Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Disambiguation: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:28, 2 March 2011 editBittergrey (talk | contribs)2,596 edits →Infantilism: #5.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:54, 11 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 54) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Shortcut|WT:WPDIS|WT:WPDAB}} {{talk header|search=no|wp=yes|noarchive=yes|WT:WPDIS|WT:WPDAB}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
'''For discussion related to disambiguation on Misplaced Pages but not to the project, please see the ] (general disambiguation) or the ] (specific style questions).'''
{{WikiProject Disambiguation}}
}}
{{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-12-05/WikiProject report|writer= ]| ||day =5|month=December|year=2011}}
{{ombox
| type = content
| text = '''For discussion related to disambiguation on Misplaced Pages but not to the project, please see ] (for general disambiguation) or the ] (for specific style questions)'''.
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(30d)
|maxarchivesize = 64K
| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 24
| counter = 54
|algo = old(30d)
| maxarchivesize = 150K
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive Index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no|template=}} {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive Index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no|template=}}
{{-}}
{{todo}}
{{dabnav}} {{dabnav}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=30|index=/Archive Index}} {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|index=/Archive Index}}

== ] ==

* Updates of ] seem to be flagging. •&nbsp;]

== Ruling needed on ] ==

I am having some difficulty getting through to the handful of editors who are interested in ] that (1) the primary topic for this term is the various forms of heavy paper stock, and (2) that term is not ambiguous, but is merely a genus encompassing several species. I hereby convene a special session of the High Council of Disambiguators to make a final determination of this question, and request a ruling that the title, ] should be a non-disambiguating article describing the general concept of different forms of stiffened paper, and that the remaining ambiguous terms be removed to ]. Cheers! ] ] 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:This appears to be resolved for now. Cheers! ] ] 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

== On hurricanes ==

Hi. I am working in the ] (] available), bureau ]. Hurricanes are:<br>
:(from the /doc): "Hurricane" equals: "A ''']''' is referred to by names such as ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', '''cyclonic storm''', and simply '''cyclone'''. Sp this template pertains to all these storms.</pre>source: wikipedia]."

From usage of the template {{tlx|Other hurricanes}}, I see a multiple forked way of dab.
;Existing:
* ] (example article; by the way: mainpage recently)
* ]
* ] redirects &rarr; ]
* ] -multiple storms, so dab

My question is: is disambiguation in this storm-season correct? Tripping is:
: name is also a personal name
: name is reused over the years
: prefix used changes between "cyclone" and "tropical storm" and more
'''or''': what with the pattern </tt>(storm type) (personal name) (year)</tt>?
-] (]) 22:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

== Blackfoot ==

I've asked at ] for help with the incoming links to ]. A right mess. ] (]) 00:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
: I did revert to the previous primary topic. -- ] (]) 02:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
::The subject is a horrible mess, contradictory redirects left, right and centre. The dab page is a mess too. ] (]) 02:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

== Sky Dome ==

I've seen a thunderhead in the sky once that was too big for my eyes (or the light filtering through the skydome) to handle. Is there a technical term for when the naked eye sees a thunderhead that "bends" because it's too high for the hemisphere to physically show a straight-up thunderhead from your point of view? Or is it simply known as "Skybending" or "Skydome Effect"? ] (]) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
:You may want to ask at ]. -- ] (]) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

== Article page is a dabpage, talk page is a redirect ==

I've asked at ] for a bot to help fix these. ] (]) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
:I wonder if we can also bot-delete the disambiguation page talk pages that consist only of the dab project tag? -- ] (]) 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
*Best for comments to go on the bot request thread. ] (]) 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

== dab page and primary topic ==

Re: ], which has the following single line:
:"Rosalie", a song by Bob Seger from his 1973 album Back in '72, covered by Thin Lizzy on their 1975 album Fighting ] (]) 18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

*This is one song originally by Seger that was covered by Thin Lizzy. Does it go on one line or two? ] (])
*There is a discussion about the topic's primary page in a page move discussion, opinions welcome; see ]. ] (]) 18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
:If viewed as two topics (the song by Seger and the song by Thin Lizzy), it can get two. If viewed as one topic (a song by Seger covered by Thin Lizzy), it can have one (with a single blue link). -- ] (]) 19:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

== Cytherea ==

Should ] REALLY be a disambiguation page? The meanings listed are:
-an epithet of Aphrodite (by far the predominant meaning)

-two generic names which are invalid, because junior synonyms

-an insect genus that is obscure enough not to have an article

-a silent film that has been lost

-a pornographic actress (I do admit that this is the primary reference found by Google, but the case of a 21st century pornographic figure vs a classical matter is practically the paradigmatic case for Internet bias.)

Surely ] should simply redirect to ]... ] (]) 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:] is the appropriate place for this suggestion. I have responded there. Note that every editor can justify dismissing the criteria that do not support his or her desired primary topic. We typically do not dismiss the criteria. Synonyms are not invalid. Google web searches are not the only tool in the box, and book, news, and scholar searches are also useful (but do not favor the goddess either). Traffic stats are not too useful here, since the base name dab gets fewer hits than the prospective primary choices, so those readers are not coming through the dab. -- ] (]) 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::And it just occurred to me, if you're going to discount synonyms, then Aphrodite is out too. -- ] (]) 13:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I'd argue that an *epithet* of a deity is a very different linguistic phenomenon from a junior synonym of a taxonomic name (which, ideally, shouldn't be used). But the rest does make sense; I guess leaving it as a disambig is best. ] (]) 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

== The Day the Earth Stood Still ==

Hello. In 2007, an editor disambiguated ], and moved the original film to '']''. We now have three articles, the dab, the original film, and '']''. Shouldn't the dab page simply be the location for the original film, with a hatnote to the remake? ] (]) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:It depends which is the ]. I don't know much about ''The Day the Earth Stood Still'', but I would imagine that, yeah, the original movie's the primary one.
:Disambiguation pages for two articles are rarely done, so it'd be best to decide whichever one is the primary topic. It's most likely the original though, as I said. ] (]) 11:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::] seems to be the source of the problem. It makes no mention of possible primary topicness, and editors seem to be reading it as if it implies that there can be no film can be primary topic if two films are ambiguous. We may need to work with that guideline first, before redressing any of the affected film articles. -- ] (]) 12:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I'll raise the issue on the talk page. ] (]) 13:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:Given that both films are high profile, I would suggest that neither is a clear candidate for primary topic, therefore it is correct to disambiguate. ] (]) 13:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::That could be true in this case. The arguments on the move requests don't indicate that reasoning, only that the film naming conventions dictate the format. -- ] (]) 14:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

:::I would say that the 1951 is the primary topic. The second one is a remake of that one, which means it's subject matter is a direct relation to the 1951 film making that topic the primary topic. This isn't the case where you debate two different films that share a title and which one should be primary (or if neither should). This is a case of one film being a remake of another and that kind of makes the original the defaulted primary topic. ] ] 22:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::::That kind of ancestry relationship is not one of the criteria for primary topicness. It does often lead into the other criteria of ] though. -- ] (]) 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:The article about the 2008 film is viewed about twice as often as the article about the 1951 film, so in this case the earlier film does not appear to be primary usage. ] (]) 23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

::It's true that the remake has higher visitor stats, but that's often the case with articles about recent topics. There was a similar discussion in the case of ] and it was decided that making such a recent film the primary topic would be reacting to recent trends. I think the case is analagous here: the original film is a classic, much more has been written about it over the years and making the remake article the primary topic would be just following the recent trend. The article on the remake was viewed over a million times in 2008, and half that in 2010. The original film should remain the primary topic and can be reassessed when the visitor rate to the article about the remake stops trending downwards. ] (]) 00:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::Traffic stats are a tool, not the final determination. Google Scholar and Google Books results, two other tools, favor the 1951 film, for instance. This would be a place to apply the "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account" clause. -- ] (]) 03:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I was about to make a remark along those lines. The 2008 film was a bit of a flop; the 1951 film was very popular and has its place in pop culture. From the 1951 article:
:::*"Since the release of the movie, the phrase '']'' has appeared repeatedly in fiction and in popular culture"
:::*"... selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as 'culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant' "
:::*"Lou Cannon and Colin Powell believed the film inspired Ronald Reagan to discuss uniting against an alien invasion when meeting Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985" (!!!)
:::*"Danny Elfman noted The Day the Earth Stood Still's score inspired his interest in film composing"
:::--]] 03:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I made a request to move the 1951 film to occupy the primary topic slot. The discussion can be seen ]. You may also be interested in discussion at ] since the Hinduism-related topic was dislodged from its primary slot partially due to the 2009 film. ] (] &#124; ]) 04:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::I think either film as primary would be an improvement on the current situation where 14,000 people per month are landing on the dab page, where presumably none of them want to be, and which currently attracts a couple dozen incoming links. Which one to make primary gets to the fundamental question of the purpose of an article title. Is it a navigational aid to make sure the majority get to the article they are seeking as quickly as possible, or do factors such as derivation, educational value or scholarly attention take precedence, or is it a combination of those? It's pretty clear that at least 2/3 of readers are looking for the 2008 film and that proportion has lasted since 2008, so to me recentism doesn't seem to apply, but do the other arguments in favor of the 1951 film outweigh the 2:1 ratio of pageviews over time? I think reasonable arguments can be made either way. If the ratio was 10:1 or 100:1, though, reader preference would tip the scale at some point. ] (]) 05:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::Each films has higher traffic than the dab page -- more readers are reaching them through wikilinks than through searches. If we had a better measurement of how people were exiting the dab page, that would help address those concerns. It is a combination of those that you listed -- and which one "wins" should be hammered out at the move request discussion. And I absolutely agree about the ratio; a "big enough" ratio will also indicate that there isn't as much educational value or scholarly attention. -- ] (]) 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

] has been a dab page since 2008 when I did a major cleanup. An editor has just done some cut and paste moving to make ] a page about the male name "Adel", with lists of name holders, and moved the rest to ]. I'm not sure that the name is the primary usage, and my inclination is to move the name page to ] - not sure whether the correct thing would be to revert to a previous version and then explicitly copy from that version, though I suppose attribution etc isn't an issue for dab pages.

I'd be glad if someone else would have a look and offer a view as to whether the current situation is right. Thanks. ] (]) 08:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

: I split the most recent edits off to ] to keep the rest of the edit history at ]. ] ≠ ] 13:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

I can't find a guideline on this. Someone made a dab page for things that the acronym ] could stand for, but all of the links are to pages that don't exist, and nothing links to it. I'm thinking speedy delete, but I don't see any appropriate criteria. What's the right thing to do here? ] (]) 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:{{tl|db-disambig}} can be used, but I found some appropriate replacement entries. -- ] (]) 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
::Awesome, that's even better. Thanks for pointing out that template, too. ] (]) 17:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

== Departments and Ministries ==

We have dozens of disambiguation pages for various common government departments and ministries. In my opinion, not a single one of these should be a disambig page. Instead, each one should be an article describing generally what the purpose of such a department usually is, and identifying in a list the various countries which have such a department. Here is as complete a list as I could cull from special pages:

*]; ]; ]; ]
*]
*] (distinguished by historical period)
*]
*]; ]; ]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] (or ]); ]
*]; ]; ]
*]; ]; ]
**]; ]; ]
**]
**]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] (note that ] redirects to ], which is an article on the general concept)
*]
*]
*]
*]; ]; ]; ]
*]
*]
*]; ]; ]; ]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]; ]
*]
*]
*]
*]; ]; ]; ]
*]
*]
*]; ]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

Cheers! ] ] 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

== Finale ==

There were several pages on pieces of music, film or other art that linked to the DAB page ]. That page currently includes definitions of finale in classical music, opera, and musical theatre with blue links to those key words, but none of the linked pages describe or define finale. As such, ] suggests that they should not be included on the page.

Should such incoming links to the page be redirected to ]? Or should they simply be removed? I have opted for the latter, removing internal links from ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. I would welcome a better solution, though.

I have also asked at ], ], and ] for suggestions of somewhere else to link to. ] (]) 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
: Why not just have an article on ]? ] ] 04:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion is at ]. ] (]) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==


== This one looks like a mix-up to me ==
Please join the discussion at ], where a number of editors are seeking to foist what they perceive as a problem on us by turning this article back into a disambig page, despite the clear primary meaning for the term and the large number of perpetually unsolvable disambig links this change would generate. ] ] 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


I see that someone last year merged a separate DAB page into ], which IMO is not very helpful because the films and TV series are right down the bottom, and many of the names have more than one blue link, etc. Does anyone else think that they should be separated again? ] (]) 23:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Requested move of ] ==
I am a little unclear on the purpose of this dab page. When a user types in Norwegian Wood, they want to be taken to the song, not to the dab page. The current dab page lists a music festival which states on the article page that "the festival refers to the famous Beatles song Norwegian Wood". The dab page also lists a 1987 Japanese novel by the same name which clearly says in the article: "the original Japanese title Noruwei no Mori, is the standard Japanese translation of the title of The Beatles song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)"...the song is often mentioned in the novel, and is the favourite song of the character Naoko." The dab page also lists a 2010 film based on the book. Finally, the dab page contains two red links. It is obvious then, that ''all'' of the references on the dab page ''primarily refer to the song'', and as such the dab page should be moved to ], and ] should be redirected to ] as the primary redirect, with a hat note linked to the dab page at the top. Are there any objections to this proposal? ] (]) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
: I agree, the primary meaning is the Beatles song, and every other meaning is a reference to it. ] ] 03:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:: Please see: ]. Thanks. ] (]) 08:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 21:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
== Infantilism ==
<small>[doing this manually since RMCloser doesn't give me the option of notifying this project for some reason</small>


== Requested move at ] ==
Could someone at the wikiproject give a comment at ]? It's an odd DAB page and I'm not sure I've enough experience to say for sure what is appropriate. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 17:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 16:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
:Please be aware that this is actually the fifth page that WLU has involved in this conflict, which as shown in the chronology posted to , has been continuous since it started . ] (]) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 13:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->

Latest revision as of 14:54, 11 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Disambiguation and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcuts
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation
WikiProject Disambiguation was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 December 2011.
For discussion related to disambiguation on Misplaced Pages but not to the project, please see Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation (for general disambiguation) or the Manual of Style (for specific style questions).

Disambiguation

Archives

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


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This one looks like a mix-up to me

I see that someone last year merged a separate DAB page into Manny, which IMO is not very helpful because the films and TV series are right down the bottom, and many of the names have more than one blue link, etc. Does anyone else think that they should be separated again? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move of Teardown (video game)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Teardown_(video_game)#Requested_move_22_November_2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Superstack#Requested move 23 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Superstack#Requested move 23 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Frost 16:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for discussion#Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for discussion#Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?. —CX Zoom 13:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Category: