Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages/Archive 1

Stamping out reflexive disambiguation in article titles, take two
I agree with the above comment in that it is remarkably counterintuitive and circuitous to have a "page x" be a redirect to "page x (disambiguation)" when one could simply put the disambiguation on "page x" itself because there's no article there. It's always immediately clear when an article is a disambig page, unless it's formatted improperly; that's the entire point of the "disambig" notice to begin with! So is there nothing I or anyone else can do to fight this remarkably useless nuisance of a tendency to move perfectly good disambig pages to the same page with a redundant "(disambiguation)" notice added to the end where not at all necessary? Is there no ongoing debate, no consensus discussion, no way to enforce the Wikipedia guidelines regarding avoiding redirects when possible just because a few people want to arbitrarily impose the very awkward and lengthy "(disambiguation)" name on hundreds of page that don't even need it? Not only can I not move the pages myself 9 times out of 10, not being an admin, but now I can't even ask others to do it because there's no consensus one way or the other on the matter? I feel so impotent. :(

There's something terribly wrong with the world when Darwin redirects to Darwin (disambiguation), Titan to Titan (disambiguation), aether to Æther (disambiguation), excelsior to excelsior (disambiguation), expulsion to expulsion (disambiguation), lupus to lupus (disambiguation), and dozens of other blots upon the legacy of mankind, countless other redundant and arbitrary redirects to drive from me all faith in a just and loving God. And don't get me started on other arbitrary inconsistencies, like Agnus Dei redirecting to Lamb of God while the disambig is at Agnus Dei (disambiguation) (even though all that information could simply be in a "in popular cuture" and other similar sections on an "Agnus Dei" or "Lamb of God" article anyway, since it's all derived from the same exact source). Arr. Every time I see one of these pages, a little piece of my soul dies forever. What to do? -Silence 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you present a good reason to move a disambiguation page from Fooboo (disambiguation) to Fooboo? Why not just leave the situation alone in each case, doing the move has no benefit as far as I can see. Also, leaving Fooboo as a redirect allows it to redirected easily in the future.--Commander Keane 23:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do any of the trivial janitorial work that so many Wikipedians do, when the benefit is also seemingly limited (when compared to say, the benefit of contributing five paragraphs of sourced text)? Because when you shrug all the little things off, they begin to add up, and you end up with an inconsistent quagmire trying to come off as an encyclopedia. The reasons have already been stated. It's the same reason why The Beatles should not be reflexively redirected to The Beatles (1960s band): it's sloppy, inconsistent, reflexive, and a redirect that can be avoided.—jiy (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can get some consensus then I'll fix any of these things I come accross, and possibly get someone to use a database dump to help me track them all down. Maybe establish a quick pole at the MoS, since here is rather quiet.--Commander Keane 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the Generic pages swap checking section below, I'll start fixing these.--Commander Keane 08:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Generic pages swap checking
As you may have noticed, there's been some discussion about Primary versus Generic pages over at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Therefore, based on discussion, I just changed the text at Disambiguation.

Each "XYZZY (disambiguation)" page in Category:Disambiguation needs to be checked whether it has a Primary topic page. If it hasn't (either it doesn't exist or it's only a redirect), then the page should be moved from "XYZZY (disambiguation)" to "XYZZY".

That shouldn't be too hard, as there are only about 10% pages with "(disambiguation)" and only about half of them are actually generics needing to be moved for consistency. It doesn't require looking at the page for style, but it's as good an excuse as any. Share and enjoy!
 * --William Allen Simpson 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Human name disambiguation

 * Well, I've gone through the entirety of Category:Human name disambiguation and visited every page with "(disambiguation)" in it, checking the links, fixing dozens of pages, and applying consistent style to those pages. However, I did find a large number of pages that were only had redirects of the un-"(disambiguation)" title pointing to them, like Francis Bacon being nothing but a redirect to Francis Bacon (disambiguation). Not being an admin, I couldn't move most of these pages; someone else will have to tackle that bit. To make it quicker, here are all the ones I found problems with:


 * Adrian Ward (recommend eliminating the disambig altogether by moving Adrian Ward (artist) to "Adrian Ward" and putting a link to the footballer at the top)
 * Bradford Hill (disambiguation)
 * Carlyle (disambiguation)
 * Dan Green (disambiguation) (only two articles, should probably move Dan Green (voice actor) to "Dan Green" and provide a link to the artist at the top)
 * Francis Bacon (disambiguation)
 * Gagliano (disambiguation)
 * Gibson (disambiguation)
 * Henry Baldwin (disambiguation) (just move Henry Baldwin (judge) to "Henry Baldwin" and provide a link to the senator at the top)
 * Jack Black (disambiguation)
 * Jack Chambers (disambiguation) (just move Jack Chambers (artist) to "Jack Chambers" and link to the linguist at the top)
 * James Fergusson (disambiguation)
 * James Gallagher (disambiguation)
 * James Harrison (disambiguation)
 * John Johnson (disambiguation)
 * Joseph Duncan (disambiguation) (just move Joseph Duncan (politician) to "Joseph Duncan" and provide a link to the sex offender at the top)
 * Margaret MacDonald (disambiguation) (possibly just move one of the articles to "Margaret MacDonald" and have it link to the other)
 * Michael Brown (disambiguation)
 * Sim (disambiguation)
 * Stephen Marley (disambiguation) (possibly just move one of the articles to "Stephen Marley" and have it link to the other)
 * Wolff (disambiguation)
 * I'll list more articles I've stumbled across with this problem later, like Yes.


 * Additionally, there seems to be something vaguely psychotic about the Sue Miller (disambiguation) -> Sue Miller -> Sue Miller (author) -> etc. infinite loop, and certainly something inefficient (why not just move her to "Sue Miller", delete the disambig page, and have her give a broken disambig notice at the top to the other Sue Miller until that article exists?). Also, Jonathan Edwards (theologian) needs to be moved to Jonathan Edwards, since it redirects there anyway.


 * And, though this is purely optional and a complete tangent, if I was God, I'd make Darwin a redirect to Charles Darwin and move what's currently at Darwin to Darwin (disambiguation); 90% of the entries on Darwin are either named after Darwin or direct family members of Darwin, and 100% of them are less significant than Darwin himself, and, of course, Charles Darwin, like Einstein and Dickens (or Napoleon or Dante for first names), is quite frequently referred to by only his last name, so we should expect numerous people to search for him with only "Darwin"&mdash;many more people, in fact, than will search for everything else combined that could be called "Darwin". But that's just my preference and view on the matter, and it's a debatable point; if you disagree with whether Charles Darwin is a noteworthy enough figure and known enough by just "Darwin" to merit making it a redirect, at least the way it currently is is acceptable, if not ideal. -Silence 10:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll work on these. In the future, could you use a bulletted list instead of big paragrpahs. Engineers (and engineering students like me) are rather scared of long paragraphs. About Darwin, I already took care of that one earlier today and it's lucky you are not God because, I'm from Australia and Darwin is always Darwin to me, and we can't always be so lazy as to leave off the Chales when refering to scientist.--Commander Keane 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly, I'll change it to a bulletted list right now. I considered doing one to begin with, but was worried that it'd use up too much space on the page if no one was interested in fixing the pages. *goes to change*
 * And, as for Darwin: Bah. Canada. In that case, my best suggestion would be a link on the top of Charles Darwin like '"Darwin" redirects here. For the territory, see Darwin, Northern Territory. For other uses, see Darwin (disambiguation).' But I suppose it's not a big deal. I'm not exactly overjoyed with the current arrangement, but I'm satisfied! -Silence 11:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

' to AZ
I'll handle these. Like Silence, I'll list those that need admin attention. William Allen Simpson 14:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A Change Is Gonna Come (disambiguation)
 * ASFA (disambiguation)

OK, I've done everything above this line. In some cases I didn't dissolve a disambiguation page even if there were only two options. I need to see some consensus before I do that. For example the request:
 * (just move Joseph Duncan (politician) to "Joseph Duncan" and provide a link to the sex offender at the top)

I can't do that without some discussion first, becasue various people will argue about which Joseph is more important.

There is a strong possibility that a script will be run on a database dump which will list every instance of these mal-named generic dab pages. This means I may move the discussion to a subpage somewhere, but I'll leave a notice here about where I moved it.

In the mean time, keep on listing them here.--Commander Keane 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In which case, I'll stop checking, and wait for admins using the script. There's only so much a non-admin can do....
 * --William Allen Simpson 09:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Only admins can move them?
I thought (normal) users could move a page X to page Y, if page Y is a redirect to page X and without any other history (i.e. only one edit, its creation)? Or is this page is for pages for which page Y does have a longer history? (To apply it here, page X is "Foo (disambiguation)" and page Y is "Foo".) Just clarifying, Neonumbers 10:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, I didn't realise that normal users could force a move over a page with only one edit in the history. I'm not too sure what to do about it though, encourage normal users to peruse the list hoping to find these instances? Get the script writer to check for the these instances (not sure if that's possible/feasible? Or just leave the situation as it is? In any case, I'll explain that normal users can perform some moves, thanks for pointing it out!--Commander Keane 10:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was able to do some, and only found 2 so far that needed admin attention, but really the time spent looking through them all isn't worth it when there are already scripts to build the Links to (disambiguation) pages, and now this list of those that need reversing. Better let those with the proper tools handle it, instead of doing it by hand.
 * --William Allen Simpson 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.
Some time ago I thought of a good reason for all dab pages to be Foobar (disambiguation). If I remember I'll tell you what it was. Hmm. Rich  Farmbrough 00:12 10  March 2006 (UTC).


 * Nah, there's not really a point. If we were ever to resort to such an extreme measure, it'd be easier to just make a Disambiguation namespace for all dab pages, rather than using parentheses so excessively. -Silence 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The "(disambiguation)" is useful for spotting dabs on your watchlist/recent changes?--Commander Keane 09:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The name
I'm glad this WikiProject exists, but I don't understand the need to coin the neologism "malplaced". Couldn't it be called "Misnamed disambiguation pages" or something? Angr/ talk 09:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I chose it. Bo Lindbergh (who has a remarkable vocabulary that I am much envious of) used it first, and I descided to name this project with it.


 * I thought that the word/neologism was great because it was unique. You wouldn't, for example, think this project was about fixing capitalisation misnaming (eg Foogle (Television Series)).


 * Also, this isn't really a blockbuster project, it's just a bit of cruft and I think "Malplaced" is a fun word.--Commander Keane 09:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I will resist the temptation to downgrade him from en-4 to en-3 on the basis of this coinage. I think it's an ugly word, but that's just my opinion. Angr/ talk 10:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a neologism, just a rarely used construction. bd2412  T 14:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I invoke the Power of Google to convince everyone that I didn't coin it myself. Bo Lindbergh 14:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * EEEEAAAAAGHH!!! The Power of Google!!! I'm blinded!!! bd2412  T 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really care whether its a new coining or not: at least it's not as awkward and ugly a word as "disambiguation". Why not just call the pages "Rumpelstiltskin" instead? -Silence 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates
With the current effort to remove the word (disambiguation) from the article title has greatly affected the pages that use templates from the list of templates located at Disambiguation_and_redirection_templates. I found these templates very useful, are we to continue to use them? Most of the templates requires that the syntax of the article title be in the form Article Name (disambiguation). HJKeats 11:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To get a suffient response, this question should be listed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Please provide an example of the "great affect", to help people understand. As a precursor, you are misusing the templates. Also, this project has not really had much of an impact, the templates still work.--Commander Keane 11:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

cut-and-paste moves?
I'd love to help out with these, but I'm a little confused: how do I detect a cut-and-paste move? -- Mikeblas 06:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How to fix cut and paste moves has info on fixing cut-paste moves (and a good example). Keep in mind that merging page histories is one of the few remaining irreversible admin actions (you can make a mess if you make a mistake). To spot a cut-paste move, when you look at the page history of the place you want to move to (eg Foogle) you may see edits that belong to another article. In some cases a cut-and-paste move has occurred, which can be easy to fix or hard. A tricky example is Gaff. A multi-stub article developed, then some material got cut-and-pasted to gaff (fishing). We can't delete Gaff and place Gaff (disambiguation) there because we need to preserve the edit history for gaff (fishing). One solution is to move the material currently at Gaff to somewhere safe like Talk:Gaff/Old history and tell people to look there, another solution is to go ahead with the Gaff (disambiguation) -> Gaff move and restore the page history - but this may cause the histories to overlap and become messy (I have not checked in this case), another solution could be to wait until the MediaWiki software allows better author attribution (I have seen this proposed somewhere).--Commander Keane 10:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Commander! The use of a concrete example helps lots; now I know what to look (out) for. -- Mikeblas 04:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from project page
These comments don't seem to add significantly to the description on the front page, the issues have been worked through in discussion here, and the comments are quite old, so I am shifting them to the talk page. Dekimasu よ! 13:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * Out of the 40 I have checked, 4 needed their page history (or their talk page's history) merged, an alarming 10%. How to fix cut and paste moves outlines the procedure, it is complicated.
 * Apparently some editors are under the impression that disambiguation pages must exist with the "(disambiguation)" suffix, the converse should be clear at the MoS and WP:DAB.--Commander Keane 06:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * These redirects are sometimes done for the purpose of facilitating future expansion. The dab page is put at "X (disambiguation)" with a redirect from X, but the expectation is that one of the articles on the dab page will eventually be expanded and take over the redirect. This project seems like make-work... Mike Dillon 16:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Concern about GFDL violation
Sometimes, edit history shows that at one time, content was merged to another article and then made a redirect to a disambiguation page. In this case, we should not simply tag it with db-movedab to delete the page to make room for page move because we should retain edit history to comply GFDL. Instead, we should move the page elsewhere before fixing the malplaced disambiguation page. For example, say we have page "Foo" that was a page about a fictional character which appeared in a fiction "Bar" but the content was merged to "List of Bar characters" and now points to "Foo (disambiguation)". In this case, we should first edit the page to point to merged article, tag it with R from merge and move it to unambiguous page, e.g. "Foo (Bar)". And then "Foo", which would have non-significant edit history only after the move, can be tagged with db-movedab. --Kusunose 02:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Did a cut & paste move
My bad. I did a cut&paste move on William Jackson and William Jackson (disambiguation). Now I've just found this section. Sorry, I hope I haven't made too much of a mess. Tassedethe (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confession. ;)  Marked with db-histmerge.   --Russ (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Database reports
The report added this morning comes from the Toolserver's database mirror rather than from a dump; the advantage of this is that the entire process of generating the report took about 2.5 minutes, instead of spending a week waiting for a dump to finish, then about an hour to download it, another hour or two to decompress it, and six to 12 hours to process it. The disadvantage is that the Toolserver mirror apparently is somewhat out of sync with this wiki, so that there may be some errors in the list. If there are no objections, I propose to run a report like this once a week and update this page automagically. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Neologism?
One might expect to find words being coined within this WikiProject, considering how Wikipedia has single-handedly made disambiguation a household word over the past few years, but malplaced is a rare piece of medical jargon and not commonly found in dictionaries. The use of the word in a wiki context has slightly different meaning from the medical context of an naturally oddly-located feature of a body, or a bit of malpractice, and the new meaning seems to be a neologism.

Have people considered alternate names for this subproject? "Misnamed disambiguation pages" would be clear, could use the same shortcut, and might include other sorts of misnamings if you come up with them. +sj + 22:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been where it is for a while, I see no compelling reason to change it. bd2412  T 00:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this strictly a malplaced dab?
Thought I'd outline this one here instead of straight on the main page (after my last fiasco above). Jason Hunter doesnt point to Jason Hunter (disambiguation) but to a Jason Hunter (Inspectah Deck). I could change the redirect and then it would break the rules but that's cheating. So is it OK or should it be listed as malplaced? Tassedethe (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed the hatnote at Inspectah Deck, which points to the football player directly. The dab page is thus no longer necessary. (My solution.) – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hardly understand a word of all this. Is there a rule about where a disambiguation page fits into the scheme of things?  I can understand The Beatles going straight to their page with a link to the disambiguation page there, but why does Baltimore direct to the city "in the state of Maryland in the United States"?  Not only are there several other Baltimores, but the original is actually the one in Southern Ireland.  But why does it have to be a place anyway?  The disambiguation page has dozens of other Baltimores.  Surely in a case like this with so many alternatives a search for 'Baltimore' should take you straight to 'Baltimore (disambiguation)'? --213.208.117.47 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can find the answer to your question at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Precision and disambiguation
I have created a new section called Precision and disambiguation. Just because a page redirects to a disambiguation page does not mean that the disambiguation is malplaced, (which seemed to be the assumption underlying the wording in the lead). This needs to be highlighted so that those who edit what is really the primary topic are made aware of the proposed move. Without oversight, this process can be used by editors acting in bad faith to bypass WP:RM. If editors need to seek consensus on a page which was previously the primary topic, then the potential for manipulation of the system to bypass consensus is reduced. -- PBS (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a problem in the wild? I would like to make your addition briefer and possibly also supplement it with some changes in the instructions, but it may help to see one of the problems you're trying to address. I'm also unsure of the need to link out to WP:PRECISION here -- WP:PRIMARYTOPIC seems to be the relevant guide. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

old news?
I can't see anywhere on the current WP:disambiguation page that endorses this wikiproject any more. Has consensus changed? Or am I missing something? ...comments? ~B F izz 01:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing anywhere in the disambiguation project suggesting that disambig pages for which there is no primary topic should sit anywhere other than the base page name. Every example we offer has such pages at the "Foo" name with "Foo (disambiguation)" redirecting to it, per WP:INTDABLINK. bd2412  T 01:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * INTDABLINK doesn't specify that, though. It says "The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for." Wouldn't it be better to standardize such that disambiguation pages are always have the form "Foo (disambiguation)" at the end, and then make "Foo" redirect to it in appropriate cases (where there is no clear primary topic)? The guidelines state "To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect" - so the page "Foo (disambiguation)" should exist if Foo is disambiguated at all. Why add complexity by sometimes having the actual dab page reside somewhere else? To me, it seems 'malplaced' to put the dab page anywhere else. ...comments? ~B F izz 07:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "If there is no primary topic, the ambiguous term should be the title of a disambiguation page" (WP:D). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's easy to read over that sentence without realizing that it specifies that it should be a page there. I'll raise discussion over there regarding that sentence; to me, it seems 'malplaced' to put a dab page somewhere that doesn't say "(disambiguation)" in the title. ...comments? ~B F izz 18:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? If there's no primary topic, the disambiguation page doesn't need to be disambiguated from it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, because dab pages are different than articles. More detailed discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. ...comments? ~B F izz 22:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. At this point, let's keep the conversation over there. Cheers! bd2412  T 23:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've started discussion regarding dab naming convention at Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 84. I encourage you to join the discussion at that page. ...comments? ~B F izz 01:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles
A discussion has been initiated regarding the treatment of disambiguation pages on the "Lists of mathematics articles" pages. I would strongly encourage editors involved in repairing malplaced disambiguation pages to participate, as one of the options - moving all mathematical disambiguation pages to their "Foo (disambiguation)" titles - obviously has serious implications for this component of the disambiguation project. Please indicate your preference in the straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This straw poll was closed with a consensus to move the lists of mathematics articles to project space. The option to move mathematical disambiguation pages to their "Foo (disambiguation)" titles was rejected. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If the assumption or claim that WP:Disambiguation outweighs WP:Primary topic is true, then, shouldn`t Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) be followed
Is wikipedia turning into the "American television watchers' encyclopedia"

Requested move closed by editor who has clear bias and conflict of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.204.129 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence of bias and conflict of interest before slinging accusations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:RussBot/Duplicate disambigs/001
Thirty-eight duplicate disambiguation pages remain to be merged from User:RussBot/Duplicate disambigs/001. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now down to twenty-one. Get 'em while they're hot! bd2412  T 16:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate disambiguations
Here are the remaining instances of duplicate disambiguation pages needing to be fixed:


 * 1) Edgar, Edgar (disambiguation)
 * 2) Feline, Feline (disambiguation)
 * 3) Lodestar, Lodestar (disambiguation)
 * 4) Ming, Ming (disambiguation)

Would anyone object if I expand this project to cover these (since at least one of a duplicated pair of disambiguation pages will always be "malplaced") and arrange for the regular report to add a section to the project page covering these as they arise? bd2412 T 14:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No complaints from me. If anyone wants to expand it further (hint, hint) then pages where the foobarfoo (disambiguation) page exists but the foobarfoo page doesn't (e.g Third Ear and Third Ear (disambiguation)) would be useful. Tassedethe (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've updated the bot script to add the duplicate disambiguations section. As for the latter suggestion by Tassedethe, there are so many of these (which I'm calling "missing primary topic pages") that they would swamp the rest of the report.  So, they are going to be listed separately at User:RussBot/Missing primary topic pages until the list gets down to a more manageable size, after which I'll incorporate them into the weekly report here.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, I'll look out for it. Tassedethe (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that there are many, but I would guess those would be the easiest to fix - either move the "Foo (disambiguation)" page to "Foo", or redirect "Foo" to a more appropriate primary topic. bd2412  T 20:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'll merge the missing primary topic list into the main page starting next week, since we seem to have the list size under control. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to suggest exactly that. Cheers! bd2412  T 16:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The return of Harry Dunn
I tried to fix the malplaced Harry Dunn (disambiguation) (with fifty-odd incoming links to Harry Dunn) by fixing the deleted article. There's now a DRV Deletion review/Log/2013 January 15 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What kind of page is this?
Is this a Wikiproject MOS guideline, or what? It provides styling advice and has got its own shortcut abbreviation, but it isn't labeled in any way. If it provides advice by some editors, it should clarify what level of support is behind it, not presented as if it was official advice. Diego (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What "styling" advice? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's providing advice about titles for articles and DAB pages, which fall under the content policies . However, this is not a policy nor a guideline; so its status as a recommendation for editing is unclear. Per WP:Advice pages guideline, it should labeled with the kind of page it represents, to avoid people being confused about the degree of support that it holds. I suggest using Guidance essay. Diego (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a project subpage (or perhaps a task force). It does not proffer any styling advice that is not in WP:DAB or WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 13:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. "These pages are generally erroneous, and should be moved to the title without the parenthetical, leaving a redirect behind for intentional links to the disambiguation page". That is not part of the DAB policy, and its wording provides a much harder emphasis on what the dab pages title should be; this wording is not subject to the community scrutiny nor has been written through wide consensus, and it should be labelled as such. If the text is a valid interpretation of what is written at the DAB policy (which is itself debatable), it can be labeled with Supplement. Diego (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:DABNAME unambiguously says The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. How is that not sufficient basis for that guidance? I.e., there is a disambiguation page at Frazbar (disambiguation) and there is nothing at Frazbar. Are you seriously questioning whether "something" needs to be done in such situations? You only quoted part of the guidance as well. The guidance does not dictate mindless moving of the disambiguation page to the base name, but indicates consideration needs to be given to whether there is in fact a primary topic for the term (which is also supported by policy). Also, are you disputing the entire page or only this language in the Missing primary topics section? older ≠ wiser 13:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying "Sure it does" and then quoting sentences about the existence of pages as opposed to the styling of pages indicates that you are using "styling" to mean something other than "styling". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence above and the whole page are giving advice about what title should DAB pages be placed upon. I'm taking that as advice about how to choose the title of the DAB page and part of the style and naming conventions, you're free to see it as deciding the existence of the page; we'd be arguing semantics there, not substance. Diego (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Diego, this is not a page that expresses a new opinion or attempts to set forth a new rule; it is a page that summarizes the existing rules and then provides a space for listing the actual pages to be fixed in accordance with those rules. Throwing an "essay" tag on it is like throwing such a tag on Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10 because it only lists the discussions being carried out, and does not set forth the policies upon which those discussions are premised. bd2412  T 14:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The page introduces value judgements (like "malplaced disambiguation pages", "generally erroneous", "'repair'" situations that not correspond with the default, as if they were always broken...) that are not part of and are not implied by WP:DAB; the policy explicitly says that its advice "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", a nuance that has been completely removed in this page. If all this wording were to be placed at WP:DAB it would be reverted in no time, as its strong language doesn't correspond to the spirit of Wikipedia policy. ("Templates for discussion" does not give editing instructions, so it's not equivalent; if it provided editing advice, it should be treated in the same way).
 * The whole page is close to instruction WP:CREEP, but If all these judgement calls were removed, it wouldn't be that bad. The problem is that this page is easily open to WP:GAMEing the system - if you provide a link here to someone who is not versed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it will give the wrong impression that these rules must be followed in all cases. That's why Essay templates were created in the first place, to warn editors about the proper application of policy. The Supplement template provides, but as it has been reverted, I'll request wider feedback at the Pump. Diego (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This page introduces no judgments. It is based on the "judgments" that are part of and are explicitly stated in Disambiguation: No primary topic for XXX = disambiguation page at XXX; primary topic for XXX = disambiguation page at the "XXX (disambiguation)" title. Putting the disambiguation page for "XXX" at "XXX (disambiguation)" when there is no primary topic for "XXX" is erroneous; that "judgment" is not introduced in this page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I take that you don't consider "These pages are generally erroneous" a value judgement? What do you have to say about the absence of the "occasional exceptions may apply" warning? Diego (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is a core principle and applies regardless of whether there is an explicit note that exceptions are allowed. Further, many of the cherry-picked phrases you quote already contain qualifications, such as "generally" and the page has instructions that recommend weighing a number of considerations and does not endorse robotic actions. older ≠ wiser 15:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You're cherry-picking out-of-context phrases. Please be more specific as to what guidance you think this page introduces that is not founded in WP:DAB or WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 15:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, the problem is not with the specific guidance, but with the value judgements, and the wrong tone contrary and missing general advice about WP:IAR that make it contrary to that of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Diego (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, have you tried editing the page to try to correct what you perceive as problems with the tone? If there is no problem with the guidance itself, I don't see how marking it as opinion is helpful. older ≠ wiser 15:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried it, and I've been reverted. Nevertheless, fixing the tone would solve only half of the problem. Diego (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that you made any edits to the page other than to apply templates or remove any reference at all to the governing policies. older ≠ wiser 16:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Should WP:MALPLACED include a prominent disclaimer note about its scope?
