Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives
— Topical index—

Archives 25 through 28 haven't yet been topically indexed.
See also

Contents

[edit] Disambiguating United States Navy ships

I recently came across the disambiguation page, USS Monongahela and saw that it apparently did not conform to the disambog MOS, so I edited it to conform.

However, after visiting the page List of United States Navy ships, M and visiting the disambiguation pages of other ships, I see that most of those pages (such as USS Macdonough) also do not conform to the disambig MOS.

Question: Do ship disambiguation pages conform to a different set of criteria? If so, I will revert my changes. If not, then there are many non-conforming pages.

Thanks, Gjs238 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I haven't encountered this before, but it seems like if they are pure disambiguation pages, they should fit with the manual of style. If they were multi-stub sorts of pages, I could see having descriptions of the ships, but since there are articles about most of them, the pages function as disambiguation pages, and should be formatted as such.
Aha! I think I've found why so many of the ships pages look like that! If you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Index page outline, the sample disambiguation page includes a lot of inline wikilinks, periods, and multiple sentences. I don't know if that was purposeful or if they may not have been aware of MoS guidelines before then, but I'm all for checking with them and asking if it can be corrected, so at least ship pages from now on will be formatted correctly. However, I always don't want to invade their turf if there is a specific reason for the pages to be like that. Anyone have any objections with asking about it? -- Natalya 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that there is a reference from this page (WP:MOSDAB#Ships) to these activities, so I assume its been an accepted by "the community" that ship names be handled that way. It does seem a clearly separable type of page. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... I'm not really a fan, though. There's no particular reason to have such a detailed disambiguation page if the articles cover all the information. I understand the need to differentiate between different ships, which can be challenging, but there isn't any need for all the extra wikilinks. -- Natalya 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The ship index pages are intended to be an encapsulated history, not just of the ships, but of the name. Indeed, some are quite nice in this regard, such as USS Enterprise and USS Nautilus. Others are not. The fact that they're bad ship index pages does not make them disambig pages. Also, you may want to review the previous discussion on this subject. And more discussion. Jinian 18:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like they're valid target articles about ship names, then, and not disambiguations. Similar to some surname articles... -- JHunterJ 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! :) -- Natalya 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you  :-) Gjs238 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No, these are disambiguation pages... USS Enterprise accumulates backlinks that need to be corrected. (see the section below)
Personally, I think subject-specific disambigs should be given greater leeway, especially by people who aren't subject experts (eg. besides the {{shipindex}} and {{hndis}}-only pages, there's Dodge Charger, Jeep Cherokee, Rover 2000). One good example of this is Greatest Hits... its current presentation is more clear and easier to find the desired link than the formatting that WP:MOSDAB suggests. --Interiot 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
No, they aren't disambiguation pages. See WP:D#List of ships (tellingly under "What not to include"). Not every page that is incorrectly linked to is a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ 17:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists versus disambig pages

Sometimes there's some confusion about whether a particular article is just a random list or a disambiguation. It seems like the primary difference is whether backlinks need to be disambiguated. An ambiguous term will collect accidental backlinks that need to be updated to point to one of the items on the list; a non-disambiguation list doesn't accumulate accidental links, and therefore its backlinks will never be corrected. If there's agreement on this, I'd like to update the main page to clarify this.

An example... C and D both have long lists of meanings at the bottom, but they also have separate disambiguation pages. Some of the entries on the list are disambiguatable, and they get copied to both places, while the non-disambig entries get mentioned only in the list. --Interiot 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Updating the main page (of disambiguations) should be discussed on the talk page of the main page WP:D. -- JHunterJ 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the point?

What's the purpose of a disambiguation page? I was under the impression that it was to aid in navigation, in the case that the general term is linked in an article where it should go to a more specific article. Like where an editor links to "the pirates", but forgets to say the "Pittsburg Pirates." Some editors feel it should be an aid to browsing, where the DAB page should list any possible usage of the term (like, say, "Terry and the Pirates"). Just in case someone would be looking for a thing with "pirate" in the title.

Is there a consensus on this issue? -Freekee 06:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus is it's an aid in navigation. Looking for a thing with "pirate" in it should be done with the search button or with an external search engine. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists -- JHunterJ 11:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
In a most basic sense, disambiguation pages should contain any articles that someone might be reasonably looking for when they search for a term. This include all articles that are of the form "Foo (clarifier)", as well as easily confused articles that may contined the term "Foo" (and some other articles too). However, that does not mean that every article containing the word "Foo" should be included on the disambiguation page. -- Natalya 17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. -Freekee 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome! :) -- Natalya 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed_disambiguation_guidance

You might be interested in my proposal to cut down on repeated newbie mistakes with disambig pages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposed_disambiguation_guidance.

(Can we keep the discussion over there, in one place? Thanks!)

Fourohfour 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of London bombings

Urgh, any opinions on List of London bombings which is tagged as a dabpage? Thanks/wangi 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO that's not a dab page, that's just a list. Almost all the incoming links should point to 7 July 2005 London bombings, and changing the redirects at London Bombings and London bombings would fix almost all of them. CarolGray 08:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long lists

I have made one edit containing two unrelated suggestions.Abtract 09:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this guideline is that it makes a suggestion based on screen resolution, which is likely to vary significantly from user to user. I've attempted to address this by basing the guideline on number of entries instead. Please reword and/or copy-edit as needed. --Muchness 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
OK but its not copyediting I am after but a real change. First, it is clear to me that, for readers using a laptop (and surely there are lots), 30 is far too high a limit. I suggest some number between 10 and 20. Second, what is the reason for switching the index to the right when the vast majority of articles keep it on the left? IMO it looks better and is more visible in the normal place ... is there something peculiar about disambiguity pages that I have missed?Abtract 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Since no-one else seems too bothered I am going to edit it slightly.Abtract 10:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd go along with some change on this, though I'd just assume omit any specific number and simply leave it as "longer lists" and allow discretion of the editors to format. Also, I really think the need to use second level headings should be fairly uncommon on disambiguation pages. Also, BTW, the use of TOC right is in common use throughout Wikipedia, not only on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 11:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
OK I go along with not stating absolute numbers but I believe quite strongly that we should cater for the mass of users with laptops where lists with 4 or more headings would benefit from the table of contents facility to easily access the page required. Since this seems a 'no brainer' to me I cannot see what the objection to it is ... can someone tell me just why "second level heading should be uncommon on disambiguity pages"? It's surely not enough simply to state it? ......... As to TOC right, it is hardly in common use and surely isn't 'standard' so why should it be standard for disambiguity? Again simply saying it is so doesn't make it so, with respect :) Abtract 11:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Using random article and ignoring those without a table of contents, I just went to 30 articles all with a table of contents on the left and got bored before finding one on the right (I never did find one) ... I rest my case. Abtract 11:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong methodology. See What links here for the Template:TOCright. For a non-article page like a disambiguation page, the left TOC simply results in wasted white space--essentially forcing a reader to scroll down, whereas with a right TOC, a reader can scan a larger portion of the page. The same applies for second level headings--I'm pretty sure it has been discussed before on this talk page, which is how the guidance got incorporated into the style manual. It's really only appropriate with exceptionally long lists, like Aurora. older ≠ wiser 13:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
OK I take your point on Toc right; I still think it looks untidy and does not achieve its objective but this is clearly a well worn path and I accept it for the moment. However you don't mention my point about users with laptops so I will reiterate it: when using a laptop (and maybe other relatively small screens?) a list longer than about 10 is not viewable at one go - this leads me to think a table of contents would be helpful. Now so far as I can tell this is much the same reasoning that led to the 30 rule on big screens, simply adapted for small screens. What is the objection to this? Abtract 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Your current change seems OK as it accords with current practices. I'm not sure I see your point about TOC and screen size, since the TOC is visible when using TOCright. I've rearranged the sentences a bit--and clarified that the use of TOCright is not dependent on use olevel two section headings. older ≠ wiser 14:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I may have explained it badly, the screen size point refers to the previous limit of 30 in the list before using level 2. I am happy with removing the limit. I have simplified it further but in doing so I went to the example page and found it uses level and level 3 so we may need a more typical example.Abtract 14:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Your reword[1] implied that subject area headings and second level headings can be used interchangeably, which is not current practice. This is a not-trivial revision that effects a large number of pages; please can you hold off on introducing it to the guideline until we've discussed it further on the talk page? --Muchness 14:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)I don't see that Aurora uses more than two levels. There may be some confusion over the difference between Wiki section levels and HTML heading levels. Basically, a top-level section heading in Wiki terms (i.e., constructed with ==Section title== translates into an HTML H2, and a level two section heading (i.e., constructed with ===Section title=== translates into an HTML H3. HTML H1 is always reserved for the article title. Help:Section explains a bit (although that is pretty dense going for a help page, IMO). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) may be a little better. older ≠ wiser 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand but why does this guideline say only one level should normally be used when Aurora uses 2? On the other matter I hope you dont mind if I remove the word 'very' from the guideline. Abtract 17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It says that typically only a single level of headings are needed. It identifies Aurora as an example of a case where an additional level of headings may be appropriate. older ≠ wiser 19:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
OK I see. I have claryfied the wording to avoid anyone else misunderstanding.Abtract 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] header tags

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Help desk to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Header_tags

[edit] Merge proposal

There is a proposal to merge Johnson and Johnson (disambiguation) which you may wish to comment on here. CarolGray 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists containing people names - RFC

In accordance with the following recommendation

  • Entries should nearly always be sentence fragments. When the entry forms a complete sentence, do not include commas or periods at the end of the line.

and with the examples in the People section, I think this could be added (just after the recommendation quoted above)

For lists which consist of people names only also avoid any leading article (a/an, the). When the list contains mixed types of entries people names should conform to a common article usage style.

I'm under the impression that this is already intended and that I'm just spelling it out, but I thought to ask :-) Also I think MoS is better edited by native speakers, so I'd prefer someone else than me to actually insert the new text (possibly shortening it a bit :-)). —Gennaro Prota•Talk 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got the general idea with the first sentence. I don't quite understand the second one but I'm sure you've got the right impression — I'd appreciate it if you could give an example so that I get what you mean (please excuse my momentary stupidity :-)).
Possible wording for first sentence: "Do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role." Neonumbers 08:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's no stupidity at all: grasping 50% of what I say in my "English" is borderline genius :-) With the second sentence, I meant that there can be lists where some entries are people names and some are not, for instance Raglan (disambiguation). In such cases, while still preferable to avoid a, an, the, the omission could be jarring. Perhaps we could say: "Do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role, unless the omission jars with the other entries." —Gennaro Prota•Talk 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So you mean that the (grammatical) article should be included where there are other entries on the page that use an article? I disagree with that; in my mind, the absence of the article gives a distinct characteristic to entries on people, thereby making the fact that it's a person very clear. It's sort of standard practice (in places other than disambiguation pages) to just write, "Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia", or at least from what I've noticed, anyway.
Because we don't like MoS's to be too long, I would be more than happy with the first part only if we can be satisfied that there is a misunderstanding of that, or rather, a lack of understanding that that's recommended (i.e. it's actually needed). My two cents. Neonumbers 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 :-) Fine for me (first part only)! —Gennaro Prota•Talk 05:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entries that shouldn't be created, if they should be

In considering that sometimes such entries are placed on the page by people that include everything for the sake of it, and that sometimes such entries are placed on the page for no real reason at all, I propose that in section 5.1 "Examples of individual entries that should not be created", after the text:

However, if you find that another editor has felt the need to create such entries, please do not remove them.

that the following text be appended:

If you feel such an entry should be included, it is advisable to include an invisible comment and/or a note on the discussion page of that disambiguation page to explain why.

with or without further elaboration, or words to the same effect.

The idea is that where such an entry is deemed necessary, that and the reason is made clear so that someone else doesn't come along thinking it's been included just for the sake of it.

Please feel free to comment. Neonumbers 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. In fact, I think comments should generally be used more in Wikipedia (as well as todo-lists, but that's another issue :-)): providing rationales is important and easy to do when a choice is made; quite difficult to recover even a short time later. What do you think about changing "it is advisable to include" to simply "include"? If that doesn't sound rude, of course. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. And rather than use "include" twice, how about:
If you feel such an entry should be included, please add an invisible comment and/or a note...
CarolGray 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been one week. Any other comments? If no objections on or before 18 December 2006 (UTC), I'll add that sentence. Neonumbers 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neo, thanks for taking care of this. BTW, about the "and/or"... my experience is that many editors don't look at the talk page before editing, so I'd favor suggesting to add the comment anyway (not as an alternative to a talk page note) plus, if needed, a talk page explanation. Does that make sense? BTW2: What about my proposal about avoiding the leading article (a/an, the)? That's an old one now as well. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 03:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline on whether to create separate dab pages for slight variations?

Hi. There's a disambiguation page at Passage, and there are three articles that could be intended by The Passage — the St. Petersburg department store, The Passage (band) and The Passage (Battlestar Galactica). (There's also apparently a film starring James Mason, but it doesn't have a page yet.) Right now, a hatnote at The Passage directs readers towards the band's page, but there's nothing for the other meanings of "The Passage". Should a separate dab page be created at The Passage (disambiguation), or should the hatnote at The Passage point towards the general dab page Passage?

I couldn't find any advice on what to do in a case like this in the guideline — should something be added? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a separate dab page at The Passage (disambiguation); if anyone thinks it's redundant, feel free to change it to a redirect to Passage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Your last option above is the right one, point to the general dab page. The new dab page is really not needed. I don't think the guideline is explicit on whether to have a dab page that includes the definite article, but most editors would put "The Passage" and "Passage" on the same dab page. The hatnote in "The Passage" should point to the dab page at "Passage". The new dab page "The Passage (disambiguation)", while much prettier, has been redirected to "Passage" per your invitation. It's ironic that the major article "The Passage" is qualified only by the definite article, since the Russian language has no definite or indefinite articles. Chris the speller 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this discussion would have been better placed on the talk page for WP:D instead of the talk page for WP:MOSDAB, since it does not just concern the style of a dab page, so if you want other opinions, or more detail on this question, you may get more responses or better responses over there. Chris the speller 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I also went on to the old dab page (a poster child for WP:MOSDAB} and worked it over. Chris the speller 17:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris. I noticed that Passage needed a lot of work, but didn't have the energy to take care of it last night. The redirect is fine by me — I just wasn't sure what the usual practice in a case like this was. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed exemplary Human name dab

I would like to request feedback on Robert Johnson. I like the way it has evolved. I have tried to format other dab pages like and have been contested by other editors on the see also section. The major points of contestation are the propriety of including the surname and the list of names in the see also section. I think in Human name dabs these should be standard and this dab makes it clear why. If people agree, I would even like to note such a belief on the MOSDAB page itself. TonyTheTiger 22:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I would want to see upon typing "Robert Johnson" and pressing go! Wareh 03:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you think there should be an amendment to MOSDAB to describe this type of see also section. TonyTheTiger 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Robert Johnson looks very good. I've made some trivial punctuation changes. Of course, the incoming links need to be fixed since this may reveal some more Robert Johnsons who should be added. Then I would be happy to see this quoted on the Mos:DAB as an example to follow. One small query - in the example at section 7, Longer lists, we've got a slightly different style of subheading:

In science:

whereas in Robert Johnson we have:

In politics

I think we should choose one or the other and be consistent about it. CarolGray 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a preference for the formatting, but I find the semi-colon is slightly easier to do.
Thanks for your support for specifically expressing desire for inclusion of Surname and List of People by name in the See also section. I have worked on several dabs, although I do not have your expertise. I am wondering how to handle the 2/3rds match. William Johnson provides an additional concern for a 2/3rds match that Robert Johnson and Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) do not provide in their Middle name sections. Should this be split in two sections in this instance.
Also, it is important to confirm that these larger names still suggest Norman Johnson and Sam Houston (disambiguation) should have the sections I include at the bottom, which is the point I am hoping to address in my See also section clarification. TonyTheTiger 20:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The subheading that CarolGray refers to should match the manual. The idea is that only the keyword is bolded.
The page is well constructed, but I have some small comments about inclusion of entries.
In the see also section, there should not be a need to include a link to "all other names", either first or last, because someone who typed in "Robert Johnson" would not be looking for "Michael Johnson" or something like that. The misspellings are okay. Middle names should not be included; we would expect them to type in "Jeremy Johnson" to get to "Jeremy Robert Johnson". Everything named after Robert Wood Johnson needn't be there because they refer to things, not people; someone who expects to type in "Robert Johnson" to get there can go through the "Robert Wood Johnson" page. I will say, though, that it was very wise to include those in the see also section rather than the main body.
In short: The question is not if it is part of the name, or if someone could possibly expect to get there, but whether they could reasonably expect to get there. Try to include entries of confusion rather than possibilities.
Remember that disambiguation is not a search function. We have an internal search engine for that purpose, so 2/3 matches can be omitted if chance of confusion is little.
For a page of this length, I would consider (though not necessarily recommend) removing redlinks altogether.
I must say, though, that the page is very well constructed and, in term of inclusion, entries are generally very well selected. I'm reluctant to have certain pages as exemplars though; the reality is that even in something like this, oddities can and do arise, and I think the guidance in the manual should be sufficient. My two cents. Neonumbers 03:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I add "(keyword only in bold)" after "The list may be broken up by subject area" here? CarolGray 08:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly don't mind that addition, though (on a somewhat unrelated note) I will say I'd be careful not to encourage use of subject areas too much, because they don't always work (their use often compromises the "most likely target comes first" principle). Neonumbers 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
By length of discourse Neonumbers has singlehandedly rebutted 3 people heading toward a consensus. I am going to set up a separate page with alternatives at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)/seealso. With respect to human names there is generally consensus on what the most common name is for living persons. However, with respect to historical figures it is a bit harder to establish. Nonetheless, we should certainly assume that the page creator diligently chose correct name. That is the way wikipedia is built. I think there is always room for disagreement on the most common name of individuals. The question is when someone types in Robert Johnson, William Johnson or any name with many common given variants do they truly want to see 1.) only those pages with the formal name, 2.) those pages with the formal name and common related names, 3.) all possible related names. Lets say for example a notable "Roberto Johnson" bio article is entered into WP. Suppose also that he is equally well known by an anglicized "Robbie Johnson". Regardless of whether such an article is named Robbie or Roberto, it may very well end up in Johnson before the See also section of Robert Johnson if we make it a policy to add common alternative names to such a section. Do we want to exclude Johnson with this in mind. TonyTheTiger 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
(unindent) The idea of inclusion-exclusion can be thought of in this way, to ensure extraneous links aren't there:
Could someone looking for Target Page reasonably expect the article to be named, or expect to get there by typing in, Disambiguation Page?
A good measuring stick is that if Target Page is often referred to by people as "Disambiguation Page", then it's a reasonable expectation.
For Robbie Johnson, someone looking for "Robbie Johnson" would not type in "Roberto Johnson", because they'd probably normally call Robbie "Robbie". We generally wouldn't be so nice even as to give them a link to it on a "Johnson" dab page, because there are so many Johnsons that they can't reasonably expect to get to a specific Johnson in that way, but we give them the courtesy of directing them to an extensive list of Johnsons that was designed to be an extensive list (not a dab page).
By contrast, someone looking for what we call an alphanumeric keyboard normally probably just calls it a "keyboard", and would probably type in "keyboard" and expect to find that article. Same goes for musical keyboard.
I generally tend to consider the "see also" section very rarely used, typically for misspellings and links to the list of people in cases of last name dabs only. Neonumbers 05:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I personally think that there is room for separate rules for each separate dab tag without causing anarchy. Generally, the difference between Google search results and dab pages are as you say. What I am proposing is essentially a main section that conforms to traditional wiki dab rules and a see also section that adds many googlish links that are suggested by the general MOSDAB. I think generally dab see also sections in WP are for things you should not be expecting when you enter the search term. Note however that this takes several of the official dab items and attaches special human name dab rules to them. Basically, item 2 is exemplified by Lacey Robert Johnson or Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, item 3 is exemplified by Bob Johnson, and I am not sure about item 4 as it pertains to human name dabs. I think adding the Surname and LoPbN pages serves both to help the user as the existing manual suggest by listing "Terms which can be confused with Title" and and to validate the hard work of our editors. The proposed term accounts for the existing manual's "Likely misspellings of Title". I am not sure what to point to for rational for reversing of name order, but it seems reasonable. I think given name could be justified as a way of listing "Terms which can be confused with Title", but it should be redundant with LoPbN. TonyTheTiger 16:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The principle we had in mind when designed the original manual is that disambiguation pages are to be consistent in format, simple, and short. My fear is that a lengthy see also section would compromise the shortness. Even though the important stuff is upfront and the other stuff is out of the way, the increased length of the page still creates extra content that, in a navigational aid, is best avoided.

With the order of entries, it's not on the manual, but that's intended mainly for things rather than people. Shouldn't apply to people dab pages, because (in theory) all entries on a people (First Last) dab page should be "First Last (clarifier)". The purpose of that suggested order is so that the disambiguating words line up nicely in one line, which make the target page easier to pick out, like this (made up with bogus descriptions):

  • Mouse (animal), a little furry thing that runs about
  • Computer mouse, a thing with two buttons
  • Mouse (music), a chord with more than three dissonances
  • Political mouse, a minor party that does not take part in coalitions
  • Mouse (game), a 1997 board game by GamesPeople
  • Wooden mouse, a traditional Fictionalese ornament
 compared to
  • Mouse (animal), a little furry thing that runs about
  • Mouse (music), a chord with more than three dissonances
  • Mouse (game), a 1997 board game by GamesPeople
  • Computer mouse, a thing with two buttons
  • Political mouse, a minor party that does not take part in coalitions
  • Wooden mouse, a traditional Fictionalese ornament

While it's normally (hopefully) also the order of importance (common usage), where it isn't, order of importance takes precedence over that order. The idea is that a scan of the page is sufficient, rather than having to read what's on the page. The reason I said that extra content is best avoided (above) is that, the more content, the harder the page is to scan—even if the unimportant stuff's at the bottom and clearly separated, it still makes it harder to skim through quickly. Maybe it's distracting, maybe it's just the idea of looking at a longer page (with a shorter scroll bar), but whatever it is, it means that the time spent on the dab page is longer.

This is why we strongly discourage extraneous links. It does involve a certain degree of, well, un-sympathy for those that don't quite know the name of what they're looking for, but that's what search engines are for. We allow for confusion, but not stupidity. It's a very subjective area, and certainly a gray area (and possibly insulting), but that's the idea (if not guideline). Just because Target Page has Disambiguation Page within its title, it doesn't make it suitable for inclusion. You seem to already understand all of that, for the "normal" section, anyway.

Historically (from what I've seen), dab pages almost never have a see also section, and my reasoning for generally discouraging see also sections is that they make the page longer and therefore harder to skim through, and the consequences, benefits and costs, as far as I can see are similar to having them in the main section.

As a sidenote, if "Robbie Johnston" was also known as "Roberto Johnston", then yes, that would merit inclusion. Sorry my post was so long. Neonumbers 02:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standardisation of names of two-letter combination pages

Currently, about 90% of the various 2LC dab pages use upper case for both letters; the remaining 10% use upper then lower. I'd like to see this standardised to both upper and have commented to such effect at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Standardisation of names of two-letter combination pages. Please comment there if you wish to voice an opinion! Grutness...wha? 12:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] first name dabs

Above I asked about Surname and List of People by name dabs. I was referring to the first 3 surname letters for the latter.

However, I am wondering whether First name dabs or first name articles should be in the see also section. E.G., should August Busch have both links to August and Busch in the see also section or just the latter TonyTheTiger 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither. But there should be a link to "List of people by name: Bus" in the [Busch (disambiguation)] page if there is one. Neonumbers 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Neonumbers. Disambiguation pages are not lists of free associations of tangentially connected topics where there is little risk of confusion. A link to August is almost certainly not needed there. I'm ambivalent about linking to Busch or List of people by name: Bus-Buz there. older ≠ wiser 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Given name or surname only

I'd like to bring attention to the two bullet points the section "The 'See also' section":

  • People with Title as a surname — if there are more than a handful of these, a separate Title (name) or Title (surname) page should be created
  • People with Title as a given name (rare/unusual names only — otherwise, entries should be moved to a separate Title (name) or Title (given name) page)

whilst considering the basic principle on Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

The "see also" section should be very, very rarely used — when we created this page, "see also" sections on disambiguation pages were almost unheard of, and we certainly didn't intend for that to change, and we really only intended it for misspellings, as outlined in the last two bullet points of that section. The intention at the time was that there should virtually never be more than one or two entries in it. Paraphrased, the "see also" section was intended to be part of the navigational aid, where people were wrong (wrong, not insufficient) in what they were looking for, so we directed them to the right place.

Most of us will know what the guideline prior to this was, so I won't need to explain what it is in further detail than that such entries were generally to be avoided. There was a reason for this, and that reason was the same reason the above guideline from Wikipedia:Disambigation exists: the page should be as short and simple as possible, having only what is necessary and directing the user intuitively to the right place. This principle also applies to the see also section, because it is still part of the page.

For this reason, I would suggest (not propose yet) that those two bullet points both be removed, with allowances for exceptional cases.

I have read the discussions leading to the addition of those two bullets, but I haven't figured out why the given name provision needs to be there. For the surname provision, although it is reasonable to expect some users to know the surname but not the given, I feel that the List of people by name exists for this purpose, which of course implies that a link there (from the see also section) is necessary: entering a surname only is not "ambiguous" such that there is "risk of confusion"; rather, it is insufficient information for us to direct the user directly to the right article.

I've said this in other discussions above, but that was before I realised the guidelines had changed. I know I'm being a little nostalgic (being someone that's been in this for a long time), but I hope either that I can gain a better understanding of the rationale for those changes, or that we can discuss this again. No rush — have a break over Christmas/New Year if we want before we go deeply into it. Neonumbers 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I read through that a couple days ago, and kind of thought "Huh?". Your point of linking to LOPBN in the See Also section makes lots of sense, and I think that would alleviate many of the concerns over entries of surnames being on the disambiguation pages. -- Natalya 05:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy for things to work this way. Related dabs are a little odd. It would be lovely if there were a magical template for linking to the right LOPBN page. Josh Parris#: 11:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ooo... that would be nice. I could see having someone input the first three letters of the name in question, but the problem would be that LOPBN has sections of names, not a page for each name. There must be some way to do it, though... hmm. -- Natalya 17:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree it would be nice, but I understand there are problems with linking dab pages to LoPbN, as described by Jerzy here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 26#Lk from Dabs into LoPbN?. CarolGray 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Christmas/New Year's break's over ;-)
Thank you for posting that link, CarolGray. I do not believe that such problems are significant; the fact that the list is in strict alphabetical order is, in my opinion, sufficient for the user to understand where he will find his desired person. Most of the list of people by name pages I have visited are well under the 32KB limit (not even kind of close), and myself having a dial-up connection, I do not believe that the pages take excessively long to download.
Naturally, whenever I remove people entries from a disambiguation page, I always ensure they are in the list (and enter them if they are not) before linking there.
I now propose that the two bullet points referred to above be removed, with allowances for exceptional cases.
Any further comments? Neonumbers 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
From this discussion I gather most of us are okay with this. If without further objection, I will delete those two bullet points after 11 January 2007 (UTC). Neonumbers 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm the person who added these bullet points, and I am happy to see them removed now. At the time, it was a compromise to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. Since then, the use of Name (surname) pages (which have the {{surname}} template and not {{hndis}}) has defused the conflict by taking the disputed material out of Category:Disambiguation. CarolGray 08:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with this, because Neonumbers isn't around just at the moment. CarolGray 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another request for advice

Hi guys,

I recently moved the page "Comment (computer programming)" to "Comment (computer language)". The reason is that comments are supported in pretty much all computer languages, not only the programming ones (e.g. in HTML). I was going to fix all resulting double-redirects when this doubt occurred to me: should it be "(computer language)" or "(computer languages)"? This doesn't seem to be covered in the manual, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. BTW, comments are generally allowed in configuration files too, for instance, so it seems that we have another specific problem: "computer languages" is too narrow, "computing" is too wide. Do we have a standard practice for similar issues? Thanks, Gennaro Prota•Talk 23:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I must be really half asleep. According to our page naming conventions "Comment (computer language)" suggests an article about a computer language named Comment :-( So perhaps we should lean towards "Comment (computer language construct)". The taxonomy problem I mentioned remains though (unless I'm going to discover that I'm 90% asleep) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 23:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gennaro, and Merry Christmas
Actually, the convention for programming languages is "Something programming language" (where it would be ambiguous otherwise), in the same way that French language is there and not at French. (I'm sure there's some reason for that convention.)
I would say use Comment (computing) (or Comment (programming), but you don't seem to like that), for the sake of simplicity. Looking at Comment, there's only one other meaning and I don't think (despite being computer-related) it falls under computing as such — I guess I could re-word this as, "it's not a geek's thing". That's what I think, anyway. Neonumbers 02:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Neonumbers, and Merry Christmas to you and all the helpful guys who watch these pages. Hopefully one day I will be knowledgeable enough about our guidelines to avoid boring you all the times :-) Yes, I think I'll rename it to "comment (computing)" which is enough for disambiguation. In honesty, the other entry, "Feedback comment system", looks a little misplaced there (if I had to look for the meaning of "feedback comment system" by using one word I guess I'd choose "feedback"). —Gennaro Prota•Talk 11:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hehe don't worry, that's what a wiki's all about... :-)
I'd say that for this case, "Feedback comment system" is a meritable entry, because they are generally called "comments" on things such as blogs (weblogs), Q&A such as Windows Live QnA and Yahoo! Answers, and similar things where users are invited to leave comments (feedback). Because they are known as "comments", they are suitable for entry.
One of the very, very few cases where I would be inclined for inclusion rather than exclusion on a disambiguation page. ;-) Neonumbers 12:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment (computing) seems like a good choice. I've taken care of one set of redirects by making Comment (programming) redirect directly to Comment (computing), rather than to Comment (computer programming). -- Natalya 16:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoops… thanks Natalya but please hold on! I was happy with the change but at least one user objected and I think we have opened a can of worms. You might want to comment (or just have a look and run :-)) on Talk:Comment (computing)#Article structure, disambiguation and scope. Thanks again for the collaboration though :-) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 19:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. No worries though, the redirects should be easily changed/moved as appopriate once agreement is made. -- Natalya 17:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Films, albums and songs

I would like to open a discussion on a suggested format for films, albums and songs. I've encountered a good few of these, and I think that it would be appropriate to suggest a format for them in the same way that we have suggested formats for people and places.

I've tended to format them as follows:

  • Happy Feet (film), a 2006 [animated] film directed by George Miller
  • Happy Feet (2006 film), a[n animated] film directed by George Miller
  • Stadium Arcadium (album), a 2006 rock album by the Red Hot Chili Peppers
  • Stadium Arcadium (Red Hot Chili Peppers album), a 2006 rock album
  • "Irreplaceable" (song), a 2006 R&B song by Beyoncé Knowles [from her album B'Day]
  • "Irreplaceable" (Beyoncé song), a 2006 R&B song [from her album B'Day]

where everything in [square brackets] is a sort of "maybe" inclusion.

I have also seen this around sometimes:

  • Stadium Arcadium (album), the ninth studio album from the Red Hot Chili Peppers

I don't really know what the format should be, but I think we should standardise the format for these entries. Any comments? Neonumbers 00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to standardize the format. Only put in the information needed to help users disambiguate the items and that depends to a great extent on what else is on the page.
If you are trying to understand how to determine the article title, look at WP:TITLE. If there is only one Happy Feet article, you don't need the (film), if there is only one film, you don't need the 2006. I leave out the disambiguating information that is in the title (the parenthetic stuff) from the following text unless it is gramatically necessary:
  • Happy Feet (film), a 2006 animated film
I personally would leave out the "directed by George Miller" as that wouldn't help most people understand which "Happy Feet" they are looking for. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
We could give guidelines, I guess, but it seems like for the most part, common sense allows people to appropriate describe the entries. If there are multiple movies by the same name, people will list the year. If they happen to be in the same year, chances are they will list the director. Perhaps I give "people" too much credit, but I like to think we're all vaguely competent people. If we do feel it's necessary, perhaps we can say something along the lines of "if there is confusion, descriptions should be able to be distinguished from similar articles from one another", or something of the like. -- Natalya 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly not questioning the judgement of editors — I see this as one of those situations where many ways are as good as each other, but if it's always done the same way, it makes life a bit easier. I draw a comparison to people — a standardised format for that makes life easier, even if there are various ways (all of common sense) of doing it.
(By the way, those examples were all made up, and the article name determines the dab entry, not the vice versa, which is why I listed both (film) and (2006 film) to demonstrate. For obvious reasons, information already contained in the clarifier is omitted in the description unless grammatically necessary.)
Because what we know about albums/films/songs (and what there is to know about albums/films/songs) tends to be the same from album to album, I think this is feasible. It would beat (the made up):
  • Songs and Mayhem (Invisibles album), a 2006 alternative rock album
  • Songs and Mayhem (Justin Timberlake album), a pop album released in 1997
  • Songs and Mayhem (Blue Riders album), released in 2004
  • Songs and Mayhem (DP7 album), the eighth studio album by DP7 released in 1989
  • Songs and Mayhem (Happy People album), the band Happy People's fourth album
  • Songs and Mayhem (John Musicson album), the first country album by singer John Musicson
many of which contain roughly similar information — just in different ways; and all of which I would consider to be common sense descriptions (albeit some more than others), and none of which I would consider to be extraneous. This is what I mean by "format". Neonumbers 03:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's where I would disagree. Much of this information is extraneous. Most people would be able to tell by the artists name which one they are looking for. In some cases, the date or music style would be useful, _depending on what else is on the page!_. But its extremely unlikely that the fact that it is the 8th album by the artist won't help in the disambiguation. If that's the information they are looking for, they would (IMHO) have to click through to the article. The balancing advantage being a "less busy" dab page. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay—that's exactly the type of comment I was hoping to get from someone. From what I've seen, the six formats above are often used, sometimes on the same page, and that's why I'd like there to be a guideline on this matter. As you suggest, the guideline would be wise to avoid againsed "the eighth studio album". I could take the director of a film as being extraneous as well.

I would argue that the date (and maybe genre), however, would be useful. There are many songs/album for which I know the title but not the artist (in fact, that might be why I'd be looking up the song/album), but it's normally easy to recall some indication of the release date — even if it's nothing more than "recent", "about five years ago", or "decades ago". Genre, same thing goes. I still stand by genre and release date, and in the case of albums/songs, artist.

My point in the six bullet points I posted above what to demonstrate how the same information could be presented in different ways, and how it would work better (like people entries) if we had one standard way of doing it. The standard way could even be, "if it's necessary, to put in the year, write '2006 album' instead of 'released in 2006'" or "write 'rock album' instead of 'album with rock songs'", without prescribing what content. Compare just the first three bullets to see what I mean.

By "what else is on the page", do you mean what other albums/films/songs, whether there are other albums/films/songs, or what's there that's not an album/film/song? I don't see how the other content would affect this in most instances (though of course there are always exceptional cases). Neonumbers 23:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"if it's necessary, to put in the year, write '2006 album' instead of 'released in 2006'" or "write 'rock album' instead of 'album with rock songs'" -- To me, this feels like unnecessary micromanaging. Is there really an issue with not having each description for an entry standardized? There are already many guidelines for disambiguation pages, and an overage of them will likely turn more people away from editing them. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? I see why guidelines would be helpful, but I feel like they might do more harm than help. -- Natalya 00:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(had an edit conflict with Natalya, but I tend to agree. . .) The goal of the page is NOT to provide information about the items, it is to guide the user to the appropriate page, so if there is just one album/film/song, then an entry

would be enough for me. But I don't mind what is actually there:

Both tell me which article I am looking for without cluttering up the page with too much stuff. I'm not sure what a guideline beyond that gives us. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My concern lies primarily with the volume of album entries on Wikipedia. Having a normal way of writing entries of this type would, in my opinion, facilitate the ease of navigation in disambiguation pages. Unlike most categories of entries, albums, films and songs are (comparatively and generally) not situation-dependant.
Naturally, a guideline like this would concern primarily pages of muliple album/film/song entries.
Likewise, for people we have a normal way of: name, date of birth/death, and short description of what he did. Providing an example (just like the one Jwy posted in the last post) would be sufficient (in fact, almost perfect).
If, in your view, the volume of album/film/songs entries is insignificant, then I see where you're coming from: the reason I think this is worthwhile is because there are enough of these types of entries in Wikipedia for inconsistency to look like clutter (as in the above example). Is it the volume of entries that's insignificant? Neonumbers 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Either one of my Revolver examples works. I don't know why we have to enforce one over the other. If there are many albums on one page, the information that best disambiguates them depends on the albums, not on the "volume" of them. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistency. The main Manual of Style once said that "one way is often as good as another, but if everyone does things the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read, write and edit". I don't know why it's not there anymore, but see that principle as applying here. There's nothing much else to it, which is why I say that the greater the volume of a type of entry, the more justification there is in making all those entries consistent. Many (if not most) manual of style guidelines exist for the sole purpose of making things consistent. It could be argued that this is not a resolution of a problem, but an attempt to improve through consistency.

The former Revolver example would not work for a page with multiple entries on it. (Please at least try to understand what I'm saying! Natalya seems to be able to...) If you want a good example, consider this extract from Evolution (disambiguation):

and compare it to:

Which is faster to scan? Does the second format help? But is the first format wrong? All I've done is I've applied a consistent format. Nothing else, really. Now, say I knew that I was after an album called "Evolution", but I didn't know its band, but I knew it was old. Or if I knew its title, but not its band, and I knew that it wasn't pop/rock/similar genre (like R&B), and that it's not a Chinese album. Then what would I do? What if there the follow-up descriptions weren't there?

Of course, you might be of the opinion that the second version is no better than the first. If that's the case, then say so. Would common sense lead everyone to exactly the same format? There are multiple ways of succeeding, but being consistent would help navigation. There'd have to be a sufficient volume of these types of entries (in all of Wikipedia, not per page) to make it worth it, though, but I think there are, and that's what I'm asking.

Oh, and please try not think anything on this manual as "enforcement", just guidance... applied with elasticity and so on... Neonumbers 04:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The second example is certianly more streamlined, but I feel like many people will skip right to the descriptions of the links, and not read the band names in the parenthetical clarifiers the links themselves. (Though it could just be me) Even the guidelines for links involving people are very free: "For people, include their birth and death years (when known), and only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name." That really seems sufficient for any example, and there certainly are lots of entries for people on Wikipedia. -- Natalya 04:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, we originally designed this manual in the assumption that people wouldn't skip right to the descriptions (in fact, that the clarifiers might be all they need, and the descriptions are there as a courtesy for those that need a bit more info to make their selection)... that was the idea, anyway (lol ^^)
Strangely, I feel that people guideline to be reasonably strict... well, the examples (in my mind, anyway) show how to include the birth/death dates and the descriptive information (it's a bit subjective but it shows clearly what should be done)... could be just how I see it, but yeah.
In line with that, I was thinking something like, "For films, albums and songs, include their release dates, genres, and in the case of music, artists (if not already in the clarifier)." followed by examples (one of each will do).
I think that this would work for almost all cases (but that's mainly because I've yet to see a case where it doesn't work, i.e. more info for whatever reason should be there). In the case of single entries, I don't see how it causes a hindrance. Same point with consistency applies; and that most descriptions I've encountered have been longer than "a 2006 animated film". Neonumbers 10:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean to be frustrating. I do understand what you are saying, I think I just poorly expressed myself in response. My Revolver examples assumed they were the only album on the page - they would have to be expanded if someone had the audacity to re-use the name for another album. I think the question is down to how important conststency is. For the functional purposes of article finding, in your Evolution example _just the links_ would work for me without ANY descriptions. I dislike the first example as it does have too much non-ambiguating material. I like to make sure we don't lose the main focus of "article finding." In many cases, what you are suggesting IS useful disambiguating information, maybe unnecessary. But in some cases there might be better criteria ("featured in the film Butch Cassidy and the Sundannce Kid") might be good for. . . that bike riding song, where it ambiguous.
That said, I'm one that goes in and puts birth/death dates on dab pages even when they are not "necessary." So I have to fess up to being a bit ambiguous about this concept. I just don't like rules for rules sake. If the guideline suggestion is for concise and pertinent information, I wouldn't complain. I would suggest if there is to be guidlines for film, we keep it to, e.g. "A 2006 comedy film," and only suggest further information if it truly helps dabbing. For example, Hitchcock films probably could use "a 1960 horror film directed by Alfred Hitchcock" Again, sorry for seeming and/or being obtuse. (John User:Jwy talk) 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you've hit what's been bothing me about this, Jwy; "rules for rules sake". Neonumbers, your suggested guideline (in your most recent post) is fine, I just don't think it's necessary, because it's already being done. That being said, I'm sure it won't be harmful if it is put up. -- Natalya 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah — I thought there must've been some case where additional information might be useful for this case (there's always exceptions), I just couldn't think of any... In the event that there are guidelines for films/albums/songs, I pretty much agree wtih what Jwy suggested. And apology accepted. My view is that it's not already being done (most descriptions are overdone) — but that could well be just because I've only ever encountered cases where it isn't (which is entirely possible).
Anyway, we all seem to understand each other now — I'm going to let it sit for a month or two while I have a look at some more dab pages (in my normal course of editing on Wikipedia) and think about it some more. Thanks for your comments, Jwy and Natalya. Neonumbers 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I hope you don't feel like we shot your idea down or anything; there's been some good discussion. Thanks, -- Natalya 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for a civil discussion. I see from your user page that consistency is an important issue with you. I'm glad you are reasonable with those of us that don't share that passion, but share your passion for making this a good encyclopedia. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First name dab pages

What exactly is the thinking about disambiguation pages for first names? A while back I created a disambiguation page at Edwina, mainly because I didn't think that the M*A*S*H episode "Edwina" quite merited being placed there. Now someone has added a paragraph about the meaning and history of the name. Is this kosher? (By the way, I realize that the "People with the given name Edwina" should be divided between real and fictional, and the real ones should have dates — I'll take care of that after I know whether the "history of the name" section should go.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others have to say about this as well. John (and others) used to have similar info. I cleaned up the page and split out the etymology to John (name). That was the best thing I could think of doing. - grubber 02:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear to me ... "Edwina" the name should have its own article and be just one line on the dab page; dab pages are not the place for explanations simpy a method for redirection. I will edit Edwina accordingly, see what you think Abtract 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the "People" section should be on the Edwina (name) page, not on the dab page. CarolGray 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Edwina (name) is about the name itself not people with that name. Abtract 21:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, folks: I'll try to bring Edwina into keeping with the MoS. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I moved Edwina (name) from the toplink to the main part of the disambiguation page, since it is not the primary topic. -- Natalya 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's clarify with the various CC templates once and for all

Hello my disambiguating friends,

We've all been through the many discussions about the various "CC" templates: {{2CC}}, {{3CC}}, {{4CC}}, {{5CC}}. The situation has been clarified much more than it used to, but somehow it still seems to be somewhat cloudy. I feel that we should, as a whole, decide if/how these templates should be use, and make it really clear, so that it's easy for everyone working with disambiguation pages.

The clearest usage of the templates that we have is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#The_disambig_notice. It's not too bad. The question we have to answer is Do we really need to use these templates? I know there has been much debate about it in the past, and in theory, there isn't much wrong with the templates; they've been modified to be similar to the {{disambig}} notice, and all pages which use any of the "CC" templates are listed under Category:Disambiguation. The problem I've seen lately is that pages that include many entries that are acronyms, but are not soley devoted to acronyms, may be incorrectly tagged with one of the CC templates. XXX reminded me of this, and is the most recent occurance, but it has also happened in the past. Of course it's not a big deal, and can be easily changed back, but is there any reason to have that confusion in the first place? The differences between the CC templates at {{disambig}} are rather subtle, and with so many things of the CC templates already being nearly the same as {{disambig}}, is now the appropriate time to cease using the CC templates? Since we are the ones who do a large part of the work with disambiguation pages, we should figure it out.

And if we decide to keep using them, that's totally fine too. Whatever is best for us is great. What we should do then is then clarify when they are to be used (ie, when all the entries are acronyms), and make sure that it is the same throughout all disambiguation pages. Let's just figure it out once and for all.

For anyone who is curous, a (rather large!) number of discussions on this topic can be found in the first section of the manual of style index of archives.

Thanks, everyone! It will be good for us to clarify this, to make working with disambiguation pages easier for everyone. -- Natalya 00:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote to retire the CC templates. Josh Parris 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
So do I. --Smack (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
So do I. CarolGray 08:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
For what its worth I also agree ... and while you are about it, why do we need {{Geodis}}, {{Hndis}} and {{Numberdis}}? They add very little except the potential for confusion. Abtract 09:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
True. They seem to fall under the same category; let's consider them all together, then. -- Natalya 15:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Retire them all. Any common characteristic (if there is one) can be handled in the intro sentence: "Page title refers to various places in the United States:" or "Page Title is an acronym that may stand for:", etc. Maintaining all these templates and making sure they get used "properly" in dab pages seems like a lot of work for no benefit. - grubber 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of retiring the CC templates; they are inconsistently used at best, and it's hard to imagine a need for the distinction between short words and short acronyms. The extremely occasional need for such distinction can probably be attained from articles like List of all two-letter combinations.
I'd be more hesitant to retire the other templates. They seem much more cleanly defined and thus less prone to wasting time over whether items belong there. Also, I can see the Wikipedia of 2017 having subtly different behavior with such pages. For instance, links to a {{shipindex}} page could automatically prompt italicizing the ship's name. Slightly more implausibly, all geodis pages might have automatically generated maps a la the Congo disambig page to make it clear which place is which (an enhancement for the far future!). While I probably wouldn't argue to implement geodis today, I can't say that it's so clearly useless that we should delete it, either. You never know, and the work has already been done. That said, numberdis seems pretty loosely defined, and could lead to wasted effort- while it's fairly obvious when hndisambig is proper (it's all names!), numberdis is a bit more subtle, so it may not be worth the effort to maintain that one. SnowFire 04:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point, but given the current state of the software, I would like them to act identically. Would it be worth our while to maintain several identical-looking templates? Or can we redirect the specialized templates to {{disambig}}? --Smack (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If we do consider keeping any of the templates, it seems like {{Geodis}} and {{Hndis}} would be the ones that are most valid. In usage, I would imagine they lead to the least confusion. I'm still not sure if they're worthwile to keep, but I can see why they might have advantages sometime in the future. Still, there could be some confusion in their use (albiet much less than with the CC templates and {{Numberdis}}). Although it is tagged correctly, Middlesex (disambiguation) deals almost solely with locations, but also has a couple of non-location entries; I could see there being confusion similiar to pages that are mostly, but not all, CC templates. Perhaps that would occur, perhaps it wouldn't. There are currently geographical disambiguation pages simply using the disambig tag (New Boston was the first example I came across), so it doesn't seem like there is too much consistancy. Whichever we decide, however, we should just be sure to make it clear when those tags should be used. I guess we have to weigh the possible future benefits against the current confusion. -- Natalya 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If we did deprecate/delete {{2CC}} et al, what would happen to Category:Lists_of_two-character_combinations? Are we arguing that this category is also not useful? - grubber 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly? That's just my thought, though. Pages can have multiple categories that encompass their contents, and the doesn't really seem to be a point of confusion. However, if the category goes along with the CC tags, we might have to manually readd them if we delete/redirect the templates to {{disambig}}. That might get ugly. -- Natalya 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well here's my concern: I personally dont think {{2CC}} is useful. I think the category could be considered useful (I've never been a fan of categories as it is, but that's a different matter). Here's some possibilities and their problems:
  1. Delete {{2CC}}, replace with {{disambig}}, but keep the category. Well, we'd have to add the pages to the category somehow, so we would need to add the [[Category:...]] to the page. But, then that would something a template could do cleanly and nicely. But we just deleted the template that does that.
  2. Keeping {{2CC}} but changing it so that it redirects to/matches/etc {{disambig}}. The wording has changed, but the problem most of us seem to have with the template is its consistent use and its maintenance burden.
  3. Delete {{2CC}}, replace with {{disambig}}, and delete the category. Are we losing something useful?
I'm not sure what else we could do. None of these 3 options sounds any better than what we have now. Any ideas? - grubber 17:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
What if we got a bot to manually add the appropriate categories to the pages currently using the CC templates? (Providing we continue to agree that the CC templates are not useful). If we can get a bot to do that, and I know there are some disambig bots floating around (hopefully the coding wouldn't be too hard), it would make the manual labor much less challenging. I bet that if the CC templates got deleted, a bot could even replace all the pages that use them with the disambig tag. -- Natalya 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If the template was deleted but the category was kept for some reason, that could actually quite easily be done. Just change 3CC, etc. to look something like in this diff then order a bot to subst' them. It'll leave the disambig template and the category. SnowFire 17:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Good to know that it should not be so hard to do; the technical aspects of it are someone beyond me (or perhaps just require more thinking), but regardless, good! -- Natalya 19:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that still classifying pages into 2-CC-type categories is just shifting the burden from using templates to using categories. Although we're not reducing work-load, I suppose this would match the way ordinary pages work -- pages about math dont use a template to include the math category, but rather use explicit category tags. Sounds reasonable to me! - grubber 20:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Look here for the danger of having subject specific DABs. Whatever you decide on categories, surely all but the main DAB template must go? Abtract 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've swapped the templated already (for all those interested, it was using {{hndis}}, but certainly not only about human names.)
It seems like there is consensus to stop using the CC templates (though we should certainly leave this discussion going for a bit before replacing anything). Somewhat less certain are the hndis, geodis, and numberdis? How can we address those ones?
Additionally, if we stop using the CC templates, do we want to delete them and replace them with {{disambig}}, or do we just want to redirect them? Redirecting them would certainly be faster, but it seems like having them on the pages would still be kind of confusing, though perhaps it's just me. -- Natalya 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuke all the CC's. They're template-cruft at best. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there should be only one template ... {{disambig}} ... the subject-specific ones should be deleted and replaced by it. Abtract 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Before any are replaced in pages, we should make sure those pages get added to the approrpiate categories that those templates added before. Otherwise, we will lose information. - grubber 21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definitly. Just as a reference, the following would need to be added:
  • Pages using {{2CC}}: [[Category:Lists of two-character combinations|{{PAGENAME}}]]
  • Pages using {{3CC}}: [[Category:Lists of three-character combinations|{{PAGENAME}}]]
  • Pages using {{4CC}}: [[Category:Lists of four-character combinations|{{PAGENAME}}]]
  • Pages using {{5CC}}: [[Category:Lists of five-character combinations|{{PAGENAME}}]]
  • Pages using {{hndis}}: [[Category:Lists of ambiguous human names|<noinclude>*</noinclude>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}]]
I don't know all the extra tags are saying, but probably something about how it is listed in the category.
  • Pages using {{geodis}}: [[Category:Ambiguous place names]]
  • Pages using {{numberdis}}: [[Category:Lists of ambiguous numbers]]
Do we need "PAGENAME" for these last two? Do we even need it for the CC ones? I'm not super familiar with template usage.
When/if we go ahead with this, I imagine we'll have to put them all up for TFD to actually go through with it. It's good that we're gaining consensus and ironing out how this would go about. Does anyone have/know of a bot that would be able/willing to do the replacement of categories, and then replace all the templates that were deleted with {{disambig}}? There seem to be quite a few that do similar things at Wikipedia:Registered bots, but I don't know if we have to figure it out beforehand, or if it will automatically be taken care of if the TfD goes through. I imagine we could put all the parts together at the TfD, saying that first the categories will be put in, and then the templates replaced. -- Natalya 22:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't especially care for the CC templates, but can see some justification for hndis and geodis. I wonder though, if we are going to keep the CC categories, then why not use the templates to automatically add the category rather than having to use a two-step process (1. add disambig and 2. add category). I think that was the genesis of the templates. And I think the main objections I"ve seen raised is in variations in language in the templates. Seems we could use a single message for all (or most of the templates) and transclude them in the specialized templates along with the categories. I mean, it seems as though we may be making more work and making things even more complicated if we keep the categories but do away with the templates.

Also, I don't think the hndis category can be easily substituted -- with articles of the form "Firstname Lastname", they are *supposed* to be sorted in the template as "Lastname, Firstname". older ≠ wiser 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So just change the wording of the CC templates to match {{disambig}}? That would certainly be a lot less work, and would save the categories. What happens to future disambiguation pages, though? Would they continue to use the depricated CC templates just to get the cateogry? For some reason that seems kind of odd, but it might just be me. -- Natalya 13:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Eh, not really. If the category is kept, then there'd actually be a mild reason to keep the CC templates for precisely that purpose, the ease of adding the category.
Anyway, I don't think that there's any need for a hurry on the non-CC templates. The CC change may bring other people out of the wordwork when they notice it happening to discuss the other templates. I'd propose that first we go to CFD and put the cats Category:Lists of two-character combinations, Category:Lists of three-character combinations, etc. up for deletion/merging. See if others think that those categories serve some usage. If the consensus is keep, then we just change the CC templates to be {{disambig}} copies with the category added a la the diff mentioned above. If the consensus is delete, then we can just wipe the now totally useless CC templates completely, and put them up for TFD. (Though "delete" should probably include a merge as well for the list entries in each category, like Wikipedia:TLAs from AA0 to DZ9 and so on to parent category Category:Lists of abbreviations. SnowFire 14:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Adding a category explicitly is what is done on almost every page on wikipedia. If the article is about Widgets in Australia, then we add a [[Category:Widgets in Australia]] tag at the bottom of the page; we dont create a template for the specific purpose of including a page in a certain category. That's just one more layer of maintenance. The {{2CC}} et al should be completely deleted, regardless of what happens to the category. - grubber 15:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer we Keep All. It's all very well to say a bot can quickly and easily replace all the short tags with the longer disambig-plus-category tags, but what about the added workload we place on everyone after that who's creating a new such page? There's also an increased chance of typo error or omission. Why make things harder? We use shortcuts for so many other things -- policies, guidelines, admin notice boards and other processes -- why disallow these handy shortcuts? They provide utility without a lot of upkeep, which seems to me like a great deal.

As to simply dropping the categories themselves... there's a project to replace the various "Lists of Wikipedians who _____" with categories, precisely because the lists tend to fall out of date, while the categories are to some extent self-updating. The same reasoning should apply here. Yet this proposal seems to feature deleting the categories in favor of the lists, adding still more future workload. Why? -- Ben 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The categories are up for deletion as well as the templates. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 9#Character Combination lists To a point I agree with you, that if the categories are kept, it is counterproductive to delete the templates. But no one has really explained why those categories are needed. What is their use? If there isn't a good rationale for the categories' existence, then I see no reason they shouldn't all be deleted. older ≠ wiser 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the common non-Wiki types of FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) files on the Web and Usenet is the "Jargon" file, of which acronyms form a sizable part. People want to know what comments like "HTH" and "TINC" mean. These sets of 3CC, 4CC, etc., are a Wiki way to answer such questions. You and I and others here may not need such explanations; but new Wikipedians and Net-users arrive every day, and at some point will have questions like "This guy referred to "NIT"; is he referring to lice, calling me a nit-picker, or something else?" Soon after that comes "Cool; so what other acronyms are used?" These categories help answer that question. -- Ben 00:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't the search function allow that to happen too? I would imagine people would be much more likely to search for a term than to look through a list to find it. -- Natalya 00:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Searching for an acronym may show you hundreds of pages where it is used, among which (eventually) you find one where it is defined. But that may not even be the definition that applies, which is why there are disambiguation pages. So the _CC definition/disambiguation pages (and their categories) speed the process immensely. -- Ben 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how do these categories assist a person who wants to find out what HTH or TINC mean? I mean, seriously, you type in the abbreviation/acronymn in the search box and you either get a topic or the disambiguation page. How do these categories help in such an activity? older ≠ wiser 02:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The categories show you just the disambiguation pages, so you don't have to look through all the pages that use-but-don't-define or define-one-usage-but-not-all. As a result, the categories list explicitly multiple-meaning acronyms, flagging them as ambiguous (which is why they needed disambiguation), while a search may find so many hits on one usage that (unless you look at every topic page found) you may think that's the only usage out there. Since articles have not been created for all such usages (see the redlinks at CAMP and NIT for examples), even looking at every topic page found, for pages and pages of search hits, may not cover all the usages, so getting just the disambiguation pages straight away would be more helpful. -- Ben 12:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still don't see how these categories will help a person who wants to know what a particular abbreviation/acronymn means. Are you seriously suggesting that they would find it easier to browse the category than use the search box. That seems unlikely. older ≠ wiser 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-proposal

One problem with Category:Disambiguation is that it's so darn big. With other big categories, we use subcategories to break them down into more manageable sizes: novelists and poets are grouped by nationality, and each categorized in, for instance, "Russian poets" or "French poets" rather than the overall "Poets" category, so only the un-subcategorizable show up in the top category. Maybe, "to be consistent", the same organizing principle should apply here.

Rather than eliminate the 2CC, 3CC, etc., special-categories, perhaps we should subdivide the disambig category, to get that top category tag off most of the entries:

  • Disambiguation
    • Biographical disambiguation (personal names)
    • Geographical disambiguation (place names)
    • Acronym disambiguation (non-word strings)
      • 2-character combinations
      • 3-character combinations
      • 4-character combinations
      • 5-character combinations
      • 6-or-more-character combinations
    • (Other) Word disambiguation (including words that may also serve as acronyms) ...

Pages to disambig words that also serve as acronyms should have both the "single-word" tag and the appropriate "acronym"-or-subsubcategory tag, so they show up in both lists. Add other subcategories as needed to keep the top category to a reasonable size. Only those disambig pages outside all the subcategories would still have the "Category:Disambiguation" tag and show up individually in that top category. Sound feasible? -- Ben 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a useful subdivision of that big category. The nature of the pages is the word in question has several meanings and therefore difficult to categorize via meaning. Sure, the number of letters in the word is a clearly defined category, but almost as useful as categorizing by the second letter of the word. I think we have to "live" with the big category and use the alphabectical index that it has. I don't see that as a problem, really. How would one USE these subcategories you describe? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The same way one uses the subcategories of, say, Category:Novelists: most entries are in subsubcategories of subcategories like Category:Novelists by nationality; only those novelists whose nationality is unclear (e.g. through emigration while writing) or undisclosed are seen in the top category. As a result, Category:Novelists needs only one page for its entries instead of dozens. -- Ben 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, it's probably helpful to keep this discussion centralized, perhaps at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_9#Counter-proposal so that everyone can see it. -- Natalya 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since both the TfD and the corresponding CfD, as well as this counterproposal, could affect how Category:Disambiguation works -- they all amount to reorganizing the category, one way or another -- Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation should have been involved in this discussion from the beginning. -- Ben 19:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
All of the various disambiguation pages were alerted to the discussion here, as well as the corresponding TfD. I posted the recent messages because different people were responding to the proposal at different talk pages, which doesn't lend for a cohesive discussion. -- Natalya 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD

I've officially nominated 2CC, 3CC, 4CC, and 5CC for deletion (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 9). There seems to be overwhelming consensus formed here to delete those, but I want to make sure the process wonks are kept happy. There seems to be a less solid consensus about the other ones at this point, so I left those out. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songs without articles

Songs on dab pages fall into four categories:

  1. Songs with articles
  2. Songs without articles, which appeared in albums that do have articles
  3. Songs without articles, from albums without articles, by musicians with articles
  4. Songs without articles, from albums without articles, by musicians without articles

The first category is straightforward: we just link to the song. The last category is also fairly clear: we delete those entries. But what should we do for the other two? --Smack (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I usually link to the most specific thing available and leave the rest unlinked. Whether to delete the entry or not is more complicated. I agree with you about category 4, but the others I usually just leave unless there is a compelling reason to believe its not a useful entry to have. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto Jwy. older ≠ wiser 03:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto again. For category 2, on occasion I will link both the album and the musician if there is something relevant about the song in both articles. --Paul Erik 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't do that - the song will have a link to the album, so I reduce the bluelinks. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
One blue link is usually good (and follows the MoS). As Jwy said, the album link usually has the song, so it's a good link to have. And if not, the artist can be linked to. -- Natalya 12:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't know how many people agree, but I'd suspect that in the third category will often not be notable enough for a disambig link in the first place. For that matter, I'd be inclined to often agree for the second category as well, though that at least has a shot. Considering the sheer number of albums in existence, random two-bit bands out of Wisconsin that are only barely notable enough for their own page are unlikely to be notable enough to have all their songs link back to them, too.
Also, the uniqueness of the name comes into play as well. If a band of questionable notability has a song with an unusual title ("Hedgehogs are eating my brains" or the like), then, well, on the off chance there's a disambig page there rather than a redirect, go ahead and add it. If it's some kind of incredibly generic word or phrase that likely has a long disambiguation page, then the standards get a lot higher- it should be a reasonably famous song. SnowFire 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we have enough of a consensus to officially put this into the MoS? These problematic entries occur very often, so I think we should address them specifically. See also this discussion. --Smack (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Rather than specific rule about this case (songs), I would suggest adding to the "single blue link" item on the MOS something like:
When there is a choice of several items to bluelink for an entry, link the most specific item, for example (and then a few of our song entries). This would cover other things, like school, city, state, country or similar things. Don't want too many rules. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Does anyone want to do this? It strikes me that I've never actually edited a policy page before, so I would be very nervous editing an MoS. --Smack (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to Wiktionary for no apparent reason

I have noticed that many disambiguation pages are now linking to Wiktionary for no apparent reason. A page should have only what is necessary, in my opinion. An example of an unnecessary, and improper (at the moment), link to Wiktionary can be found at "interest (disambiguation)". The only times I can think of when a Wiktionary link on Wikipedia would be helpful is when a term could be nothing more than a dictionary definition, so a soft redirect to Wiktionary is created. The second situation is when one or more important meanings of the term are not represented on the page because the articles would be just dictionary definitions. The first situation does not even involve disambiguation pages, and the second situation is a poor reason because disambiguation pages are strictly for disambiguating articles, not providing information on every meaning of a term. Therefore, I would expect Wiktionary links on disambiguation pages to be very rare. Instead, they seem to be common and increasing rapidly.

You might say "who cares?", but these links bug me because they are unnecessary and take up a lot of room. I hate things that are unnecessary. In addition, since they take up a lot of room, the links usually cause the entries on a disambiguation page with good descriptions to take up multiple lines instead of just one. In my opinion, a disambiguation page is easiest to read and looks its best when its entries are thorough, yet concise, and only take up one line per entry. -- Kjkolb 10:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I very strongly disagree. Dictionary definitions are a constant plague on disambiguation pages. A link to wiktionary is a simple and direct solution. The page you mention interest (disambiguation) had a malformed link to wiktionary. The wiktionary link to interest certainly seems appropriate to me on that page. As for taking up too much room, sorry, but I don't see that--the boxes float to the right, which is generally whitespace on most disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree as well. I remove a lot of dictionary definitions from dab pages as I clean them. If a person doesnt see something applicable on the list, they may decide to try clicking the wiktionary link. Besides, the box does not "take up a lot of room". I bet you'd have to search hard for even one dab page that has its article text one line longer because of a wiktionary box. - grubber 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
While on the topic... the current guidance for wiktionary linking is a bit dated, I think. Notably, the {{wiktionary}} template has taken an argument that is the word to be linked to for some time now. It's not deprecated and works fine. The only times {{wiktionarypar}} is needed are the rare times two words need to be linked in the same box - and even then, it often looks better to simply have two wiktionary boxes. Would there be any objection to changing the wording on that to reflect this? ("Wiktionary" is, after all, a much nicer name for the template and easier to remember.) SnowFire 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've got nothing to add, other than that I fully agree with older ≠ wiser and grubber above... dictionary entries in disambiguation pages are a big problem, and anything that can help reinforce that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary (and that that applies to disambig pages too) is a good thing. --Interiot 18:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think wiktionary boxes often cause "good descriptions" to wrap to the next line. The only good description is a short description. Chris the speller 00:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:) -- Natalya 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toplink

What do people think about the recent addition of {{For}} at Mayfield diff ? Personally, I'd have put the link at the bottom under "See also". But I'm reluctant to change it because I can't see anything in the style guide discouraging toplinks on disambiguation pages. CarolGray 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and changed it as I would expect it to be most useful, reasonably consistent with how other pages work. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad it isn't just me. Should we add anything to the guideline about this? CarolGray 17:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The guideline already covers it, under 'The "See also" section'. You were right when you made the original post. Chris the speller 17:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again: Red links in disambiguation pages

I'd appreciate any comment on This Is It at Talk:This Is It.

Generally, I'm not quite sure if red links are really such a bad thing. Isn't the number of "What links here" pages of a yet unwritten article indicative of the urgency with which it should be created? <KF> 17:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CC templates now redirect to {{disambig}}

Per the decision at the TfD discussion, all of the CC templates ({{2CC}}, {{3CC}}, {{4CC}}, and {{5CC}}) now redirect to {{disambig}}, and no longer need to be used. The guidelines will be updated accordingly. Thanks to everyone participated in the discussion - I know we all don't agree, but hopefully we will be benefiting disambiguation pages overall. -- Natalya 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Name dabs - redux

Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but is the intent of a first name dab to really list everyone who has that first name, whether they are known by it or not?

What prompted me to ask this is [Alfred], although I have found others in my travels. Why on earth would anyone looking for Weird Al Yankovic use "Alfred" as a term? Is the intent of this page to catalogue every notable person listed in WP whose name contains Alfred?

Please educate me. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have created a separate Alfred (name) page for these entries. In my opinion, Alfred the Great is the only person who could reasonably be referred to as just "Alfred". CarolGray 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about See also section

I have read MoS:DAB very thoroughly and have cleaned up quite a few dab pages by now. The only thing that I'm sometimes still unsure with is the "See also" section.

1. Does this kind of section allow descriptions? Because I have never seen a good cleaned-up-by-others dab page with descriptions in that section. But there are cases like when I tried to clean up a short-ish religion/philosophical dab page where I could clearly make out what should go under "may refer to" and what belongs to the "See also" section; yet the concept's article names in the "See also" section didn't make much sense for an outsider without a description.

2. Also, for example, I cleaned up the Einstein (disambiguation) page and moved all people with that surname over to Einstein (surname). However, it is not really clear to me whether I should have put Einstein (surname) under "See also" (because it's like a "List of people with the surname Einstein") or somewhere under "may refer to" (where all the the other Eintein (xyz) types are listed) [2], or separately somewhere on the main dab page [3]?

3. Finally, in how far should links in the "See also" section be piped? I have seen several versions, and all looked good somehow. – sgeureka t•c 01:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on this one. A couple of the "See also" entries cry out for a description, or at least a hint (opera, board game). I only object to descriptions there where the editor is displaying everything he or she knows about the subject (winner of the 1987 Sleazebotham Award for design integrity ...), or where you can smell and taste their pride or interest. Having your surnames at the top is probably good in this case, as I imagine a lot of readers get to that page while looking for people. I wouldn't pipe entries in the "See also" section unless I had a good reason; avoid surprise. Chris the speller 05:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Chris. Also, I notice you've tagged Einstein (surname) with {{disambig}}. I'd have used {{Surname}} instead. In my opinion, Einstein (surname) doesn't belong in Category:Disambiguation because the articles listed aren't called just "Einstein". CarolGray 08:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure how to handle this one

As someone who is constantly editing disambiguation pages to try to make them conform with this MoS, I have come across one that I am not sure of. In Imitation of Life, there is a new entry:

Should we:

  1. Keep it as is, or
  2. De-link all of the artists but the first one (most significant?), or
  3. Remove the entry completely

Thanks in advance for your guidance --rogerd 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd do option 1.5 -> The album cover that I see Beresford and Honsigner prominently displayed and no sign of the other two. Two blue links on this line seems okay to me. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I was going to say "Keep it as is", but given Jwy's better research, I concur with his recommendation. (I changed the formatting of some of the other titles before coming back here, so I haven't made the change suggested.) -- JHunterJ 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the indentation of the two film adaptations of the novel. I have seen the same technique used in other places when there is some linkage. Why did you do that? Also, I have always been under the impression that piping was a no-no on disambiguation pages. Thanks --rogerd 15:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Piping for formatting is a yes-yes exception to the general no-no -- see WP:MOSDAB#Piping. The linkage didn't seem strong enough to warrant suborning the movies to the novel; if a user is looking for the movie, the fact that it's an adaptation of the novel won't help them. IMO. -- JHunterJ 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/n/Wikipedia_talk%7EManual_of_Style_%28disambiguation_pages%29_763f.html"