Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:30, 19 April 2008

For discussion related to disambiguation on Misplaced Pages but not to the project, please see the Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation (general disambiguation) or the Manual of Style (specific style questions).

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Harshing My Mellow, now here

Please see Harshing My Mellow's edit history, as well as Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation) (sic), Talk:Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation), WT:D#Harshing My Mellow, indeed, and (if you really want to see 'em) the various "harshing my/your/his/her/their/one's mellow" redirects created by User:Evrik. I need some editing assistance rather than just have my own reverts in the edit history. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• JHunterJ, with your edit here I have to ask, are you trying to get a {{rally}} going? I was going to create a soft redirect to wiktionary, see pimp slap as an example, but there are two albums with similar names - as well as at least one television show. There were more things that used the term, but someone has delinked them and I'm too busy to go add the links back in. The DAB is fine as it is, and there is no real reason to make it go away. --evrik  01:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No rally. This is the project that the dab pages fall under, so it seems obvious to raise issues here rather than continue a revert war. The dab is not fine as it is. "Things" that use the term are insufficient; there need to be more "Misplaced Pages articles" about the term. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Burdock

Could someone from this WikiProject perform a disambig style repair on Burdock (disambiguation)? It's lacking, and I've done quite a few changes already. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not attempting to criticize or anything, but, I wasn't expecting this "mess". Example, why apply WP:WAF to an E/R character, change Burdock (Dragon Ball) to Burdock (Dragon Ball), and use longer sentences than needed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, everyone is welcome to edit. IF you don't like it and you think you can improve it, then be bold! --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I know. Just wanted a helping hand but JHunterJ took care of it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you thought my edit was a "mess". I've no idea what you mean by "apply WP:WAF to an E/R character" -- the only edit I made to that line was to italicize E/R, which is an actual title. As for "change Burdock (Dragon Ball) to Burdock (Dragon Ball)" -- there is no reason to italicize Dragon Ball when it is used as the disambiguating term. That use is completely different from italicizing the actual title of something separate from the disambiguating term (as with a ship, or an ambiguously titled novel, film, or album). When used as a disambiguating term, it is no longer functioning as a title and thus does not need to be italicized. As for the longer phrase, I giving enough context to readily understand what something is. What's the point of making an entry so short that it is unintellible? I don't see that fourteen words is excessive for a disambiguation entry. older ≠ wiser 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've asked for input at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Query about when italics are necessary. older ≠ wiser 03:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a bit of a tweak. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Madison Middle School

I would appreciate thoughts on Madison Middle School. Should this be speedied as a dab page that contains no entries for actual articles? Gwguffey (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a speedy criterion, but it does seem to be rather pointless. Another option would be to ask at WP:SCH for someone to kick off the appropriate articles; many schools seem to survive XfD. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent thought, I'll head over to wp:sch and leave a note. Gwguffey (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

MGS

How does this one look? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a bit of a tweak. Let me know what you think. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

New dab made

See Freezer (disambiguation). Could someone check if it needs tweaks or any other additions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Fridge (disambiguation) could use a little tiding up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Both done. – sgeureka 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a few more tweaks. Also, any comments on the above section? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Akuma (band)

What this a disambiguation page before? It is apparently about a band, but it mentions the Street Fighter character. Can someone take a shot at this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not a dab page. I suspect the band was named after the character and the article is not all that clear about it - but I don't know. Unclear in a quick look for a reference. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Should I do a revamp per WP:VERIFY? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AHD

Hi, gnomes. Am I in the right place to say that I intend to make it so that when you "Go" on "AHD" you get The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language with an "other uses" thingie when you get there? As soon as I figure out how to do that, that is. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would advise against that move unless there has been discussion about it and consensus achieved that the dictionary is clearly the primary use of AHD. I see no such discussion at Talk:AHD. --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah. Now you do. I must have come to the right place. Thanks. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What ShelfSkewed said, especially since I don't associate anything with this abreviation as primary meaning. – sgeureka 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ShelfSkewed. It's also difficult to anticipate some of the collateral damage that would go along with that. (Although it's not difficult to see that there a substantial number of pages that redirect to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and hence plenty of double redirects that the mover would be honour-bound to fix.) Kudos to User:Milkbreath for bringing it up here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)en