Should WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages be given a prominent note at the top indicating that the page itself is not an official policy or guideline? Is it affected by the recommendations given at WP:Advice pages? Diego (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment - background discussion for this Request for Comment can be seen here. Diego (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No specific evidence has been provided to show that there is any guidance on this page that does not have a sound basis in WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. It might be appropriate to mark this as a task force page of the Disambiguation project, but per WP:Advice pages, this is quite clearly not an essay. older ≠ wiser 15:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Advice pages does not require that essays introduce new guidance; actually, what it list as the best essays are those that don't conflict with the existing policy. I would say that this is clearly an "advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process", and that WP:Advice pages never says that it applies exclusively with essays; therefore, I think something like WikiProject style advice or supplement would be perfect to clarify its scope and warn newcomers that arrive to this page. We could even reword the templates so that they don't say that this is an essay. Diego (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, WikiProject style advice already says "This page contains advice about style", so it wouldn't need rewording. Diego (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But, the context of WP:Advice pages suggest they collect some advice about how to apply Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and essays to their specific subject area. But in this case, the specific subject area is really synonymous with WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. This isn't about applying disambiguation to a specific field such as music or politics or biographies. This really seems more a task force type of page for editors to address specific issues that are directly based on guidance in WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. As disambiguation pages are not "articles" (and strictly speaking, I don't agree that this page address "style"), the language in WikiProject style advice is a bit misleading. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond the specific exact wording of the guideline, what do you think of the concern I expressed in the conversation above, that this project page as its written right now may mislead a new editor into believing that the advice given is a hard law that must be followed in every ocassion, no exceptions? (an idea which is contrary to WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY) Above you said that "WP:IAR is a core principle and applies regardless of whether there is an explicit note that exceptions are allowed." But how a new editor that arrives here is supposed to know that, if this page doesn't explain it nor link to that core principle? Diego (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I find it hard to accept that anyone actually reading the page to misinterpret it in the way you suggest. The only imperative instructions I see on the page are also framed as imperatives in the corresponding policies. What specific language do you see as being problematic? older ≠ wiser 16:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I pointed it out in the discussion above: "malplaced disambiguation pages", "generally erroneous", "'repair'" situations that not correspond with the default, as if they were always broken, and the fact that the general disclaimer from guidelines is missing ("an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"). I don't find it proper that an auxiliary project page presents itself as a stronger rule than the guideline it is based at. Diego (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how these out-of-context phrases represent an actual problem. Taken in the context of the rest of the page I do not see any risk of misinterpretation. Please explain in more specific detail exactly how this page presents itself as a stronger rule than the guideline it is based at. older ≠ wiser 17:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As I stated above, this is not a page that expresses a new opinion or attempts to set forth a new rule; it is a page that summarizes the existing rules of WP:DAB and MOS:DAB, and provides a space for listing the actual pages to be fixed in accordance with those rules. Throwing any kind of disclaimer on it would be like throwing a disclaimer on Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10 on the grounds that the RfD discussion page only contains the work being carried out, and does not set forth the policies upon which that work are premised. The introductory material on this page reflects policies set forth on other pages. No disclaimer is needed. bd2412  T 15:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't the proper mechanism for resolving Diego Moya's disagreement with the consensus on disambiguation page naming and navigational arrangement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest then as the proper mechanism to solve my concerns that this page is misleading and contrary to the consensus on policy and guidelines? Diego (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears you disagree with WP:D's guidance on when to place the disambiguation page at the base name and when to put it at the "XXX (disambiguation)" title, so WT:D would be the place to try and form a new consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, your impressions are wrong. I'm OK with the way WP:D recommends placing disambiguation pages. I disagree with the way WP:D's guidance is misrepresented in this particular project page. Diego (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since none of WP:D's guidance is misrepresented here, it's difficult not to get that impression. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is very clearly a project page, no one could be reasonably expected to misunderstand it. And more importantly, there is nothing here that doesn't come directly from MOS:DAB and WP:DAB. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean, "this is very clearly a project page for people who is well versed in Wikpedia policy and Wikiprojects". If you read above, the problem with this page is not that it gives criteria that are not found in WP:D, is that it subverts the nature of Wikipedia guidelines, WP:IAR and WP:NOT. Diego (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR only trumps established policies/guidelines in specific cases, it is not an invitation to anarchy. As others have said, if you have problems with WP:DAB or MOS:DAB, you need to take your objections there and see if others have similar opinions. Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is I said, my problems are with *this* page, not WP:DAB. The guideline says that IAR can be used in specific cases, so MALPLACED must say that IAR can be used in specific cases; otherwise, it is not a faithful representation of the guideline. Diego (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is faulty reasoning. IAR can apply regardless of whether there is any note. But why do you think it is so important to note that exceptions are allowed? Are there in fact any such exceptions where the disambiguation page is at "Foo (disambiguation)" where "Foo" is a redirect to the disambiguation page (and there is consensus that this is the correct placement)? older ≠ wiser 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One more time, you're failing to hear my concerns. I'm not saying that IAR won't apply if it's not explicitly listed; I'm saying that people arriving to this page for the first time won't be made aware that IAR exists, which is WP:BITEy toward newcomers. I'm also definitely NOT suggesting to use a redirect from the base name to a Foo (disambiguation) title; but there are other valid possibilities that may apply, and they are not "wrong" only for not following the general rule. For example, linking an ambiguous base name for a non-primary geographical place to a title like Ambiguous-basename, Country, and having a separate Ambiguous-basename (disambiguation) is a reasonable exception to WP:DAB (and a recourse that is frequently used for geographical places), although MALPLACED would call it unambiguously "erroneous" without recourse. So can you please at least acknowledge what is my real point instead of attacking strawmen? Diego (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One more time, you've not indicated any actual problem. The example you cite is simply irrelevant to this page as is it a legitimate case of a primary topic redirect. Such as case would NEVER be listed by the bots maintaining the page and if it were added manually, an editor who actually read the instructions on the page would remove it. Can you at least acknowledge that you have not provided anything except for out-of-context phrases to support you claims? older ≠ wiser 16:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody but me finds any significant differences within these instructions and those at WP:DAB, surely you won't mind if I rewrite the wording in a way that still matches the guideline 100% but is less harsh? As the nuances that I plan to alleviate don't seem to be relevant for any of you, you shouldn't miss them. Diego (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have specific suggestions, why don't you propose your suggested rewording here on the talk page first? bd2412  T 13:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was following WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD - it's OK to propose changes through edits. It's clear that there's consensus against a prominent notice like the one I suggested first, but I don't see anyone working to reach a compromise here around the concerns I've raised. I'm OK with not having the tag, provided the wording that no one cares about is modified in compliance with the policy about policy. Diego (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording "generally erroneous" in particular is directly against WP:BUREAUCRACY ("Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice"); I suggest rewriting the whole sentence as (this also takes addresses that the disambiguation pages are not wrong, only their titles). Diego (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "generally created in error"? bd2412  T 15:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See my point below about calling exceptions "errors". How about "were created as exceptions to the guideline, don't follow the accepted standard, and generally should be moved"? Diego (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the reference to IAR, as it is unsupported by common sense. You might as well add a line to WP:FA stating that "a stub can not be a featured article, but some exceptions may apply". bd2412  T 13:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be unsupported by "common sense", but it's supported by WP:RULES. Diego (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can say that about anything. Want to post defamatory information about a living person? WP:BLP prohibits it, but just invoke WP:IAR. Want to copy an entire article straight out of Britannica, uncredited? Point to WP:IAR. Want to find every article mentioning Bill Clinton and change his name to Qlinton? Just say "WP:IAR". The problem is that WP:IAR is about improving the encyclopedia, and not for doing things that counter that purpose - like having a "Foo (disambiguation)" page while "Foo" is an unhelpful redlink. bd2412  T 15:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're comparing a practice that is forbidden by a Wikimedia Foundation resolution with one that is explicitly recommended by a guideline? And for the last time, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that it's OK to have "Foo" unused or redirecting to "Foo (disambiguation)", my concerns are others entirely. Diego (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If your concerns are "others entirely", then I am confused about what you are objecting to, on a page that merely repeats these rules, and provides a set of pages to be fixed in accordance with them. bd2412  T 16:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely, I am baffled as to what it is that Diego actually finds objectionable. Repeated requests for clarification have not resulted in any clarification. older ≠ wiser 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My concerns is that this doesn't "merely repeat these rules". It changes the meaning of the rules by performing a selective culling, rewording them as imperatives instead of best practices, and omitting the part of policy that says the rules are to be used with common sense and skipped when making Wikipedia worse. These same points are what I've being stated repeatedly since starting the RfC, and the recommendations made by every policy I've linked to; instead, people have been attributing me ulterior motives about wanting to subvert the current criteria stated at WP:DAB. Diego (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You made such claims that this changes the policy guidance somehow, but you have not provided anything as to how specifically this page changes policy in any meaningful way. You have selected some out-of-context phrases, but have not indicated how these phrases, in the context of the entire page, actually effect a change in policy. For the umpteenth time, can you please be more specific in what you find objectionable? older ≠ wiser 16:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, can you provide an example of any situation where abiding by these rules would be "making Wikipedia worse"? bd2412  T 16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself once more time, I'll compile all my concerns at one point for clarification:
 * Advice pages states that project pages that provide instructions should not duplicate the site-wide guidelines, and that should be treated as essays. This project page duplicates advice given at WP:DAB, badly, and people here oppose labeling it with WikiProject style advice as recommended.
 * The wording makes it look like the instructions to rename disambiguation pages are mandatory, which will mislead anyone who isn't aware of WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The edits that I've introduced to remind of the real extent of WP:DAB (as best practices, not hard rules) have been reverted, even though they are not prominent.
 * By the nature of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, skipping the rule is not an error when used to improve the encyclopedia. However, this project page calles all exceptions "erroneous" and "malplaced", regardless of their state at improving Wikipedia. In order to comply with the spirit and the letter of WP:DAB, this advice page should remind readers that skipping rules *is* allowed when there are good reasons for it, and stop calling exceptions "errors". Diego (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would still like an example of any situation wherein these rules should (or could) be "skipped". I would also point out that these rules are more than a matter of repeating guidelines; WP:CONCISE, as part of WP:TITLE, is policy, and a disambiguation page titled "Foo" is clearly more concise than the same disambiguation page titled "Foo (disambiguation)". bd2412  T 16:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Point by point.
 * This is clearly not an essay and the claim that this "badly" duplicates advice appears to your opinion. Yes, there is some duplication of the advice in the guidelines, but it is in the express purpose of a wikiproject sub-page addressing specific issues.
 * . I disagree. The wording does make it clear that something should be done with these pages. Moving them is only one option. The instructions are fairly clear that they should not be moved if there is a primary topic.
 * Re your last point, do you have even a single example (even hypothetical) of a situation in which anything covered by this page would not be considered "erroneous". I think that is actually an entirely appropriate word choice in the context of this page. The cases described on this page are most certainly error conditions and something should be done to resolve the error. older ≠ wiser 17:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If disambiguation pages are lists of "Foogles" wouldn't less ambiguous titles be Foogle (disambiguation) or List of F/foogles?

 * convert thread into an RfC. 06:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If I visit an article named "Foogle" (a title presented in singular form) I may naturally assume that the article entitled "Foogle" will be concerning a subject on a topic named "Foogle" or "foogle". I will not necessarily expect to find a list of Foogles/foogles. For some time not I have regarded that less ambiguous titles might go along the lines of "Foogle (disambiguation)" or "List of F/foogles" in a pluralised "List of .." type format.

In this context I was recently and helpfully directed to this project page by in a discussion at: Talk:Mince (disambiguation). (The potential irony that subjects that may fit the title "mince" typically involve a mass of many parts is not lost on me).

WP:LISTNAME states, "A common practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___ (for example list of Xs). A list of lists of X could be at either Lists of X or at List of X: e.g., Lists of people, List of sovereign states. ..." The examples given are not "List of person..." or "List of sovereign state" which, to my mind, would both be ridiculous. Instead, in both cases a plural is used. Further examples mentioned in that content are: "Comparison of Linux distributions", "List of Finns", "Lists of French people", "Lists of Americans", "List of German-language poets", "List of poets", "List of fictional dogs", "List of individual dogs" and "List of peaks named Signal Mountain".

At WP:Disambiguation the view is clearly stated that "Each disambiguation page comprises a list (or multiple lists, for multiple senses of the term in question) of similarly titled links." Surely, if this is the case, then the MoS guidelines as presented at WP:LISTNAME must apply.

In regard to WP:PLURAL, I think that there are parallels to the exception that presents, "Articles that actually distinguish among multiple distinct instances of related items can be sensibly given a plural title when the alternative would be to create an inappropriately large number of short articles, one on each instance. .."

If a disambiguation list is placed at "Foogle" then I think that this fails WP:PRECISE because the content of the article presents many yet distinct topics that may be variously yet ambiguously named "Foogle". Its a "Disambiguation list of F/foogles" or a "List of F/foolgles for the purpose of disambiguation" or, with arguably a bit of a stretch, a "Foogle disambiguation page" for the purpose of "Foogle (disambiguation)"

GregKaye 13:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example? A typical disambiguation page like "Mercury" would not helpfully be retitled "List of Mercury" (or Mercurys/Mercuries), because there is no thing that they are a list of other than "things that share the name Mercury". bd2412  T 14:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you BD2412. A disambiguation list on topics named "Mercury" may, arguably, be titled in a number of way which might most readily include, "Mercury (disambiguation)" or perhaps something along the lines of "List of topics named "Mercury"" or "Mercury (article navigation page)".
 * A disambiguation list on topics named "John Smith" may, arguably, be readily titled, "John Smith (disambiguation)" or perhaps something along the lines of "List of people and other topics named "John Smith"" or "John Smith (article navigation page)".
 * As per article mentioned in a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, The disambiguation list at HMS Eagle could be renamed as List of ships named HMS Eagle so as to match titles such as List of ships named HMS Victory. GregKaye 15:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My inclination is against redirecting the shorter title to the longer title, but I'll be away for a few days, so I'll have plenty of time to think it over. bd2412  T 16:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The very clear fact is that an article such as John Smith currently fails even the most basic principles of WP:AT namely that "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." The title "John Smith" (with singular form) fails to present what the article is about (the article presents a list of a very great many John Smiths) and, on top of that, it fails to distinguish the article content from the titles of any of the very great many John Smiths within its own listing.  I can't imagine of any other organisation anywhere presenting lists in this way titles that present single subjects - at least not in cases in which these list are presented within the same pool of content in which they also present single subject articles according to single subject titles.
 * If a decision was taken to adopt a format such as "... (article navigation page)" then, if I were to be given the tools, I would be happy to do the work. I believe there are only ~2000 "... (disambiguation)" articles so this type of change would not take too long.  Wikipedia editors have achieved  great things to have produced a rich and extensive body of work and the fact that navigation is required is to editor's credit.  Personally I also think that we would be better off using the reader focussed common term of navigation rather than making reference to the editor process focussed and relatively obscure terminology of "disambiguation" but, again, this is a secondary issue. However the main proposal is to  redirect singular titles to any explanatory and disambiguated title including any disambiguation including both those mentioned.  GregKaye 17:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think a lot of people are watching this talk page. You would probably get a broader response at WikiProject Disambiguation or even at the Village Pump. bd2412  T 18:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "an article such as John Smith currently fails even the most basic principles of WP:AT" ignores the fact that John Smith is a disambiguation page - not an article. Please also see WP:FORUMSHOP (re Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation). DexDor(talk) 07:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not forum shopping for an editor to move a conversation from the wrong forum to the correct forum. bd2412  T 12:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg hasn't moved the discussion; he's created a new discussion on a different page making afaics the same points without either discussion referring to the other . DexDor(talk) 16:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * After I pointed out that it was unlikely anyone would see this discussion. Why refer to it? bd2412  T 16:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You (and me) saw it - how is anyone else coming across this discussion supposed to know that the discussion has been "moved" to another page (and to which page - it's neither of the places you suggested) unless it's linked. DexDor(talk) 06:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Page mover
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Page mover. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC) &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)