Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also

Contents
Shortcut:
WT:MOSDAB
Archive
Archives
— Topical index—


[edit] Grammar Errors

And if I have grammar errors, don't revert them, solve them.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As the "And" at the start suggests, yes, grammatical errors are in addition to errors irrelevant to grammar.
Please do not edit the page until you have presented your reasoning for doing so here and have got agreement for it. NB in a section above, you presented your reasoning and failed to get agreement for it; you seem intent on ignoring this failure and forging on regardless. Please stop. -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion request

Resolved.

Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) has been tagged as disputed, and I would appreciate further opinions on the matter to help reach consensus on how to deal with things. One side feels that there are three Latin documents which can potentially be referred to by the same name, and the disambig page is appropriate. The other feels that the disambig page gives WP:UNDUE weight to the possibility that there might be confusion, and sees it as something that should be deleted. Discussions are ongoing at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is welcome to participate. Caveat: Part of the dispute is an overflow of an in-process ArbCom case (of which I am a party), so be warned that it might be a bit complex. But I would still love extra opinions, especially from those here who are familiar with how disambigs work. Thanks, Elonka 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DAB page style

For those of you who are interested in enforcing the current DAB page guidelines, The Right Stuff may be of interest to you. I actually like this style (bolding and multiple links per entry), and would prefer to see this adopted, or at least allowed as an option, for DAB pages. Hopefully the page will be a test case for changing the existing guidelines. - BillCJ (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what you're trying to propose would fall under the Wikipedia:Perennial proposals equivalent for dab pages. Linking more than one word/phrase per entry has been repeatedly rejected as redundant for disambiguation (and it is is also cumbersome when you're working for Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links). And with only one link, the bolding would be unnecessary since the link is already highlight enough. – sgeureka t•c 19:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing it - I'm just saying that I personally like it. I'm saying now it is being used by another user who refuses to conform to the existing guidelines. It needs to be dealt with, or it will be used as precedent, as these are guidelines, not policy - they can, and in thiscase are, being ignored. - BillCJ (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No bad dab pages have ever served as a precedent (in fact, most editors don't even know about this MOS guideline). As long as one user has ownership issues with only a handful of dab pages, I am also not concerned. It is likely that this editor won't be part of the next wikipedia generation, and then the dab page can be cleaned up per the guideline. – sgeureka t•c 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Symbols and unicode characters

Hi. At the article ***, Abtract and I are in disagreement over whether the symbols are either helpful or inadvisable. See discussion on talkpage for more. Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sole purpose of dab pages

The opening sentences read, "Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term."

I suggest inserting "similarly-named" before the word "Wikipedia", so that the phrase will read, "to allow users to choose among several similarly-named Wikipedia articles".

Example: The article Mock combat has a "disambig" tag. The articles listed on that dab page do not have similar names. But as a dab page being wikilinked from other articles, the Disambiguation pages with links project members diligently repair those links, sometimes deleting them altogether as discussed on the project's talk page.

While I can see a possible rationale for Mock combat being classified as a dab page, that classification carries with it a high price: The semi-automatic removal of all links, even useful ones, to that page, as discussed here.

The basic question is this: Should a dab page ever exist with a list of articles not having similar names, and if so, why? There may be a good counterexample out there, so please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mock combat is not a dab page imho so I have removed the tag. Abtract (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Abtract. Might it qualify as a set index article, as suggested by Russ on the Talk:Mock combat talk page? I tentatively added an "SIA" tag, but I'd love to have your opinion on it. Thanks in advance. --Art Smart (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't think so for the reasons given on the talk page ... Abtract (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Returning to Art's question, yes a dab page can have articles with names that is not similar to the dabbed term. This is because topics can have different names, but articles only have one. Eg. The dab page Whatchamacallit links the article placeholder name. Taemyr (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red links in disambigs - forgotten interwiki

Recently the Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Red_links was brought to my attention during a discussion of the Górki disambig (over a dozen of villages in Poland, all of them have articles on pl wikipedia but only a few on English - yet). It was argued that since most of those villages are not linked to from any English Wikipedia project, they should be unlinked from the disambig. Since it is obvious the relevant articles will be created at some point, I find such unlinking counterproductive - we will have to link them back sooner or later. I can understand that the unlinking rule was created to deal with non-notable entities that nonetheless can have a brief mention in the disambig, but certainly it was not meant for a case related to translating articles from other language Wikipedias. Hence I would like to make an appopriate mention in MoS, red link section (along the lines: don't unlink the articles if they have links in 'what links here' or articles on other language Wikipedias).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For information the page concerned is Górki which is a list, not a dab page, although it was tagged as dab when I first stumbled across it. Abtract (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on my proposed change above? If there are no objections, I'd like to implement it in the MoS.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that redlinks are important to include; (Extreme m:Immediatists will disagree.) I concur that the MoS should be clarified, per your suggestion. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think they should follow the same criteria as redlinks elsewhere: something about "if there is good reason to expect an article will be written" or something. I'm not sure we need to create a new policy here, but point to another. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That wouldn't be creating new policy, John, that would be restoring MOSDAB to wording that existed for quite a while before a handful of editors changed this particular clause to the version requiring the red link to be used elsewhere. I concur that the change is worth implementing, but would rather see the original clause restored.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure how the phrasing got to state "red links should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link." -- as I recall, that "only" clause was only meant to be a rule of thumb, not an absolute rule. For the immediate issue of Polish hamlets, if it is indeed "obvious the relevant articles will be created at some point" -- I suggest that you start by creating list articles with the redlinks on them. At least then there is some indication that there is a reasonable likelihood that an article may be created. older ≠ wiser 02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question, here's how it got to that state. I think it's a perfect example of how amendments to the guidelines affecting so many areas should not be passed…—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand where this is going ... the purpose of a dab page is to assist readers to find the article they want from a group of similarly named articles. How is a list of articles that may one day be written going to help? IMHO redlinks in dab pages should be kept to a minimum; the section looks fine to me as it is. Abtract (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A list of articles that "may one day be written" is sure of no help to anyone, but the list of articles that "should one day be written" is quite useful, because it points out things which are missing and lets readers know that these things exist. If we can't point readers to an article that exists, by having a red link we at least let them know that they might be searching for something for which there is yet no article. It's all a matter of perspective.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Redlinks encourage article creation. We all know this. Also, the purpose of a DAB page is, yes, to direct people to the articles they are looking for. If that article does not yet exist it is just as important to indicate this fact to the reader looking for it, and to provide a line with 1 or more links to something that will at least be relevant for them. Real-world example (as of this writing; I'm actually really shocked that this is still a redlink):
  • Axanthism, a condition similar to albinism, but in which it is yellow and red pigment rather than brown pigment that is absent.
Not a perfect example since "axanthism" wouldn't show up on a DAB page probably, but the point should be clear. The countervailing issue is that redlinking in DAB pages encourages addition of items (especially bands) that would not pass WP:N and would be deleted at WP:AFD if the article actually existed. I don't see this as terribly problematic, if we have a principle that a redlink on a DAB page is valid if a legitimate article could be written about it. We use this criterion elsewhere, so it seems rational to me to apply it here as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to add that there are plenty of other ways to deal with allegedly illegitimate red links on the dab pages. People cleaning the disambigs have a multitude of productive options without having to resort to restrictive MOSDAB clauses: they can ask the person who added the red link, they can post a question on the disambig's talk page, they can post an inquiry to the participants of a WikiProject under the scope of which the red link falls, or (blasphemy!) they can even do some quick research themselves. If these four methods fail to produce an adequate response within a reasonable amount of time (a couple days should be plenty), then remove the links, and no one will think any worse of you! Doing business this way would, of course, require more work on the part of the folks doing the cleanup, but simplifying maintenance at the expense of limiting Wikipedia's growth and coverage potential is simply unacceptable. Completely removing the red links or limiting the situations in which they can be included with some inane technical requirement (presence of backlinks, as the guideline currently stands) is completely removed from the ideas of productivity and collaboration and is such a lame and lazy option that I am surprised this revised version of MOSDAB still goes largerly unchallenged!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is consensus to allow "bare" red links on dab pages (I still oppose it), they should at least be placed last in the list of possible pages the reader may want to find. Any red link that merits inclusion on a dab page should also merit inclusion in an actual article, though, and that article should serve as the blue link on the dab entry. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, don't mind placing them last in the list; it's probably a good idea even. As for the second part, if we only allow the red links on which articles should be written, then it automatically follows that such a link warrants inclusion into an actual article, even though at this time it may not be so included. If we know (via the means I listed above) that the subject is valid and notable, then it is only a matter of time when an article about it is created, and a link to that article is included elsewhere.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely oppose bare redlinks in dab pages. Dab pages are to assist readers find the article they want from a list of similarly titled articles. No linked article, no entry imho. Abtract (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What about assisting readers in making sure that the article they are looking for should exist but doesn't? Red links do exactly that. Also, if you "absolutely oppose" the red links, why are you not complaining about the current wording of MOSDAB which allows red links in some arbitrarily chosen cases?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I can only repeat what I said above "I absolutely oppose bare redlinks in dab pages. Dab pages are to assist readers find the article they want from a list of similarly titled articles. No linked article, no entry imho." You will notice I have bolded bare because redlinks can be useful to point out when an article is 'on the way', provided the reader is directed, on the same line, to the article that mentions the redlinked topic and gives some more info (presumably this is the arbitrary cse you refer to). IMHO the guidelines have it spot on - bare redlinks help no-one because the reader is directed no-where; what good is that? Abtract (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still fail to see your logic. How is the presence of at least one backlink is going to indicate that an article is "on the way"? Why is that even important? If the topic the red link covers is valid, the article should be created eventually, wouldn't you agree? As long as the validity can be verified (and there is a great number of ways to do that), it doesn't really matter when the red link turns blue. Meanwhile, readers get a hint that the article they are looking for has not yet been written and get an assurance that someday (hopefully soon) it will be. That saves them from needlessly wondering if they may have missed the article, or that it may not for some reason be on the dab page (oversights happen). In addition, if numerous ways of spelling of the target article's title exist, the red link shows what the correct title should be (this is especially important for topics where titles can be transliterated in a number of ways or, in case with geographic names, it may not be immediately obvious how the target article should be disambiguated)—this alone saved WP Russia countless man-hours, because without such hints people just tend to take wild guesses as to what the title of a new article they are creating is supposed to be. No matter how you look at it, it's all good, while the opposite side of the scales contains nothing but pedantic formalism with complete disregard of existing practices and the benefits they bring.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I also am sorry you don't get my reasoning but I can't say it any other way. I will just add that a lot of what you say is reasonable but a dab page is not the place to put a bare redlink (cos it goes no-where) ... it should be put in a related article. Once it appears in its first article it takes on an additional validity and can then be included in a dab page because it will no longer be a bare redlink. Sorry if that doesn't convince you but it's all I have to offer. :) Abtract (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You are quite right it doesn't convince me. I do understand your position quite well, but what I don't understand is why having a red link which "goes nowhere" is such a problem that we must sacrifice a load of other benefits this red link otherwise provides. Why is getting rid of a red link that will one day turn blue is more important than convenience of our readers? More important than helping avoid tons of routine maintenance and cleanup this red link helps avoid? Why is it if (a random example) I include a red link to "Baykal, Tyumen Oblast" to Baykal (disambiguation) it is an untolerable problem and must be removed immediately, but if I copypaste the red link's description to create an article, thus turning the link blue, it no longer bothers anyone? Why should we create tens of thousands (I'm not kidding) of such one-liners within WP Russia alone (!) just to satisfy MOSDAB's criteria? Is this all you have to offer? I am in turn sorry if a formalistic interpretation of MOSDAB is more important to you than the long-term perspective, but I do sincerely hope that you think about these questions and maybe, just maybe, will one day reconsider your position. Just think how much easier it is to tweak one clause in the guideline as opposed to handling the massive disruption this clause is going to cause if left untweaked.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In all that you ignore the distinction between a bare redlink and a redlink that has already been mentioned in another article. If this "article" is significant it will be mentioned in an real article, which then becomes the target article and imho every line in a dab page needs a target article; it's not about rules but it is about disambiguation. Anyway sorry but that's my last word on it ... maybe another editor can explain it better than I did. :) Abtract (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If this "article" is significant it will be mentioned in an real article—no, no, and no! Well, it will be, but it doesn't matter it already is. Take my "Baykal, Tyumen Oblast" example. I can reference its existence no problem, yet the place is not mentioned in any other article because it is very small and not that significant (although undoubtedly notable). The article about the district where the village is located has not yet been written, because we didn't get to Tyumen Oblast's districts yet (like I said, Russian administrative structure is an enormous project, and logistics and efficiency of workflow are very important). The closest match is Tyumen Oblast itself, but Baykal should not be listed there because it is merely one of more than a thousand rural localities in the oblast, and placing the whole list in that article is simply silly (and, again, not to mention that doing so would break the workflow and increase maintenance in the future). Yet the need to disambiguate between various Baykals is here today. I don't know any other way of resolving this ambiguity except listing a red link on the dab and, if asked, providing verification that the place is valid. Do you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You could of course use a set index article as we did with Górki - redlink to your hearts content. Abtract (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that worked for Górki, but something like redlinked Baykals would require setting up a whole new set index article, then linking to that set from the dab page, and later, when the links turn blue, incorporating them back into the dab. What a waste of time, don't you find?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No pain, no gain! ... and that is genuinely my (rather trite) last word on the subject. :) Abtract (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, very funny. Let's waste resources at will; the important thing is that all the formalities are observed. You did notice that you addressed none of the concerns I outlined above and pretty much told me to shove it in your last comment? Not to be sarcastic, but... See you around.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "What about assisting readers in making sure that the article they are looking for should exist but doesn't?" Absolutely. The purpose of DAB pages is to help readers, not "help readers in one way and be unhelpful in another". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mos:dab#Introductory line

There are quite a few dab pages with several variants of the base name shown in the lead sentence. An examples is, Saiyuki (plus Saiyūki, Saiyûki, or Saiyuuki). Similarly there are some almost duplicate page names where the difference between the two is miniscule, examples are Friend or Foe and Friend or Foe? (disambiguation) (in fairness, I should say that I was recently involved in a dispute there so I tried to find another example but couldn't). IMHO the best way to deal with these is to have just one dab page for all the (close) variants, to redirect all the variants to this page, but not clutter up the opening phrase by mentioning all variants ... much as we have chosen to do with capitalisation variants (oh I've just noticed that punctuation variants are already mentioned) in this section: It is not necessary to repeat all the possible variations of capitalization or punctuation: "AU may refer to" is preferable over "AU, au, Au or A-U may refer to".

My proposal is that we change that sentence to read (extra words highlighted): It is not necessary to repeat all variations of capitalization, punctuation or spelling: "AU may refer to" is preferable to "AU, au, Au or A-U may refer to"; and "Saiyuki may refer to" is preferable to "Saiyuki, Saiyūki, Saiyûki, or Saiyuuki may refer to".

I suspect it would also be worth saying: Two (or more) dab pages with very similar titles should be avoided as this may make diasambiguation more difficult. For example one page Title (disambiguation) is prefered to Title (disambiguation), TITLE? (disambiguation) and Titles (disambiguation).

Unfortunatel;y, I am not sure where to put it. Abtract (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The question of using multiple pages for closely related spelling is covered to some extent at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions. There should be just one disambiguation page for all cases (upper- or lower-case), variant punctuation and diacritic marks.
FWIW, I agree with you that it is silly to have separate pages for Friend or Foe? (disambiguation) and Friend or Foe. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew I had seen it somewhere ... What about the other suggestion about adding spelling? Abtract (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion is going on at Talk:Friend or Foe? (disambiguation) and I have presented good arguments, such as the existence of Rogue and Rouge. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess one of the problems with the there should be just one disambiguation page for all cases (upper- or lower-case), variant punctuation and diacritic marks approach is that sometimes it is not easy to choose which of those cases should actually be used as a title. In my experience, this is especially true for place names—if you have, for example, five places in Russia and five places in Ukraine called identically in Russian/Ukrainian but romanized into Latin script slightly differently, which of the variants should be chosen as primary? Sometimes it's easier just to create two dab pages and interlink them via "see also" than to try figuring the merger problems out... I am all for avoiding having dabs which differ from each other only by a question mark, but it is important not to enforce this rule too thoroughly—there are plenty of cases out there which may require exceptions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If there are variant spellings of the same meaning of the word, I'm with you on having one page. But if they are different meanings associated with the "close" spellings, put the variants on different pages and cross reference them in the see also sections. We should consider this case when formulating a guideline change in this area. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree ... Rogue and Rouge are good examples of quite a small difference in spelling producing two quite different words which, I agree with Sesshomaru, need two pages. It's the small differences within a theme that I was concerned with but frankly, now that Bkonrad has pointed me to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions I don't feel there is a need to change anything on the naming front (in an ideal world I might tweak it slightly but ...). That just leaves us with the small differences in spelling on one page, and my suggestion to add "spelling" as above. I'm not hearing any objections so far but I will wait a few days before attempting an edit. Abtract (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly are you proposing? The removal of variants, like on Goki, Son Goku, Gypsy, and Saiyuki? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My proposal (as above) is that we change that sentence to read (extra words highlighted): It is not necessary to repeat all variations of capitalization, punctuation or spelling: "AU may refer to" is preferable to "AU, au, Au or A-U may refer to"; and "Saiyuki may refer to" is preferable to "Saiyuki, Saiyūki, Saiyûki, or Saiyuuki may refer to". So thanks yes it would apply to the five examples you suggested. Abtract (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is a good idea, at all. First off, redirects should be mentioned for clarify or, like JHunterJ said, to "avoid surprise". See the edit I did to Dragon Ball. Second, the necessity of two dabs with identical spelling (eg, "Rouge" vs. "Rogue" and "Friend or Foe" vs. "Friend or Foe?") is ideal in many ways. Truth be told, I don't agree with WP:MOSDAB#Introductory line, as I still feel this top edit was helpful and not hurtful, and does like JHunterJ says, avoids confusion. I'm all for the outright removal of this section. Or a complete rewrite. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any objection to the core suggestion I have made the change. Abtract (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try Abtract. Were you aware that I had objected and decided to ignore me? There was not even consensus on this change. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You were the only person who disagreed but, since you disagree on principle with most of my edits, I ignored your objection (which was a bit illconstrued) and concentrated on the fact that none of the editors I admire objected. And no one has pbjected since i made the change. Abtract (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, none have supported you. It isn't that hard to figure out that no compromise means no change. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standarization of location of primary topics in dab pages

Should MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic include a clarification/standardization about the location of the primary topic? The most variance is seen in short dab pages.

Though this is not necessary when the dab page contains only two entries like this:

Topic may refer to:
  • Topic
  • Topic (qualifer)

When there are three or more, should the we standardize on listing the primary topic on top? Like this:

A topic is blah, blah, blah.

Topic may refer to:

  • Topic (qualifer1)
  • Topic (qualifer2)
  • Topic (qualifer3)


Instead of this:

Topic may also refer to:
  • Topic
  • Topic (qualifer1)
  • Topic (qualifer2)
  • Topic (qualifer3)

I think that we should clarify MOS:DAB to reflect a consensus of either:

a) always listing at the top, regardless of list length; or
b) defining a criteria for when it is editor's choice

Thoughts? Gwguffey (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are only two items, my preference is NO dab page. Just put a single hatnote on the primary topic article page. The main idea of the primary topic on top is that it separates it from the rest of the topics to ease searching. In most cases, you got to the page because the primary topic is not the one you want, so you want to skip it. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This neatly summarises the current position which imho is clearly stated on the project page MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic. I see no need for change but wouldn't oppose clarification if it is thought helpful. Abtract (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Jwy's preference gets muddied with the statement on MOS:DAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries that says "the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless" that comes before the part about the preferred method being hatnotes. In my mind that is a separate (though valuable) discussion.
As for the clarifying the primary topic section, should MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic be adjusted from:

Since it is unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top

to something like:

Since it is unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links. Place the link back to the primary topic at the top unless there are only two entries on the page.

Thoughts? - Gwguffey (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Any opposition to this clarification? Gwguffey (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see the need for the extra verbiage. It seems better to leave in the realm of common sense and address on a case-by case basis. older ≠ wiser 18:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it absolutely necessary? No. But editors look here for clarification and this is an ambiguous "gap" in the style. Closing this down would round off the question marks I am aware of relative to primary topics when in cleaning up dab pages. Common sense and WP:IAR would, of course, still be in play for exceptional/odd cases. I'm open to other thoughts on how to address this gap. Gwguffey (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) While I agree there is an issue here and that standardisation is needed, I'm of the view that the current statement is very clear indeed. My interpretation is that it specifies option (a) above, leaving no discretion other than the elasticity normally applied to manuals.
Disambiguation pages for two entries, one of which is a primary topic, shouldn't be fussed over. While their existence is harmless, the recommendation is not to rely on them. I guess what I'm saying is they're of low priority, and shouldn't be singled out. On these grounds, I oppose that specific amendment as above.
That's my two cents. (I'm "inactive" so you might not hear from me again for a while.) Neonumbers (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems clear that there is consensus that no adjustment is required or desired at this time. Thanks to all that took time to think about this topic. Gwguffey (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wording for italics/quote marks exception to piping

It took me quite a few reads of the following (here taken from the [1] version) to understand it:

Use piping to format or quote a portion of an article whose name consists of both a title and a clarifier, or a genus or species and a clarifier; for instance Harvey (film), USS Adder (SS-3), "School" (song), or Saturnalia (dinosaur).

The problem is chiefly that neither "format" nor "quote" are very specific, and all the verbiage about "clarifier" is just a roundabout way of saying "if you want to italicize something less than the whole thing". I would propose the following:

Use piping to italicize or add quote marks to part of an article name; for instance Harvey (film), USS Adder (SS-3), "School" (song), or Saturnalia (dinosaur).

Kingdon (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good clarification/simplification. -Gwguffey (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. – sgeureka t•c 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
"quotation marks", but sounds good. Per some wrapping-up discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Query about when italics are necessary, I'd also propose added a few more examples:
Use piping to add italics or quotation marks to part of an article name; for instance Harvey (film), USS Adder (SS-3), "School" (song), Saturnalia (dinosaur), "Hush" (Buffy episode), Neo (The Matrix). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That wording fixes some awkwardness in my proposal, and looks good. As for the added examples, that looks good to me too (although I certainly didn't read everything in that long and sometimes over-the-top thread). Kingdon (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with that version but would like to ask a related question: if it is so important to add the italics, why don't the article titles include them in the first place? This would save a lot of trouble. Abtract (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That's probably a discussion for WT:NAME -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there are technical limitations in the MediaWiki software that don't allow article titles (page names) to be displayed in italics. I created a subpage of my user page to test this; here is a link: [[User:Tkynerd/Test italic title|here]]. Oops. As for quotation marks, if an article title were to begin and end with them, an attempt to find the article with the Go function would actually search for that exact phrase without the quotation marks, just as it would on Google. So I don't think either is advisable in article titles for technical reasons. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the article to change the text to the JHunterJ proposal above. Kingdon (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mos:dab#Longer lists (more than 12 items)

I have made what I think is a pretty innocuous edit to this section but if there are disagreements, we can of course discuss it ... Abtract (talk)

The limit of 12 was removed with no explanation (except "unecessary"). The problem with having no limit is that we all view this differently ... isn't it better to be clear? Abtract (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you agree that "we all see this differently", what then is the basis for hard-coding a specific number? That strikes me as instruction creep and only encourages those editors who interpret MOSDAB as a set of hard and fast rules to be robotically enforced, rather than simply a set of guidelines describing current practices. older ≠ wiser 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
My purpose was to avoid "heading creep", to steal your phrase. I have noticed an increase in the use of headings (even two levels) which makes relatively short pages become more complex than they need to be ... indeed headings can interfere with disambiguation, rather than aid it, on shortish lists see Seru (disambiguation) ... all of course imho. Abtract (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see much problem with Seru (disambiguation) at present, certainly nothing that would "interfere with disambiguation". I think the main problem I see with dividing lists into subject areas is that often there is ambiguity as to which group to place an item under. For example, an article about an early 20th century automaker and the eponymous make of automobiles could be placed under subject headings for "Corporations" or "Tranport". If we want to formulate guidance on the topic, I'd suggest something along the lines of Avoid subdividing lists into to overly restrictive subject areas. Not the best phrasing, but that's the gist of it anyhow. older ≠ wiser 17:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links sometimes allowed?

The Manual of Style says, "Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web". What about in the introduction of an article? I have occasionally seen disambiguation pages with introductory paragraphs which contain references. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They are incorrectly formatted ... lead me to them and I will correct them. Abtract (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Here you go: Luke, Hayley. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Usually the solution to what I think you are describing is to remove the "introduction" to keep the page in line with the MOS. Keep in mind that disambiguation pages are not articles; they are akin to redirects but with the reader having to stop and make a selection as to which redirect target article is being sought. So descriptions (introductory paragraphs) that provide information that need references generally do not belong on dab pages. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should be nuking introductory paragraphs, or perhaps in some cases rewriting the page into an article rather than a disambiguation. I didn't take the mention of external links to be an absolute prohibition on references (as opposed to external links), although I suppose maybe it is more graceful to include any references (for things like what common names are applied to what plants) in the linked articles instead of the disambiguation page. Kingdon (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Those 2 pages (Luke and Hayley) are not dab pages, but instead belong to WikiProject Anthroponymy. They need to be retagged with {{surname}} and/or {{given name}} (As I understand it, according to this thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Names), and have their non-human-name-meanings moved to a new "Name (disambiguation)" page. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I see it has been done, thus solving the problem. Abtract (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mos:dab#Introductory line 2

A change that I made a while ago has been reverted here and there is no chance of the reverter and me reaching agreement so I would like to know opinion on the change. The proposed change is (new words in bold):

It is not necessary to repeat all variations of capitalization, punctuation or spelling: "AU may refer to" is preferable to "AU, au, Au or A-U may refer to"; and "Saiyuki may refer to" is preferable to "Saiyuki, Saiyūki, Saiyûki, or Saiyuuki may refer to".

Could other editors signify if they support or oppose the change in the usual way. Abtract (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • support obviously I support the change, my reason in a nuthell is that lists of alternative spellings (like lists of alternative capitalisations and punctuations) simply get in the way of reading the all-important opening lines. the one quoted objection seems to be about "no surprises" after a redirect but the redirect mechanism already indicates what has happened at the top of the target page so that doesn't wash. Over to you. Abtract (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • support in general; minor differences in spelling are very similar to the differences in capitalization and punctuation that we already have identified. Keep in mind the "common sense" admonition that applies at the top of the manual; if there is a significant spelling variation that redirects to the page, it ought to be called out separately in the introduction (i.e., not a difference of a diacritical mark or a different form of transliteration). The guideline says it is not necessary to repeat all variations; it does not say one should never repeat any variations, and if there are particular instances where listing a particular spelling variant is desirable to avoid surprise to the reader, that's fine with me. But I expect those will be a small minority of cases. --Russ (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • support (or mostly indifferent), so long as this new "rule" is not used as yet another another cudgel with which to beat on up other editors. older ≠ wiser 21:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't really either support or oppose this proposal, because I can easily imagine situations where formatting the intro line one way or another would make perfect sense. With the current breed of dab cleaners terrorizing editors with MOSDAB left and right and sticking to every letter of what is supposed to be a guideline, implementing yet another rule (which is going to make sense only in some cases) is not something I'd opt for. As an alternative, I would recommend designing some sort of an infobox to hold all possible variations which otherwise would be included in the intro line, and then using that infobox in cases where intro lines are too overloaded with spelling variations. As long as that infobox is as unobtrusive as, say, {{wiktionarypar}}, it might just be the right solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I could go for something like that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the clarification for the times when the "common sense" directive may not achieve a consensus. I would also be interested in seeing the infobox idea for discussion --Gwguffey (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment I absolutely support the thought of User:Bkonrad about avoiding the use of cudgels. I have been trying to formulate a proposal on this for months and one day I may succeed. I am neutral on an info box ... let's see a proposal. :) Abtract (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I'm afraid that simply supporting Bkonrad's thought won't be enough. Just because we agree not to use the new clause "as a cudgel" here, doesn't mean it's not going to happen when MOSDAB zealots (not participating in this thread) start applying it in practice after it passes. Frankly, I don't know how to re-word it so it won't happen—after all, even in its present form the MOSDAB has a warning about not interpreting the guideline too literally, and a fat a lot of good it seems to be doing us.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems a clear consensus with five in support and none against in the six days since I proposed, so I will make the change. Abtract (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break

Note that this does not mean that every variation of capitalization, punctuations, and spelling is necessarily a primary topic. For example, Q.I is not a primary topic on Qi (disambiguation), while Qi and QI are (which is why QI (disambiguation) leads where it does, and why Q.I doesn't link to Qi (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are saying; what can capitalisation, punctuation and spelling have to do with the primary topic? Abtract (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you are sure of what I'm saying, since you continue to push your edit on Qi (disambiguation). You somehow read MOSDAB to say that any variation of punctuation yields a primary topic. I was simply correcting that misunderstanding. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think maybe you push too ... it is clear that Qi, if you want to discuss it here (having avoided doing so on the talk page), has three primary articles Qi, QI and Q.I (I wonder if disinterested observers can even guess which one you have arbitrarily decided is not as valid a primary article as the other two?). What are your reasons for picking two only? Beats me. Abtract (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with J's edit. "Q.I" doesn't appear to be a primary name or the like. And Abtract, this comment was really unnecessary. It hints that you want an edit war for the sake of stirring up others (me). When the page is unprotected, I would like to see J's revision as the current one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What neither of you has even attempted to explain is why it isn't the primary article. All three of the articles in question have a title which is the root of the dab page, just with different capitalisation and/or punctuation. You have given no reason for choosing two and rejecting one and, until you do, I remain unconvinced. Abtract (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Qi (disambiguation), QI (disambiguation), vs. Q.I (disambiguation) (newly created and unneeded -- there are no other Q.Is to disambiguate). Hatnotes on Qi, QI, Q.I (newly added and unneeded -- readers on Q.I are unlikely to be looking for one of the others). Until you give a reason for your statement that MOSDAB says Q.I is a primary topic of Qi, I remain unconvinced. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I didn't understand that reasoning. My reasons are very simple:
1) It is not necessary to repeat all variations of capitalization, punctuation or spelling: "AU may refer to" is preferable to "AU, au, Au or A-U may refer to"; and "Saiyuki may refer to" is preferable to "Saiyuki, Saiyūki, Saiyûki, or Saiyuuki may refer to - this clearly means (imho) that all variations of capitalisation, punctuation and (minor) spelling are considered equal for dab purposes which is why we don't need to mention them all in the lead.
2) When a page has "(disambiguation)" in the title, users are unlikely to stumble on it by accident. They will arrive there by clicking on a link from the primary topic article, by searching, or by directly typing its URL. I think we are all agreed that the primary topic is the topic with an article at the "root" of the dab page. It is quite easy to envisage a reader typing Q-I, Q.I. or Q.I (intending to type Q.I. but being rushed) when looking for one of the capitalised variants - they may then arrive at the wrong article but, because there is a dab page hatnote there, they go immediately to Qi (disambiguation) and find the article they seek (whichever one it is).
So in a nutshell ... All three of the variants are articles at the root word; all three are possible entry points for dabbing. I see no difference between them. Abtract (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Likelihood of typing while being rushed doesn't determine primary topic-ness. In a nutshell, yes, Q.I should be included on the Qi (disambiguation), but it isn't a primary topic. If people who are rushed might reach Q.I unintentionally, then, yes, it should also link back to Qi (disambiguation), but that's it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You still havent given a reason why it isnt a primary topic ... it is an article at the root word. Abtract (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As an extra argument, note that this makes no mention of root word article, presumably because they are assumed to be the primary topic. Abtract (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't have anything to do with what we're opposing. And WP:CONSENSUS defeats any and all rules so don't bother with citing the guideline. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You just can't help yourself can you? Of course I am entitled to quote the guidlines that's the whole point of this talkpage. I have a perfectly valid point about primary topic which you personally have made no attempt to rebut. I await a real argument from JHJ, who I respect. Abtract (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Tell me Sess, in your own words, what exactly are you opposing and why? Abtract (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not repeating myself, see this. That'll clear everything up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
So let me get this right, "Q.I doesn't appear to be a primary name or the like" is the sum total of your argument? What I was looking for was a reason but hey ho. Abtract (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave the reason. There is only one article at the root word of any (disambiguation) page. That article is the primary topic. Depending on the set of articles, there may be other articles that would be primary topics of their own dab pages (such as QI (disambiguation)), but those dab pages have been merged or were pre-emptively created in the other dab. On the other hand, there may be still more articles that are variations of spelling, punctuation, or capitalization but would have no (disambiguation) pages to be the primary topic of (such as Q.I (disambiguation), which should not exist, since Q.I is not an ambiguous title); these are not primary topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK at last I understand your point - I disagree but thanks for phrasing it so that my dim mind can understand it. I am going to end this thread now and start afresh below with a proposal that will make my point more clear and will (imho) enhance the guidelines. With respect, I really want to see more opinions than just yours. :) Abtract (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, I have a question

In the middle of my mass sloppy cleanup of disambig pages, I've come across pages like these: People's Party and People's Movement and People's Liberation Army (disambiguation).

Someone has tried to organize these links in an easy to read alphabetic fashion by country. They don't meet the manual of style at all, though. Is there any justification for leaving them somewhat like this (with all the extra blue links pulled out), or should they be formatted like other disambig pages, with the primary blue linked term on the left margin and the country name perhaps alphabetically listed to the right of that? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO these are all set index articles. Abtract (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acronyms

Do anagrams count as part of the dab term, like the link Bam's Unholy Union at Buu? I don't see the guideline clearing this up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean since it is not an anagram. Abtract (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, meant "acronym". Kind of confused the two there for an instant. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Look here "ABC may stand for:" Abtract (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The relevant criterion is whether Bam's Unholy Union is commonly referred to as "BUU" and whether there is significant potential for confusion by readers looking for that article by looking for "BUU". older ≠ wiser 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That was what I was just about to say! Do we actually spell that out anywhere in the MoS? I just went looking for something to that effect, and couldn't seem to find it. I know it's been the guideline, though. -- Natalya 13:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The difficulty I foresee with being too proscriptive is that none of us wants a repeat of the HP fun and games ... arguments over "notability of usage" will occur. I would hazard a guess that almost all schools and universities etc, churches, museums, sports teams, etc etc are locally known by their initials whatever their wp article says. Add to this the fact that initials are often placed in articles with absolutely no citation (Ilford County High School for example) and I wonder what such a guideline would mean in practice ... a recipe for disaster! Leave it be, is my advice. :) Abtract (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it do any harm in mentioning it in the MoS? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I do recognize the concern that Sessmhomaru is expressing, but addressing this would seem to be quite unwieldy. Per older's comment, the criterion is "significant potential for confusion" which is going to have to rely on common sense. And that cannot truly defined in the MOS. The verbiage to address the "notability of usage" term Abtract expressed may leave us simply as having added instruction creep without providing a genuine improvement to the encyclopedia by either being so broad that it is effectively undefined or so narrow that there would almost always be a case for an exception. At least that's how I feel about this thought in the abstract without specific wording being proposed. --Gwguffey (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Piping question

Often I will see something like the following redlinked item:

  • Foo foo town, Oregon, Oregon

Except piping has been used to make it look like the following:

Generally terms like this are not supposed to be piped, but in this case someone has tried to prevent the duplication of "Oregon". Should the piping be removed? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Understandably the repetition is bothersome, but I suggest that unless "Foo foo town" is specifically mentioned in the Oregon article, there is no point to linking to Oregon. Often the more relevant link is to a county or other smaller administrative area, in which there is less repetition (and the blue link could be piped). For example:
  • Foo foo town, Oregon, Bar Bar County
Assuming of course that there is some mention of Foo foo town in the Bar Bar County article. To answer your question more directly, I think the first link should in general not be piped. older ≠ wiser 20:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if Oregon happened to be the very target article that contained a section or mention of Foo foo town, this should still be handled without piping, so that the name of the "soon-to-be-article" is evident, for example: Foo foo town, Oregon, a town in Oregon. Abtract (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)]]

[edit] Pre-Indo-European

Someone might like to look at this page which purports to be a dab page but which has an ownership problem. Abtract (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I made a cleaning pass over it and Indo-European. But the ownership issue may be sticky. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
To me, it seems like it is less of a disambiguation page and more of a page explaining what Pre-Indo-European means. None of the articles seem to have similarly confusing names; rather, it seems that the topic itself is confusing, which an article itself could clear. -- Natalya 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's a set-index article? I once had similar problems at cleaning up Orthodox Christianity, and I am wondering now if it was the ownership issues there or my possible mistaking it for a dab page that was the problem. – sgeureka t•c 21:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to other Wikipedias

Occasionally, I see links to foreign language Wikipedias in disambig pages, generally for entries which we don't have an article on. For example:

  • RAVA (village)[2] - Hungarian village in Transylvania/Romania

What to do with these? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete them, or comment them out, or move them to the dab's talk page. Or, I suppose, create the article by translating the linked one. :-) In this case, there's another article that could be lined instead. -- JHunterJ (talk)
Yeah, that's pretty much what I've been doing (commenting them out, generally). Just making sure. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] should "see also" section be a hatnote

Proposal to do away with the guide that says that similar and easily confused terms should be in the "see also" section. They should be in a hatnote, like regular articles.

Why should a reader have to go through all the entries before they realize that they are mistaken? In addition, there's some small dab pages with unsightly large "see also" sections. It would be much neater if they were all taken care of with a hatnotes, which are horizontal, not vertical. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see a hatnote at the top of a disambiguation page getting rather large, if there are a number of easily confused pages associated with the disambiguation page. There are definitly some "See also" sections that are much larger than necessary, but there are definitly pages with many valid entries. In addition to adding clutter, I think that adding a hatnote at the top of the disambiguation page would take away from the (possible) primary topic and the other main uses for the disambiguation term. Yes, it's true that someone could have come to that page erroneously due to a misspelling, but conceptually the majority of people would be coming for that exact meaning of the page. I feel like having the possible misspellings in a see also section at the end makes things crisp, clear, and organized.
Also, unlike long articles where it would be a pain to comb through the article to get to the bottom if you were looking for a different meanings, most disambiguation pages are much shorter than articles, so getting down to the bottom of the "See also" section is not a great chore.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be frugal in what we include in the "See also" sections, however. :) -- Natalya 02:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
DeWitt (althogh technically not a dab, but a surname page, they seem to work with the same guidelines) is a prime example. DeWitt is easily confused with De Witt. But a person would have to go through the long list at the article to realize that they might have been mistaken. That searcher might give up even before they reach the "see also" section. The other day I moved the common mispelling from a "see also" section to a hatnote. I think that for that article, and similarly situated articles, a hatnote is the better way to go. Do you agree?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
DeWitt is a dab page, not a surname article. It could be split into a surname article and a dab page if desired. Surname articles, including the lists of name holders on them, do not need to observe the dab guidelines. Multiple wikilinks per line, for instance. Some guidelines still make sense, like not ending the fragments with a period. I'd say a hatnote on a surname article is fine. I'd recommend combining the dab pages DeWitt and De Witt, since they are just navigational aids, and leading the list with links to the new surname page(s) -- the surname article might also cover the name both with the space and without. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That's true, it is a dab page, I wasn't carefuel before I spoke. But why should dab pages and surname pages have different guidelines? They are the same type of articles. If a hatnote makes sense in one, it should make sense in the other. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that's a good example of when having the easily confused meaning as a hatnote is helpful, but what about other disambiguation pages with multiple confused meanings? I'm wary of making that a broad change in the MoS, and would rather engourage ignoring the rules in cases where is appears that it would be much more helpful. -- Natalya 11:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The "broad changes" were initiated when the "see also" MOSDAB guideline was written, making the "see also" section have a different role in dab pages then in regular articles. I'm also wary of "broad changes" and for that very reason the current guideline should be reversed. Consistency between dab pages and regular pages outweigh the benefits of using "see also" the way it's uses in dab pages. If this isn't agreeable, how about modifying the guideline to say that "in certain cases, it makes sense to put the easily confused term in a hatnote"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
(after ec)Personally, I don't think DeWitt and De Witt should be separate pages. The spelling among the place names, and even among the human name, is rather inconsistent. For US places, the articles were created based on names used by the U.S. Census Bureau. However, in many cases the local web sites use a different spelling (or in some cases are inconsistent. Even now, after the pages have been split and scrubbed a few times, De Witt, Iowa and De Witt, New York are listed on both pages, although they currently redirects to DeWitt, Iowa and DeWitt, New York. Among people, Alexander De Witt is listed on DeWitt, but not on DeWitt. I think it would be more sensible to have a single page for these easy confused names. older ≠ wiser 13:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't really have in mind to discuss the "Witts", I had broader policy issues in mind. I guess I should track down a better example. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
So pretty much like Rogue and Rouge? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
(after ec) As a general practice, I don't think hatnotes are appropriate on disambiguation pages. As an exceptional practice, there may be some cases where a hatnote might be appropriate. I have come across them occasionally, and I've tended to leave them be as the hatnote did not strike me as unreasonable. But I don't recall any specific examples though. I can see your point about the "see also" section serving a different function on disambiguation page than in articles. But I would not want to see the contents of the See also sections simply dumped into hatnotes. In many cases, the items in the See also section would simply not be appropriate in a hatnote by any measure. older ≠ wiser 14:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Lord Sesshomaru's example is perfect. It's where a "commonly confused word" should belong in a hatnote, not in the "see also" section. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think hatnotes on dab pages should be an exception rather than the rule; one instance where hatnotes are used often on dab pages though are for wikipedia stuff, see Article (plus incoming links such as good article). I am neutral on that for surname pages, since what should be done in cases like Dyment-Dimond-Dymond-Diamant (disambiguation)-Diament? DeWitt and De Witt can be merged, since they overlap so much, but their respective lengths would also justify keeping them separate; I don't feel strong either way. – sgeureka t•c 15:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. So it looks like we are coming to the conclusion that sometimes merging is appropiate, sometimes a hatnote is appropiate, and sometimes a "see also" section is appropiate. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That's seems pretty accurate. I think that the "See also" section should still be consiered the default, however, so that we do not get an abundance of unnecessary hatnotes. -- Natalya 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I'm going to apply this to the main page. Please revert anything that is unagreeable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avi

Does anyone see any reason to keep any of the four final names listed at Avi on the page? I would normally just discuss it on the talk page of the disambiguation page, but it doesn't seem to be frequented much/ever, so I figured I'd see if anyone thought of reasons to keep them here. The only one I might consider keeping is the link to Avie Tevanian, who may have a nickname "Avie" (even so, that's more of a misspelling). Thoughts? -- Natalya 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no point in ever discussing anything on disambiguation talk pages, unless an edit conflict comes up, as it may be years before anyone sees your post there. (As for your question, I'll leave that to others to answer) --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd segregate them to a section "People with the given name Avi" (until Avi (name) is created), and remove "Avie" or move to See also. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I'd remove "Avie Tevian" and add just "Avie" to a See also section. --Gwguffey (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool, those ideas sound pretty reasonable. Thanks for the input! -- Natalya 11:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for already doing that, JHunterJ! Just fyi, I moved "Avie Tevian" to the "See also" section, and made the header for the given name section a little smaller, since they are not very big lists. -- Natalya 11:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Even for small lists of name holders, I usually use a big header to emphasize the distinction between the list of name holders that should go to their own name article when available and "real" disambiguation entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I can ride with that. I think I was basing the sections off of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#People, but those actually people whose names are the disambiguation page, not people-whose-names-include-the-name-of-the-disambiguation-page-who-technically-don't-need-to-be-on-there-because-they're-not-really-known-by-that-name-but-who-we're-including-because-we're-nice. I think it stuck out to me at first glance, since the list was so small, but it does makes sense. Thanks for explaining! -- Natalya 12:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two songs called "Fade"

Here's the situation: There are two songs called "Fade" with articles. The one by Blue Angel has an article under Fade (Blue Angel song) and the one by Staind has a redirect under Fade (Staind song) to the album it's on, Break the Cycle. Now, until a few minutes ago, when I changed it, Fade (song) was the article for the Blue Angel song; I moved it to Fade (Blue Angel song) when I stumbled upon the article, having navigated to Fade (song) looking for the Staind song.

Anyway. I know that Fade (song) should not remain a redirect to the Blue Angel song. My question is, which one of the following should it be a redirect to:

  1. The Staind song, which is much more popular than the Blue Angel song (whose own article calls it "obscure")
  2. The omnibus redirect page Fade, which has links to both songs, but also to many other fade-related entities
  3. A new redirect page under Fade (song) listing just those two songs (and maybe also the Radiohead song with the word in a parenthetical, which is listed at Fade), specifically for those who, like me, navigated to the article of that name looking specifically for a song named "Fade."

--zenohockey (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm quite mistaken, Fade (song) should redirect to Fade, where both specific songs are covered. There is a template to be used on Fade (song) that's called something like "redirect from insufficient disambiguation," but I'm not sure of the exact name. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
{{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. But, Zenohockey, there is no real reason to move Fade (song) to Fade (Blue Angel song). A hatnote on Fade (song) (when it was an article about the Blue Angel song) directing the handful of people who would reach it by entering "Fade (song)" in the search box to the Staind album would have worked as well, and IMO would be preferable since there's only one full article about any song named "Fade". -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, JHunterJ -- that makes sense to me. Zenohockey, I encourage you to follow JHunterJ's approach. --Tkynerd (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
But as as I said in my question, I already moved Fade (song) to Fade (Blue Angel song). Should I put in an AfD to move it back, or take Tkynerd's first suggestion and re-redirect Fade (song) to Fade? --zenohockey (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Moving a title back over the redirect that was created when it was first moved can be done by any editor; no AfD or admin intervention required. I made the move and added the hatnote to Fade (song). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not know that. Thanks for your help! --zenohockey (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primary topic

When there is just one primary topic, the current guidelines seem pretty clear to me. However when there are two or more, then I believe there is rooms for clarification. We have establish previously that variants in capitalisation, punctuation and spelling are not to be distinguished in the lead sentence (see mos:dab#Introductory line, and since the "root article" (Article name on a dab page Article name (disambiguation)) is by definition the primary topic, this combination creates the possibility of more than one primary topic - see HP (disambiguation) as an example. It is how to address this possibility that I would like to see clarified. To start things off I suggest the following additional sentence at the end of the mos:dab#Linking to a primary topic section:

There may be more than one primary topic if variants in punctuation, capitalization and spelling have produced more than one 'root article' such as with HP and hp in HP (disambiguation); each of these primary topics should be given equal prominence at the top of the disambiguation page like this from Freak (disambiguation):

A freak is a person with something unusual about their appearence or personality.

"Freeek!" is a song by George Michael from the album Patience

Freaks is a 1932 film.

The Freak was an unproduced motion picture written by Charlie Chaplin in the early 1970s.

Freak(s) may also refer to:

There may be a better way to do it but I'm sure you get my general thrust. What do you think? Abtract (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Freeek!, The Freak, and Freaks do not appear to be primary topics of Freak (disambiguation)], with possibly a case being made for Freaks. Not every variant of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling will be a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with JHunterJ that the variants are not primary topics for Freak. They certainly should be mentioned somewhere on the page, but not as primary topics. I think the best summary of primary topics on dab pages was given by JHunterJ above (mos:dab#Introductory line 2). Here is the relevant portion:
There is only one article at the root word of any (disambiguation) page. That article is the primary topic. Depending on the set of articles, there may be other articles that would be primary topics of their own dab pages (such as QI (disambiguation)), but those dab pages have been merged or were pre-emptively created in the other dab. On the other hand, there may be still more articles that are variations of spelling, punctuation, or capitalization but would have no (disambiguation) pages to be the primary topic of (such as Q.I (disambiguation), which should not exist, since Q.I is not an ambiguous title); these are not primary topics.
Although taken out of context of the discussion it is not as clear, but perhaps some version of this should get incorporated into the main page. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It is just that interpretation that I am querying. Simplifying my point a bit ... if variants of spelling, punctuation and capitalisation are considered equally suitable for inclusion within a dab page, then they are equal partners and should have equal status in terms of "primary topicness". Indeed this (my) reasoning allows both HP and hp to be primary topics within HP (disambiguation) whereas JHJ's reasoning would surely exclude hp as it is a "variant". Take as an example Freaks ... the dab page Freak (disambiguation) covers that variant just as well as the "main" variant Freak, they have equal status and therefor are both root articles imho; what is the difference between them? JHJ says above, "Not every variant of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling will be a primary topic." Why not? Abtract (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
One most significant difference between the HP/Hp example and the Freak example is that the HP/Hp is a variance in capitalization, while the Freak example is a variance in spelling. So, they are different words than the dab topic. Thus, I agree with JHunterJ and Older as that would make them non-primary topics. Doing so would fundamentally shift the premise of primary topics and I don't think that makes the pages clear nor friendlier for the readers. --Gwguffey (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
But if that is the case, why do we include Freaks on the page at all? Surely it's either "in" (with equal status) or "out". mos:dab#Introductory line goes to great length to be inclusive of all variants; why does't this apply to primary topics? However I have no axe to grind here but it needs clarifying in the guideline. If the consensus is that spelling variants (even including plurals) have a lower status in this regard, then we had better say so. And what about punctuation variants? Abtract (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ordinarily, Freaks would redirect to Freak. Hence, as JHJ conceded and I tend to agree, a case could be for Freaks being primary on that disambiguation page. Indeed, the version immediately before you edited the page had Freaks listed as a second primary topic. Based on this common practice of redirecting plurals to the singular, the likelihood of mistaken links or searches involving the terms is significant and Freaks could justifiably be considered a second primary topic. The other terms are somewhat different. Arguably "Freeek!" should not even be included in the main listing on that page, but merely noted as a see also. The Freak is a little more interesting. It is a distinctive title, and there could arguably be a separate disambiguation page for The Freak as there are comic book characters commonly known as "the Freak" or "The Freak". Because the definite article may be dropped in casual speech, The Freak should be included on the dab page for Freak, but it is harder to claim it is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 14:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC) And just FYI, the dab page should also treat terms related to Freaking. older ≠ wiser 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll restate more generically my earlier not that BKonrad quoted:
  • Any disambiguation page that has "(disambiguation)" in its title has at least one primary topic, and that will be the page that has the same name minus the " (disambiguation)" part -- the "base name".
  • There may be variations of spelling, punctuation, and capitalisation (and number - plurals) of the base name. Some of these may be primary topics, and some of them will not be primary topics. A variant may be a primary topic if:
    • The variant spelling had a dab of its own (because there are multiple articles that could have been titled with the same variation) and that dab page was merged with the dab in question.
    • The variant spelling could have had such a dab, but rather than creating a separate dab page the multiple entries that would have gone there were added to the dab in question.
  • A variant is not a primary topic if there is no hypothetical dab page for it to be the only primary topic of.
In particular, we want to avoid moving a lot of entries to primary topics if those entries are going to then go counter to the guideline to order the entries by likelihood—even if they could have had their own dabs. If it becomes a point of contention on a particular dab page, we should consider splitting the variations out (or back out) to their own disambiguation pages, list each other in the See also sections. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Good. Probably need to note that the primary topic may be a redirect, typically more common with abbreviations, but can happen with other forms as well. Though I'm not sure it will be universally accepted, we might want to suggest how to formulate the sentences for such redirected primary topics (as in the lengthy HP/hp or Baikal discussions). older ≠ wiser 12:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain but I disagree with JHJ's summary ... I think it is much simpler: If a variant is sufficiently close to the dab page title to merit inclusion in the dab page then it is a primary topic is much simpler to understand and act upon. The JHJ way is balancing on a pinpoint and liable to cause argument after argument imho. Abtract (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's simpler even than that: If a variant merits inclusion on the dab, then it merits inclusion on the dab, that's all. Merit for inclusion is not merit for primary topic-ness. The "JHJ way" is not my way -- it's the way the dab guidelines speak about primary topics, and is a look at the spirit of the guidelines. Is a George Micheal music video a primary topic of "freak", an article the reader would have already seen before reaching the dab page? Clearly not -- nobody types in "Freeek!" when looking for the movie or the sideshow attraction or any of the other entries on the Freak disambiguation page. Things that are titled "base name (phrase)" vary from the base name even less than spelling variations, punctuation variations, etc. -- if not for the technical limitations of Wikipedia naming, they wouldn't vary at all. There is no reason to promote minor variations to primary topic-ness ahead of these articles, unless the minor variations would be primary topics of some other dab page. Again, if it's a point of contention, the better solution would be to split any dab page that you feel should have multiple primary topics into multiple dab pages. I don't think that pinpoint-balancing is necessary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
With respect I think it is your way rather than that of the guidelines because the guidelines don't allow for more than one primary topic; it's this omission I want to correct. I think we have probably discussed this enough to attempt a forward move; my suggestion is that we each put a proposed amendment in the box below, together with a status quo alternative, and see what others think:

(A) - Leave the guidelines unchanged

(B) - insert JHJ proposal here

(C) - Add the following to the end of the primary topic section of the guidelines: "Where a variant (or variants) of the term being disambiguated exists as an article which is considered close enough to the term to merit inclusion on the page, then this variant becomes a second (or third etc) primary topic and should be positioned at the beginning of the page as on HP (disambiguation). This will normally be applicable with capitalization, accent and punctuation variants; with the addition of the word "the" before the term; with plurals; and with common alternative (mis)spellings."

I then suggest that we vote in the normal way but not until your proposal is in place. Does this seem a reasonable idea? Abtract (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the guideline does not allow more than one primary topic, only that it does not specifically address such situations. I think we may need to agree on baseline definitions though. For purposes of disambiguation, a primary topic exists only when the disambiguation page has "(disambiguation)" in the title and some other article uses the unqualified title (either directly or through a redirect). The placement of the primary topic line on a dab page was simply a nod towards indicating that that term occupies the unqualified title: Since it is unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they [users] are looking for if they've visited the disambiguation page, it should not be mixed in with the other links. Now, IIRCC, that part of the guideline was not adopted without some disagreement. I seem to recall that I expressed some objection, but it would take some digging through the archives to find the discussions. But in any case, the practice is well-established now. And by the logic currently expressed on the guideline for presenting the primary topic separately on the dab page, the only cases where there would be multiple primary topics is when there are alternative spellings with existing articles where a reader could end up on that page and might reasonably have expected to find some other page AND the alternative meanings for the article could easily be confused with the items on the disambiguation page (i.e, there is a combined disambiguation page for what otherwise would have been separate dab pages for distinct primary topics). older ≠ wiser 14:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
"vote in the normal way" -- what would that be? We don't vote on guideline changes; we reach them by consensus. As Bkonrad mentioned, there is no guideline prohibiting multiple primary topics, and I'm observing that there is no guideline that every base-name variation be a primary topic. The only thing that appears to be in question is what "merits" an entry for primary topic-ness, which is also spelled out in the guidelines: "Since it is unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for if they've visited the disambiguation page, it should not be mixed in with the other links." We could spell out how this works with "blended" dabs (with an example of a page with two primary topics because it is a combination of two disambiguation pages), if that will help, or we could specify that blended dabs should not be created, so that there is only ever one primary topic, and split out the ones that currently have multiple primary topics. But I see no problem with the guidelines as stated, so I don't yet have a proposal to put into your proposed vote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I'm with JHunterJ. I don't see that we have much of a problem as things are. I have never had a real problem determining what made some sense nor have I had conflicts about it. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(Ec) I think the guidelines do fine as they are now. They allowed us to find a good solution at HP (disambiguation), where, because of not clearly defined capitalization, the primary topic truly could be two different things. Even with the guidelines as they are now, we were able to do that. Now, I'm not too averse to mentioning a short line about the example of HP (disambiguation), but I don't want that to open up disambiguation pages that don't need it to having primary topics. For Freak (disambiguation), for example, I'd much rather make a second disambiguation page at Freaks (disambiguation), and link to that from Freak (disambiguation). The only reason I see the HP example as a valid reason to have two primary topics is because even if you had two separate disambiguation pages for the capitalized and non-capitalized version, there is not enough differentiation in the terms to say which capitalization refers to which (Additionally, the directs from HP and hp make it dually confusing). In most other cases, however, I think that we can find alternate options that do not require primary topics, and thus. If we want to mention HP (disambiguation) somewhere in the MoS, I wouldn't disagree, as long as we make it clear that there needs to be very good reasons for doing this. -- Natalya 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
OK already ... I can see that the weight of opinion is clearly in favour of leaving things as they are. I will go along with thew spirit of this and not make a point wherever I find minor 'variants'. Thanks for taking my idea seriously. Abtract (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing it, Abtract. Even if it's sometimes hard to get consensus to change the Manual of Style, and even if it feels to some editors like its uprooting the way we know to do DAB pages, it is good to see if there are ways to improve the way we do disambiguation pages. -- Natalya

[edit] Sectioning entires at Bravo

Does anyone have any ideas of further topic sections to make for the entires currently in "Other" at the disambiguation page Bravo? I did a bunch of cleanup on the page, but it still feels like there are a lot of entires clumped together, and if there were any categories we could put them into, it would make navigation easier. -- Natalya 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Propaniac (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few questions

Many people have a tendency to put the word "the" in front of the linked term at the beginning of an entry. Am I correct in assuming that we don't want this?

Second question, frequently editors will make the first word or phrase in an entry bold if we don't have any article for it and they've guessed that it's not worth redlinking. Such as:

Should these be de-bolded? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There definitly shouldn't be bolding for the entries. Unless I'm mistaken, the only things that should be bolded are the link to the primary topic (if there is one) (MoS:DP#Linking_to_a_primary_topic), the name of the subject leading line (Rhapsody may refer to:) (MoS:DP#Introductory_line), and possibly any sections separating the entries (MoS:DP#Longer_lists). The individual entires themselves definitly shouldn't be bolded (MoS:DP#Individual_entries). You may already know the info at the links - I just figured I'd link to where the Manual of Style for reference.
As for the use of "The"... wasn't 100%, so I did some digging! MoS:DP#Individual_entries says "The link should be the first word or phrase in each entry". So, if there is a blue link for the entry, it sounds like there shouldn't be a "the" before those links. I think this also applies if we decide that a red link is appropriate. If there isn't one, though, MoS:DP#URL_anchor_notation, the blue link that we have in the entry shouldn't start the line - so, in that case, there could be a the, I guess? -- Natalya 19:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign language wikipedias

I noticed something which I thought might be of interest when looking at some of the other Wikipedias. I don't speak any other languages, but I used google's translation service to look at the disambiguation policies of some of the other wikipedias, and I found that they vary quite a bit.

The German wikipedia is the 2nd largest wikipedia, and their guidelines appear to be exactly the same as ours, as far as I can tell. The Polish and Italian wikipedias, on the other hand, have an entirely different disambiguation philosophy, and their pages are a sea of blue links, using piping to cover up the original article titles as is normally done in articles. The Spanish wikipedia only allows one blue link per entry, but uses piping to cover up the sloppy looking article titles, and all entries end in a semi-colon.