(edit conflict) Should this discussion be moved (or copied) to Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation? It's not really about the Wikiproject.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Better at WP:RM? ,although the implied AHD (disambiguation) is in scope here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kubo

What should I do with this link? Make into a disambiguation page or set it to target KUBO? And can I have some thoughts back here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Does another kubo need to be disambiguated from KUBO? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few if I may add. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You could create a surname or given name page, perhaps? Most of the search hits seem to be name-holders, not articles in danger of being titled simply "Kubo", so a disambiguation page isn't needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and created a disambig page at Kubo. ···日本穣 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CJKV taskforce

The CJKV taskforce has been created to assist in disambiguation of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese when using Kyūjitai, Hanja, Hán tự, Simplified Chinese, and Shinjitai (Kanji). If you wish to participate, please come and help out. ···日本穣 18:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Doc updates and template lists and set indexes

I tried to update the list of templates at this WikiProject's page. I'm not sure if I've found them all, or listed them in the best way possible, please update as needed. The main lists of dab-page-templates I was going by, are at:

• MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage
• Template:Disambig/doc
• Misplaced Pages:Template messages/General#On disambiguation pages

I'm particularly unsure about set index templates. Any clarifications that could be made to Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Set index articles would be appreciated. (I was trying to determine what Mongol invasion of the Middle East should be labeled as, and got distracted by all this ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

variant templates

Can someone explain the usefulness of the various templates for disambiguation pages like: {{Given name}} {{Hndis}} {{Hospitaldis}} {{Mathdab}} {{Mountainindex}} {{POWdis}} (places of worship) {{Roaddis}} {{Schooldis}}

I don't quite see what purpose they serve beyond that provided by {{disambig}} (John User:Jwy talk) 03:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Disambig}} places the page into Category:Disambiguation, while those other templates place the page in an appropriate sub-category. For example, {{Hospitaldis}} places pages into Category:Lists of ambiguous hospital names. See Template:Disambig/doc for a list of other variants and the associated categories. -- Zyxw (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I had figured that was what they did. . . But what good are these subcategories? For some I left off (like the ship one) I understand as there is a project that monitors these and does some special MOS stuff. But, these others. . .? (John User:Jwy talk) 04:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mountainindex is another type of set index -- I believe there is also a project behind it. Primarily it presents information about mountains sharing the same name in table format with more links than typically found on disambiguation pages. As for the others, I don't know. I suspect some are just well-intentioned, but perhaps not well-thought through over-categorization. older ≠ wiser 11:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Names

I can see the others being potentially useful, but I'm not sure about {{Hndis}} + {{Given name}} + {{Surname}}. Could those 3 be merged or something? I've seen the given/surname templates both used on a single page, somewhere.

Also, weren't most of the variants deleted at some point? I recall that there used to be a {{TLA}} tag for the three letter abbreviation dab pages, and I'd thought it was removed as part of a larger purge? -- Quiddity (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

surname and given name aren't for use on disambiguation pages, but rather for use on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anthroponymy articles that list articles on people with a particular given name or surname. It might be possible to combine {{surname}} and {{given name}}, but they should remain distinct from {{hndis}}. Both surname and given name might naturally appear on a single page when that page includes one section listing people by surname and another section listing people by given name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

comment supporting JHunterJ: The templates {{surname}} and {{given name}} are in scope for WikiProject Anthroponymy, not in scope for WikiProject Disambiguation. Changes to these templates - or intention to nominate them for deletion - should be referred to the Anthroponymy WikiProject and not considered unilaterally here. Further, these templates place articles into Category:Surnames and Category:Given names, respectively, which have nothing to do with Category:Disambiguation and provide draft categorization before more specific categorization, such as Category:Portuguese surnames; when a more specific cat is used, the template is parameterized to suppress the general categorization (e.g. {{surname|nocat}}). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

another comment supporting JHunterJ: Ditto. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt mean to tread on toes or raise old battles! (I'm inclusionist/mergist/eventualist. no fear) See the thread above, for the cleanup I was trying to do, as context.

I was going by the list at MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage, which I foolishly assumed was both correct and simple ;) Plus the similar wording and design. Plus the distinctly overlapping domains. So, basically, you have to admit that it's really confusing. (You have to!) Especially things like:

• Alec = {{given name}}
• Alex = {{disambig}}
• Alexander = {{surname}}
• Alexander (disambiguation) = {{disambig}}

! I'm just saying, is all.. ;)

(I do see how the articles are meant to fully expand, like Alexander or Yuan (surname). But so many are stubs or unclear or unlabeled, that it was hard to work out initially.)

Could you perhaps, write an explanation of the differences in a new section under Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#What not to include (next to #Set index articles). I'm still not totally sure, and a short synopsis would be helpful in the documentation anyway. Thanks :) Also, a few specific questions (my brain likes examples):

• should Welles be labelled as {{surname}} instead of {{hndis}}?
• shouldn't Yuan (surname) and John (first name) be tagged with one of those templates, or are the templates only for the short list-like (disambig-esque!) article stage-of-development?

Sorry for rambling, thanks for any help :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a request for removal of {{surname}} and {{given name}} from the MediaWiki page you have brought my attention to. Thank you - I hadn't been aware of that page existing. See MediaWiki talk:Disambiguationspage#Requested removals for my request.

As for the lack of full-templating on articles ... the number of disambiguation and name articles is each vast. Inclusion of proper templating on all such articles is a work in progress. However, the major articles you have pointed out certainly should be properly templated as a matter of course. Keep in mind, though, that there is an ongoing discussion around lists of name instances associated with name articles, how to title them and under what conditions to split main name article from associated list article (these discussions are taking place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have added {{surname|Yuan|nocat}} to Yuan (surname) in the appropriate section. John (first name) is another matter; in this case, there is no instances list of links to biographical articles. It this article contained a list of instances, then usage of {{given name}} would be warranted. In any case, neither of these articles could reasonably be confused with a disambiguation page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Welles is among the many pages that could (should) be split into a name-article and a disambiguation page. I have listed this article at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Articles that could be split, which is an addendum to the 'Articles needing attention' section of the WikiProject. There are hundreds if not a thousand or more articles that could be listed in this pen. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've split Welles (name) from Welles, and Wells (name) from Wells (disambiguation). There are a lot of other disambiguation pages that need the same work (nameholder split). WikiProject Anthroponymy is aware of some/many of these, but not all. It would be helpful if WikiProject Disambiguation members had a notification system (perhaps on this page) that a dab page would benefit from a nameholder split so that those of us who work on both projects can get the request transferred over to WikiProject Anthroponymy. Or perhaps there's a better notification system? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. About Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#What not to include — name-articles that fall into the list-class and stub-class (which could be confused sometimes with lists) are covered under Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Set index articles, in my opinion; the set definition is a variant on "List of people..." such as List of people sharing the name Abney. I think you are alluding to the notion that special treatment of name-articles in this set-index section would be useful, correct? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just hoping you can add pointers to existing-instructions, or fresh instructions, so that those editors who come along later can get the summarized version of this discussion :) Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.P.S. About Alex/Alec/Alexander/Alexander (disambiguation) — Alec is a proper list-type name page; I have replaced the see-also with a {{for}} hatnote to reduce confusion. Alex is an example of a page ripe for splitting, and I have listed it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Articles that could be split. Alexander is a proper start-class name-article; I have removed the {{disambigproject}} banner from the talk page and properly set {{surname}} and {{given name}} in the article body. Alexander (disambiguation) is a proper disambiguation page. There are several people who are known only as "Alexander". Where people are popularly (rather than colloquially) known by a single name, these listings can properly reside on both a name-article and a disambiguation page as the primary goal of a disambiguation page is disambiguation ... distinguishing among the things (people in this case) that could have their articles identically titled — which is the foundation on which {{hndis}} differs in a basic way from {{surname}}, for example. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Captain be a dab page?

The article Captain has tried, over the years, to describe disparate topics from waiters to Starfleet personnel to a band. If it were to magically be made complete, I'm sure it would top 100K in length. My feeling is that it will never be near complete, good, or even marginally palatable as a summary article.

Looking at it tonight, it occurred to me that the only way I could see it doing what it should do is as a disambiguation page. That is to say: it could point readers in a NPOV, clear, and concise way to articles which explain their respective topics.

I've never pondered collapsing an article down to a dab page before, so I thought I'd ask for input well before doing anything.

Cheers, Haus 01:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Most sections already have a 'main article' so it would be pretty straightforward to do. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The page would be more useful as a dab than in its current state as a series of mini-articles. I just checked Talk:Captain and there are a few other wikiprojects that have stamped the article, so it may be worth dropping by those projects out of courtesy, first. -Gwguffey (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideally suited for dab with spin-off articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've started a thread on the Captain article's talk page which summarizes this one and contacted the wikiprojects per Gwguffey's suggestion. Cheers. Haus 18:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all done -- in case anybody's keepting track, the Captain dab page now has about 4,200 incoming links. Cheers. Haus 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tillicum

This page needs a lot of help and/or moral support for the editor(s) who will take it on. --Tesscass (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG. Should we just go to AfD and get it over with? There's nothing there! --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are probably a handful of note-worthy entries, but I don't know which is which. --Tesscass (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Might be useful to cross-post at the Washington/Oregon/Canadian Projects and seek their input. I'll do that later. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

W-O-W. That is impressive. Is it a record for number entries that do not meet MOS:DAB? -Gwguffey (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The (perhaps overzealous) cleanup/mass-deletion was reverted at Tillicum. Could someone experienced with location-dab-pages please help out? I'm fairly sure many of those redlinks should remain, but I'm not sure which, nor have time to research the criteria.

Abtract: Please see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links and also Misplaced Pages:Red link. "Good red links help Misplaced Pages — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Misplaced Pages is far from finished."

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear ... mos:dab#Redlinks makes it quite clear that A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link. The purpose of dab pages is to assist navigation to existing articles not to list what might be one day. My "overenthusiastic edit" simply removed all the non articles as is common practice (there just happened to be a lot of them!). To solve the problem I have created a page List of potential Tillicum related topics for the redlinked items as a reminder of what needs doing - naturally this page is linked on the dab page. This should do the trick imho. Abtract (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting input

A (somewhat heated) debate is currently in progress on Talk:Baykal (disambiguation). It concerns interpretation of WP:MOSDAB, applicability of IAR to MOSDAB, and raises question as to whether MOSDAB guidelines are really more important that encyclopedic correctness and whether non-compliance with MOSDAB for what one believes to be a good reason cannot be considered as improvement of the page. Since I've been mostly arguing with only two people, I'd certainly appreciate a broader input. A summary of the debate is located at Talk:Baykal (disambiguation)#Restarted discussion. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

HP still

The "Harry Potter as HP for HP (disambiguation)" tempest continues at Talk:Harry Potter#Harry Potter abbreviated as HP, seems obvious. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

bulk dab page redirects

I need an opinion on the edit here to Madison. I reverted it as the links that were changed to "(disambiguation)" were simply redirects back to the non-qualified topic page. Upon looking at Khatru2's edit history I'm not sure why all of these (disambiguation) page redirects are being added. Am I missing something obvious? Make me smarter. Gwguffey (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Khatru2 is following the guideline Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Intentional links to disambiguation pages: "To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation) rather than America). This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones." Of course, this guide is intended to apply to intentional links in articles. I'm not sure if it applies when linking from a dab page to a dab page, but in any case the links shouldn't be piped. --ShelfSkewed Talk 21:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That completely make sense in articles. Should this be clarified to be the case when linking between dab pages also or would that be redundant? Thoughts? -Gwguffey (talk)

For dab pages, it seems a lot of make-work to create page "XXX (disambiguation)", simply to follow the same rule for articles. --Tesscass (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, philosophically, that it seems unnecessary. Technically, though, I don't care which is preferable as long as it is clear. I also just noticed that the text in the example at WP:DAB#Double disambiguation "Montgomery is a disambiguation page that leads to Montgomery County" does not match what is actually occurring on the Montgomery dab page itself. It is linking to Montgomery County (disambiguation) with piping for "Montgomery County". It seems some cleanup is needed here for the example once we nail down whether dab and articles should be treated the same -Gwguffey (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Should this discussion continue here? Or should it move to Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation? Or should it move to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)? -Gwguffey (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You might first reach a point where a statement can be made on behalf of WikiProject Disambiguation, a consensus - if one can be reached - within the WikiProject, then take this consensus to WP:MOSDAB. This is one use of a WikiProject - to reach tentative conclusions among practitioners in a topic area, then take this to a guideline or policy forum for more general discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see that such linking adds much value on disambiguation pages. But if someone creates the link that way, I don't see much benefit to changing them back to direct links either. However, I don't think that such links should be piped as Khatru2 had been doing (and has anyone informed Khatru2 about this discussion of his/her edits?) older ≠ wiser 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note on Khatru2 page asking about it, then ShelfSkewed helped clarify what was going on. I'll let him know that this is being discussed. -Gwguffey (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

-done. Khatru2 has been notified. -Gwguffey (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The benefit of always using (disambiguation) redirects rather than direct links to base-name dabs is that "what links here" can be used to identify articles that need to have disambiguation links repaired vs. those that intend to link to the disambiguation page. This is useful for human editors, but especially useful for bots and other automated edits. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent observation. That alone, in my mind, would seem to be a strong case for us to standardize on this practice. -Gwguffey (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed — this is a good observation. In order to support popup-based disambiguation, one needs to include the Ballybop (disambiguation) link on the Ballybop dab page. Please consider a) an addition to WP:MOSDAB about this and b) a revision to {{disambig}} that could add such a link to the popup-selectable set so that one needn't add one separately. The latter might not be so easy, and hatnote-based links don't appear (to the best of my memory) in the popup-dab link listing; so I would suggest inclusion of the extra link in the 'See also' section as a matter of best-practice. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

demonstration-of-principle — Evita, with an implemented target revision here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. The addition of Evita (disambiguation), redirects here, used for links to Evita that cannot be disambiguated without consultation under See also seems confusing to me. What does cannot be disambiguated without consultation mean? older ≠ wiser 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I raised the suggestion at Template talk:Disambig#Linking from from base name dab to (disambiguation) redirect. Linking to the disambiguation page is not the solution for links that cannot be disambiguated without consultation though. Such links should be left linking to whatever and tagged {{dn}} instead. Links to (disambiguation) pages or redirects is for links that can be determined to intend to link to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Things are back to where they were before I stuck my foot into it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what you were getting at was rather than the hatnote at Evita (musical) should point at Evita (disambiguation) rather than Evita so that "proper" link can be distinguished from "links that need to be fixed". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. one implementation of this understanding at Shelah (name) where one might normally link to Shelah in a hatnote, but could link to Shelah (disambiguation) (as done) to clarify that this is a proper linkage. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct -- a perfect use of the (disambiguation) redirect. I've updated Evita (musical) too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I caused so much controversy. Yes, I was following the guideline for intentional links to disambiguation pages quoted above. I think it makes sense to have the same policy for both articles and disambiguation pages, because they are in the same namespace. If one were trying to sort through the incoming links to "Madison County" for example and comes across the page "Madison", the editor doesn't know that "Madison" is itself a disambiguation page without opening it. If every intentional link to a disambiguation page, whether from an article or from another disambiguation page, has the "disambiguation" suffix, then every new accidental link to the page can be properly sorted. As for piping the links from disambiguation pages to other disambiguation pages, I wasn't sure what to do, because I didn't come across any specific guideline. It probably makes sense not to pipe them. In the mean time I'll hold off on any new changes. Khatru2 (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One good reason for not piping a disambiguation in a disambiguation page is that Madison ( ] ) is just as confusing as Madison ( ] ). The reader still doesn't know its a disambiguation page by just looking at it. --Tesscass (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Beelzebub (disambiguation)

Did a little revamping here. Could use another opinion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing to criticize. – sgeureka 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot wrong, just one item not mentioned in the target article and the lead definition needed a revamp to bring it inline with the target article. I've tweaked it into shape for you. :) Abtract (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack (fish)

Have a look at the redirects which link here. Should they be deleted? The creation of Jack (fish) (disambiguation) would be most appropiate. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It should either be a set index article or a redirect to the Jack (disambiguation) (and the redirect tagged {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}). --JHunterJ (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Goki

Can a sysop please move this page to Gouki? I am unable to since I'm lacking administrative powers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

{{db-move}} will work fine in such cases. – sgeureka 07:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagged it. Thanks! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This was a sensible move which I've done for you. As there was no talk I just cut-and-pasted. Abtract (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not the talk, but the history that is the problem with cut-and-paste. We want to keep the history with the text. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Will a history merge be necessary? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed cut-n-paste problems. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Seru (disambiguation)

I just did a major update on this one. Can someone take a gander and correct whatever needs fixing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I made some minor changes. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rosiestep, what exactly was wrong with this revision? Now that I realize it, the "redness" was fine per WP:MOSDP#Red links. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not if you look carefully at WP:MOSDP#Red links "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article". Abtract (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ace (disambiguation)

There is a merger proposal for Ace (disambiguation), Aces, ACE and ACES being discussed at Talk:Ace (disambiguation). Comments are welcomed. Flibirigit (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have ceated at sandbox at User:Flibirigit/Ace. Anyone is welcome to edit. Flibirigit (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging of Project Banner at Talk pages

Hello! My bot got trial approval for tagging talk pages of articles with WikiProject banners, so I am carrying out a trial of about 250 edits on Talk pages of Disambig pages. Any Objection? --SMS 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the current consensus about dab banners on talk pages is somewhere along the lines of "Do what you want to do, but the {{disambig}} template in the name space is all that a dab page needs to associate it with its WikiProject." I.e. adding dab banners on talk pages is neither really helping nor destroying anything. – sgeureka 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I was sure {{disambig}} linked to this WikiProject, but I now see this isn't the case. I am however sure that I got the consensus opinion right. – sgeureka 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks! I think I can continue with it, if it isn't doing anything bad and even if it not doing anything good now but in future it may be of some help. --SMS 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like the project banner (as it helps editors find our project), but I dislike the random addition of the {{talkpage}} banner, and dislike the empty class/importance variables, that some editors have been adding recently (not just him, that one is just on my watchlist from today). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It just seems appropriate that all talk pages should have a {{talkpage}} banner, it gives a human connection to the talk page, which is what a talk page is, human communication. OOODDD (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To second Quiddity: please don't just add the bare banner, as it is of no help to anyone whatsoever, but make sure to assess the page when the banner is added. Having hundreds of dabs popping up in one's watchlist when these banners are added on mass scale is annoying enough, having them pop up yet again when the actual assessment is made later is doubly so.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any parameter for assessment in {{DisambigProject}}, and even in my opinion there isn't any need for adding it. --SMS 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: {{talkpage}}, see the bold usage instructions.

Re: {{DisambigProject}}, I've asked at Template talk:DisambigProject whether the (unneeded?) class-rating variable can be removed. However, as I mentioned to OOODDD: My guess is that people are adding the banner templates using a script, which adds the variables by default? (Something like User talk:Outriggr/assessment.js perhaps?) If so, I'm not sure how easy that would be to resolve. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Quiddity. I must have gotten so used to these things polluting my watchlist that I failed to notice that class and importance parameters are no longer available for this template! In that case, for the record, here is my opinion that {{DisambigProject}} is completely and utterly useless. Adding it just because "there might some time be a use for it" is, in my opinion, a complete waste of editors' time and server resources. If there ever going to be a time with a good use for a template of this nature, I am sure it will be trivial to take care of tagging with one efficient bot run (which can easily detect the dabs by the presence of the {{disambig}} template on the page).

As for the bold usage instructions for {{talkpage}}, thanks for pointing this out. This is one set of instructions that some folks need to print out and prominently display at their workstations.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you propose it for a Tfd(3rd time)?, I think it must be added to talk pages, if it is not deleted. At least it still has a purpose(without assessment parameters).i.e. it is inviting other editors to join the project. --SMS 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Names 2

I have combined Chris Britton into Christopher Britton (think it's one of those 'name cases' over 'disambig'). Should the same be done to Matt Smith & Matthew Smith? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The merger of the Britton pages was fine, but I'd keep the Smith pages separate for lengthiness. I'm sorry that I can't give a better explanation; this is totally based on gut feeling. – sgeureka 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but wouldn't these be Category:Given names or Category:Surnames and not dabs? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If the name is a "full" name like Matt Smith or Matthew Smith, it's a {{hndis}}, not a surname list or a given name list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

About dab redirects

There's probably been discussion about this in the past so here goes: wouldn't Indian (Americas) (disambiguation) be a more sensible redirect for Indian (Americas) than Indian (Americas disambiguation) is? User:Jerzy creates dab redirects with one parenthesis while I use two, like Freeze (song) (disambiguation)‎. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Freeze (song) should be made into a redirect to Freeze and tagged {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Indian (Americas) should likewise be tagged and redirect to Indian. In the case of long dabs, section links can be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So which is preferred, had there been such a situation? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm digressing, but it seems to me that Indian (Americas) most likely should redirect to American Indian. --Russ (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (I made that comment before looking at all the pages involved in the discussion. Having done so now, I realize that this isn't the best solution. Russ (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Why is nobody answering my question? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The need to disambiguate an already parenthetically disambiguated term should rarely be necessary. IMO, double parenthesis seem bizarre and if such disambiguation is indeed absolutely necessary, some other formulation would be preferable. For example, hypothetically, if there were so many songs named "Freeze" as to warrant a separate page, something titled List of songs named Freeze with a redirect from List of songs named Freeze (disambiguation) would be preferable to Freeze (song) (disambiguation). In the particular case, Indian (Americas) seems an unnecessary fork of Indian, which is itself a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So Jerzy's redirects are preferable over mine? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they're unnecessary. older ≠ wiser 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What to do? Go through our edits and sort out the "wrong dab links"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

When you find a disambiguation page that itself has a disambiguating phrase in the title, such as "(Americas)" or "(song)", it should be fixed, yes. There is no need for either Indian (Americas) (disambiguation) or Indian (Americas disambiguation). Indian (Americas) should not be a disambiguation page. Indian (Americas) should either redirect to Indian as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} or it should redirect to the non-disambiguation article for that dab phrase, such as American Indian. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What then would be your understanding of WP:Dab#Generic topic? It seems to me intended to avoid anyone ever being sent from a Dab to another Dab, without being explicitly told that that is the case. You not only want to allow the possibility of lack of such notice, you want to create cases where no reasonable reader could avoid being deceived! There is a long established consensus to the contrary.
--Jerzy•t 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lemme try again, reading more carefully.
--Jerzy•t 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for responding base on my misreading (in the markup, rather than in the rendered or previewed page, where it's clearer) of List of songs named Freeze (disambiguation) as a repetition of List of songs named Freeze.

I nevertheless object both to the effect of suggesting to users that the title List of songs named Freeze was in need of Dab'n, and to muddying the line between pages that embody lists of related topics (related, i would hope, by an encyclopedic similarity) and Dabs (together just bcz of a coincidence of naming that requires dab'n) -- Dabs are already plagued by the addition of long lists of, say, every article that has Freeze in (or what is easier and thus commoner, at the start of) its title, regardless of whether anyone would reasonably abbreviate their titles to "Freeze". Both the use of "List of " for a Dab, and of " (disambiguation)" following a title that is not being Dab'd IMO violate the implicit but clear intent of SAL and SAL, respectively, to reserve the clearly specified formats for the purposes the specifications explicitly apply to.
--Jerzy•t 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

JH's proposed treatment of Freeze (song) can only be called cavalier, a case of "Let them eat cake." They advocate inconveniencing users who know they are looking for a song by leaving them to what would have to become a 16-entry dab, wasting their time on sorting thru it, for the sake of ... uh, what what was your reason?
--Jerzy•t 20:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

While i don't have a dog in the Indian (Americas) fight (which not only JH but also User:Bkonrad ("older") responds to above, in responding to an unrelated response), it may be worth explication: I found at Indian a Dab that amounted to my Dabs Indian (Asian) and Indian (Americas) piled end to end. I found that approach to be an impediment to dab'n, e.g., Indus (constellation) is a Latin name for the constellation conceived as an American Indian, not a more proximate reference to the river, and many users would be at a loss which half to search for songs, bands, and films with "Indian" as name or title, so that in the respective cases the user would be likely to give up looking for the constellation's article, and some users would search both halves for the Arts and Entertainment namesakes. In order to minimize the risk of offense to ethnic or national prides in either hemisphere, i recreated, in the form of the two sfx'd-titled Dab pages, the subdivision that i had eliminated from Indian.

The only sense in which i would object to anyone's disposition of Indian (Asian) and Indian (Americas) is that if it becomes an occasion of conflict or leads to attempts to again mis-subdivide the Dab Indian, i won't hesitate to substantially restore the current organization of the three, ref'g this talk section in the edit summaries.
Jerzy•t 20:29 & 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several approaches that occur to me:

1. ''title'' (''sfx''), disambiguation
2. ''title'' (''sfx'') (disambiguation)
3. ''title'' (''sfx'' disambiguation)
4. ''title'' (''sfx'', disambiguation)
5. ''title'' (''sfx''; disambiguation)
6. further variants with other internal punctuation marks

I ruled out #1 bcz it is contrary to WP:Dab#Generic topic, i presume bcz it would encourage the labels following lks to un-sfx'd Dabs that i've occasionally seen, e.g.

• Indian - disambiguation

or

• Indian - disambiguation page

and invites excessive description, shading into excessive explanation, shading into micro-articles being written with Dab entries, to the detriment of clear and quick disambiguation. Likewise #2 (what the 2nd 'graph of "Generic topic" literally prescribes), on the common-sense ground that " )( " is ugly, looks redundant, and is redundant if you recall that the function of parentheses to separate minor concerns from major ones. (Of course, when YMMV, "common sense" amounts to nothing more than a term of abuse, an attempt to bully.) #3 produces, strictly speaking, ambiguous phrases -- is it the sfx or the title that's being dab'd? -- but IMO most of those who will see such lks will grasp what's going on, barely skipping a beat. Now that i've been pushed into formulating it, i like #5 best, but (as long as it isn't #1) i'm more interested in quick agreement being reached on something than in which one wins.
--Jerzy•t 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02: I agree with JHunterJ and Bkonrad—Indian (Americas) and Indian (Asian) should both be merged back into Indian. It's pointless and discourteous, to say the least, to force users to go hunting multiple places to find the article they want. --Russ (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You say you looked at the page, Russ, so i don't understand. Do you feel the two lks at the top of Indian force use of the others bcz user may not look beyond those two? Unless others have added or deleted entries, everything on them is also on Indian.
--Jerzy•t 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) I've already indicated that I think Indian (Americas) and Indian (Asian) are unnecessary and potentially confusing forks. All of the content of both pages is listed at Indian, yet a reader gets to that page and sees these links in addition to the others. And inevitably, over time, the content will become less synchronous, resulting in even more inefficient disambiguation effort for the reader -- do I look on this page or that page? Why are some links links on both pages but not others. Seems to be a recipe for a maintenance mess. That said, I think such double-disambiguations should be rarely if ever necessary. So with respect, I think you may be trying to solve a messy hypothetical which is so uncommon as to not require such a detailed level of instruction creep. older ≠ wiser 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A list article such as List of songs namd Freeze would be fine. A disambiguation page Freeze (song) would be better off redirected to Freeze or a section of that main dab. It's not meant to be cavalier; that's just the conclusion reached the previous times this has come up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Abtract (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we've come to a solution, I would like to see Indian (Americas disambiguation) and Freeze (song) (disambiguation) deleted, as well as the other erroneous redirects created by Jerzy. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that there is no point in mentioning who made "erroneous redirects"; those who do stuff sometimes bog up but doing is better than tweaking and criticising. Abtract (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant and slightly off-topic. Still, I would like to see Indian (Americas disambiguation) and Freeze (song) (disambiguation) deleted, including the other erroneous redirects. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Its never irrelevant to ask for a bit of magnanimity. --Tesscass (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As a procedural matter, bear in mind that WP:CSD#Redirects and Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for deleting have much narrower views of "erroneous" than what you're likely to be expecting, based on experience with article deletions.
--Jerzy•t 04:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused