| Revision as of 18:19, 7 July 2013 editBDD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators111,923 editsm shortcut← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:51, 21 February 2014 edit undoBorn2cycle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,496 edits →The orphan problem: change to redlink basename to avoid confusion with WP:ORPHANNext edit → | ||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{supplement|pages=] guideline and ] policy page|shortcut=WP:UNDAB}} | {{supplement|pages=] guideline and ] policy page|shortcut=WP:UNDAB}} | ||
| '''Unnecessary disambiguation''' is the use of a title, comprised of the name of a topic of an article along with additional descriptive information that is not necessary to ] the unadorned name from other uses on Misplaced Pages. For example, since the city in Ontario is considered to be the ] of ], adding ''", Ontario"'' to that title, or, moving it to ], would be ''unnecessary disambiguation''. When the reason given for such disambiguation is to "preempt" conflicts with other uses some time in the future, this is often referred to as '''preemptive disambiguation''', and often considered ''unnecessary'' per ]. | |||
| ==Background== | |||
| ] defines '''disambiguation''' in Misplaced Pages with the following opening sentence: | ] defines '''disambiguation''' in Misplaced Pages with the following opening sentence: | ||
| : '''Disambiguation''' in Misplaced Pages is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ]—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Misplaced Pages articles. | : '''Disambiguation''' in Misplaced Pages is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ]—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Misplaced Pages articles. | ||
| So, interpreting "topic covered by Misplaced Pages articles" to mean either topics with full articles that could be titled by that same name, or topics covered in sections of articles to which that title would be a reasonable redirect (e.g. ]), page titles should only be disambiguated when there is a conflict with another covered topic. If a name is used for only one article, its title should not be disambiguated, even if similar pages are disambiguated. | |||
| If multiple articles have the same logical name (for example ]), they are disambiguated by adding either parenthetic or natural disambiguation to the title. This system resolves naming conflicts. It should not be used to make ] titles more descriptive. | If multiple articles have the same logical name (for example ]), they are disambiguated by adding either parenthetic or natural disambiguation to the title. This system resolves naming conflicts. It should not be used to make ] titles more descriptive. | ||
| Therefore page names should not be disambiguated unless there are other articles that use the same name. This includes cases of articles being disambiguated from non-existent pages for consistency with similar articles, (for example ]) | Therefore page names should not be disambiguated unless there are other articles that use the same name. This includes cases of articles being disambiguated from non-existent pages for consistency with similar articles, (for example ]) | ||
| ==Concision and the recognizability scope limitation in title selections== | |||
| ''Unnecessary disambiguation'' is often cited as a reason to favor a more ] title in ] discussions. While ''recognizability'' is also a criteria to be given consideration, its scope is explicitly limited to "someone familiar with the topic". In other words, we don't try to make our topics recognizable from the titles to anyone who is not already familiar with the topic. That's why we favor ] over ], ] over ], ] over ] (let alone ]), ] over ], ] over ], ] over ], etc., etc. | |||
| Community support for this scope limitation to ''recognizability'' is demonstrated implicitly in the fact that most of our topics are recognizable from their titles only to those who are already familiar with the topic in question, something that can be easily verified with any ] sampling of a dozen or so titles, especially if any titles which are recognizable only because of necessary disambiguation are omitted from the sample. For example, ] and ] are recognized as being an album and a city in Ontario respectively by those unfamiliar with the album and city, but only because they disambiguated with ''(album)'' and '', Ontario'' respectively, due to conflicts with other uses of their respective names. | |||
| Community support for the ''recognizability'' scope limitation has also been explicitly demonstrated with unanimous support at this 2012 poll on ]: ]. | |||
| ==The redlink basename problem== | |||
| The practice of unnecessary disambiguation, particularly when excused by a naming convention that purportedly indicates the simple unadorned name of the topic should be disambiguated even if there are no other uses for that name, tends to cause the creation of redlink basenames - the unadorned titles remain red links, like ]. | |||
Revision as of 06:51, 21 February 2014
 | This is an explanatory essay about the Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation guideline and Misplaced Pages:Article Titles policy page. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. | Shortcut |
Unnecessary disambiguation is the use of a title, comprised of the name of a topic of an article along with additional descriptive information that is not necessary to disambiguate the unadorned name from other uses on Misplaced Pages. For example, since the city in Ontario is considered to be the primary topic of Welland, adding ", Ontario" to that title, or, moving it to Welland, Ontario, would be unnecessary disambiguation. When the reason given for such disambiguation is to "preempt" conflicts with other uses some time in the future, this is often referred to as preemptive disambiguation, and often considered unnecessary per WP:CRYSTAL.
Background
WP:Disambiguation defines disambiguation in Misplaced Pages with the following opening sentence:
- Disambiguation in Misplaced Pages is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Misplaced Pages articles.
So, interpreting "topic covered by Misplaced Pages articles" to mean either topics with full articles that could be titled by that same name, or topics covered in sections of articles to which that title would be a reasonable redirect (e.g. Queen stage), page titles should only be disambiguated when there is a conflict with another covered topic. If a name is used for only one article, its title should not be disambiguated, even if similar pages are disambiguated.
If multiple articles have the same logical name (for example Delta rocket), they are disambiguated by adding either parenthetic or natural disambiguation to the title. This system resolves naming conflicts. It should not be used to make concise and precise titles more descriptive.
Therefore page names should not be disambiguated unless there are other articles that use the same name. This includes cases of articles being disambiguated from non-existent pages for consistency with similar articles, (for example Delta IV rocket)
Concision and the recognizability scope limitation in title selections
Unnecessary disambiguation is often cited as a reason to favor a more concise title in title discussions. While recognizability is also a criteria to be given consideration, its scope is explicitly limited to "someone familiar with the topic". In other words, we don't try to make our topics recognizable from the titles to anyone who is not already familiar with the topic. That's why we favor Laeken over Laeken, Belgium, Welland over Welland, Ontario, Nicholas Campbell over Nicholas Campbell (actor) (let alone Nicholas Campbell (Canadian actor)), Happy Sad over Happy Sad (album), Putsj over Putsj (magazine), Cincinnati over Cincinnati, Ohio, etc., etc.
Community support for this scope limitation to recognizability is demonstrated implicitly in the fact that most of our topics are recognizable from their titles only to those who are already familiar with the topic in question, something that can be easily verified with any WP:RANDOM sampling of a dozen or so titles, especially if any titles which are recognizable only because of necessary disambiguation are omitted from the sample. For example, Lorca (album) and Harley, Ontario are recognized as being an album and a city in Ontario respectively by those unfamiliar with the album and city, but only because they disambiguated with (album) and , Ontario respectively, due to conflicts with other uses of their respective names.
Community support for the recognizability scope limitation has also been explicitly demonstrated with unanimous support at this 2012 poll on WT:AT: Misplaced Pages talk:Article_titles/Archive_35#Once and for all: Poll to establish the consensus.
The redlink basename problem
The practice of unnecessary disambiguation, particularly when excused by a naming convention that purportedly indicates the simple unadorned name of the topic should be disambiguated even if there are no other uses for that name, tends to cause the creation of redlink basenames - the unadorned titles remain red links, like these.
Category: