Have some refreshments handy, it's all rather heavy going. Andrewa (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)