Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 33

primary topic link

 * Since it is very unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top, like this:

Surely that's a mistake? I think "unlikely" shoudl be changed to "likely". Rhialto 07:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the primary topic were what they were looking for, they are very unlikely to click through from the base page to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ 10:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think "very unlikely" is wrong. They can reach the disambiguation page in different ways, for example from an alternative meaning when they want to find the base meaning. And I sometimes start at the base meaning but go to the disambiguation for a quick overview of meanings, or to make sure there is no better page for my purpose than the base page, and then back to the base meaning (the browsers back button can also be used here). Even if "very unlikely" is considered right, I don't think the two sentences make sense. If something is very unlikely to be used then why should that be an argument for giving it preferential treatment by placing it at the top? And surely there are lots of disambiguation pages where some of the meanings are used very rarely and far more people click on the base meaning. PrimeHunter 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, the reason we consider it unlikely is that if they are looking for X, they will enter X, get to that page and would not have to click the "X (disambiguation)" link. The question brought up here is how many exception are there to this process?  If the page they want it X and they enter Y, I'm not sure how likely it is they will get to "X (disambiguation)."  They are unlikely to enter "X (something)."  Maybe the article is "X foo" and they enter "X" (or visa versa) and "X" and "X foo" share a dab page.  I don't see many likely cases, IMHO.  Am I missing something?  (John User:Jwy talk) 14:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The wording is correct. Even if they "start at the base meaning but go to the disambiguation for a quick overview of meanings", they have already seen the base meaning, so "it is very unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for". The phrase "very unlikely" allows for a few cases of short attention span as well as an internal or external search. Chris the speller 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is another among many ways to reach a disambiguation page: Searching "dos" redirects to DOS (disambiguation) where DOS is the first link. I estimate I have personally clicked the primary link more times than the average for all the links so "very unlikely" is untrue for me. People use Wikipedia in different ways and we don't have statistics on what users click, so "very unlikely" will remain guessing and it seems we are not going to agree about the guess. I think it is unnecessary to say whether it's likely or not, so I suggest we simply don't speculate about it. The first of the two sentences could be completely deleted, leaving the recommendation: "It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top, like this: ..." PrimeHunter 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think we need to provide a reason. If you are agreeing to continue with the guildeline as is, but change the wording of the reasoning, that's okay, but we have to have some of the reasoning here.  "Under most circumstances, those looking for the primary article will encounter the article directly without navigating through the dab page, so. . ." or something like that.  Or just drop the "very" from "very unlikely.  If you disagree with the guideline, then we need to discuss it further and figure out how to determine the "likelihood." (John User:Jwy talk) 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the guideline. I prefer the primary topic to be linked first because I think it's a likely target (and because it makes sense to explain the primary meaning first even if people don't click it). It surprises me that some people want to link it first because they think it's unlikely to be clicked. I don't see why likelihood speculation is needed for the guideline, but it's not worth discussing to death. Dropping the "very" that really makes it stand out as illogical to me is acceptable. PrimeHunter 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Setindexarticle and Category:Set index articles for deletion
I've nominated these for deletion. See Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 30 and Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30. Short rationale, set index pages are an exceptional use warranted for specific types of articles. I don't think there is a good reason to have generic exceptions. older ≠ wiser 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lolita disambiguation page
Interested editors are invited to review an on-going discussion at Talk:Lolita (disambiguation). --Muchness 01:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

DABs with no articles
This has probably come up before, but should we have DAB pages with no articles that include the title of the DAB page in their title? I came cross this in Keep on Truckin'; there are probably other examples. A similar exapmle woud be a DAB that had all red links. Advice? UnitedStatesian 13:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as the dab page (dab is not an initialism, and needs no capitals) helps readers get to articles they are seeking, its existence is justified. Remember that rules may be broken when it helps the reader. This particular example needs some help, for example, linking to "Keep on Truckin' (song)" instead of to Eddie Kendricks. The last entry leads nowhere, and should be removed. An entry for "What's Bin Did and What's Bin Hid (1965 album)" could be added. Sorry to blow your example out of the water, but it illustrates a way to resolve any guilt about a dab page that is in doubt: create a stub where there is a red link and you think an article could be written, or create a redirect to an appropriate article if you doubt there's enough material for an article. For example, create a rdr "Keep on Truckin' (drawing)" and redirect to Robert Crumb. And even a page that only has red links may have merit, for those who know how, by following a red link and then clicking "What links here". A dab page that leads no reader to any useful information should be fixed, if possible, or deleted. But if you actually find one like that, I'd enjoy the challenge. Chris the speller 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a crack at setting it up (just redlinks, though, with bluelinks later in the line). In this case, the song should be moved to the base name, but that'll take an admin.  I've set up the redirects appropriately though. -- JHunterJ 15:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory statements in WP:MOSDP and WP:D
WP:D tells us that the inclusion of the disambiguation term in the title of an article is not a reason to include the article.

WP:MOSDP however advocates inclusion of these articles into an "See also" section.

What is correct? Taemyr 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The basic answer is "whatever is most effective for the reader," but to be a bit more specific (and my opinion) - if you think someone would find themselves on the dab page when they are searching for something on the page, it would be useful to have the link. An exhaustive list of every title with the name is not useful. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed -- and that's what the guideline needs to say; as it is, it's opening the door to the kitchen-sink lists. -- JHunterJ 20:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with you 100%. I think the parenthetical part of "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)" that is in WP:D opens the door to a few, and MoS:DP merely tells us where to put those few. We might want to add a similar qualifying phrase to MoS:DP as well, and then there'd be no contradiction. Chris the speller 22:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * John; yes, but if the link is likely to be useful to the reader then there is a reason for this. And that reason should dictate the placement of the link. Taemyr 22:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand this AfD on Outerseems to indicate consensus is that an article consisting solely of these kind of entries is a valuable addition. Taemyr 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * More contradictory statements on the same page: on [edit] Examples of individual entries that should not be created, it says "However, if you find that another editor has felt the need to create such entries, please do not remove them." yet my additions to Mystery (disambiguation), History's Mysteries, Ancient Mysteries, and other entries in List of mystery-related television shows, have been repeatedly removed, despite the word "mysteries" (plural of "mystery") included in the title. And then, also in that section (plus in The "See also" section), it says to put such links in the "See also" section, but those, too, were repeatedly removed on Mystery (disambiguation). What the hell? Seems Catneven, Taemyr, JHunter, Piet Delport, and others don't understand what disambiguation pages are for... See Talk:Mystery_%28disambiguation%29 for a big discussion about this.


 * Examine context before quoting selectively. The statement you quote is specifically about the items listed before that paragraph -- i.e., combined forms that all are on occasion referred to solely by the term being disambiguated. It is not a license to include any and all combinations that include the term. Same goes for the see also section. It does not say that such links must be added to the See also section, it is a suggestion that they can be added if the terms might be conflated. older ≠ wiser 02:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Understand the word can before using it, please. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 03:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Understand the "might be conflated" qualifier. --Piet Delport 05:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Conflation applies to every single term on Wikipedia and in all language. Try again... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The proble is that you are interfering with the purpose of DAB pages. Within (album) is currently drowned in the mess of a page that you have made at within, making it very hard to reach this article. Taemyr 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The album is not drowned in any mess. The page is sectioned/categorized and. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 04:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I cleaned it up. Eep² can move the entries he added to a stand-alone list, if he wishes.  --Piet Delport 09:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the relevant parts be removed from WP:MOSDP. See my recently self-reverted edit. Taemyr 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with your recent (reverted) edit. I would support changing the wording to discourage such entries, but I think there are some occasions when these entries are justified.  To give a British example, there are many articles which accidentally link to Cambridge, when the writer intended to link to University of Cambridge.  Cambridge University deserves an entry on the Cambridge (disambiguation) page. CarolGray 08:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, while the titles of the Wikipedia articles may be unambiguous, in common usage they may often be referred by the simply term only. Certainly warrants a mention. My take on the guidance is that such terms may be included on the disambiguation page, and if there are several such similar terms, they can be moved to a separate page. older ≠ wiser 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (To CarolGray)Yes, University of Cambridge deserves to be linked from Cambridge (disambiguation). But not because Cambridge is part of the name.  The reason University of Cambridge should be linked is that it is sometimes referred to simply by Cambridge.  It is not included in Cambridge (disambiguation) by virtue of this section of WP:MOSDP, which talks about what should go into the see also section of the page.  I hope you are not suggesting that University of Cambridge should be moved down into such a section.  Taemyr 15:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not as it is. This is an area where hard and fast prescriptive rules are undesirable (and even counterproductive). As far as I know, there is only one University of Cambridge. If there happened to be several similarly named institutions with no one being notably more well-known than the other, then it might make sense to list them onto a separate disambiguation page and merely include a link to it from the main disambiguation page. Similarly, if there are only a few places named Title Township, there's no problem listing them on the Title disambiguation page, but when the list becomes unwieldy, it makes sense to simply place a link to the Title Township disambiguation page on the Title disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. If University of Cambridge was never referred to simply by Cambridge, it would not belong on Cambridge (disambiguation).  In the same way that the University of Oslo does not belong on Oslo (disambiguation). Taemyr 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I agree the IF indeed it was the case that the University of Cambridge was never referred to simply by Cambridge, then no it would not belong on Cambridge (disambiguation). But in fact it is commonly referred to as simply "Cambridge". The is also the case with many Universities (in the U.S. at least) as well as Townships and Hospitals, and to a lesser degree other entities like counties, etc. older ≠ wiser 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, I guess what I am actually objecting to is the relevancy of your comments. I feel that the problem of when to make multi-level dab's should be separate from the consideration of which topics that in principle belong on a dab.  I also think I should have made it clear that my response at 15:39 was to Carol.  Taemyr 20:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, well I suppose another aspect of my comments are that I don't think it is productive to try to formulate overly prescriptive rules about what should or should not be on a disambiguation page. If something such as Title University is sometimes referred to as simply Title, as is common at least in the U.S., it belongs on a disambiguation page. If the entity is never or only rarely referred to only as Title, then it shouldn't. Determining whether something may or may not be referred to solely as Title is a matter of editorial discretion, and it is generally not worth getting into a protracted argument over the inclusion of individual items. Wholesale re-interpretation of what a disambiguation page is, such as some editors occasionally attempt to do is another matter. older ≠ wiser 02:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made a second attempt, which also tries to clarify the exclusion criteria. Taemyr 16:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

naming and linking
See Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for a discussion about this. Thanks. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding ALF, Alf, primary topic, and appropriate disambiguation standards
A LAME edit war, in which I have gotten involved against my better judgment, raises some issues relevant to disambiguation. Your comments are welcome at Talk:ALF. older ≠ wiser 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea for a boilerplate comment
It seems that most editors who add entries to dab pages add a single entry for a subject they have an interest in, and are either uninterested in (or most likely unaware of) MoS:DAB. Editors who do dab page cleanup are aware of MoS:DAB, but I thought we could save some work with a boilerplate comment to insert at the top of dab pages, to alert other editors to the most common mistakes. Here's a start:

I wanted to keep it short. Please let me know what you think of the idea, and of the wording. — Swpb talk contribs 07:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Although this sounds like a good idea, I have my doubts that this will work in a larger scale (but it it might still be useful/helpful):
 * + Personally, I already add a similar advice, but only when a dab page has a specific problem that I think will easily get repeated, and which I therefore address. Most notably: adding entries to "blabla Title blabla", and adding dictionary (slang) definitions although there is a working wiktionary link.
 * - My experience is that most wikipedians copy the style of the present dab page when they add a new entry. E.g. they are unlikely to use more than one link per entry if all other entries on the dab page only use one link. If you leave a clean dab page, it will stay clean for a pretty long time even after expansion.
 * - If a wikipedian really wants to have his entry listed on a dab page despite an invisible comment saying not to, they might just delete the invisible comment and still add their entry. (Has happened unfortunately.)
 * It isn't obvious to new wikipedians where to find the full MoS since links won't work in invisible comments. Additionally writing "(MOS:DAB)" might help.
 * The meaning of the words "piping" and "external links" are not obvious to everyone. Even after I had read the MOS, I still needed several days to figure out what they really refer to. :-).
 * Ergo (my take): Use your common sense when adding such a template, be specific, and hope for the best. – sgeureka t•c 08:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sgeureka. But would add what I usually do when I correct such items: I make sure the edit comments reference WP:MOSDAB, but I avoid the tone of "WP:MOSDAB decrees," with something like "WP:MOSDAB - extra blue links make it difficult to find the right article."  They can then can (hopefully) see the sense in what was done and carry on with that - and maybe pick up more if they are interested enough to click on the link. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

All pages beginning with...
The see also section of flat has a link to Special:Allpages/Flat piped as All pages beginning with Flat. If these entries should be on the dab pages, they should probably be included in the tab template. Taemyr 13:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to include the lookfrom on dabs I clean up if there were many articles listed that simply began with the title ("Flat" in this case). What's the tab template? -- JHunterJ 13:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * disambig Taemyr 13:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (Oh, a typo for "dab" template?) No, I don't think that all disambig pages need a lookfrom in the see also, and even if they did, it would be hard to incorporate with other non-templated See also entries. -- JHunterJ 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure. A casual user might not be aware of the allpages functionality.  More to the point, I feel it as an all or nothing thing.  If it makes sense to have this on some pages it would make sense to have it on all dab pages.(Although we would need to strip trailing (disambiguation) sometimes)  Lack of incorporation with other see also entries I see as a boon, since this is fundamentally different. Taemyr 13:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should:
 * The search is not disambiguation.
 * The majority of terms probably wouldn't benefit from this.
 * Of the terms that could benefit, there's no reason to include a prefix search, but no infix or suffix search.
 * A better approach to this kind of navigation, addressing the above points, would be stand-alone list articles.
 * If this link should appear anywhere by default, it should rather be on the search page itself. --Piet Delport 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If this link should appear anywhere by default, it should rather be on the search page itself. --Piet Delport 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added this before, but only to disambig pages for first names. It's often times impossible to list every possible person starting with a common name, so an "Oh, and if you can't find it, check the general directory" seems reasonable in that case. Not sure if it would make sense anywhere else, though (can't see a reason for it on the flat page).

I'm not a fan of the lookfrom template; it doesn't have a selfref indication in it as it stands. Best to use selfref instead until that's fixed. SnowFire 18:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would make sense to have an allpages link built into the dab template. It would look plain silly on many pages, such as pages disambiguating surnames or some compound place names, where it is very unlikely that there would be any other articles beginning with that combination of characters. older ≠ wiser 02:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You people don't know what you want. First you make a big stink over compound word links on dab pages. Then you make a stink about lists of such links. And now you make a stink about a link to Wikipedia's craptacular Special:Prefixindex (which, again as I've stated in other dab discussions) includes redirects and doesn't give brief descriptions that aren't cluttered with wiki markup. Various surname/name dab pages have links to people with that name in them, so why not all dab pages? Make up your minds, people! I tire of the hypocratic contradiction of all of this nonsense--and being the scapegoat in resolving this issue (and being blocked a week over it!). Wikipedia needs a better navigation system. Dab pages don't work and categories are too cluttered/confusing. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 05:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's precisely because dab pages is not search indexes that directing users on to special:allpages could make sense. Ie. if you did not find the article you where looking for here you might want to try... Taemyr 14:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Eep, many surname articles have links to people who share half of their name with a bunch of other people, but they are not dab pages, should not have the hndis tag, and I'm fixing those that do. They are encyclopedic articles, and should not be used to beat up editors who maintain disambig pages, which are non-articles used for navigation. Chris the speller 16:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes surname articles any more special than dab pages? Wikipedia needs search indices because its search feature sucks daisies as I've already explained above and everywhere else lately... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Eep², you are not a scapegoat or a martyr: you were blocked because other editors took issue with your uncivil conduct, and your tendentious editing against consensus, policies and these disambiguation guidelines.  Nothing more, nothing less.  --Piet Delport 00:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What's uncivil are Wikipedia's contradictory "policies"/"guidelines"--my reaction to them is justified. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 08:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No policy disagreement justifies insults, denigration, or disruptive editing. If you truly want to improve Wikipedia, work with the grain:  process, consensus, civility.  --Piet Delport 09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The "process" refuses to think outside the box and see the light (#44c). The "process" is set in its ways. The "process" needs reformation. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 12:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The process exists to nurture the growth of an encyclopedia (not a dictionary or "WikiEverything" as you've proposed), and to prevent rogue editors creating an atmosphere poisonous to that.
 * You seem to be the only person to see this "light", and any need to "fix" Wikipedia. --Piet Delport 18:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Before this discussion goes any further, please remember that disambiguation pages are not one-stop, full service navigation systems. They serve a specific purpose: disambiguating an ambiguous title. Other kinds of navigation are covered by other mechanisms: set index articles, list articles, categories, portals, various searches, and more;  they are not the job of disambiguation pages. --Piet Delport 00:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And, yet, when I try creating set index articles, lists, and even categories for removed content (such as Category:Mystery television), they are nominated for deletion or removed as links (like you did from Mystery (disambiguation))... What is the point of even having dabs if they can't even be included in the navigation system (and are systematically removed from navigation inclusion)? ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 08:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As explained by the very first sentence of Disambiguation, they exist to resolve conflicts in article titles. They are not for topical navigation or whatever else.  (I don't understand how this can still need pointing out.)
 * If you want contributions to be kept by Wikipedia, try to avoid what is widely regarded to be indiscriminate information. --Piet Delport 18:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Surnames on dab pages
Surnames have been excluded from this MOS for a while, and more and more of them get their own surname page. (Something that got enhanced now that LOPBN is gone.) However, some people with certain surnames will still get listed on disambiguation pages, especially if there are just a handful of people, no matter how much they are known or not known by just their surname. I don't know when it was decided to have surnames and dabbing go separate ways, so I've got these questions, as I deal a lot with surname pages in a cleanup project at the moment: – sgeureka t•c 00:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I know that Category:Surnames is not a sub-category of Category:Disambiguation (but of Category:Onomastics->Category:Names instead). So if there are several people with a surname on a dab page, should  be added to the dab page or not?
 * 2) I know this isn't part of the MOS, but the surname template says  Use  for a page which does not include "(surname)" or "(disambiguation)" in the title , which seems to be an old usage documentation. I already add this template to all surname (not dab) pages though, even if they are called "TITLE (surname)" (surname adds the surname category to a page, which avoids them getting marked as "uncategorized". It also informs the reader to fix incoming links and also looks plain better.) So, should I go ahead and change the usage guide to reflect this?
 * 3) There are many surname pages where exactly one notable person got a crater named after them, e.g. Kästner. Technically, this makes the surname page a  dab page. Practically, almost no-one will ever look up that crater directly through the dab/surname page, making dabbing useless. What is the right tag/template in this case?
 * 4) At the moment, the MOS makes MOS:DAB a subsection of MOS:DAB. Now that LOPBN no longer exists, shouldn't surnames be encouraged, and if the list gets too long, the list moved to "TITLE (surname)", like in a normal wiki growing process? Because then MOS:DAB should no longer be a subsection of MOS:DAB, and become its own section in the MOS with its own rules instead. In my opinion, I'd leave the list at the bottom of a dab page where no-one will mind it growing until it gets too big. Opinions?


 * In general, yes. A specific case when you would not (if I ever get around to fixing it) is Roosevelt, which should have all people except perhaps Teddy, Franklin and Eleanor moved to Roosevelt (surname), which article should then have the Category:Surnames instead of the dab page, I think.
 * Yes, you should.
 * I just looked at that Kästner example the other day, but decided to leave it alone, as the technically "correct" action would not help readers, so why rock the boat? But there have been a number of similar cases, and I, too, would like to hear other opinions.
 * Your comments of 14 May, above, about more than 5~10 people being moved to Title (surname) seemed about right, and that's what I have been doing for the last 5 weeks. It needs to be added to the guideline.
 * Chris the speller 04:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: Kästner. For exactly two pages that would have the same name, a hatnote (For or otheruses4) on the primary topic (base name) to the other (disambiguated title) would suffice in place of a dab page. In this case,  or  .  two other uses can also be used instead of a dab when there are exactly three pages involved. -- JHunterJ 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Several templates up for deletion
I've nominated several disambiguation templates for deletion. Discussion at Templates_for_deletion. – sgeureka t•c 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Listing order for people's names
Hello all. I don't know if this has been proposed before, but to make entries easier to find I think that the the listings on dab pages of people's names should be in order of age, oldest to youngest, i.e. the oldest birth years on top and the youngest birth years on the bottom. That should not only make the page easier to navigate, but should also reduce the incidence of duplicate listings. This is not addressed in the MoS and I couldn't find a debate in the (indexed) archives. Thoughts?&mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The preferred sort order is in order of likelihood that the entry is the sought one. In cases where this can't be determined by consensus, alphabetical is usually a good order.  If the terms being disambiguated would not be distinguished very well alphabetically (a common occurrence), then chronological is a good choice.  Oldest to youngest or youngest to oldest both work well, and again should be decided on on a page-by-page consensus. All IMO. -- JHunterJ 12:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If the list of names is very long, though, it should be broken up into groups or sections based on some other criteria (occupation, nationality, etc.). ... according to consensus. -- JHunterJ 12:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, for examples, on Henry Roberts, I rearranged it so the redlinks were last (which should be the least controversial move). I also put the "Henry Roberts (disambiguation phrase)" before the "FirstName Henry Roberts" entries.  Those with a disambiguation phrase I ordered by the number of incoming links.  For the entries with a first name other than Henry, one indicated that he was known by his initials (B. H. Roberts), so that seemed less likely to be searched by "Henry Roberts" than the other. -- JHunterJ 12:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! that does clarify things.&mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Order of entries?
This is from the order of entries section: "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below..."

What are the criteria for defining "most-used meanings"? Is sounds like a big fat can of juicy worms is opening. Why not simply list alphabetically?

Is this "most-used meanings" based on someone's opinion of most-used?

Is it based on hits from search engines? Is it based on the order of hits from (a) certain search engine(s)? My understanding of how search engines work is that they are geographic specific. That is, if I were in say Brazil and typed the word banana in google, I would get a different selection of hits that if I were in say Japan.

Curious. DDD DDD 03:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's based on "consensus" (or, the appeal to majority fallacy). I'd rather list by section and date of birth/release/origin/etc--a sortable table would be even better. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 04:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Use common sense: list entries that are obviously more common (for example, the planet, element and god on Mercury) at the top.  Otherwise, if there's any reasonable doubt, rely on the other ordering guidelines (topical clustering, chronology, whatever else makes sense in context), and always remember the golden rule:  help the reader locate the right specific article with the minimum amount of fuss.
 * (Search engine hits definitely don't enter into it.) --Piet Delport 07:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Whose common sense? Different cultures may view the planet, the element and god differently. I'm not a librarian, so I could be wrong on this, but do libraries shelve books according to common sense? When writing papers, would it be wise to list references according to just common sense? I don't know... I could be going out on a limb here, but an alphabetical list for people (real and fictional) and places would make more *sense*.�`�`�`�`


 * Asking whose common sense defeats the definition. If it's not inarguably common to the majority of encyclopedia-reading English speakers then, well, it isn't.  :)
 * Library shelving and reference listing are interesting, but they serve purposes entirely different to disambiguation. --Piet Delport 08:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See also: Appeal to majority fallacy. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 12:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody's saying consensus determines truth. We're saying consensus determines consensus.  It beats the "Appeal to Eep² fallacy" (i.e., Wikipedia should match your preferences rather than the consensus) that you advocate. -- JHunterJ 12:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep repeating this like a broken record. There is no fallacy because there is no argument:  Wikipedia is defined by consensus.  (More to the point, the majority would not be enough even if you were to appeal to it:  Wikipedia is not a democracy.) --Piet Delport 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. The argument is circular, as JHunterJ stated: "consensus determines consensus", which is another fallacy. So, what you're saying is, then, that Wikipedia is defined by fallacy. Wee... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 05:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't any argument to be circular, or fallacious, or anything else: consensus is a premise of Wikipedia.  If you don't like it, as has been mentioned before, you'll have to establish your own fork/mirror.  --Piet Delport 06:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * False premise fallacy. :) Golly, the fallacies sure do keep piling up. Any more you'd like to introduce in your "argument"? ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 07:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting exceedingly silly. The premise is a fundamental part of the definition of Wikipedia:  by definition, it cannot be "false".  If you don't like the definition, you're free to take all Wikipedia's content and start a project that doesn't operate on consensus.  --Piet Delport 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitions can most indeed be false if found to be untrue/incomplete, as I believe Wikipedia's definition of "encyclopedia by consensus" (vs. by truth) to be--otherwise Wikipedia's nothing more than alternative history. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Claims may be false; definitions are independent of truth.  And Wikipedia is defined by verifiability, not truth, regardless of your beliefs.  (And this discussion does not belong on this page.)  --Piet Delport 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Verifiability" based off fallacious reasoning (appeal to authority, appeal to majority, circular reasoning, etc). This discussion belongs on every page as it is about the very nature of Wikipedia itself. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 11:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying consensus = consensus is a logical tautology, not a fallacy. -- JHunterJ 10:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah but you didn't say (write) "consensus equals consensus"; you wrote "consensus determines consensus"--slight difference there and, hence, fallacious. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Slight difference, but still tautological. I'm done with this discussion -- you won't accept the help regardless. -- JHunterJ 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Help? What help? All you people do is badger me. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 11:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So, where does that leave us? Ignore all rules? Consensus changes? DDD DDD 08:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, quite the opposite: follow the established example, guidelines and style, and deviate only when you can back it with a good, agreed-upon reason.
 * Getting back to the original question, the ordering of individual entries should rarely be a noticeable concern: if you have less than about 5 entries, it probably doesn't matter that much, and if you have more, you should probably be thinking about splitting it up instead.  --Piet Delport 09:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually my comment about ignoring all rules and that consensus changes came from User:Eep²'s page. Yeah, I definitely agree on splitting things up into various sections. And for the example above of *Mercury*, I would agree with planet, element and god being ordered like that. But have you seen Bob? It looks a bit chaotic. Or maybe it doesn't. There is an alphabetical list of real people. Hmm, maybe I'm getting it. Thanks all.DDD DDD 09:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen Bob, and I will eventually get to it. It needs to have us move people who also have a surname to Bob (given name), much as I have done to Marcus, Marco, and many other given name and surname pages that had more than a handful of such entries, starting with "H", especially in Category: Lists of ambiguous human names. Dunno why I started at "H". Any help will be appreciated, and any discussion or questions will be welcome. After moving such entries out, it's often necessary to reorder entries and/or adjust headers. On many pages, that task then becomes very simple. Chris the speller 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Bob needs to be fixed: most of the people listed there don't belong. (See the guidelines on Lists and Given names or surnames.)  --Piet Delport 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)