Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 27

Onomastics
This is related to the header above but there are some extra difficulties. One editor has created many pages that list place names, surnames and people with these names that he believes share one common root. The results look like Wassertrüding (onomastics) or Gott. What should these pages look like after cleanup? How can we best separate the disambiguation information from family information and name information? Kusma (討論) 11:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My attitude is that you do have to ask for verifiability of the onomastics (like everything else); but that separation out has a common sense dimension. There is a merge proposed, for example, of Spira (Spiro) and Spira (family name). I would think in the end that the family history should be separated from the page(s) (numerous variants) for the surnames. But it really ought to be a priority to get a clear organisation first. Charles Matthews 11:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ouch, that's an ugly page (talking about Wassertrüding (onomastics) here). The several surnames on the page are not confusable, so shouldn't be on the same disambiguation page; in fact, most surnames have not more than one blue link, so do not need a disambiguation page (also because the red links are just names, with no other identifying characteristics). I'm trying to clean up the page to show what I think it should look like, though I'm not sure it's worth it. Eugène van der Pijll 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've personally been considering onamastics pages to not really be disambiguation pages (much as the Category:Lists of people by name aren't really disambig pages). There's a clear effort to style them very differently, so why not let them go their own course (though obviously wikipedia core policies of verifiability, citing sources, original research, etc. apply everywhere).  --Interiot 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. Just the pages I am talking about did not contain any verifiable or cited information about onomastics, and just list people whose names might share a common root. As the author never answered to anything about these pages (and there were some other problems with him), he is currently banned and some people are trying to clean up his contributions. Letting the pages go their own course for the last year has resulted in a massive WP:OWN problem. See also WP:AN and Requests for comment/Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Kusma (討論) 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Self references
Lately it seems like there's a growing amount of self-references to Wikipedia located on disambiguation pages, possibly coincident with the creation of selfref. Example disambiguation pages include AFD, TFD, CFD, MFD, RFD, IFD, VFD, CSD, RFA, MOS, RFC, FAC, DRV, NOT...

I was wondering if it might be reasonable to add a small statement to MOSDAB regarding these. Either:


 * When self-references are appropriate for disambiguation pages, they should be enclosed in selfref, and be mentioned below article disambiguation entries.

Or:


 * Disambiguation pages are primarily for disambiguating articles. Entries should not be added for other namespaces (eg. Wikipedia:, User:).

My biggest issue is that most uses of selfref seem to be at the top of a disambig page. This is somewhat useful for editors I suppose, but for link-fixers they're not used, and for readers, I think this is not good because they aren't interested in policy, and it seems to be generally against the spirit of WP:SELF to make Wikipedia links the most prominent.

A few arguments for or against Wikipedia:-space links might include... When correcting ambiguous links, in almost no case will a backlink ever get dabed into a Wikipedia:-space link, since proper articles don't link to Wikipedia:-space. On the other hand, disambiguation pages are formatted for use by readers too, and "disambiguation pages are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace", and shortcuts are redirects, so it's maybe not completely surprising that shortcuts and disambig pages are seen as having overlapping purposes. On the other hand, it seemed like historically, disambig pages didn't link to Wikipedia:-space at all. --Interiot 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue was briefly mentioned on the Esperanza disambiguation page, and Ral315 put what seems like a pretty good guideline in a short and sweet manner. To quote:


 * "Self-references should be avoided at all costs. In cases of things like Nonsense, Merge, and User page, non-users might actually be interested in viewing our nonsense, merger, and user page policies.  But Esperanza is not something that would be notable outside Wikipedia."


 * That seems pretty appropriate to me, at least to decide when or when not to include them. -- Nataly a 14:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. So if there's consensus that WP:SELF allows them, then obviously the second option shouldn't be used.  How about the first option then, moving the selfref mentions down below article entries?  --Interiot 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, self-references should always go inside . Whether the self-ref is appropriate or not is more of a case-by-case determination. I think most of the ones that you mention are worth having the self-ref in. As for placement of the self-ref -- I don't have a strong opinion, but I'm don't see whay a self-ref would rate getting placement at the top of a dab page. older ≠ wiser 17:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

some headlines in large lists?
Is it ok to use some headlines in very large disambiguation pages? Because someone removed them according to this site and replaced them with bold text only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.57.26.239 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC).
 * No, the headings are certainly preferable (to me). If the list is short enough not to need headings, it doesn't need bold text either.  Maybe the other editor was trying to get the table of contents to disappear?  (And there are better ways of solving that issue.) Which page? -- JHunterJ 23:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you take a look at the Longer lists section of the Manual of Style, it says that bold separating headings are appropriate when the list of entries gets long, and using headlines become appropriate when the list of entries becomes so long that it spans more than a page or thereabouts. -- Nataly a 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Unsigned above did say "very large", but I was paying no attention to that list note.  Again, then, I have to ask, which page? :-) -- JHunterJ 11:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The anon's contributions indicate Chimera, which is indeed an unholy mess. &mdash; Catherine\talk 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

First names
Semeone remove all entry of Adriano, i think at least keep all footballer with Adriano nickname. Matt86hk  talk  12:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (It was me.) Why should the footballers be kept? -- JHunterJ 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Name_pages_and_disambiguation -- JHunterJ 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see this has been reverted by JHunterJ again, who should probably let someone else revert this after discussion. Here's the sentiment so far from people who did not see this page previously:


 * Some people have tried to do this before. I disagree.
 * I don't think its appropriate to rewrite policy to suit your intentions.
 * I have a unique solution. Add Brainstorming subpages to each official policy and guideline, keep on the top of those subpages, on the original, make editors aware of the subpage.
 * This is really just a part of the continued onslaught against useful dab pages in the name of adherence to the manual of style.


 * I'd like to see further discussion and clarification of this policy before making sitewide changes like this. The above conversation does not suggest consensus has been reached. Jokestress 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why you think I shouldn't have reverted AKMask's unilateral reversion of previously discussed edits; AKMask's reversion was made without discussion here, and should have been reverted. If further discussion does take place before another reversion occurs, of course I won't revert it. And rather than just quoting a mailing list, it would be useful to have those people make their comments here, to facilitate communication, since comments like "I disagree" don't illuminate anything, while "rewrite policy to suit your intentions" and "continued onslaught" ignore the discussion that has taken place so far, in this section and the Hndis section below. -- JHunterJ 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I feel that this is a pretty significant policy change that should have more editor feedback than the half dozen people who weighed in before you implemented your proposed sitewide changes. The guideline could use some clarification, especially regarding how to handle given names. I contend that lists of people by given name have value and have a place in the project, and that those lists should be linked from name pages. Beyond the need for more discussion on that, I guess I feel the main issue is one of process. I don't believe you should be implementing that big of a change to a lot of pages without getting more feedback than what's above. I will certainly abide by the consensus, and I am in basic agreement with everything in the proposed changes, but this goes beyond being bold to what I consider a hasty move without enough points of view sought out. Jokestress 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't implemented any sitewide changes; just this page and the A and B surname pages that happen to have given names too... Would you like to create the List of people named Jennifer (or other name of your choice)?


 * I think this is exactly being bold: I made changes based on the old guidelines, received feedback, adjusted my approach based on that feedback, gotten more feedback, edited the guidelines based on the feedback, and so on. Without making the bold changes in the first place, I think some of the useful feedback wouldn't have been offered up, since all the interested parties aren't watching this project page. -- JHunterJ 19:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My concern is that you ignored my feedback and kept going. I suggest we pick a more manageable one than LoPNJennifer. Ones that might be interesting that I watch: Elvira, Calpurnia, Andrea (pre-JHunterJ), Athena, but I am open to other suggestions. Perhaps a good test article is one with a very well-known one-named person, like Madonna, Cher, Pele the footballer, etc. One interesting thing in the case of Andrea (the one that alerted me to the policy change) is that it is a male given name in some countries and a female name in others. That might be another thing to take into consideration. I guess what I'd like to see is something akin to baby name books, with an etymology, a history of the naming trend, and a list of notable people with that name. Of the ones above, Elvira might be interesting as a case, since it's a place, a given name, the name of a celebrity, a song title, etc.


 * Also FYI, I will be offline for a few days after today, so I will check back on my return. Jokestress 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I kept going on the surnames (some of which happened to include given name lists) primarily to get the new template into use instead of the not-quite-applicable, but I've stalled even that for now too.  Andrea sounds prime. I think the baby-name book effect is one of the things that one of the other editors was against, in the hndis section below, but I have no problem with it.  In particular, it sounds like it would separate the disambiguation entry (which IMO shouldn't be cluttered with people who happen to have Title as a first name but aren't referred to by just it) and the name entry.  Which was one of my suggestions early on... :-) -- JHunterJ 20:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) OK, taking Andrea, a disambig would need to account for Andrea (surname). For that, we'd need to think about how to handle variants like d'Andrea, etc. Another bulleted item would be Andrea (given name) and some way to handle variant spellings and nicknames (Andi, Drea, Andria,etc.). I agree with the idea of streamlining the main page Andrea or Andrea (disambiguation). I think I also agree with LoPbSurname Andrea and LoPbGivenName Andrea, then sort out all of that later. That way we are getting what many feel is listcruft off a disambig page, but preserving information for those interested. I believe casual readers such as young people and prospective parents will find a list of people with a name interesting or useful (children probably look up their own names a lot based on the vanity additions I see on name pages). Once we have a standardized way to handle surname and given name articles on a disambig page, we can address listcruft at that article level. That at least solves the disambiguation issue at hand here. Jokestress 21:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * From Naming conventions (people):
 * Naming conventions (people): "don't use a separate first name (even if unambiguous) for the page name of a content page, if the last name is known and fairly often used. Example: Oprah Winfrey, to which Oprah redirects. Only if the single name is used as a true artist's name (stage name, pseudonym,...) the recommendations of Nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens (...) can be followed."
 * Naming conventions (people): "Better not use this for disambiguation, unless it's the name by which this person is known best."
 * Naming conventions (people): "Best to make it a disambiguation page. If info is added about the etymology of the name that takes more than a short introductory paragraph, better make separate "description" and "disambiguation" pages, for instance: John (name) and John - in this case John (disambiguation) redirects to the last of these pages. Jean only has a disambiguation page, but the introduction of this page links to John (name) for the etymology."
 * Don't see the need for any change to this guidance. --Francis Schonken 08:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone's suggested changing the guidance on how articles should be named, just on which articles should or shouldn't be listed in disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ 12:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've undone my earlier removals of given-name holders. Not created new pages, just put the lists back on the pages they came from, although in some cases lower down and otherwise edited. -- JHunterJ 09:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This talk page
Consensus among editors on this talk page appears to be insufficient to get changes to the associated page to "stick." Frustrating... -- JHunterJ 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

CarolGray's sample
In response to Jokestress's suggestion, this is what I think Hunter (disambiguation) should look like -> User:CarolGray/Hunter (and User:CarolGray/Hunter(name)). I haven't deleted anything of any consequence, but I have moved information around, and I've linked to William Hunter (disambiguation) rather than listing all the William Hunters, etc. Comments, criticisms, anyone? CarolGray 15:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. Determining when to include a name on the dab page may be more art than science, but I think your pages should be efficient for most lookups of the various uses of hunter, which is the main goal, I think.  (John User:Jwy talk) 09:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it too. You've moved both the surname-holders and the given-name-holders to a single, separate page, Title (name).  I know that one of the resistances I met earlier was in moving the surname-holders off of the dab page; I think there is less of an issue with moving given-name-holders off.  I don't have any preference either way; if the name-holders are kept on the page, I think they should be listed in their own sections after the usual dabs; if the lists are both long, they could each have their own page, Title (surname) and Title (given name).  The eventual edit to this style guide should probably note the alternatives.  For given names that do not evoke a particular person (Elvis springs to mind most readily), I think the style guide should lean in the direction of keeping the holders off the base dab page, whether or not the surname-holders remain. -- JHunterJ 13:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it also. Though I'd change the intro of the Hunter (name) page to read "Hunter is both a surname and a given name." followed by subsections for each. Question -- presumably a page such as this would be tagged as and thus be considered a type of disambiguation page, correct?  older ≠ wiser 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope not. "Hunter" is not an ambiguous human name, unless there are two or more people who go by the one-word name.  "John Smith" is an ambiguous human name.  "Hunter" should be tagged as a surname instead though. -- JHunterJ 13:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't realized that hndis was for two-part names. People have been adding it pretty liberally to any page that has any human names on it. I've been removing it from pages where the human names are not the majority of content. But there are many pages like Angela, Andy, and Anita that are tagged as hndis. older ≠ wiser 14:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, I had been getting to them, but stopped when applying the current guidelines (like removing the things not known simply as Title, e.g., given-name holders) raised hackles, which is what prompted a lot of this discussion. I think Category:Surnames and Category:Given names might be made subcategories of Ambiguous human names (if people want to be able to find them there), but I'd rather not see them intermingled in the "main" list. -- JHunterJ 14:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the intro of the Hunter (name) page should be "Hunter is both a surname and a given name". I've also tried putting in level two section headers, what do you think?


 * Like JHunterJ, I don't want Hunter (name) to be tagged as .  I am keen to keep Title (name) pages out of Category:Disambiguation, because I hope it would help to resolve the conflict between the "inclusionists" and the "dab purists".


 * One question remains in my mind before implementing this - should we use Title (name) and/or Title (surname) and/or Title (given name)? There doesn't seem to be any consistency amongst the articles in Category:Surnames. Maybe MoS:DAB should allow for either: this isn't the right place for a discussion of this issue - it probably belongs at Category talk:Surnames or Category talk:Lists of ambiguous human names. CarolGray 16:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I like separate (surname) and (given name) pages, but I prefer "List of people named Jennifer" to "Jennifer (given name)" for that matter, to leave Jennifer (given name) for baby-book type info on the meaning of the name, popularity, etc. Agree they aren't dabs, though, and should be discussed elsewhere.  I've made an "inclusive" change to this project page.  I'll restore the lists I deleted from the given-name articles earlier (based on the previous guidelines). -- JHunterJ 16:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Middle names
I'd assume that I could at least delete middle name holders (see Harrison or Scott -- at least Harrison doesn't have to resort to pipelinks!). But I expect I won't see all the objections until after I try it... -- JHunterJ 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)