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 00:39, 30 March 2006 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,576 edits Comments invited on Ptolemy disambiguation page← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:57, 30 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,327 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 54) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|search=no|wp=yes|noarchive=yes|WT:WPDIS|WT:WPDAB}}
Archives: ], ]
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{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
| algo = old(30d)
| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 54
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| 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=}}
{{dabnav}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|index=/Archive Index}}


== Requested move of ] ==
== Help request ==
I took a stab at cleaning up ] but would appreciate some further help. The most difficult dab pages to clean up are those in which most of the articles referenced aren't actually named with a variant of the disambiguated term.&mdash;] (]) 17:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 21:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
== Disambiguated phrases ==
<small>[doing this manually since RMCloser doesn't give me the option of notifying this project for some reason</small>
I noticed today that we've grown ]. --] 21:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:We might want to do what ] has done and insist that any subcategories be pre-approved by the WikiProject. It may be desirable to subcategorize the dab pages, but I'd prefer that it not be done randomly by individual editors, but as part of a project strategy. What say the rest of you? &mdash;] (]) 23:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
::(chuckling) Yes, I'd noticed that there's been some proliferation of both category and template variants; I'd suggest that we monitor it for now. Often these bursts of growth run their course and can be trimmed to present a more structured environment over time, with the entire effort benefiting from some information gained by motivations behind the proliferation. In other words, I'm suggesting patience and not to impose the stub model right now; that was put in place to maintain stub-sorters' sanity (I was a stub sorter during the time the change happened) and I don't think we're quite to the point here of people jumping from wiki-buildings out of frustration yet :). ] 00:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
:I'm not sure by what authority we could insist on pre-approval. What I am wondering about, though, is if we're going to end up with a large number of dab catagories, we might have to rethink the {{tl|disambig-cleanup}} idea. The ''cleanup'' attribute is really orthogonal to all the other catagories, and the way it's implemented now won't scale to a large number of cats. I wonder if some day we're going to need ], to direct people to the right place :-) --] 00:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== Discussion about Miscellaneous disambiguations and disambiguation page categorization ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 16:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Please see ] --] 01:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
This has expanded to a discussion of disambiguation page categorization in general. ] 17:05, 18 October 2005 (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)<!-- ] -->


== Requested move at ] ==
Given the scope of this project, someone might also want to have a look at ] before it gets further out of hand. I am not a part of WikiProject Disambig, but IMHO the list being created at the aforementioned link (a) undermines the project, (b) duplicates efforts better served by article categories, and (c) is worse than useless in that it encourages catagory cruft, obfuscates dab cleanup, provides no discernable benefit, and pollutes the namespace. But that's just me. --] 18:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 09:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

== Unruly dab pages ==
I would like to invite you all to help cleaning up some long, unruly dab pages. There is already a process going on to clean up ] (]) and I would like to start a similar process on ] (]). Any others out there? - ] 16:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:We have a ] category, discussed in ], on the project page. The discussion at ] was interesting, although my opinion is that if there is a dubious entry you can just be bold and remove it - placing it on the talk page. That way interested parties can see the entry on the talk and put it back in if necessary.--] 17:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

: Hm... well, the problem is that it's a ''TLAdisambig'' page, not a ''disambig'' page. I've added the page to the category, but did not change the template. That's the only thing I can think of short of creating a whole slough of new *disambig-cleanup templates. - ] 21:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

== Jiffy ==
Not too sure how to handle ]. It's completely composed of dictionary defintions (which are supplied by wikitonary). So what do I do with it? It doesn't link to any credible articles, I can't think of a redirect, it needs deleting? --] 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:I've encountered a number of these. Our guidelines are clear, that dicdefs don't belong on WP, including on dab pages. I'd nominate this one for AFD. &mdash;] (]) 21:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::Not only are they dicdefs, I suspect many of them are made-up dicdefs. Nuke the whole page. --] 21:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:::Listed on AfD, ].--] 07:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

== template rename: 4LA => 4LAdisambig ==
If we are going to continue to have {{tl|4LA}}, then I believe it should be renamed {{tl|4LAdisambig}}. See ] for my request for input and discussion. ] 05:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

== Greetings, disambiguators, I have an idea... ==
Hi everyone. I've been going around "fixing" disambiguation pages, blissfully unaware of this project, and, alas, working somewhat at cross-purposes to it. (I'm on board now, though.) The major unintended disruption that I've caused is moving a whole bunch of dab pages to the subcategories ] and ] using the {{2LCdisambig}} and {{LND}}, respectively. Now, I have been informed by ] that these templates are rogue templates, not approved, and should not have been used. &mdash;''Oops!''&mdash;

Now, here's my suggestion: add the category ] to all the templates that are unapproved. That will bring all pages that use unapproved templates to our attention, and we can go like gangbusters fixing them as we clean up the pages they're on.&mdash;]<sup>]</sup> 05:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

: Sounds good. Would some one put a note on these templates' and others' discussion pages too, so no one else starts using them like poor Graeme? ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-14&nbsp;06:01&nbsp;Z</small>''

Ah, frack! I have been very much a spaz this morning. One two-letter disambiguation page (]) is on my watchlist, and I saw Mr. McRae change the <nowiki>{{2LCdisambig}} to {{disambig}}</nowiki>. When I looked up ], there was a dispute on the page, with Mr. McRae writing, "The consensus is that it does not help our readers to have a separate category and different text for 2-letter combinations," and another user, ] arguing that this was improperly done and should go through TfD. There was no indication on the 2LCdisambig talk page about where the consensus had been formed. I therefore put up 2LCdisambig on TfD and started restoring some of the 2LCdisambig tags.

I later happened to read an earlier thread on GraemeMcRae's talk page, and saw a discussion about this WikiProject, which is when I started writing this.

I still think it's a good idea to have the template be TfD'ed, if only because it might get more people aware of this project and its goals, and to prevent other me's and other Courtlands from working at cross-purposes to this project. (I certainly wasn't aware of it until just now.)

— ] (]) 16:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

:All right, now I'm confused. Since the disambiguation style guide specifically allows TLAdisambig, it seems ''obvious'' that the principle should be extended to two-letter initialisms (2LCdisambig), and maybe even to four-letter ones (the 4LA discussion seen above). What are the arguments against 2LCdisambig (beside the specific name)?
:] 22:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

::There is nothing specific about 2LCdisambig; it's just one of many extraneous templates/categories, and just happens to be the first one that came up for deletion, almost by accident --] 13:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Alternatively, what are the arguments in favour of {{tl|TLAdisambig}}? ] ] 16:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::::It removes the need to say "''FOO'' is a three letter abreviation..." in the leading line and it removes the need to add a category (about it being a TLA) to the page.--] 16:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::::: There is no need to say that FOO is a three-letter abbreviation at all. How can you possibly read "FOO" without knowing that by the time you're done?

::::: This information shouldn't be added to a disambiguation page, anyway—disambiguation pages aren't supposed to distract the reader by providing incidental information, interesting facts, or related links—they're just supposed to present the simplest possible set of links so the reader can locate which one he wants and click it, ''nothing'' more. Disambiguation pages are ''between'' the reader and the encyclopedic information he seeks, not part of it, and should be minimized to the point of disappearing.

::::: What is the point of having different disambiguation templates at the bottom of the page? Why even say "this is a TLA"? Half the time it's a TLA and a three-letter word too, so this identification is wrong. And after you've seen two or three disambiguation pages, do you even read the text of the template at the bottom at all?

::::: What is the advantage of having two-letter, three-letter, and four-letter words and abbreviations in different categories? Does anyone actually browse these categories, except perhaps for Misplaced Pages housekeeping? Why would I want to browse a list of two-letter abbreviations without three-letter ones?

::::: Clutter, clutter, clutter! Let's not provide an interface because we can. Let's only provide it if it helps the reader. ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-15&nbsp;16:54&nbsp;Z</small>''
::::::Hear, hear! &mdash;] (]) 17:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::: Thanks for the support. Your perspective is welcomed in some recent discussion at ]. ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-16&nbsp;08:02&nbsp;Z</small>''

I have started discussion at ]. ] ] 19:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

== Discussion about 2LCdisambig ==
There is an interesting discussion going on at ] about the 2LCdisambig template --] 13:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

== Disambiguation name space ==
After giving the recent discussion at ] some thought, it occurred to me that a Disambiguation: name space may be useful. It would allow the use of disambiguation pages without having to add " (disambiguation)" to the page title, and the pages could have unique formatting. Something like a distinctiev border style or background colour could be enough to identify them, without having to add all the extraneous template stuff to the page. Any thoughts? ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-16&nbsp;08:07&nbsp;Z</small>''
:I like this idea a lot. What more can be said? Disambiguation pages are clearly different than articles in many ways and it seems natural for them to have their own namespace. —] (]) 08:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::What an intriguing idea. We'd have to clean up all the multi-stub pages, though, such as the recently-created ]. &mdash;] (]) 16:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:It's an interesting (even, intriguing) idea, but I'm not sure what problem it would solve. --] 16:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::A side effect: we'd all have to agree that all dab pages go in the new namespace, so principal article titles which are presently dab pages would have to become redirects to the new namespace. Some users have previously proposed that all dab pages named ] should be redirects to ] but this has never gone anywhere. For the new namespace to be useful, though, we'd have to mandate making ] a redirect to ]. &mdash;] (]) 18:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, this is just an idea, not something I'm strongly advocating or proposing a vote on yet. The above is the kind of brainstorming we need to do to see if the idea has merit. I guess the most general purpose would be to differentiate disambiguation pages (which are intended to be strictly content-free navigational interface elements) from articles (which are encyclopedic content). Currently there's much confusion about this among readers and editors, and all kinds of hybrid sorta-disambig pages keep popping up. ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-16&nbsp;21:20&nbsp;Z</small>''
:Eliminating hybrid pages is a very attractive aspect of this idea. See ] &mdash; I'd love to get rid of this option. &mdash;] (]) 02:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

A rather interesting advantage of this approach is that, in theory, it allows filing dab pages into a "]" category automatically, simply by finding which ones have links from the article namespace (obviously this would need a software change, but it would probably be quite trivial to do). At the moment you have to discount links from meta-disambig pages, which legitimately link to other dab pages - with a namespace for dab pages you can discount those. ] 12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:Bah, I just realised that "other uses"-type links are also legitimate, so unless we add to those templates to make the software ignore those too, it wouldn't work. ] 12:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What does this accomplish? Isn't it just an attempt to solve the political problem of disagreements about a gray area, by making the system ''less'' adaptable, and thus less suitable to real problems? What is gained that justifies the many redirects needed between namespaces, and the developer burden of two more namespaces, and the confusion about where to discuss related issues? (That's not just an editing burden, but a processor one as well.)<br>--]•] 02:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)<br>

== Indicating disambiguation links ==
As long as I'm on a brainstorm, here's another idea which could go with the above, or stand alone: visually indicating links to disambiguation pages. Currently, special links are identified in different ways:

# Normal links are blue.
# Red links indicate missing articles.
# Deep red links indicate stub-sized articles.
#:<small>I believe these are actually ''visited'' redlinks &mdash;] (])</small>
# Pale colour indicates previously visited links.
# Icons indicate external links (and a few other rare types), although these are usually restricted to the "External links" section.
#:<small>These are a different color, too, supposedly green (though it's light blue on my Mac) &mdash;] (])</small>
# A tool-tip title shows the link destination, clarifying piped links.
# Self-links become bold text instead of a link.
#

Why not visually indicate disambiguation pages? In practice, most such links should get pipe-dabbed to point to the correct article anyway, so there ought to be few or none of them on pages. The link colour could be similar to a colour used in the disambiguation pages themselves. What colour would we use: orange, green, other?

''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-16&nbsp;21:51&nbsp;Z</small>''

Advantages:
* Reinforce the conceptual difference between articles and disambiguation pages.
* Help editors spot links needing piped disambiguation.

Disadvantages:
* More colour may start to make the page look like someone spilled a box of Lucky Charms cereal on it.

See also:
* ]
:This would only be possible if we went with the namespace idea above, because otherwise how could the system know whether a page is a dab? The wiki system doesn't know about dab pages; we only know because of the template and the associated category. It would be impractical for the system to actually inspect the content of every linked page (or do a category lookup) while formatting an article. But if the namespace were enacted, we wouldn't need the color; the namespace designation would make it obvious. That's one argument for the namespace; it would be difficult to link there by accident, except in the case of redirects, where the color wouldn't work.
:I'm in favor of brainstorming, but I suspect this idea won't go anywhere. We don't have different colors for any other namespace links. &mdash;] (]) 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::Just to clarify, an example. If you had a Disambig: namespace, and someone used the wikilink ], wouldn't ] redirect to ], and hence the wikilink ] in the article will still be blue, not orange or whatever colour? So the new namespace doesn't help in the ] respect.--] 04:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:::I think I might have mentioned this somehwere else, but we coudl get most of the advantages here if, rather than changing how links to DAB pages are displayed in articles (which would be to expensive to check for every link) we only checked on new links when someon clicked '''preview'''. In such a case a warning that they have added a link to a DAB page coudl be added just below the '''save page''' button with a list of the articles that they may have actually wanted to link to. This has the advantage of only checking if a page is in ] when the user clicks preview and also only for links that appear as part of their diff. ] | ] 07:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

== Disambiguating ] ==
] and ] (currently not marked as disambiguation pages) do seem to act as disambiguation pages. I'm not sure how to handle this, so I thought I'd ask the master disambiguators here. I could do ], but it seems to me the job should be done properly. --] ] 02:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:There is now a discussion underway at ], basically on whether ] should be a disambiguation page or a ] for several related concepts. Are there any precedents or useful comments for this? ] ] 18:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:: Just following up on this ] turned into a redirect. ] hasn't been touched since 15 Nov. I'm turing it into a dab now. ] | ] 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==Discussion at MoS talk==
There are discussions going on ] and ] at Mos talk regarding splits of ]. Participants in this project may be interested.

== Extra templates ==
{| class="wikitable" align=right
! template
! uses
|-
| {{tl|2LA}}
| align=right | 17
|-
| {{tl|2LCdisambig}}
| align=right | 202
|-
| {{tl|4LA}}
| align=right | 257
|-
| {{tl|5LA}}
| align=right | 14
|-
| {{tl|acrocandis}}
| align=right | ???
|-
| {{tl|Albumdis}}
| align=right | 4
|-
| {{tl|Disambig}}
| align=right | 37438
|-
| →{{tl|Dambig}}
| align=right | 1
|-
| →{{tl|Dab}}
| align=right | 965
|-
| →{{tl|Disam}}
| align=right | 17
|-
| →{{tl|Disamb}}
| align=right | 331
|-
| →{{tl|Disambiguate}}
| align=right | 2
|-
| →{{tl|Disambiguation}}
| align=right | 635
|-
| →{{tl|Nocatdab}}
| align=right | ???
|-
| {{tl|Disambig-cleanup}}
| align=right | 65
|-
| {{tl|Exp-dab}}
| align=right | 1
|-
| {{tl|Geodis}}
| align=right | 425
|-
| {{tl|Hndis}}
| align=right | 243
|-
| {{tl|Hurricane disambig}}
| align=right | 236
|-
| →{{tl|Hurricanedis}}
| align=right | ???
|-
| {{tl|Interstatedis}}
| align=right | 1
|-
| {{tl|LND}}
| align=right | 336
|-
| {{tl|Listdis}}
| align=right | 3
|-
| {{tl|Miscdis}}
| align=right | 7
|-
| {{tl|Numberdis}}
| align=right | 125
|-
| {{tl|Phrasedis}}
| align=right | 17
|-
| {{tl|Rdab}}
| align=right | 2
|-
| {{tl|Roadis}}
| align=right | 11
|-
| {{tl|Songdis}}
| align=right | 6
|-
| {{tl|Substadis}}
| align=right | 14
|-
| {{tl|TLAdisambig}}
| align=right | 2618
|-
| →{{tl|TLAdisambiguation}}
| align=right | 5
|-
| →{{tl|Tla-dab}}
| align=right | 19
|-
| {{tl|Townshipdis}}
| align=right | 95
|}
I'm not quite sure where we are at with the extra templates floating around, but I found an old ], and attenion may be required.--] 16:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:Holy crap! Delete or redirect these to {{tl|Disamb}}. ]≠] 16:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:Note: a subset of these (far more than simply {{tl|Disamb}} and {{tl|Disambig-cleanup}} are listed on the project page,]. ]≠] 16:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:And anyone interested might want to check out ] ]≠] 17:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::The ever venerable ] provided me with a table with template counts (above right). Data is from the Nov 13, 2005 dump. Note: some of the templates are just redirects.--] 10:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
::{{tl|Interstatedis}} is being used on pages like ] and ]. --'''] (] - ])''' 00:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I cleant two of the redirect-dabs and voted {{{delete}}}. dambig and diambiguate were only used twice or so. ] ] 06:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and some busy beavers have added {{tl|3CC}}, →{{tl|3LC}}, {{tl|4CC}}, →{{tl|4LC}}. Will the madness never stop? ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2006-03-11&nbsp;02:45&nbsp;Z</small>''

== Use your watchlist ==
I'm pretty sure most of us do, but when you clean up a dab's style, make sure you place it on your watchlist. I've just experienced a reversion because my cleanup of a dab was considered vandalism. Of course after informing the editor about the MoS, my version was restored - only to undergo the dreaded "wikify" (insertion of excess wikilinks). I spoke to the editor again and finally the dab is ship-shape. When I started out I didn't use the watchlist, but we all should.--] 09:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:Hear, hear! &mdash;] (]) 17:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
<br clear=right>
:I've run into a number of editors of like sentiment to those you've encountered reverting your edits. I've been violently reverted and admonished as a vandal for applying the MoS by unwikifying things and been told "the MoS is wrong, it should be changed" as justification for the reversions, among other things. Because of this, I've completely given up even trying to convince any editor that their particular edit is "stylistically challenged" because it is impossible to even consider enforcing the style guideline as contrary edits are by no means vandalism nor in bad faith. Logic certainly does not work and we've no sticks (i.e. this is not policy); so if you (insert editor-name here) who changes a page to conform with the MoS is subsequently reverted by a person with a strong feeling about the page they obviously feel ownership or stewardship for ... just leave it. It's not worth spending a single keystroke or breath over it to try to convince any such editor of the worth of consistency or style guidelines or anything of the kind. Just walk away and don't look back. There's plenty of work to occupy us on pages that will not be subject to such close, unyielding and personal observation. If you feel compelled to return to a page reverted after you've cleaned it up, try coming back in a year ... or at least a month. ] 02:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

== Template for Disambiguation link repair ==
In anticpation of the next dump for ], I've created a template for the talk of disambiguation pages to deal with disambiguation link repair. The purpose of the template is to alert editors to the link repair situation of the dab, and to promote discussion about the link repair.

{{WPDPL|January 1, 1901|Template for Disambiguation link repair}}

The first example usage is at ].

Note:
*The template will only be used in the <code>Talk:</code> namespace
*It doesn't link to this project, since there isn't much here for link repairers
*Perhaps it should link to ], since the dab will end up there eventually
*What happens if the dab becomes an article? The template will simply be removed, but it could be forgotten and hence misleading
*It encourages a disucssion section, which can be used to enrich link repair by providing alternatives not available on the dab itself

If approved, the template will go on 200 dabs from the next dump.

What do you think?--] 11:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
*Sounds good to me. How about a sentence highlighting what needs to be done (for those too lazy to follow the link to WP:DPL)? For instance, "Articles that link to this page should be reviewed to see if a more specific link would be preferable." --] ] 14:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
**Definately. I've added a sentence to the template (see above). Should we also have a short introduction to link repair in the talk section?--] 16:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
**This is a great idea...it will help curb traffic from my talk page when I dab a list of articles. -- ] 18:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
:Good idea, agreed ] 02:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks great to me. ] | ] 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

== "Disambiguation pages for deletion" ==
I haven't been the most active member here, so I don't plan to push this too hard.

Has anyone found they've had to put a few pages up for deletion? Namely, ones that only have one real link &mdash; or secondary dab pages that only have two links (the second link can be linked to in the header of the primary topic) &mdash; or some other reason? Or, that they've had to move some pages?

I've only had one of each: I requested a move for ] and I'm about to request deletion for ], which only has one real link, which is back to its primary article.

Incidentally, this does bring up the point of: if there is only one article apart from the primary one, would it be better to just say, "''This article is about this meaning. For this other meaning, see ]''"? This can be discussed elsewhere if necessary. (I haven't checked discussions so nudge me if it's already been discussed.)

Anyway, if so, and I don't know if there is a problem at all so if there isn't just say so, would it be an idea to establish a "disambiguation pages for deletion" page? Just an idea, not expecting anything. ] 10:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:btw, does anyone mind if I archive two-thirds of this page? ] 10:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

::In fact, here's a particular example: ]. Now, this is a primary dab page, so I guess it's different &mdash; the point here not that, but that it has no real dab links on it at all. ] 11:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Comment? Anyone? Please? ] 07:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::::What's the problem? There are at least two different possible meanings and Misplaced Pages doesn't currently have an article on either one. Hardly a reason to delete the page. ]≠] 13:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:::: I think there should be a page for dabs for delete. For example I believe ] can be deleted. ] 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, please archive old discussion. Regarding your initial query, you can usually boldly fix such problems by turning them into redirects and adding the ] yourself. It's a trickier question if the only second meaning is a redlink, however. Anyway, I don't think there are enough deletions to warrant a separate page. &mdash;] (]) 23:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::Cool. Thanks. I'll archive the discussions. ] 07:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

== What can a dab page be used for? ==
Hi all &mdash; take a look at ]. Neither of the links there are really disambiguated, they're more just redirections. Now, I begin to see why the signpost articles category used to exist; I do admit that I voted for its deletion...

Anyway, would you consider this a "disambiguation" page, remembering what its original intent is? I wouldn't, but I don't know what it is... what does everyone think? ] 11:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
:It must be a signpost article. How can we bring back that category - I didn't get a chance to discuss it before it was deleted.--] 11:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:I turned ] into a stub article. The page is certainly not serving to disambiguate, and I believe the topic is more than a dicdef (maybe the creator was afraid it would be interpreted as such, and so made it a dab page instead). To brainstorm, the article can be expanded to be a survey of the major utensils used throughout the world's cultures, explain the situations or cultures that do not use utensils (e.g. eating with hands), note when utensils were first used by humans, archaeology, explain why in movie scenes at formal parties they have 10 different utensils to eat with, and so on. The subject is clearly encyclopedic in my eyes.—] (]) 11:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::Actually, upon reading ] it seems a merge/redirect may be in order.—] (]) 11:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Er, no. The meaning of "utensil" goes beyond cutlery. There are also writing utensils and probably other sorts of uses as well. ]≠] 22:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Good point, I forgot about things like writing utensils. I've changed it back to a proper disambiguation page.—] (]) 02:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

== Help on ] ==
At ] there is discussion about not having a top dab on ] that leads to ]. Could someone look into it, I was reverted when I put the top dab back in and the discussion makes me feel sick. --] 10:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:seems this got worked out so is now moot ] | ] 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

== dab templates without categories ==
These two dab templates:
*] ]
*] ]
*] ]
apparently were created without consensus in October of 2005. Both attempt to place articles in red-linked categories. On Dec 20th, I redirected both templates to the main disambig template and was reverted on Dec 30th.

I don't see any articles when I click "what links here" for either one. That may because I touched all of the articles that did use each one after I redirected. I can't remember if I did that or not, but the fact that I'm thinking of it makes me think I did do that. According to the table above, there were 6 and 14 pages using each at one point.

Thoughts? ] | ] 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
:edited to add another one ] | ] 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==subcats==
Just wanted to make everyone aware of the discussion and polls going on here:] ] | ] 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] redirects to ], ] to ], ] to ], ] to ], ] to ], ] to ], 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 ] redirecting to ] while the disambig is at ] (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? -] 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

:Can you present a good reason to move a disambiguation page from ] to ]? Why not just leave the situation alone in each case, doing the move has no benefit as far as I can see. Also, leaving ] as a redirect allows it to redirected easily in the future.--] 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 ] should not be reflexively redirected to ]: it's sloppy, inconsistent, reflexive, and a redirect that can be avoided.—] (]) 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 ], since here is rather quiet.--] 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Given the ] section below, I'll start fixing these.--] 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 ]. Therefore, based on discussion, I just changed the text at ].

Each "XYZZY (disambiguation)" page in ] 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!
:--] 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

===Subpage created===
] has been created. You will notice the dump report there. I also copied across the discussion that used to be here.--] 07:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

== Ordinal directions: cartography articles or dab pages? ==
I came across ] today, which is catted as both a cartography stub and a dab page. It contains some article elements - an image and links to related topics, for example - but the text is mostly either Wiktionary-style definition or disambig elements. The other ordinal directions do not include the disambig template. Thoughts on whether these should be treated as articles or dab pages? ] 14:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, ] is also tagged as a dab page. No thoughts yet about whether they should be dabs or stubs or both or something else. 14:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
::This one isn't worth fighting over. Just take off the {{tl|disambig}} template and otherwise leave it alone, because none of the entries are really synonyms of ''Northwest'', so it's not really a dab page. &mdash;] (]) 19:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::Looking at only those two, and the significant number of links to them, it seems to me that these both '''need''' to be Primary topic multi-stub pages, each with (disambiguation) pages for the rest. Most of the references don't appear to be to the ordinal direction, but rather to the regional variation, which is typical disambiguation fare. There's also a new AFD for Northwesterner today that wants redirection there. Heck, I'll do it, over the next day or so....
:::--] 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

== destroying history ==
There's a serious problem with lack of understanding of history merging!

Today, I worked on ] and ]. The original ] was a multi-stub page of about 20-30 lines and a picture and a see also and some categories, with a dozen or so line history. The "(disambiguation)" page was created with instead of move (by Dalf), and the original was blanked to redirect there.

My obvious solution was to revert Photuris, and change "(disambiguation)" to redirect, preserving both histories without any problem.

Unfortunately, here's what Commander Keene wrote on my talk page:
<blockquote>
You ''fixed up'' ] by doing a cut/paste move. Various edits were hidden/lost when you did that, violating the GFDL licence. I have performed a history merge so everyone gets credit for their work. Never perform a cut and paste move, it's that simple.--] 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
</blockquote>

All I did was revert the redirect and fix. Not a single edit was lost on either page. No cut and paste was involved.

So, I'm looking at and . Where's the history?

All I see at "Photuris (disambiguation)" is a 1 line "move" history.

All I see at "Photuris" is
*the 3 line history from the moved "(disambiguation)" page,
*followed by from my Photuris revert and edit "(restore Photuris disambiguation here, revised MoS:DP)",
*followed by from my "(disambiguation)" edit (which is why it is now a "#REDIRECT Photuris" on the Photuris page, not making any sense),
*followed by with my next edit on Photuris again (which only makes sense as the ),
*followed by Keane's move work.

All the original multi-stub page history is lost.

Before you think I don't know what I'm talking about or wonder why I should care, try .

Now, what's to be done?
:--] 07:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:My problem was that ] was where the articles ] and ] were started. When ] was split into these two new articles, the history remianed at ]. To maintain GFDL I think that the full history of ] and ] should not be ''hidden/lost'' at ], but rather fully exposed at ''']'''.

:Talk a look at ] and ]. I was annoyed that you would carry out your dodgey revert rather than let an admin provide the best solution, given that it was obvious that I (an admin) was working through the list that contained the problem that was ].--] 07:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you did save some of the history somewhere! AFAICT, it was lost (nobody goes looking for history on another page's talk subpage). Indeed, that seems like a lot of work for little benefit, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Dodgy? Whenever a multi-stub page is split, the old history remains behind at the original page. It's neither "hidden" nor "lost".

The only "problem" was that the original splitter did it with cut and paste, instead of move. IMHO, this split should have been done as a Primary topic page, instead. But still, the original history remained ''in situ''.

Now, the history is an incomprehensible muddle of alternating lines from two different pages. (heavy sigh) Well, I suppose that nobody else but me will look at it anyway.
:--] 08:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
::When looking at the history of ] I can't see ''an incomprehensible muddle of alternating lines'', since I did a near clean splice. What are you talking about?--] 08:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Start at the first "(last)" and do the "newer edit" navigation. The splice is by date and time. So, it alternates between (prior to move) "(disambiguation)", "(disambiguation)", "(disambiguation)", my photuris, my "(disambiguation)" redirect, my photuris, your moved "(disambiguation)" copy of my redirect, then your copy of my most recent version of photuris. It's schizoid.

But it doesn't matter. Seems like I'm the only one who reads this stuff. I'll live.
:--] 08:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

== Discussion of Disambiguation at ]==
I have just initiated a discussion of disambiguation at ]. Although the immediate subject of the discussion is a particular article, I believe it touches upon the more general question of when an ambiguous title ought to point to a disambiguation page, and when it ought to point to the most article most likely to be intended. --] 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

: Your argument is definitely much broader than just ]. It extends to the very concpet of a primary topic, or main article or whatever it is we call it when there's a ] page rather than just having the main name be the disambiguation page. I'd like to see that discussion happen here since it's not specific to Ravi Shankar. Other opinions? ] | <small>]</small> 21:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::I'm fine with having the discussion here. The reason why I began at ] is because I am fairly new, and ] suggested that the discussion happen at the article talk page. --] 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

==Images==
Is there a general consensus with respect to whether or not to include images on dab pages? Referring specifically to ] and ] but I'm sure there are others. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:There are others. ] is particularly questionable because it seems to be a disambiguation page combined with a merged stub. I've also been wondering about this. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with an image or two to help decorate and elaborate on the entries of some of the lengthier disambig pages, especially if they're free-use images. As long as it doesn't get out of hand.. There are more important (and commonplace) disambig-page screwups. -] 02:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::I would tend to think that it shouldn't be within the nature of a disambiguation page to be decorated. And it should be the primary goal of the articles themselves&mdash;not the text or images on the disambiguation page&mdash;to elaborate on the entries. Like overlinking, images could be considered needless clutter, confusing the purpose of the dab page. But if people like the images and/or see a valid need for them, I don't really care either way. Just looking for consistancy. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 04:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

== Help me ==
I have two little problems with disambiguation project:
# When disambiguating links, there are a lot of user and talk pages when using "what links here" which I have to skip. Is there an easy way to filter them?
# Is there a semi automatic bot that can help? I'd like to go through all disambig pages and make sure that do confirm to MoS. I had a random look and many of them dont.
] 21:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

:For (1): a good solution would be a namespace filter (as found in "my contributions"). I have just submitted a requesting this feature. If you would like the feature, I recommend that you vote for it.

:For (2): there is a bot to help with ] (]). However, there isn't a bot to help with ] - because it would be rather complicated.--] 01:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

:: I'm now using ] which does both jobs! ] 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
Could someone from the Wiki Dab Project take a look at this page. I fixed it but I think I went overboard on the number of links. I really need a second opinion. If it's wrong, please make it right (even if you have to take a hatchet to it).<br>(Side note: I've been working informally for this project, but after one of my edits was reverted and deemed "ridiculous" by the reverting editor &mdash; this in spite of the fact that I had closely adhered to the rules at ] and ] &mdash; I've had second thoughts. Since I prefer a certain measure of harmony when editing, I won't be ''actively'' fixing any more disambiguation pages; except perhaps for the odd one here and there.)<br><font color=blue><small>-,-~</small></font>]<font color=blue><small>~-,- 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)</small></font>&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>Sorry for the rant.</small>
:It appears to look pretty good - I wouldn't say you went overboard on the number of links, there are just a lot of relevant links! They seem to be well organized. The only thing I'm not sure about is the rivers section - since ] is a disambiguation page, I don't know if it should stick to what is there now (linking to the disambiguation page) or if all the rivers on the ] disambiguation page should also be listed on this page. It seems like that might be rather redundant, but I'm not sure how linking to a disambiguation page from another disambiguation page goes over. -- ]<font color="green">]</font> 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:*The ] dab page is a thorny issue. I suppose there would be nothing wrong with redundant entries; but there would be the problem of maintaining them on two different dab pages (and what if other "Severn Rivers" suddenly turn up &mdash; or maybe a few dry up because of global warming <nowiki></nowiki> ). <br><font color=blue><small>-,-~</small></font>]<font color=blue><small>~-,- 03:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)</small></font>

== Multiple pages with differently capitalised names ==
I just came across a pair of articles, ] and ], which are on totally different topics but have near identical titles (the latter is an obscure <s>and apparently short-lived</s> magazine, the former is the better-known linguistic concept). What is the general feeling on such article pairs? Is it better to leave them be (pointing to each other using dab templates) or disambiguate them in the same way as if the titles were actually identical (i.e. make a dab page or move one to a dab title, in this case ])?

If the general feeling is that it should be moved, then that's what I'll do, else ] (which was redirected at the same time the parent page was moved) should be RfD'd. ] 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

:I recommend maintaining the current situation - there is no need for added complexity. I deleted ], as the redirect was incorrect--] 05:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

::I hope you didn't lose any significant edit history there... :/ I think I've since come across another example of exactly the same, but it seems to have disappeared from my history. If I find it again I'll let you know. ] 07:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I am careful with page histories, in this case there was only ever one edit - the erroneous redirect.--] 09:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

==Using parentheses to ''explain'', rather than disambiguate and distinguish, article titles?==
Did I miss some memo or policy proposal or other thing where it suddenly became OK to use parentheses to explain what an article is about even when there's no other article title that could be confused with the article in question? Am I the only one to whom this seems a little bizarre? Is there some new trend starting that will lead to ] being moved to ], ] to ]?!

I am referring to ]&mdash;which ] is a mere redirect to. The page seems too embroiled in POV disputes and unreasonable extremist disagreements (e.g. "I don't think this page should be moved to ] because I think it should be ''deleted''") to understand how absurd, arbitrarily inconsistent, and inconvenient it is to have a non-parenthesis page redirect to a parenthesis page with the same name (rather than the other way around), so I've come here hoping for some illumination and wisdom on the matter, after what a great success my last plea for clarification/aid here was (the discussion of malplaced disambig pages that led to the creation of the beautiful ]). So, am I missing something here, or what? -] 22:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:Another example I found of this strange practice seems to be at ], which is redirected to from ]. However, the critical differnce between this and ] is that there are other articles with the name "property" that could be confused with this article, as shown by ], so while it's still a mistake either way, there are two ways to solve the mistake if there's a disambig page: either move ] to ] (if its noteworthy enough), or move ] there (in which case this is an issue of malplaced disambiguation pages). Depends on how noteworthy and central the legal meaning is vs. other possible meanings. -] 16:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::It's not ideal, but until monkeys learn to type we are stuck with it. It's very hard to fix in a dynamic place like Misplaced Pages. Even something as simple as Malplaced dabs has 5 created every day, 7 days a week.--] 17:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Er? I really don't understand. Why is this any more hard to fix than any other error on Misplaced Pages? I've only seen 3 or 4 pages that use parentheses like this in my entire time on Misplaced Pages, out of many, many thousands of articles. It's not in any way a rampant issue (though it could ''become'' one if we don't nip it in the bud with articles like this before the practice spreads virally!), like the malplaced disambig pages are. And my problem isn't with the manual labor of moving the pages (I can put in a Requested Move or ask an admin if I need a page moved to overwrite a redirect) so much as with responding to editors on ] (and anywhere else this crops up in the future) who claim that the added parenthetical is the ''preferred'' way to handle such an article. It's at best inconsistent, at worst outright hypocritical, considering that no other article about a term feels the need to specify this with "(term)" in its title except for disambiguation purposes. -] 17:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Maybe it is possible to do, I'm probably still a little negative from the disgusting growth rate at Malplaced dabs. Now I'll add something constructive. Some places (for example Australian Wikipedians) has descided that all places will automatically have a term in parentheses. For example ], ] etc. I'm sure they have some good reasons, and won't appreciate someone changing the format. It's difficult to clean these things up if you are fighting consensus.--] 18:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

== 5 March 2006 #1 Help request ==
Am a new contributor. Am trying to disambiguate references to Crawford Castle. I wrote the article on ], however, there is a ship named Crawford Castle referred to in a ] and another building named Crawford Castle in the ] article. Thanks (] 03:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC))
: Repaired. See those pgs, & the crucial element of Dab'n: connecting the common name for the topics to each of them, in this case with a ToP Dab & ]. <br>--]•] 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)<br>

== 5 March 2006 #2 Help request ==
Someone may want to check my additions to the disabiguation page for ] --] 03:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
: Done. <br>--]•] 02:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)<br>

== Root pages ==
I think that this project should take note of the proposed policy on ]s. The spartan disambiguation style promulgated by ] works very well to route incoming links and searches, but discourages comprehensive treatment of ambiguous terms. Root pages are quite the opposite. --] (]) 06:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
I just found some pages using this template, which seems to be rather redundant to just {{tl|disambig}}. Or is there any use for this that I am overlooking? ] ] 12:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

:The ] only allows one dab template: {{tl|disambig}}. So this one should be deleted. They can use the category if they think it is useful, but I don't think it is.--] 13:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

: Does this mean that all the pages with {{tl|TLAdisambig}} or other templates should be changed to {{tl|disambig}}? ] 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

