Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8 →

Tagging links to disambiguation pages

Whilst attempting to improve some links to disambiguation pages, I often find that I am not able to determine which of the specific meanings is the right one. The obvious thing to do is to leave the link ambiguous.

I was thinking though, that it might be an idea to mark the ambiguous link in the article so that it is highlighted so that other readers, who might be able to disambiguate the link correctly, would have a suggestion that they might be able to help.

This is analagous to the way {{cn}} / {{Fact}} works.

So I've created {{Ambiguous link}}, with a short form of {{dn}}, and also put up a documentation page at {{Ambiguous link/doc}}.

The idea is that the tag {{dn}} can be placed directly after an ambiguous link like this: "I live in [[Reading]]{{dn}}", which will appear as "I live in Reading^{[disambiguation needed]}".

The tag currently links to WP:D, but I'm thinking that it would be nice for it to point to a page which had this text:

Please remember: it is more important to disambiguate correctly than to disambiguate quickly. Make sure you make the best choice; if you're not sure, leave a note on the talk page and let someone who is more knowledgeable fix it.

(from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links) writ large so that we would discourage people from changing links where they weren't really sure of the proper target.

Any good? —Duckbill 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, if we decide we like this idea, then we would want to consider changing the text above to mention something along the lines of "if you're not sure, leave a note on the talk page and/or tag the link with {{dn}} and let someone who is more knowledgeable fix it." —Duckbill 11:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This sounds good - there are many disambiguation links which are nigh-impossible to fix without an in-depth understanding of the subject, which is why I avoided most of the music articles while working on repairing links to Key. Using a tag like this will remind those experts that understand the meanings of highly technical ambiguous links to fix them. On the other hand, this shouldn't be overused - most links should be fixed rather than merely tagged. If there's a disclaimer on the instruction for use only for difficult disambiguations, I support this. Nihiltres 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it too. It's a way to address tricky dab link repairs and it also serves to alert editors to the dab link issue and this project. The only down side is that it may clutter articles, so I agree that there should be some caution against overuse. -Kubigula (ave) 15:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! —EdGl 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I also like the concept, if used as a last resort. I have seen some discussion about {{fact}} being considered too intrusive by some editors, and this would be liable to the same objection. I would suggest changing the text "disambiguation needed" to "ambiguous", so at least it's shorter. As Duckbill suggests, this ought to link to a page that explains how to fix the problem. --Russ (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there could be something in that. I think "disambiguation needed" and "ambiguous" both have merit. It would be interesting to see what people think. It shouldn't be a problem because it's transcluded and can be changed at any time. —Duckbill 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comments. I have updated Template:Ambiguous link/doc to try to cover some of the issues. I think we may want to have a new page about ambiguous links which can be the target of {{dn}}, possibly named Ambiguous link, which describes what they are and what should be done. —Duckbill 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to automate the tagging of ambiguous links? The above discussion sounds like the template/tag is intended for cases where an editor working on fixing problems, from a known list, is unable to make a decision, and so tags the link as being unfixed. But it would be far, far more useful to have an automated way to stick this tag on ALL ambiguous links, potentially enlisting hundreds of thousands of editors to fix the problems. (In other words, is there any way to go from the list of known problems BACK to the articles where the ambigous wikilinks exist, automatically, and apply a tag/template?) John Broughton | Talk 00:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, it would be impossible to add an ambiguous link to an article in the first place - the software would require the original editor, who certainly knew what they meant, to indicate the intended target. Alas, any software changes supporting this would be slow in coming. For the record, I like the tag, but prefer "disambiguation needed" to "ambiguous", because the latter may be misunderstood as referring to the entire sentence or phrase. Deco 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

New dump

The 2006-11-30 database dump has become available (for a preview of disambig pages, see User:RussBot/DPL. I am kind of hesitant to replace the current dump while we still have nearly 150 pages to go; but OTOH there are a lot of new pages and regrown 'shrooms in the new dump that need to be dealt with, too. If others feel that it's time to move on to a new list, feel free to copy it from my user page and start it up! --Russ (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have (unless reverted) fixed two of the top four on that list and left a suggestion for a solution for a third (please comment at Dance music). Dekimasu 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed Padua. Thanks for fixing the others, although I do suspect that Mediterranean won't stick. If you look at the links, a lot of them really could go to the other pages besides the sea. --Russ (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's getting down to some really tough ones. Putting up a new list up would make it easier for people to jump in and do one. Also some of the tough ones have been partially done, and will drop off the list (only to reappear a few months from now). Who's for making 80% the point where a new list is loaded? -- Randall Bart 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see the links to Production die a horrible death before we switch lists. Dekimasu 01:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Production is ever going to be completed, so I changed the collaboration to Spring. Dekimasu 07:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also in a tedious one-man battle at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from categories (check its history) and it would be nice to get that finished off if people are having trouble picking out new topics from the current dump. Dekimasu 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the new dump should be moved over as the ones on this list should be on the new one (right?). With such a long list over at User:RussBot/DPL, it should be moved over here to start a new level of work. I don't think its necessary to wait until we have near 100% completion of this list before we begin working on the other one. --Nehrams2020 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead! There are monsters like Mediterranean that need fixing. Whenever a list is updated, the worst cases, which should be the highest priority, are then fixable. Let's get those worst cases out of the way - if or when we conquer that, eventually minor cases can be fixed. Nihiltres 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the danger is that the hard ones will never get fixed and we will do the easy ones over and over. Dekimasu 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How is the new list moved over?--Nehrams2020 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple copy-and-paste. Last time, I just copied those with 100 or more links. I created a new page with the date of the dump (2006-11-30 this time), and then changed all the links on the main WP:DPL page that referred to the old dump to the new one. Oh, and then I used dplcount.py to initialize the link counter.--Russ (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Top five are now fixed except for League Cup (but you can try fixing Mediterranean's links if you want, I suppose). Mob, Public Service, and Mod are almost finished now if you want to get those done before transferring lists. Also, if we move the list over, let's at least keep production as the corroboration until it's finished. Dekimasu 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem if we keep production as the current collaboration. I'd move the list over except I don't know how to use the script for the link counter. But whenever it is ready to move, I'm sure there will be a lot of people ready to start on a new list. I got a month off for Christmas break in a few days, so I'll knock out a couple. --Nehrams2020 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramblings about disambiguation

I just archived this page. I know that pages with a lot of talk have scripts for archiving every n days, but this one is slower. I don't have a script; I just did in manually. I hope I didn't bust nuthin.

This project, while not quite Sisyphean, certainly suffers Xeno's paradox. This is a quality project, not a perfection project. The "to do" and the "done" and the percentage are just feel good mechanisms. We set an arbitrary task (a subset of the overall task frozen on an arbitrary date) and let people take credit for making progress. It works, because people can see progress and feel they are part of that progress.

So we should make it easy for people to feel good and want to continue working on the project. We should update the dump and make the minimum threshold 50 instead of 100. That way there will be lots of line items for people to choose. 100 is a lot of links to take on; I think 50 is less likely to scare people off. Actually, it would be nice for people to work on disambiguation pages with 20 links, but there has to be a limit for the list size.

I fixed Fresno before it ever made the list. I made the progress, but I didn't get my ration of meaningless feel good. BTW, once I was done I realized that [[Fresno]] should just redirect to [[Fresno, California]]. So then when I got to [[carotid artery]] I changed it to redirect to [[common carotid artery]], then fixed up links where this was clearly wrong. I left the ones where common carotid may be right. Do you know whether Zsa Zsa had a blockage in common, internal, or external carotid? Then go fix it.

Where there is a project page for a topic, I have taken to asking them to keep their links clean. It can't hurt if it's not too creepy.

I added [[productivity]] and [[labor productivity]] to [[production]]. These are two good choices which now show up in the popup. Production was "one of the easiest" in October, and the featured collaboration for four weeks and it's still a bitch. I did about a dozen, but it's difficult. As already noted, an article on Media production would help a lot. Many of these should just be delinked. Which brings me to...

There's a plague of overlinking on WP. If it's a common English word and there's nothing special about the way it's used, there's no need to link it. The dumbest of it is the linking of dates. But people like making links, and apparently it's futile to try stopping them. Much of it causes no harm, but some of it makes work for disambiguators. We need software help. Links should show in red if they are disambiguation pages or misspelling redirects. -- Randall Bart 03:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

While you're generally right about the overlinking (I hate fixing links to "object" or "meaning" or "ideal"), I believe dates are linked so that they can be shown in the format that the user prefers. And personally, I will feel bad when the new dump comes in and the number goes from 82% to 2.8%.

As for reducing the number of links required to be in the dump, I think that that has already been done. Fixing pages with 50 links is fine if you consider fixing one link as good as fixing any other (and that idea may be defensible from an ideological standpoint), but in practice I believe that the pages which accumulate incoming links the fastest need to be attended to the most. The linking implies that they are oft-visited pages. Thus I believe it is (somewhat) more important to fix the 500 ambiguous links to German than the 50 links to a page that has not accumulated a link in weeks. Dekimasu 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you feel better if for a week there was a big box saying "CONGRATULATIONS DISAMBIGUATORS!"?

I say a link is a link, but not exactly. Perhaps we should have a sub-sub-project for really tough words like [[production]]. There's a rule of wikipedia that I forget how it's cited, but give people stuff that they like to work on, because the lack of work they like won't make them do work they don't like. Many of the remaining words are daunting. Have you looked at [[pore]]. I bailed on that one fast. I am not sure it can be done, except to unlink most of the links.

Adddendum about Carotid artery: Part of my logic was that the first sentence of [[common carotid artery]] says everything that the old dab page said. -- Randall Bart 07:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your message has prompted me to fix the geological links to pore, in the hope that a biologist might then have a go at the rest...CarolGray 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bass

I just pointed six links to [[bass (fish)]], one to [[Bass (beer)]], and two to nowhere. I believe 98% of the rest would better be [[bass (musical term)]]. Many of those could be better still directed to [[bass guitar]], a few could be pointed elsewhere. I suggest moving the existing bass to bass (disambiguation), and redirecting to [[bass (musical term)]]. There are new rock pages every day, and they are not going to stop ambiguously linking bass. -- Randall Bart 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been some relevant discussion at Talk:Bass so I suggest you raise this there. CarolGray 10:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Current list

I just categorized 47 items in the current list. I would like to create more categories. Can I just copy the existing structure, or does the script need to be updated? What categories would people like to see? Should there be a categories for mixed things, eg, I almost put [[Natal]] into places, until I realized "natal" isn't a place.-- Randall Bart 22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The script just needs the section title and section end comments at the top and bottom so that it can recognize the sections. The names aren't hard-coded. --Russ (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I've been programming since we punched holes in paper, so if I just do what comes naturally, it should work. Additional question: Does the script add new items to the first section, or does it key on the title "section title=general"?-- Randall Bart 21:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, ... yes? (Wait while I check the source ....) The script adds new items to the first section, which it assumes will be the "general" section. --Russ (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oddity: The list you reverted on December 16 contains "# Fresno (10) history 10 6 4 4 107:", but the list the bot created Decmber 17 doesn't have "Fresno" at all. This is a complete chance finding; I just wanted to see how fast links were accumulating on that one. And how do I cite prior versions of pages? I used external links, because I couldn't find another format.-- Randall Bart 22:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not surprising. Fresno apparently "fell off" the list because it had fewer than 25 links for four straight weeks. The script assumes that any page that stays at such a low level for an extended period is not a problem, and drops it for efficiency. If new Fresno links start to accumulate, it will reappear after a future database dump. (And the way you cited previous versions is fine; you can use the "Permanent link" tool from the toolbox for this purpose.) --Russ (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to limit the list, but I'm not so hot on the algorithm. If you have a history of 20 15 10 5 0, you have a page which will reach 100 in about 16 weeks. If you have a history of 30 29 28 27 26, you have a page which will reach 100 in about 70 weeks. What's the logic for keeping the latter? Why are we keeping old data and how can it be intelligently pruned? -- Randall Bart 01:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions (preferably ones accompanied by a proposed implementation). --Russ (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what language you're using here, but if we have an array hist and functions min and max, then 4*max(hist)-3*min(hist) > 99 catches pages that will hit 100 in about 3 months. I can also see using a formula like 3*max(hist)-2*min(hist) > 80. That's why I would like to know the intent. -- Randall Bart 05:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The intent is simply to remove pages that have been fixed and have stayed fixed for several weeks, so that they appear unlikely to become a problem again in the near term. --Russ (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I examined the data, and it appears the cut off is 50 not 25. An article is added if it's 50 or more; an article is added when it has been below 50 for five consecutive runs. I think it should be harder to get on and harder to fall off. Let me cogitatate on algorithms for a while. -- Randall Bart 12:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we have a namespace filter for Whatlinkshere?

I just tried to advertise some Germany-related disambiguation pages on the {{WikiProject Germany}} template. As that is transcluded on thousands of talk pages, it drowned Special:Whatlinkshere in irrelevant links. Of course I reverted myself, but now I really think there should be a namespace filter for WLH. Are there any good reasons why it doesn't exist other than "other things have higher priority"? Kusma (討論) 07:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The tools are not currently set up that way. The transcluded file itself is labeled "(transcluded)", but link within it just count as part of the page. It's damn difficult to trace them down now; don't add more.-- Randall Bart 23:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

CorHomo problems

Recently I have been unable to fix any pages with CorHomo. I can log in and the pages load, but without exception, after correcting the link it will tell me that the page can't be corrected. The pages involved are never protected from editing. It's happening with [[Casualty]], [[Common]], [[Sakai]], [[Japanese]]... everything I try. Any idea what's causing the problem? Is this happening to anyone else? Dekimasu 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be working again at the moment. I would think it was just a database lock, but it's happened to me several times, so something else seems to be going on. Dekimasu 05:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Royal Surgical Colleges

I just mostly did [[Royal Surgical Colleges]] (which is mostly redir from [[Royal College of Surgeons]]). Some were easy, some took some detective work to track down. Some I guessed (if he was born in London and there's no mention of Scotland, it's probably [[Royal College of Surgeons of England]]). I used a bucketful of {{dn}}s for those cases where there must be a specific college, but I can't tell which. Where the context plausibly means Edinburgh, Glasgow, Ireland, and England collectively, I just left it. Is Her Majesty an honorary fellow of one college or four?

I know I made mistakes. I know this in part because I corrcted mistakes from prior disambiguation runs. I am going to make a pass through the links to Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Royal College of Surgeons of England to see if I can improve some of my work and some prior work, but I would appreciate if sumbuddy else will do the same. -- Randall Bart 10:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm calling this done now. From what I learned the third time around, and just using [[Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons]] and [[Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons]] to cover vagueness, I got this down to the usual references. I left a couple {{dn}}s. -- Randall Bart 06:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

dpl.js

I have modified the DPL Mode script I stole from AgentSoo and put it at [[User:Barticus88/dpl.js]]. It now filters Template talk, Category talk, Portal, and Portal talk. I may back out filtering Portal. I usually don't fix portals unless they are transcluded in main space, but sometimes it's hard to find the transcluded pages. -- Randall Bart 11:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added counts of shown/hidden pages. I will be adding more features, and this is my first JavaScript, so if you use it and you like it, maybe you should copy it. -- Randall Bart 04:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Several options working. Check it out. -- Randall Bart 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote something here yesterday, but...well, maybe I never hit "Save page". So anyhoo, my script at [[User:Barticus88/dpl.js]] is now ready for prime time. Features:

Five selection modes
1. DPL: Mainspace, Template, and Category (the original mode)
2. T: Templates Only. Check out the Templates first. It will save you some frustration
3. P: Portals, Categories, and Templates
4. W: Wikipedia
5. U: User and User talk
Counts of shown/hidden pages in the banner
A footer just like the banner
Click any mode to change mode
Click the same mode again to clear

So sumbuddy check this out. Are there any other selection sets that would help anyone? Are there any more features I can add?

I also wrote a script to add an "edit section 0" button at the top of a page. It's [[User:Barticus88/edit_section_zero.js]]. -- Randall Bart 08:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the changes to the script, except one -- the DPL mode no longer displays articles that link to a redirect to the dab page. (See Special:Whatlinkshere/Native Americans for a dramatic example.) Those need to be fixed, too. --Russ (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you are pointing to. I notice that Native America has only two user links, which the script reduces to no links, but I see Native american has three main space links, Native American Indian has one link, Native-American four. Were you just confused by Native America, or am I missing something? -- Randall Bart 09:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to view more links (like 500 instead of 50). Native American, which is a redirect to Native Americans, has a huge number of links and the script hides all of them in DPL mode. (Oddly enough, some of the other modes do show redirect pages.) Anyway, the number doesn't matter; it's the point that it would be more helpful to be able to see the links to the redirect pages. --Russ (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for reminding me to add R mode. B^) Go to Special:Whatlinkshere/Native_Americans, click 500 and then click R mode. You will see a list of 12 redirects (including a double). When I view that page in DPL mode, I see links under 5 of those 12 redirects. Are you mistaking one of the twelve for another? -- Randall Bart 19:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Eleven redirects now. I got the doubled one deleted. -- Randall Bart 20:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're on the same page, I see links under Native american, Native American Indian, Native-American, Native American, and Native Americans (disambiguation). The count says 191 shown, 505 hidden. -- Randall Bart 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. When I click on "R" mode, the banner says "Select Mode: Redirect (0 shown/697 hidden)." And my monobook.js links directly to your script, and I did refresh my cache before trying this. Anyway, my personal preference would be to have the redirects appear in DPL mode, too. --Russ (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. I get "Select Mode: Redirect (11 shown/686 hidden)", so we've isolated the difference. I spent some time screwing with the redirect code; probably learning the same lessons as the original author. The script as I stole it had a toLowerCase() in the redirect code, which appeared quite spurious. Perhaps there is some Wiki option I don't comprehend. I see "(redirect page)" for redirect pages; is there a capital letter in it for you? Regardless, I have restored the toLowerCase(). Try it again. -- Randall Bart 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it now works for me. Thanks. --Russ (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is excitingly cool! One (possibly silly) question, for the shown/hidden links, is the number shown the number of links in whatever category you've chose, and the number hidden is the number of other links to the page? -- Natalya 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As I go down the list of links, I mark each link hidden or shown, and tally that choice. That was why I started fiddling with this script. I wanted to know those numbers. Then Russ reminded me that months ago I wanted a way to see the redirects. -- Randall Bart 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Instructions for use

Edit your Special:Mypage/monobook.js page, and insert at the top:

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'

+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Barticus88/dpl.js'

+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

Refresh any page, as per the instructions on that page. Clicking on a What Links Here from now on adds a set of commands to the toolbox on the RHS (bottom) of the page.Josh Parris#: 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanx. I've been pushing bits before reading the documentation for 35 years, so I don't need it, but is there a monobook.js tutorial for the common folk? -- Randall Bart 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatdayaknow, there is: Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Tutorial ... perhaps that just scripting in general. From Wikipedia:Monobook Josh Parris#: 04:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it turns out there are lots of new things in Wikibits, so the documentation is often the hard way to do something. There's a new func called importScript that gets rid of those monstrous document.write things. You just need this:

importScript('User:Barticus88/dpl.js');

-- Randall Bart 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On bots and more people helping with this

I'm new to this discussion, so I apologize if I've totally misunderstood something, but it looks like the general approach here is to do automated searches to identify problems, list the problems on the project page, and hope that a lot of people visit the project page and decide to pitch in and fix ambiguous links.

Over at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Shadowbot2, there is a discussion going on about using a bot to add a "bad link" tag immediately following a bad external link, in the article with the bad link. This approach has the advantage that any reader of an article with a bad link immediately becomes aware of the problem. An interested editor could then click on the "bad link" tag and go to a page discussing possible ways to fix the link. And, of course, editors with an interest in getting an article to be as good as possible would want to fix the bad link and remove the tag.

The problem with bad external links seems analogous to the current situation with ambigous wikilinks - currently, there is a project page to fix them the problem, but someone reading an article is unaware of both the problems and the project page. If ambiguous links were tagged, then potentially any reader be involved in fixing the problem - not just editors coming to the project page. And a lot more editors would become aware of the problem, and (hopefully) would be less likely to create ambigous wikilinks in the future.

So: is it possible (and desirable) to (say) extend RussBot so that it has a tagging function? John Broughton | Talk 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. Perhaps you could post this same thing on the bot request page? --Measure 21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait until the bot for bad external links is up and running, then use that as an example when I post my request, I think. John Broughton | Talk 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

University of Colorado

The link for University of Colorado is actually a redirect to University of Colorado System which to me looks very much like a dab page, although not tagged as such. My issue here is that there appear to be more than 500 links to University of Colorado, most of which are probably intending to link to the University of Colorado at Boulder, not to a dab page and not to the University System. Do people agree that this should be cleaned up, and if so, is the best way to just re-point the redirect to the other article or should this be treated as more of a dab type cleanup? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think (a) the University of Colorado System page should be stubbified, and (b) University of Colorado should be made into a disambiguation page (with four pointers - to the three campuses and to the stub article on the UofC system). Then (c) the 30 links pointing to the UofCS stub should be examined to see if they should point instead to one of the three campuses; if they can't be identified as appropriate to point to the system page or one of the campuses, they should be changed to point to the UofC dab page, and (d) the several hundred links to the UofC dab page should be treated as a standard disambiguation project.

UofCS needs a separate page because there in fact is a separate organization (small, no doubt) that does things like select chancellors/presidents of the campuses, negotiate with the state legislature over fees and support, etc., and this organization isn't part of any of the campuses. John Broughton | Talk 00:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've done a, b, and c. I'll leave d for someone else or another time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Steward and Chamberlain

Steward and Chamberlain are quite challenging. Many are electors of the Holy Roman Empire ("the Arch-Chamberlain is represnted by the Chamberlain", etc), but there are many varied uses of these words. Alex Haley has the odd formulation "[[Steward|Mess Attendant]]", which I could disambiguate to Ship's steward, but there's no article for that.

Chancellor isn't a dab. Marshall isn't, Bailif isn't. Why are these? -- Randall Bart 06:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be right in the case of steward, but there are several significant people with the last name Chamberlain, so I think that one would be harder to change. Marshall is a dab. Dekimasu 06:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops I meant Marshal not Marshall. Anyway, there's no place to direct miscellaneous Stewards and Chamberlains.-- Randall Bart 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixing links on non-article pages

What is the procedure for fixing links not in the article namespace? I pretty much finished with Documentary (Links). Do I fix the ones on user pages and article talk pages? What about archives? – Heave n's Wrath ^Talk 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You can fix user pages if you'd like, but it's not necessary. I'd strongly advise against editing talk pages, because it can anger other users if you copyedit their comments (but I have done it, very sparingly, in the past). I always fix links in the template/category/portal namespaces, and sometimes in the Wikipedia namespace. You can move the page to "Done" without fixing any of them, though. Dekimasu 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought as much, but I did not want to do anything wrong on my first disambiguation. Its is too bad though that there are still 43 or so links left (non-mainspace of course). – Heave n's Wrath ^Talk 09:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend against making any changes to user pages (except your own, of course). A user page belongs to the user, and it's generally discouraged for anyone else to edit it for any reason, without the user's permission. The only pages outside of the main namespace that I will touch are [[Category:]], [[Image:]], [[Portal:]], and [[Template:]] pages. --Russ (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, anyway, see WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. I would never make substantial (i.e. content) edits to someone's user page, but I have gotten many notes of thanks and no complaints for retargeting links like "I speak [[German]]" or "I am [[Japanese]]" to the correct places. Dekimasu 13:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of times you can tell if the link on the userpage is specifically meant to link to the disambiguation page, or if it should go elsewhere. If you're not sure, it's usually best to leave it, but you can always drop a link to the user on their talk page just letting them know that they might have the wrong link. -- Natalya 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Portals are mixed content and chat. Some words have a lot of hits in portal space, and it's just chat. I am here to fix content not chat. I don't fix, talk and user, and I don't fix portals unless they are transcluded in main space. Templates should be fixed first, to get rid of the transcluding pages.-- Randall Bart 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