I can't really tell the finer points of their guidelines, as the translations are not so good, but from the parts I can make out, I found it interesting how the different Wikipedias ended up having very different ways of handling disambiguation pages. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

I disagree with this:

"Start with a capital letter unless the target article is marked with {{lowercase}}."

There are many pages which mix proper and common nouns. Using an initial lowercase for the latter will ease distinction for readers. We are already careful to preserve unusual capital/lower usages e.g. PuTTY on putty (disambiguation); NeXT, N.EX.T and NEXT on next. Why the refusal to preserve the most widespread of all such usages? jnestorius(talk) 12:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This practice on disambiguation pages is adapted both from common usage in English, as articulated in the guideline for lists, Wikipedia:Lists#List styles, which has the following guidance: As a matter of style, list items should start with a capital letter. They should not have a punctuation mark such as a period, a comma or a semi-colon at the end, except if a list item is one or more full sentences, in which case there is a period at the end. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Although interestingly, the main WP:MOS is more flexible as described in the section Bulleted and numbered lists: When the elements are sentence fragments, they are typically introduced by a lead fragment ending with a colon, are formatted using consistently either sentence or lower case, and finish with a final semicolon or no punctuation, except that the last element typically finishes with a final period. I can see where that is reasonable, since lists consisting of single words or short terms are often uncapitalized. But in general, I think it is more common to use sentence case on lists, especially where the list consists of heterogeneous elements, and, as typical, on disambiguation pages the disambiguation lists frequently include at least two parts separated by a comma or other compound structures for which sentence case seemed more appropriate as the default guidance. older ≠ wiser 13:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Whatever about Wikipedia, I don't believe it is standard English style to require vertical list entries to begin with a capital. It is often permitted but more often prohibited than required.
  • What do you mean by "sentence case"? The list elements are explicitly not sentences, so the initial capital of a sentence does not apply. Modern dictionaries do not capitalise headwords of entries; DAB pages are similar to dictionary entries.
jnestorius(talk) 13:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe it is standard English style to require vertical list entries to begin with a capital. It is often permitted but more often prohibited than required. -- When editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia style guidelines apply. In my experience, vertical lists (other than those consisting of short words or terms) in general use sentence case. I'm the various style manuals with have divergent guidance. The Chicago MOS suggests that each entry begin with a capital letter—whether or not the entry forms a complete sentence. In my experience, I'd say sentence case is more common for lists similar to what is found on disambiguation pages, although YMMV. In any case, the guideline has been such for quite a while and at least has some support from recognized style authorities, I think a better argument than "I don't like it" is needed to develop any consensus for change. older ≠ wiser 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the CMOS says numbered lists should begin with a capital letter, whereas "A group of unnumbered items each of which consists of an incomplete sentence should begin lowercase and requires no terminal punctuation". DAB lists are of course unnumbered . Apart from WP:UGH, my arguments are:
  1. An initial upper or lower case letter is a useful aid for distinction and recognition; DAB pages are about ease of navigation.
  2. Forcing an init-cap is inconsistent with the preservation of other distinctive lettercase in DAB items.
  3. There is no need to have DAB-list style conform with article-list style; the purpose of each is different.
jnestorius(talk) 15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree. A lot depends on how widely the present guideline is actually adhered to. If it isn't, then we could quite easily change it unless someone comes up with strong arguments in favour of it. However, if it's being observed fairly consistently at the moment, then changing the approved style is going to mean a prohibitively large amount of work to bring existing pages in line.--Kotniski (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: CMOS. the FAQ I referred to above states Bulleted lists "are treated the same as numbered lists in terms of capitalization and punctuation." If the CMOS proper says something different, well, that's a problem for the CMOS editors. The practice is widespread in disambiguation pages. It would require significant effort to update pages for what, IMO in any case, is very little benefit. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The first part of your argument stands strongest with me. After thinking about it for a while (as much as I have a tendancy to not want to fix things if they aren't broken :) ), the ability to distinguish between proper and non-proper nouns on a disambiguation page could add to ease of navigation. Kotniski brings up a good point, though, about the difficulty of implementing it. If there was to be consensus that we should change it, I don't think we should let it being time-consuming to implement (at least with the already created pages) stop us, but it's something to keep in mind. -- Natalya 18:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion is that it is simply a rehash of what must have been discussed in the article naming debate years ago. Dab entries almost all start with an article name and article names (mostly) begin with a capital letter. We are disambiguating articles so we surely must use the article name ... which starts with a capital. Abtract (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

True, that was something I was thinking about for a while. All of the lowercase article names go right to their uppercase counterparts (apple goes right to Apple). True, unless there is a specific reason for it, the actual article name is supposed to begin with a capital letter. Is there harm in having the upper/lowercase letter based on whether it is a proper noun or not on the disambiguation page? If there are valid reasons not to do it, then, y'know, we should leave it as it is. If not, though, it seems like there could be some disambiguation benefit. -- Natalya 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Article names begin with a capital due to technical limitations, not stylistic choice: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Lower case first letter. Since apple links to Apple, there is not even the need for the kind of pipetrick that is currently prescribed for book-titles, etc. I think the kind of consistency Abtract advocates is spurious and pointless. jnestorius(talk) 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Setting aside, for a moment, the debate over which style would be better, I think a more practical question is, who exactly would edit nearly 100,000 disambiguation pages to make them all conform to the new guideline? Probably 99.9% of pages have all the links starting with a capital letter, even those which are otherwise wildly out of sync with the manual of style.
The answer, of course, is - no one. Even I, in the middle of my massive cleanup project, wouldn't be willing to do that, as the idea of making an unnecessary stylistic change which would then require 90% of disambig pages to be changed seems ridiculous. If this were 4 years ago, we could reasonably argue over whether this would be a good thing, or whether we should end entries in a semi-colon or perhaps a comma, or if putting the link in bold might be better.
But after 100,000 disambiguation pages have already been written? Nobody's going to fix them all to meet the new policy, and the end result would be a complete lack of consistency, with a tiny but growing number of pages meeting the new policy and the great (but slowly shrinking) majority now violating it.
And even the editors who have never read the manual of style and think every other word should be a blue link and entries should have references and photos, even they all seem to naturally want to capitalize the first word in an entry. So the new pages being written would mostly be violating the new guideline as well. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is really a meta-question, perhaps deserving of its own page: to what extent should agreeing a change in the MOS be dependent on the degree of effort required to retrofit existing pages to the new standard? The MOS has two purposes: (1) ensure a level of quality for each page (2) ensure consistency between pages. There is a tradeoff between these two objectives: favouring (1) encourages frequent tweaking of the MOS; favouring (2) requires a stable if imperfect MOS. I believe the nature of Wikipedia adversely impacts both objectives, but affects (2) more severely than (1). For myself I favour (1) over (2): the prospect of a large number of pages spending long periods of time not fully MOS-compliant does not cause me any great alarm; a change in the MOS does not instantly make a good page bad (or a bad page good). That said, I would agree that any wide-ranging change like the present proposal could not reasonably be approved without a long and broad discussion leading to a strong consensus. jnestorius(talk) 12:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is a meta-question. In looking back at the earlier versions of this manual of style, the earliest version (not the drafts, but once it actually became a guideline) appears to have changed very little from what we have today. I don't think there have yet been any changes which would then suddenly have caused the majority of pages to be out of compliance with the manual of style. For that matter, I wonder if there have ever been any changes made anywhere across Wikipedia policies or guidelines which have then required something like 100,000 pages to be altered. Policy pages like WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Reliable sources have changed radically since they were first written, but in neither case I don't believe was it ever a matter of, "Ok, now all our articles need to be different to match this new addition to this policy".
I think any change to the manual of style which would then make the majority of our disambiguation pages out of compliance with the new guidelines should only be done if it is widely agreed that the new way of doing things would be clearly and substantially better, better enough that it would be worth introducing widespread inconsistency, as a large percentage of disambiguation pages would not likely follow the new guidelines for many years to come. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In <subject>:

The "longer lists" example currently uses headings of the form "In subject:"

Thingamajig may refer to:

In science:

  • Thingamajig (chemistry), an isotope of chlorine
  • Thingamajig (physics), a kind of pulsar
  • Thingamajig (biology), an invasive plant used as ground cover

In world music:

  • Thingamajig (Qatar), a seven-stringed musical instrument
  • Thingamajig (Peru), a wind instrument similar to an aulos
  • thingamajig (UK), a wind instrument, similar to but longer than, the Peruvian instrument

Is this a suggested format or a required format? On several pages I have tidied, I have preferred a bare "subject" to the "in subject" format; depending on the subjects in question, I have considered it to read better. For me, "In X" only works if X is an abstract noun denoting a field of study: "in geography" works, "in cities" doesn't. In many cases, other users have "corrected" my text to the "in subject" format. If this is a fixed standard, it should be explicitly stated to be such; if not, then perhaps another example using a different format should be added to prove it is not. jnestorius(talk) 10:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this is at best at suggested format (and in many cases a very poor choice. I would welcome revising that section to indicate "In X" is not always the best choice for subheadings. It often results in ungrammatical formulations. I agree that in many cases, a bare subject subheading is preferable. I don't agree that "In X" only works if X is an abstract noun. It also works, perhaps best IMO, in lists of places names "In Country X". older ≠ wiser 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It has always struck me as odd that when we move to the == format (for longer lists) we drop the "in" altogether. IMHO it should be made clear that it is optional and the "in" should only be inserted or removed if there is a specific case for so doing. Where possible, consistency within a page is desirable. Abtract (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Consistancy is nice, so perhaps we can strive to have pages all with categories that use in. The points above about it not making sense in some places are very true, though. "In Other" sounds rather odd, so I always just put "Other". A short change about that in the MoS wouldn't go awry, I don't think. -- Natalya 13:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
"In other uses:" works well too. I use the "In" format just because that's how the guidelines are written. If there's no consensus for that format, then yeah, it might be a good idea to do (or to use only the "non-In" form if there's consensus for that). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I like that. It sounds more elegant than just "other". (That was really just an aside, but thanks!) -- Natalya 13:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Trivial" categories on disambiguation pages

I know there has been talk about this before, but what should be done to the category listed as an entry on Time (disambiguation) and the Dragon Ball-related reference at Kamehameha? MoS:DAB#Categories doesn't specify on how to deal with such situations. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's harmful to link to the Time category on that dab page. What's your own thinking on this? The Dragon Ball-related reference on the Kamehameha page is definitely useful; as long as it's not reformatted as a redlink to an article on that sense of Kamehameha, it should stay, IMO. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the one at the Time dab seems a bit strange to me. Can't quite put my finger on it. The Kamehameha one has been discussed, however, User:JHunterJ there felt that there shouldn't be a category. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
On further reflection, I agree that the Time category link doesn't belong on that page. It doesn't really serve as a good dab target because it could never be what someone is looking for if they try to go to a Time article, or if they wikilink to just Time. Having said that, I disagree with JHunterJ's blanket statement in that discussion ("Categories are not dab targets"). It seems to me that the Kamehameha instance is an excellent example of a situation where a category makes a perfect dab target. The category explicates the concept almost as well as an article could, and (a question I don't feel qualified to address) is the Dragon Ball sense of the word notable enough to warrant its own article? If not, then the category is clearly the right dab target. --Tkynerd (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Kamehameha (Dragon Ball) has been deleted on several occasions so a category was considered. I will take off the Category:Time per this discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
While I did quote the blanket statement, it is not "mine". Both WP:D and WP:MOSDAB agree that disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, and categories are not articles. So Categories are not dab targets. I suggested
  • Kamehameha, the signature move of the Dragon Ball character Son Goku
I picked Son Goku because it's more "his" move than any other DZ character's, according to signature move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. A strict interpretation of the guidance at WP:D would result in removing the Dragon Ball-related entry from Kamehameha altogether, since it is not disambiguating a Wikipedia article (Son Goku (Dragon Ball) is not ambiguous). I realize that that's not the accepted practice, but I think it indicates that WP:D may need some revision to handle cases like this. In any case, I tend to favor direct dab targets (the kind where it's immediately obvious to the reader how the target relates to the ambiguous term, as soon as the link is visited if not sooner), and Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities fails that criterion rather miserably. Even though your proposed dab page text explains the relationship, the fact remains that the reader must read a way down into the linked paragraph before finding the Kamehameha reference. Not good. The only thing I would change about the category link is that it probably should not be piped; the reader should know that the target is a category page. --Tkynerd (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the interpretation of the guidelines that would remove an entry covering "kamehameha" with a blue link in the description. What part of WP:D needs to be revised to avoid that interpretation? If the reader were looking for the Dragon Ball ability, then he would have found the right page and would be all set to read about it, good. The link to the category suffers because the reader clicks through and does not land on an article, but has to click through yet again, not good. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different article pages which could, in principle, have the same title. Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities is not a "path[] leading to [one of a number of] different article pages which could, in principle, have the same title." So a strict (I did use that word) interpretation of the guidance would prohibit that link. A strict interpretation of WP:D would mean that no links on a dab page could go to any article that didn't have the name being disambiguated (or some form of it). I'm not saying that a strict interpretation is the right one to follow, but then I'm the one who thinks categories can, in some cases, make perfectly valid dab targets. :) --Tkynerd (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see the interpretive problem. "Kamehameha" is the "path... leading to [one of a number of] different articles pages which could, in principle, have the same title". In this case, the article Kamehameha (Son Goku ability) doesn't exist, but the article page which covers it does, on Son Goku (Dragon Ball), and both WP:D and WP:MOSDAB go on to explain how to write up entries for such articles. So the context is important. But categories still aren't dab targets. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That's your interpretation of WP:D, and I find it rather peculiar that you choose to emphasize the word "article" so strongly (to exclude categories) while ignoring the rest of the sentence. What I wrote above stands: Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities simply does not meet the criteria set forth in WP:D. "Kamehameha" is not a "path" in any meaningful sense on Wikipedia; it is simply a concept (that requires disambiguation). The article links on a dab page are the "paths" referred to, but Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities is not one of those, both because it could not reasonably have any other name, and because it could not have the name Kamehameha. The point is that if we want to permit links to articles whose titles aren't examples of the dab term, while prohibiting links to categories, that needs to be spelled out. As it is, it's not clear that that's what is meant. --Tkynerd (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The sentence is clear enough. The topic is the ability of Son Goku. The article that gives best coverage of this topic is Son Goku (Dragon Ball). Taemyr (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Tkynerd, "article" is my interpretation of WP:D's use of "article", which is not peculiar at all -- it's why things like external links, unlinked dictionary definitions, and yes categories are not valid entries. Reading "article" as "articles and anything else some editors would like to treat as article-like" is a can of worms best left sealed. "Kamehameha" is the start of the "path" meaningfully used on WP:D -- a page title that could lead to different articles, which is why it's a concept requiring disambiguation. The article links on the dab page are not the "paths" referred to; the "path" referred to is the disambiguation process, starting with the ambiguous title, going through the disambiguation page layout, and ending at the desired article. Spelling out "article" while not spelling out "category" seems clear to me. How would you suggest it be made clearer? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, no. For your reference, here is the text again: In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different article pages which could, in principle, have the same title. It escapes me why you want to emphasize "article" at the expense of the rest of the last phrase. Arguing over exactly what "paths" means isn't really relevant, because "leading to different article pages which could, in principle, have the same title" is unambiguous: it means that the targets on a dab page must lead to article pages that could, in principle, be titled with the term being disambiguated. Since Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities could not, in principle, have any other title, it isn't an appropriate dab target if we follow WP:D.

How could this text be clarified? Easily: In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different article pages which could, in principle, have the same title, or to other article pages that explicate the concept being disambiguated. That permits the kind of link we're discussing here, while retaining the "article" stricture. If desired, that stricture could also be made explicit. --Tkynerd (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not read "disambiguations" as "entries on disambiguation pages" there, but I don't know why you're arguing over what "paths" means if you find it irrelevant. You are right, taking the introductory summary on its own could lead to the non-consensus interpretation. I'd hesitate on bulking the intro up too much, though. Perhaps something along the lines of "In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles that the reader could have been seeking when looking up the title." Changes to the text on WP:D should be discussed on WT:D, though. I'll remake this comment there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

I keep running into legalistically minded people citing this page in order to disrupt an intelligent presentation of disambiguation of related meanings of a term. E.g. at Energy (disambiguation). This guideline may need some clarification to allow for that. People would also do well to obsess less over technicalities (like insisting on an unbolded "In") and remember the link to WP:UCS from the top of every guideline page. dab (𒁳) 14:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And you would do well to stop disrupting the disambiguation page to try and include an unneeded "intelligent presentation" of your view of the primary topic. If you feel that the topic at Energy is not the primary topic for "Energy", take it up at Talk:Energy. The dab page isn't the place to try and change that meaning. The guidelines do not need any clarifications to allow for things other than navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines here at this Manual of Style have been developed in order to make the navigation of disambiguation pages as easy as possible. As these are the guidelines to be used, unless there is a valid reason to ignore the rules (which does happen), the guidelines should be followed. If you feel like some of the guidelines aren't making the navigation of disambiguation pages easier, then by all means, please bring up suggestions you have here, so that all of those involved in disambiguating can offer their input and we can possibly improve disambiguation pages. If you think there is a good reason not to follow the guidelines, it's usually a good plan to discuss why.

As an aside, is there anything wrong with unbolding "In"? If one editor puts it in bold, not knowing that, for ease of navigation, it should be unbolded, does it do any harm for another editor who knows this to unbold it? If, on the other hand, you think that having the "In" in bold helps with navigation, then, please bring it up for discussion. We are always open to ways to improve disambiguation pages. -- Natalya 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to ignore all rules. Similar arguments have once been brought up at Talk:Entropy (disambiguation). Result was to use MoS:DP conventions. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please archive this page

It's too big.--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot II archives Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation - do we want to see if we can get it to archive here too? -- Natalya 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Would be a good idea. Meanwhile, I'm dumping the first half of this page into archive 35, and changing the dates listed on it. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasonable place to break the rules?

The following articles all have the same format: Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III, Schedule IV, Schedule V, Schedule VI, Schedule VII, Schedule VIII. In this situation, having the link on the right seems to make the page easier to follow, as the country name on the left is perhaps what the reader would be looking for. Thoughts? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Kotniski (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more helpful to redirect all 8 pages to one central list/table which would then not be governed by mos:dab? It might be called something like List of schedules for drugs and poisons and could then link to pages like Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons. This might be better than going against guidelines. Abtract (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improper name

I don't think Indian (Americas) is a suitable name for a disambiguation page. Then again, I could be wrong though. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an answer, but I've reverted it to the original version, as someone replaced all uses of "Indian" with "First Nation", which caused the page to not even fit with its title. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me as a poor name, too, but there is a bit of reason since there is a page named Indian (Asian) and both are linked from Indian (disambiguation). I think it would probably be better to put them all on the main dab page (Indian), since there aren't an overwhelming number of entries and there appears to be some confusing overlap between the pages. I only have time to throw out my opinion, not to lend a hand...sorry. SlackerMom (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed here, where the consensus appeared to be that both Indian (Americas) and Indian (Asian) are unnecessary content forks and should both redirect to Indian. I had suggested doing that at the conclusion of the discussion with no opposition, but then forgot about it. I'll do so now. older ≠ wiser 12:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] categories

I see that the guideline currently says:

Categories aid navigation between articles. Disambiguation pages however are non-articles and do not require categorization other than for maintenance purposes, and they already get auto-categorized by using {{disambig}}, {{hndis}} and {{geodis}}. No other categories should be added, except Category:Surnames, Category:Given names or their subcategories (if the disambiguation page includes sections of name information or lists of people), or disambiguation subcategories that might apply.

However, if all entries on a disambiguation page are related, then might it be appropriate to put the page into a category? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if they are all related, maybe the related topic deserves a page with a bunch of links out and/or see also - which would not be a dab page. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)