::Yes. --] 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

:::You might consider adding ] though, if you think it's useful.--] 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

== Deleting dab pages ==
What is the process to delete dab pages? Is there any specific policy? Or is it similar to any other page? This page ] for example has only three external links and one red link, so why should it exist? ] 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

:No special procedure exists. ] applies (], ], ]). However, in this case I can see a reason for the page - the articles just haven't been created yet.--] 00:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:: So are you suggesting that the page should remain? MoS prescribes that external links should only be used exceptionally on dab pages therefore the external links must be removed which mean a page with only one red link will remain that I don't think will be categorised as a dab page. What's the benefits o having such a page at all? ] 18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I probably would have written three stub articles (using the external links given) - that's why I thought the dab should remain. However, now I'm wondering if the entries are relevant. Does someone search for ''All About Kids'' via AAK? Anyhow, that was my reasoning.--] 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

== Lattice ==
I found ] on ]. I trimmed it mercilessly to conform to ]. Then someone decided that it should be an article rather than a disambig. I raised the question on the talk page, got a couple of replies that didn't resolve anything, followed by silence. What to do? --] (]) 01:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

: The page seems to be dab. See my comments on ]. ] 20:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

== Massive red linking on disambiguation pages of abbreviations ==
Is there an consensus as to deleting/keeping the incredible number of redlinked articles on disambiguation pages of abbreviations? ] has recently recieved a lovely number of these such pages, and it would be good to know if there are any general guidelines in cases as drastic as these. I would say keep the ones that could have an article written about them as per usual, but there are so many that even then it may be hard to tell (though I'd much rather do that then leave them all in). And on ] as an example (though there are many more), 25+ redlinked kings of various places? They don't seem to even belong in ], since there are no articles on them. Is it reasonable to remove all the links that are obscure people/organizations? -- ]<font color="green">]</font> 00:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:Standards of notability always apply, but let's not get into a crusade against redlinks. They've acquired a stigma recently, probably because of their increasing rarity, but there's really nothing wrong with them. --] (]) 04:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

::I like redlinks - if the redlinked article is going to be created eventually. For these kings I'm not sure if they will be each get an article - best to ask an expert. Whether or not these kings were all known as "Aen" and should be on the dab page is also a mystery. But redlinks are useful. As in the ] case above, two redlinks were turned into articles.--] 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I think it's likely enough for someone to link to a "King <nowiki>]</nowiki>" - in the event that anyone would mention one of them in the first place. --] (]) 06:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Unless they're absolutely non-notable, they should be good to hang out on the pages, and I'll just see about making articles for some of them. Thanks, everyone, for other perspectives! -- ]<font color="green">]</font> 11:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

== Repairing links to ] ==
I've been repairing a few of the links to ] (a disambiguation page with a '''lot''' of links to it), but a problem I've found along the way is that for many articles I'm unsure what to repair them to. For example, ] is a music festival in France, and the link to director refers to the director of the festival. I can't find a suitable article to link to for this, and several others. Any suggestions? ] | ] 14:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
:Ah, looks like someone's created a ] stub - well that's one solution. Cheers for that. ] | ] 15:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

::You might get more bites for this question at ]. --] 18:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

== enquiry about disambiguation in connection with Black Patch or Black Patch Park ==

Can you assist with resolving confusion between Black Patch and Black Patch park. It seems to me and others with whom i have spoken about these two articles that it would make things a lot lot more straightforward if the two were combined under the heading "Black Patch Park". I say this becasue that title is rarer and therefore less ambiguous than "Black Patch" which occurs (as you'll see if you google 'Black Patch"). Can you establish who is the main author of Black Patch so that I can suggest this? The person who is the local history expert and who i thought had written most of it is not the author (Ted Rudge) and Ted agrees with my proposal. Can you help?] 21:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
:Since ] and ] seem to be about the same thing, I have added ] tags to both pages. The discussion about merging can continue on Black Patch Park's ].
:Also, for the most part, on Misplaced Pages there is no "main author" of an article. The best place to bring up questions or suggestions about an article is on the talk page of the article, where all contributing authors can discuss it. -- ]<font color="green">]</font> 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Quick gathering of opinions: is there a point in ]?

The film entry is a redlink, and to be honest, I don't think it'll ever earn itself an article, at least not in the foreseeable future. "The Basketball Diaries", in my opinion, has no risk of confusion &mdash; someone that wants to find out about "The Basketball Diaries" will probably search for "The Basketball Diaries" or perhaps "Basketball Diaries"; most people if not all would be able to figure out a mere "basketball" won't get them anywhere in a search. The final entry, "BASEketball", has a different spelling and I find this unlikely to be confused with the sport.

Just wanted to see what others think. ] 12:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
:I think it's important to keep. Although the redlinked movie is questionable (it is not even listed under the , the other entries are valid. ] maybe not, but certainly ]. The spelling difference take a minute to notice, could certainly be confused when searching, and is therefore ].
:Because of the questionable existance of the redlinked movie, and the difference in title of ], I guess I could see putting a disambiguation link on ] linking to ], but it seems to be better as a disambiguation page. -- ]<font color="green">]</font> 17:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

== Comments invited on Ptolemy disambiguation page ==

I would be grateful for advice on issues concerning ]. I have summarised the editing history and centralised links for discussions at ]. If you have any advice or comments, please leave them there. Thanks. ] 00:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:57, 30 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




Archiving icon
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.

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)

Requested move at Talk:Kamal Khan (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kamal Khan (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Category: