Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] Tagging links to disambiguation pages
Whilst attempting to improve some links to disambiguation pages, I often find that I am not able to determine which of the specific meanings is the right one. The obvious thing to do is to leave the link ambiguous.
I was thinking though, that it might be an idea to mark the ambiguous link in the article so that it is highlighted so that other readers, who might be able to disambiguate the link correctly, would have a suggestion that they might be able to help.
This is analagous to the way {{cn}} / {{Fact}} works.
So I've created {{Ambiguous link}}, with a short form of {{dn}}, and also put up a documentation page at {{Ambiguous link/doc}}.
The idea is that the tag {{dn}} can be placed directly after an ambiguous link like this: "I live in [[Reading]]{{dn}}", which will appear as "I live in Reading[disambiguation needed]".
The tag currently links to WP:D, but I'm thinking that it would be nice for it to point to a page which had this text:
- Please remember: it is more important to disambiguate correctly than to disambiguate quickly. Make sure you make the best choice; if you're not sure, leave a note on the talk page and let someone who is more knowledgeable fix it.
(from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links) writ large so that we would discourage people from changing links where they weren't really sure of the proper target.
Any good? —Duckbill 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yes, if we decide we like this idea, then we would want to consider changing the text above to mention something along the lines of "if you're not sure, leave a note on the talk page and/or tag the link with {{dn}} and let someone who is more knowledgeable fix it." —Duckbill 11:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- This sounds good - there are many disambiguation links which are nigh-impossible to fix without an in-depth understanding of the subject, which is why I avoided most of the music articles while working on repairing links to Key. Using a tag like this will remind those experts that understand the meanings of highly technical ambiguous links to fix them. On the other hand, this shouldn't be overused - most links should be fixed rather than merely tagged. If there's a disclaimer on the instruction for use only for difficult disambiguations, I support this. Nihiltres 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Great idea! —EdGl 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I also like the concept, if used as a last resort. I have seen some discussion about {{fact}} being considered too intrusive by some editors, and this would be liable to the same objection. I would suggest changing the text "disambiguation needed" to "ambiguous", so at least it's shorter. As Duckbill suggests, this ought to link to a page that explains how to fix the problem. --Russ (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I think there could be something in that. I think "disambiguation needed" and "ambiguous" both have merit. It would be interesting to see what people think. It shouldn't be a problem because it's transcluded and can be changed at any time. —Duckbill 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
Thank-you for your comments. I have updated Template:Ambiguous link/doc to try to cover some of the issues. I think we may want to have a new page about ambiguous links which can be the target of {{dn}}, possibly named Ambiguous link, which describes what they are and what should be done. —Duckbill 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New dump
The 2006-11-30 database dump has become available (for a preview of disambig pages, see User:RussBot/DPL. I am kind of hesitant to replace the current dump while we still have nearly 150 pages to go; but OTOH there are a lot of new pages and regrown 'shrooms in the new dump that need to be dealt with, too. If others feel that it's time to move on to a new list, feel free to copy it from my user page and start it up! --Russ (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have (unless reverted) fixed two of the top four on that list and left a suggestion for a solution for a third (please comment at Dance music). Dekimasu 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed Padua. Thanks for fixing the others, although I do suspect that Mediterranean won't stick. If you look at the links, a lot of them really could go to the other pages besides the sea. --Russ (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's getting down to some really tough ones. Putting up a new list up would make it easier for people to jump in and do one. Also some of the tough ones have been partially done, and will drop off the list (only to reappear a few months from now). Who's for making 80% the point where a new list is loaded? -- Randall Bart 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I would like to see the links to Production die a horrible death before we switch lists. Dekimasu 01:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm also in a tedious one-man battle at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from categories (check its history) and it would be nice to get that finished off if people are having trouble picking out new topics from the current dump. Dekimasu 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think the new dump should be moved over as the ones on this list should be on the new one (right?). With such a long list over at User:RussBot/DPL, it should be moved over here to start a new level of work. I don't think its necessary to wait until we have near 100% completion of this list before we begin working on the other one. --Nehrams2020 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Go ahead! There are monsters like Mediterranean that need fixing. Whenever a list is updated, the worst cases, which should be the highest priority, are then fixable. Let's get those worst cases out of the way - if or when we conquer that, eventually minor cases can be fixed. Nihiltres 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, the danger is that the hard ones will never get fixed and we will do the easy ones over and over. Dekimasu 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- How is the new list moved over?--Nehrams2020 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Simple copy-and-paste. Last time, I just copied those with 100 or more links. I created a new page with the date of the dump (2006-11-30 this time), and then changed all the links on the main WP:DPL page that referred to the old dump to the new one. Oh, and then I used dplcount.py to initialize the link counter.--Russ (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Top five are now fixed except for League Cup (but you can try fixing Mediterranean's links if you want, I suppose). Mob, Public Service, and Mod are almost finished now if you want to get those done before transferring lists. Also, if we move the list over, let's at least keep production as the corroboration until it's finished. Dekimasu 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a problem if we keep production as the current collaboration. I'd move the list over except I don't know how to use the script for the link counter. But whenever it is ready to move, I'm sure there will be a lot of people ready to start on a new list. I got a month off for Christmas break in a few days, so I'll knock out a couple. --Nehrams2020 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ramblings about disambiguation
I just archived this page. I know that pages with a lot of talk have scripts for archiving every n days, but this one is slower. I don't have a script; I just did in manually. I hope I didn't bust nuthin.
This project, while not quite Sisyphean, certainly suffers Xeno's paradox. This is a quality project, not a perfection project. The "to do" and the "done" and the percentage are just feel good mechanisms. We set an arbitrary task (a subset of the overall task frozen on an arbitrary date) and let people take credit for making progress. It works, because people can see progress and feel they are part of that progress.
So we should make it easy for people to feel good and want to continue working on the project. We should update the dump and make the minimum threshold 50 instead of 100. That way there will be lots of line items for people to choose. 100 is a lot of links to take on; I think 50 is less likely to scare people off. Actually, it would be nice for people to work on disambiguation pages with 20 links, but there has to be a limit for the list size.
I fixed Fresno before it ever made the list. I made the progress, but I didn't get my ration of meaningless feel good. BTW, once I was done I realized that [[Fresno]] should just redirect to [[Fresno, California]]. So then when I got to [[carotid artery]] I changed it to redirect to [[common carotid artery]], then fixed up links where this was clearly wrong. I left the ones where common carotid may be right. Do you know whether Zsa Zsa had a blockage in common, internal, or external carotid? Then go fix it.
Where there is a project page for a topic, I have taken to asking them to keep their links clean. It can't hurt if it's not too creepy.
I added [[productivity]] and [[labor productivity]] to [[production]]. These are two good choices which now show up in the popup. Production was "one of the easiest" in October, and the featured collaboration for four weeks and it's still a bitch. I did about a dozen, but it's difficult. As already noted, an article on Media production would help a lot. Many of these should just be delinked. Which brings me to...
There's a plague of overlinking on WP. If it's a common English word and there's nothing special about the way it's used, there's no need to link it. The dumbest of it is the linking of dates. But people like making links, and apparently it's futile to try stopping them. Much of it causes no harm, but some of it makes work for disambiguators. We need software help. Links should show in red if they are disambiguation pages or misspelling redirects. -- Randall Bart 03:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- While you're generally right about the overlinking (I hate fixing links to "object" or "meaning" or "ideal"), I believe dates are linked so that they can be shown in the format that the user prefers. And personally, I will feel bad when the new dump comes in and the number goes from 82% to 2.8%.
- As for reducing the number of links required to be in the dump, I think that that has already been done. Fixing pages with 50 links is fine if you consider fixing one link as good as fixing any other (and that idea may be defensible from an ideological standpoint), but in practice I believe that the pages which accumulate incoming links the fastest need to be attended to the most. The linking implies that they are oft-visited pages. Thus I believe it is (somewhat) more important to fix the 500 ambiguous links to German than the 50 links to a page that has not accumulated a link in weeks. Dekimasu 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you feel better if for a week there was a big box saying "CONGRATULATIONS DISAMBIGUATORS!"?
I say a link is a link, but not exactly. Perhaps we should have a sub-sub-project for really tough words like [[production]]. There's a rule of wikipedia that I forget how it's cited, but give people stuff that they like to work on, because the lack of work they like won't make them do work they don't like. Many of the remaining words are daunting. Have you looked at [[pore]]. I bailed on that one fast. I am not sure it can be done, except to unlink most of the links.
Adddendum about Carotid artery: Part of my logic was that the first sentence of [[common carotid artery]] says everything that the old dab page said. -- Randall Bart 07:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
