Wikipedia talk:Set index articles

SIA or Dab?
I've been sorting through some articles and need a bit of guidance with regard to SIAs. Take these three for example: Buk-gu, Champions Park, Cheongoksan. All are currently classified as dab pages, but since they all list things of the same type I'd say they meet the SIA criteria. I'm just a bit reluctant to make any changes though as I'm not convinced I'd be doing the right thing. PC78 (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I would say all three of these articles areSIAs -- they're all a list of articles about the same type of item (settlement, park, mountain) with the same name. —hike395 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Cheers, helpful to know that I'm on the right track! PC78 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Pages like those are better as dabs (there are thousands of such dabs e.g. 1st arrondissement). The main advantage is that any inlinks are more likely to be fixed (because of DPLbot, dabfixers etc). There's also then no need to convert it (back) to a dab if a book/film etc of that name is found. DexDor(talk) 16:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, then I'd suggest that the distinction is somewhat nebulous. Perhaps there needs to be a clearer guideline? PC78 (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think is bringing up a long-running issue with SIAs. The distinction is clear, but some editors are concerned about the side-effects of SIAs. I tried to resolve these issues above, but the discussion never took off. —hike395 (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the difference can be nebulous, but importantly SIAs can have redlinks, extra information, references, etc, all of which are inappropriate on a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to return to this question of DAB/SIA overlap. WP:SIANOTDAB makes the point that SIAs are not DABs because they differ in the following ways:
 * A SIA "is meant to provide information as well as navigation"
 * SIAs can have red links, or even list entries that are presumed non-notable (i.e. no link at all)
 * SIAs can have references
 * I would like to propose that if an article doesn't meet any of these criteria, it should be treated as a DAB. i.e. if the article would be a valid DAB page without any content changes, it's a DAB, not a SIA. By this standard, all three of the examples above would be DABs (whose entries all happen to be of one type). If someone also wants to make a set index article called List of parks named Champions Park, more power to them.
 * If we say that such articles should instead be classified as SIAs, the natural consequence of this would be that all disambiguation pages that happen to only list items of a common type would have to be recategorized as SIAs, which I think would be a disaster. See for example Category:Buildings and structures disambiguation pages. The vast majority of these thousands of pages meet the "only one type" criterion just by virtue of having a name like "X Tower", or "X Airport". Colin M (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if a dab page happens to (currently) have items that are all of one type it's still a dab page (any inlinks from article text should be fixed). By contrast, a SIA (e.g. List of buildings named Flatiron Building) is limited to items of one specified type (perhaps the guidance should be clearer on this). A dab page doesn't/shouldn't specify a type so it wouldn't always be clearcut whether the entries are all "one type" or not - e.g. if a dab page has 2 entries, one an insect and one a mammal, are they "one type" because they are both animals? DexDor(talk) 07:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this excellent suggestion &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I stumbled on a few discussions old discussions related to DAB vs. SIA which may be of interest:
 * They feature disagreement on the core question of "Is a DAB page where all the linked topics are of a common type actually a SIA?" (and feature many of the same editors as in this thread - small world!). Hike395 says yes: If something looks like a disambiguation page, but contains only plants, it is indeed a set index article, DexDor says no, and others are just confused. I personally find DexDor's argument about avoiding mistargeted links very convincing. Any editor who links to Western State Hospital is intending to refer to a specific hospital, not the set of hospitals that share that name - getting the benefit of bot warnings when linking to that name seems really important.
 * One way or the other, I think it's important that WP:SIANOTDAB is clear on the answer to this question. I boldly added a line about this (diff). I won't be surprised or upset if it gets reverted, I just thought I'd give it a shot before resorting to starting an RfC or whatever. Colin M (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They feature disagreement on the core question of "Is a DAB page where all the linked topics are of a common type actually a SIA?" (and feature many of the same editors as in this thread - small world!). Hike395 says yes: If something looks like a disambiguation page, but contains only plants, it is indeed a set index article, DexDor says no, and others are just confused. I personally find DexDor's argument about avoiding mistargeted links very convincing. Any editor who links to Western State Hospital is intending to refer to a specific hospital, not the set of hospitals that share that name - getting the benefit of bot warnings when linking to that name seems really important.
 * One way or the other, I think it's important that WP:SIANOTDAB is clear on the answer to this question. I boldly added a line about this (diff). I won't be surprised or upset if it gets reverted, I just thought I'd give it a shot before resorting to starting an RfC or whatever. Colin M (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One way or the other, I think it's important that WP:SIANOTDAB is clear on the answer to this question. I boldly added a line about this (diff). I won't be surprised or upset if it gets reverted, I just thought I'd give it a shot before resorting to starting an RfC or whatever. Colin M (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Assessment
I've raised a question at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-metadata.js regarding the title colour of set-index articles, which are still being displayed in the same green colour as disambiguation pages. For those not familiar with the gadget, it can be enabled at Preferences... Gadgets... Appearance... "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header". I believe "List purple" might be a preferable colour as I'm not sure whether the Set-index lilac (per SIA at Category:Articles by quality) would be too pale to show up against a white background. --Jameboy (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree to use the same colour as List-class, because that is what they are most similar to &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Editors watching this page might be interested to join a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Double soft redirect
Template:Double soft redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC
Please see Wikipedia talk:Content assessment &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Auto assessment of SIAs
There is a proposal at Module talk:WikiProject banner to automatically assess SIAs as List-class on the content assessment scheme. If anyone has an opinion, please comment there &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)