plague

I am not sure I agree with user:Theflyer on the plague issue. The talk page on Bubonic plague that he refers to seems to have died out with no decision made. Also the plague disambig page looks to me like it covers things pretty well . I would like to know in more detail what kind of changes you would propose for the page. Master shepherd 06:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally agree with you. I think you can go ahead and fix some of the links if you want. On the other hand, we could wait for him to reply and work on other things in the meantime. There isn't a particular rush to get Plague done. Dekimasu 11:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In almost every case I looked at, I found it very difficult to differentiate the use of the term within the calling page. Just because the discussion seems to have died out, which I agree it has, doesn't mean the issue is resolved by those more familiar with the topic, it just means the discussion lost energy. I worry that if we make a big effort to resolving the disambiguation calls before the issue is closed may mean that links get changed away from the basic term "plague" when they shouldn't. While I'm not an expert on the subject, the discussions seemed to me to indicate there should be an article at "plague" and the disambiguation page should be "Plague (Disambig)" in compliance with standards. If this was true, I think many of the existing links to "plague" would instantly become accurate without any changes. With that said, there is certainly nothing wrong with resolving links that are clearly associated with one of the other categories of plague. Theflyer 03:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

follow up, on the article page, Dekimasu, states "[Plaque] will always have to be a disambiguation page in this form, regardless of tehcnically validity in the medical community, because of its use in common contexts." In concept, I disagree with this statement. I believe an encyclopedia should strive for technical accuracy while also finding a way to address "common contexts". If Bubonic Plague is but one form of plague then Wikipedia should have an article describing the more generic "plague" and its forms. Dekimasu's summary would, however, seem to cover most usages so since ya'll have been disambiguators longer than me, I defer to your judgement. Theflyer 03:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There could be a page called Plague (epidemiology), but there would still have to be disambiguation on the page for Plague. At any rate, since this seems to be causing problems, I have changed the collaboration to Text. I am moving the discussion from that area to the space below. Dekimasu 11:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(moved from main page)

The new collaboration project is Plague. It currently has over 200 links. Please try to fix a few! Dekimasu 05:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me this may not be the best project to undertake at the moment. In reviewing some of the pages, I'm not sure debate is yet settled on how best to organize this topic. See Talk:List of Bubonic plague outbreaks for background. In general a review of pestilence indicates that the term plague alone refers to a disease and that bubonic plague is one variant. If this is true, then plague probably needs to not be a disambig page in its current form. I think trying to resolve the "What links here" links is premature at this point. Theflyer 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see anything that needs to be resolved. The reference to the epidemiological definition is a technical definition, but its use isn't necessary in order to determine what editors have tried to target with their ambiguous links. Plague will always have to be a disambiguation page in this form, regardless of the technical validity of the term among the medical community, because of its use in common contexts. I think the comments by the previous disambiguator that

If it had to do with the effects of the epidemics in Europe from the 14th to early 18th century, I change the link (usually not the word linked) to Black Plague.

If it had to do with the medical aspects in particular or are appear to be about the specific disease(s) caused by Yersinia pestis, I link it to Bubonic plague.

If it had to do with the Biblical Plagues, I link to Plagues of Egypt

If it had to do with the agent of more generic epidemics, I link it to Pestilence or Pandemic depending on context.

In a few cases, a direct reference to Yersinia pestis made sense.

sum up what needs to be done. Let me know if I am missing something. Dekimasu 06:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

IDM

I said this on the IDM talk page too, but almost all of the IDM links should lead to intelligent dance music. It might be best to just redirect IDM to that page, with a disambiguation message at the top. P4k 02:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bremen

I was working on the Bremen disambig, but it looks like the Bremen disambig page has disappeared. Bremen now redirects directly to Bremen (city). Just found it kind of weird. Bigdottawa 13:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not that unusual. If the vast majority of the links point to one specific article, then I think it's appropriate to make the dab link a redirect to the intended article. The target article should contain a template like {{otheruses}}, redirecting to a new dab page. It's not something to be done lightly, and it may be prudent to propose the change on the talk page first, but it is a legitimate way to fix a dab link issue.--Kubigula (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Hi, new disambiguation feature was introduced in the latest AWB version. It allows fixing links in semi-automatic fashion with rate up to 3 edits per minute. Please try it and submit your comments. MaxSem 17:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Escort

I thought this would be straight forward but because the disambiguation page actually has "definitions" without actual pages most of the 110 links appear to be largely correct. I've fixed a few relating to the Ford Escort but they are trivial in comparison to the links. In other words with the disambiguation page having a "definition" section, it means that it isn't simply a disambiguation page but an amalgam of both a disambig and an article page. Do we just leave these as is then or try to create actual article pages for each of the definitions so they can be more effectively disambiguated? Theflyer 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages should not have strictly dictionary definitions on them. (See MoS:DP#Linking_to_Wiktionary) I've added a link to Wiktionary, which pretty much encompasses all the dictionary definitions; unless they seem appropriate to put into their own article, they should be taken off the disambiguation page, and any links to the page for such dictionary definitions should be delinked. In terms of dictionary definitions, "escort" is pretty straightforward. -- Natalya 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Forward (basketball) and Guard (basketball)

I don't think it is possible to disambiguate many of these. A basketball team used to have left guard, right guard, left forward, right forward, and a center. I think the designations power forward, small forward, shooting guard, and point guard, originated in the 1960s and weren't universal until the mid 1970s. When it says John Wooden played guard (basketball), that's what he played; there's nothing to disambiguate. Unfortunately, we have articles on the four positions the game is now played and no article on the historic, less specialized positions. -- Randall Bart 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ash Disambiguation

I've fixed most the disambigs for Ash tree, European ash, Ash Ketchum, Ash (band), Ash (analytical chemistry), and Volcanic ash; and asked for clarification where I wasn't sure. This is a cool project. But I noticed that there is no entry for one of the most common uses, "The unburnable solid remains of a combustible material left after a fire are called ash." (from the fire article.)
Should we make a specific entry for this? It could include a common definition, chemical makeup, an outline about ash content/crucibles, and the uses of ash in religions, fertilizers and food preparation.
If I do this, should the main ash / ashes link then skip the disambig page and go straight to the new ash page? Input welcome! --Knulclunk 15:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Or I could just route the "remains of a fire" links to the Wiktionary entry for ash. --Knulclunk 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps best, just remove the link entirely, as this meaning is unambiguous. --Knulclunk 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd remove the link, since 1. it's not ambiguous and 2. it's a pretty common ("easy") word and a link to its definition would be unnecessary in most cases. (I did this when I disambiguated links to "Territory".) —EdGl 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the link is probably the best option, although "ash" is a more encyclopedic term than many other such simple terms; for now, certainly remove the link, but if anyone took the initiative to even write a stub article on it (with more than just an dictionary definition), that would be fine too. Linking to Wiktionary as a regular wikilink isn't really encouraged, though. -- Natalya 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance

If anyone looks at WP:DPM carefully today, they will see a lot of duplicate entries resulting from the creation of a new 'Abbreviations' category. I don't know why this happened and I'll have to spend a little time looking at the code to figure it out. Sorry for any confusion. --Russ (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think someone added the main disambiguation category and a sub-category to the various xCC templates. That could be what caused the duplication. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It was my error in formatting the new category. I'm re-running the bot now to clear everything up. --Russ (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Popups and Portal space

I am using User:Lupin/popupsdev.js for disambiguation. I know it works correctly in Template: space, but in portal space it strips "portal:" from the name. I looked it over, but can't spot the bug. The only place where "Portal" seems to be missing from the code is setNamespaces, but I can't figure out what that does. — Randall Bart 14:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lupin is very friendly and helpful, I would ask at User talk:Lupin.--Commander Keane 01:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanx. It turns out that Template: and Category: also are broken, so it is probably losing all name spaces. I thought Template: and Category: used to work, but maybe I am delusional. — Randall Bart 01:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab cleanup

I think that people using this page should use Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup intensively, for two reasons:

If a dab has many incoming links, people will probably stumble upon it frequently, so it should meet stylistic guidelines (WP:MOSDAB).
Some of those guidelines (one link per line, and no extraneous links) facilitate link-fixing using Popups.

--Smack (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Having one link per line also greatly facilitates the use of CorHomo, in fact, it's nearly essential. A thoroughly cleaned up dab page makes using CorHomo a pleasure instead of a struggle. Add any needed redirects or stubs to the dab page before you start. Chris the speller 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)