Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Need help DABing topic Grass Valley

I feel the work to building a dab page for Grass Valley would be too much for me... Any of you savy coders want to help? --Travisthurston 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Is that better? Please help to point links on Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Grass_Valley to the proper articles, if you would.... — Catherine\talk 00:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Sweet! You're awesome! --Travisthurston 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias

What to do with Tobias? should this mostly go to Tobias (name)? -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There's two possibilities. 1) As you suggest, move most of the content to Tobias (name) and make Tobias into a pure disambiguation page. 2) Leave most of the content as is and move the other uses to Tobias (disambiguation)--this would then allow you yto simplify the hatnote at Tobias. I'd be inclined towards option 2, but I doubt there'd be too much opposition to using option 1. older ≠ wiser 12:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Inspired by your post I went for option 3 :-). Have a look at Tobias. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Districts of Azerbaijan

I would like to avoid future work and fix the stuff right now. Someone argues dab can be done when necesary. I don't know how this is defined. But waiting will produce more links to pages that in futre might be dab pages. Talk:Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan#X District Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And an admin reverted my dabbing without discussing and as far as I know in violation of wikipedia policies. But there a several admins that impose a two class society, they can simply click delete buttons if they don't like something and don't care about deletion policies. Isn't this a mess, hurting the dab-contributors? Anybody here to stop policy violations?

I did some research to find ambiguites in the article names that WP was ot yet aware of. But this admin deletes my contributions. It's not the first time that he uses admin power in an _editorial_ conflict with a regular editor. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In these cases, the "deleted to make way for move", I believe that's an automatic message, they don't have control of it. The edit summaries they entered showed up after the move, and these were move back, we do not disambig for external links and no need for dab for ext links, please discuss. They may be some misunderstandings on both sides here, so it's probably best to discuss it at the respective talk pages at this point. --Interiot 04:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Whether it is automatic or not, if automatic this would be even worse. I can imagine there is one delete reason he could choose from. All in all, he used his admins rights in a conflict with a regular user. This creates a two call WP. He could not have done the move and deletion without this admin rights. And he was very well aware of the fact that I regard this as abuse and that I strongly object. I made him aware of this before.
What would be nice is, if all the dab people could ask him to undo his abuse. To me he is not listening. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not for exploration? Nonsense!

"Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article."

This statement might reflect the reading patterns of some, but it is not at all indicative of my own. Disambiguation pages are, to this reader, more than just a way to find a page that you're specifically looking for. They also serve an important purpose for those browsing the Wikipedia. Compact, single-link one-line definitions of the terms included are appropriate, but should convey some real meaning.

"The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link."

I agree that the descriptions should be kept short, but to keep them so short as to only allow a reader who knows what she/he's looking for to "find the correct link" does a great disservice to those who simply wish to browse. I would argue that the descriptions should carry real meaning, enough to be relevant to readers unfamiliar with the topic. MrZaiustalk 13:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
And I disagree. There are "List of ..." articles for that kind of browsing (and they could be linked from other articles to encourage exploration); disambiguation pages serve a different purpose: disambiguation. -- JHunterJ 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I also believe that disambiguation pages should be aimed exclusively at disambiguation. They are entry points into the Wiki and should be efficient for quick navigation. Those "simply browsing" can do so from the article(s) themselves - they are not in such a rush. Any candidate "extra" bluelink on a dab page would and should be linked on the article's page, providing a richer browsing experience from there. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dab pages and redirects

There's been an interesting (to me at least) discussion over at Talk:Π, wondering where the redirect should point to. I do a study, and come up with a guideline that I'd like to propose, and I think the best place is here (or WP:R, which will get a link to here) That proposal is: "an alternate term without specific meaning should redirect to a term without parenthesis, without regard to whether or not that page is a dab page. Whether that be a pluralization, an alternate spelling, or just another form of the word (blockbusters:blockbuster :: skool:school :: π:pi). Whaddayathink? McKay 04:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. My feeling is that this is a topic for WP:R or WP:DAB rather than here, but wherever it goes, I agree with that proposal. Neonumbers 07:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It's about redirect pages, so the discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:Redirect, but I absolutely agree with McKay. -- JHunterJ 12:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure this needs to be made into a rule. Although I can't think of any offhand, I do recall coming across cases in which one particular spelling or capitalization was a primary topic, so there was also a disambiguation page (ISTR some with parenthetical disambiguation). And the alternate spellings were distinct enough so as to not be likely to refer to that primary topic and thus were redirects to the parenthentical disambiguation page. I'll have to see if I can come up with a concrete example. I'll grant that this is not a very common situation, but is it necessary to have such specific rules to govern every possible case? I think this may be where common sense and consensus is more appropriate than instruction creep. older ≠ wiser 13:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason this whole situation comes up is because of the discrepancy at Π, should it redirect to Pi (disambiguation) or Pi? I think it should be Pi, but there has been some disagreement. McKay 14:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
In that particular case, since the Greek character and "Pi" are about equally likely to be used in the English Wikipedia -- the case for primary topic would apply to both, so if one is a primary topic, the other should redirect to that primary topic. In other cases, an alternate spelling might not be so clearly identical with a primary topic, in which case it should probably redirect to the disambiguation page, regardless of parentheses. older ≠ wiser 14:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
(After an edit conflict:) Π (disambiguation), and not Π, should redirect to Pi (disambiguation). Pi is Π in another alphabet; IMO it's an even stronger identity than implied in your analogy above. But that's probably been your point in the previous discussions elsewhere... -- JHunterJ 14:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be a bad rule in general, and Π in particular is one of the best reasons why that is the case. That's because "Pi" and "pi" are the same thing, so there is no problem having the number as the primary disambiguation at "Pi", but "Π" and "π" are, in general, different things with different meanings when it comes to English usage, and "Π" is never correct for that number. As long as initial capitalization remains turned on, there is a very good reason for treating the Pi/pi differently from Π/π, and not have the latter go to the same place as the former. Gene Nygaard 22:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
iPod is never capitalized either, but the article is still there. You can still have The correct title of this article is π. The initial letter is capitalized due to technical restrictions. at the top of the article wikilink to it as π elsewhere. So I guess I don't see why WP's technical restrictions have to impact the result of this debate. -- JHunterJ 23:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
But iPod doesn't have a spelled out name, as this number does. The correct title is Pi, and various attempts to move it have failed, and deservedly so.
It doesn't have, and doesn't need, a "wrong title" tag now. It did have, during the brief and unwise move to Π.
That's the only reason you and Mckaysalisbury are arguing about the correct place to send the disambiguation; you are just sore about losing out on the article naming issue.
Initial capitalization could be turned off (as it was for Wiktionary some time ago, for example)--but it intentionally has not been turned off. Gene Nygaard 00:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason (IIRC), that the article is still at Pi, isn't because Pi is more correct, but beacuse it's easier to use. Also, some of the discussion in keeping π at Pi is because π will link to it. Initial capitalization is on. There's nothing either of us can do about that. So, we have to make a decision on where π will go, based on both π and Π. So the question we have to ask, is covered by this project page. "When a page has "(disambiguation)" in the title, users are unlikely to stumble on it by accident." pointing π to a dab page is wrong, because then people will stumble onto it by accident. The comment I keep bringing up, that you never respond to, is that when people try to go to Π (which is the same as π), they almost certainly mean the number, in the strange case that they don't, they can use the hatnote. Why do you say that the move to π was unwise? As Talk:Pi clearly states, the consensus is that neither is more correct, hence π should NOT redirect to a dab page.
Also, let me follow your logic here:
"Π" is never correct for the number, "IPod" isn't correct for the device, but this is fine, because iPod doesn't have a spelled out name?
The way I see it, your argument should be, "Π" isn't correct for the number, so, even though "π" is more popular, because "Π" and "π" have to be the same article, there should be a disambiguation page. IPod is the article for the iPod, because there isn't a device called the "IPod". That's what I think you're really trying to say here. So, Let's play a little thought experiment here. What if I invent a device called the "IPod"? You'd prolly say that because it isn't notable, it doesn't deserve an article in wikipedia, because I just invented it. And you'd be right, but what if this device gains some popularity. I'm not saying much, just a few articles in a few magazines about it. It meets the minimum criteria for WP:N. What then? It's still relatively obscure, so, I would argue that IPod should still link to apple's iPod, but there should be a hatnote at the top of the page (next to the incorrect template), referencing either a disambiguation page, or the article on the IPod, wherever it would be (IPod (StickyTech) or something like that). Now, maybe, I'm wrong, but I think that you agree with me on this point. IPod shouldn't be a disambiguation page, just because some other schmoe comes up with something that happens to share a wikipedia title with a device that has sold 60,000,000 units. Apple's device should still get iPod, even though something else shares the wikipedia article title with it.
I think you see where I'm going with this. There's this really popular transcedental number called π, Sure, there's a Product operator called "Π" which shares a WP article title with it, but kids learn about this irrational number in elementary school, and the product operator isn't really learned until high school for most kids, and even then they don't really get a feel for where it's useful until college, if they attend. The Product operator will always play second fiddle to the concept the babylonians used almost 4000 years ago. Sadly, the pion, the prime counting function, and the pi bond are all but distantly considered. this constant should have the Pi and the Π articles because of popularity alone.
And no, I'm not "sore about losing", I believe strongly that it should be a redirect to pi, and I have several reason s for thinking this, one of which you have tried (I would say unsuccessfully) to refute. Also on this page, you're the only one who thinks that it should redirect to a dab page, to me, it looks like you're "sore about losing". McKay 06:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Π should go to disambiguation rather than article about number

There are many reasons why the logic expressed by some in the comments above are incorrect.

1. Nobody is going to just type π or Π in the Wikipedia search box. We simply don't usually have either character on our keyboards, for one reason. It will happen so very unfrequently that we don't need to worry about it.
2. Some people will copy and paste either π or Π into the Wikipedia search box. This is much more likely to happen.
  • But since, as pointed out above, most people know what π is as a number, the ones who do this are likely to be the ones who have run into something unfamiliar, either:
  • The uppercase Π, or
  • Some use of the lowercase π for a different purpose
  • The disambiguation page would be the best first destination in either case.
  • Granted, there will also be a significant number who know about the number but want to know what it actually is to several places, or want to know what the current record is for the number of places to which it has been calculated, etc. But it is better to let them use two clicks to get where they want to go, with the second one immediately obvious to them, than it is to force someone who is already befuddled by the usage he or she has run across to first determine that this long article is of no help, then to first find (notes like that often get ignored at first glance, even if it is the first thing to pass before one's eyes) and then follow the link at the top to a disambiguation page.
3. People will link to π or Π in articles.
  • But when this is done, it would be good for someone to review those links to make sure they are going to the right place.
  • This review is more likely to happen when the links are to a disambiguation page. There are editors who look for disambiguation pages with lots of links, and who then go and try to reduce the number of links to a disambiguation page by disambiguating them with direct links.
  • That is less likely to happen when the links are to an article which is not a disambiguation page
  • It is especially less likely to happen when the "What links here" to that article has hundreds of direct links, so few people are likely to notice a link through a redirect.

Because of our keyboards, and because of the initial capitalization in Wikipedia discussed above, all of the above result in completely different things to take into account when considering the Greek letter symbol than when considering the English word "pi". Gene Nygaard 15:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that the most common usage is the one people already know and so shouldn't be the redirect target is, at best, strange. The Greek wikipedia redirects el:π to el:Πι, which maps back to the English Pi (letter), so that would be a good reason for π to redirect to Pi (letter) in the English wikipedia (although the most common meanings could certainly be different in English and Greek). But, as I pointed out when this first came up, it isn't a topic for disambiguation page style (this page). It should (still) be discussed on the WP:D WP:R talk page. -- JHunterJ 19:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a one-to-one mapping in any logical sense between articles in different wikipedias (in the interwiki links, you can only go "to" one, and it may not be a perfect fit (might be either broader or narrower, and often is one or the other), but interwiki links to one English Wikipedia article can come "from" many articles in any one other Wikipedia). The Greek page at the spelled out word serves the functions of both Pi (disambiguation) and part of the function of Pi (letter) here on the English Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard 05:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This should (still) be discussed on the WP:R talk page. -- JHunterJ 19:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

One link per entry?

Centrx has proposed the following reword to the "one link per entry" guideline:

Each bulleted entry should in most cases have exactly one navigable (blue) link. Including more than one link can confuse the reader, though in certain cases a supporting link is useful, such as when it is a more comprehensive article [1]

This was a contentious issue when it was discussed in August 2005, but the majority of editors who expressed an opinion at the time (and during discussions since, e.g., March 2006, December 2005) felt that entries should have one link, except in the case of redlinked entries.

A disambiguation page's intended function is to resolve ambiguity when multiple articles are associated with one term by providing a link to each article. This reword broadens that function to allow for additional contextual links, and I feel we need prior consensus for this significant revision before adding it to the guideline. --Muchness 04:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why multiple links should be strictly prohibited, which is the effect when people go through with scripts removing them all. For one example, the New England Island article contains little more information than its entry on the disambiguation page. The Essex article however—and the island is in Essex, for other things there would not even exist an article on the subtopic—contains information necessary for anyone to learn about the island. Another example is musicians and bands. The musician's article would be sparse and the person is likely not even be notable outside the band. In such case, the band article contains more information about the person than the person's article itself, and most readers will be more interested in the band than the person. Only when there are excellent articles on discrete topics would it make sense to strictly prohibit supporting links. —Centrx→talk • 06:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages should be as simple to navigate as possible. By only have one link, the link to the article in question, it is very easy for a person looking for a specific article to get there. Even if the extra links would provide extra information, they will most certainly already be linked to from the article in question, since the article will go into much more depth than the simple disambiguation sentence. -- Natalya 12:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
In these cases, the reader is as or more likely to be interested in the other articles. Sometimes, it is because they contain more information than the title article and only by the vagaries of whoever created them or notability as borderline cases do they happen to have a nominal article—and may not continue to have one. —Centrx→talk • 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
And they are not strictly prohibited; the current guideline still wiggles a bit with the "almost all cases" (emphasis added). Readers more interested in the band than the person would probably be searching for the band in the first place, not hitting the disambiguation page that includes the person. I'm in full agreement with Natalya and Muchness. -- JHunterJ 13:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Consider the converse, in which case they don't know the persons name. —Centrx→talk • 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
... unless the article about the band fails to mention and link the person's name, I still don't see the problem. And if that is the problem, it's the band page that needs to be changed, not the disambiguation. The current guideline works for both sides, and keeps the disambiguation page cleanly useful. -- JHunterJ 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Why should a disambiguation page not link to the article they are more interested in, rather than having them parse through an introduction for the link they really want. What about when the primary article is likely to be turned into a redirect at some point anyway? Do you really think someone is going to be confused by having other highly relevant links? The primary links are already all at the beginning next to the bullet point. —Centrx→talk • 04:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Because knowing what the user really meant isn't disambiguation, it's divination, and not needed in the usual case. -- JHunterJ 12:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not knowing what the user "really meant", its knowing that the article at the main title is deficient, whereas a related article has more information about the subject. That is, in cases where we might very well not have a link to the main title at all. —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In practice, I see do see a lot of people adding extra links for proper nouns. I think everyone agrees that words like abbreviation or album should never be extra links in a disambig, but often informed editors will add extra links for the name of a band or author, for instance. As long as the primary link is the left-most link on the line (eg. as long as we don't have to start bolding things), I usually let this slide. --Interiot 05:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, i always thought the wiggle in the current wording ("[one link] in almost every case") was to allow entries like:

Juno may refer to:

and not to invite vagaries like linking the band as well as the member, or the area as well as the place. I'm in full agreement with Natalya and JHunter that the existing wording is fine. --Piet Delport 00:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguations like that are often on separate lines. Actually that would be less helpful if you didn't know which synthesizer is which. Why should the band not be linked for the member, if the member's article has 2 lines on it (and may be deleted or redirected) while the band's article has more information on the person? —Centrx→talk • 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Why should is be linked, when it is already linked from the member's article? -- JHunterJ 01:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
To ease navigation, linking the user to the article that contains the most information on the person. —Centrx→talk • 02:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
How is a reader supposed to know which page contains the most information on the person? If the person article is an unexpandable stub, then perhaps it should be merged into the band article. But I don't think it is necessarilly helpful simply to offer the reader more choices. If a reader gets to a disambiguation page for a personal name (or whatever), they either followed a link to the page or got to it from a search. In either case, all that we can assume is that they are looking for information about the subject of that name. Why should we force them to have to evaluate, do I want the article about the subject, or do I really want this other article, which might indeed have more information, but how is the reader to know that? By far simpler to just link the subject's name. older ≠ wiser 02:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
In the case where the primary page, with the same title, has less information, excluding the secondary link simply excludes the one with more information. They do not need to evaluate, they can click on both links if they so choose. Also, it is not uncommon that the reader knows the name of something related to what they are looking for, but not the exact name of what they want. I don't see what all this is about "confusing" the reader; the names of the links are pretty clear. —Centrx→talk • 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If the band's article contains more information about the person than the person's article, then the articles need fixing. --Piet Delport 09:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but in the mean time Wikipedia is a work in progress; all such articles with disambiguation pages are not going to be immediately fixed and the disambiguation is still there to assist the user. —Centrx→talk • 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Igor

Please help me to talk to the senses of a fan of the "Igor" name disambig page. `'mikkanarxi 03:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a Talk:Igor page for such discussions; that would be a better place to start. But I think removing the lists of people with a name is the minority opinion. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Hndis needs its own Manual, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen (surname), Talk:Jennifer. -- JHunterJ 11:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Surname}}

Has {{surname}} been accepted as an offshoot of {{disambig}}? Two months ago, it was changed from being #REDIRECT [[Template:Hndis]] to being a separate template, and it was tangentially mentioned here, but I don't know that there was agreement on it. From what I'd read, I thought that given names should normally not be disambiguated, and so the vast majority of name-disambiguations will be surnames (so if offshoots are needed, shouldn't they be for the exceptions, rather than the rule? eg. {{givenname}} and {{fullname}}?)

If {{surname}} is kept separate, it should put articles in a category that contains only disambig articles, and is a child of Category:Disambiguation. Its current category doesn't do this... Category:Surnames contains non-disamibg articles as well, and therefore it isn't a child of Category:Disambiguation. --Interiot 11:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See discussion at #Hndis needs its own Manual. Lists of people by surname (or given name) are not usually disambiguation pages unless multiple people on the list are known simply by the single name, which is why the template doesn't auto-categorize the pages as dabs. The hndis template should not be used on surname pages for the same reason -- there are multiple people with any surname, but the same human name wouldn't be a title of multiples of their articles. -- JHunterJ 11:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a 7500 word section, and I don't really have enough interest to keep up with the changing rules and multiple organization schemes with human names, so apologies if I ask questions that are answered there or if I have a overly disambig-centric view.
I agree that there's a line between lists and disambigs. But are you suggesting that {{surname}} is sometimes used for lists of names that don't need their backlinks fixed, and at other times is used when the backlinks should be fixed?? If so, then what's the distinction between {{hndis}} and {{surname}}? And how are we supposed whether to style them according to WP:MOSDAB? --Interiot 14:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Some surname articles include information on the surname (meaning, history) and wouldn't need their backlinks fixed. Some disambiguation pages include a section listing people with a surname that matches the title and should have their backlinks fixed (or the surname information should be moved to its own article). Both get categorized as surnames. The distinction between hndis and surname is easiest to show by example: John Smith is an ambiguous human name; Smith is a surname. -- JHunterJ 14:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm pretty confused. Whatever you call it, can we make sure that if a page has a template at the bottom that says "fix my backlinks!", that the page is somewhere under Category:Disambiguation? And that if an article should never have its backlinks corrected, that it doesn't have a "fix my backlinks" blurb at the bottom? (and preferably style those pages differently, so people don't get the impression that it's an unmarked disambig page and that they need to add a "fix my backlinks" template to the bottom) --Interiot 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The surname template doesn't say "fix my backlinks!" though. It says "If an internal link for a specific person referred you to this page, you may wish to add the given name(s) to that wikilink." (emphasis added). If the page consists solely of the list, then the backlinks should be fixed, and an editor should add Category:Disambiguation explicitly. Or I suppose a separate "disambig-surname" template could be created, but I don't think it gains much over surname + explicit cat. -- JHunterJ 15:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
(explaining my "whichever" comment below) Maybe this is a side issue that I don't have enough interest to pursue. But briefly:     I think that the difference between a list and a disambig is a somewhat subtle one, and I think it's best if a few well-informed people make these decisions, and then make sure there are large stylistic differences between lists and disambigs so it's less subtle to other editors. That is, don't differentiate them by just a category, and don't include the banner on the bottom that looks just like a disambig page if it's not in fact a disambig page. This is doubly true if there are two pages, a list and a disambig, which cover the same topic (eg. so we want to do everything we can to discourage people from adding list entries to the disambig, and encourage them to add it to the list instead). --16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Whichever. Last question: Why is {{surname}} added alongside {{disambig}} (eg. on pages that have both name and non-name entries)? See for example Sheffield (disambiguation), Hunter (disambiguation), Smiley (disambiguation), etc. No other type of disambig (eg. {{2CC}}, {{shipindex}}, {{hndis}}) adds its own full-width header atop a section, with a redundant "fix my backlinks" clause, when it's part of a larger disambig page. Would it be possible to use "Title is the surname of:" as all other specific topics do? --Interiot 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
"Whichever"? I get the impression that my efforts to summarize the 7500-word section for you are in vain; you may need to slog through it to appreciate the other points of view involved. The two templates are added because surname isn't a type of disambiguation, as stated above -- people who share a surname aren't going to have had an article with their surname as the title (Gary Sheffield's article would never have been titled "Sheffield"), but rather their common name ("Gary Sheffield"). Yes, the "may wish to" phrase overlaps the disambig template's phrase, but I'm unaware of any confusion or other problem that has caused. Again, though, the solution would be to create a combined disambig-surname template, since surname pages that aren't disambigs but include a list of people by surname (e.g., Smith (surname), Armistead) should still get the full-width section header. -- JHunterJ 13:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but for now it seems that unless a disambiguation page is solely full of surnames, we should just use the {{disambig}} tag. That tag still tells people that they should fix the link if it is appropriate, and covers all the needed information. -- Natalya 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a comment above about "whichever". As for surnames on disambiguation pages, I think there are only two options: If they're a list instead of a disambiguation, then move the list to another page (and mention the list in SeeAlso). If they're the small set of people who are sometimes referred to by only their last names, then leave them on the disambig page, and use the standard header that WP:MOSDAB says to use. Both of these seem like standard procedure (In no case do we encourage subject-specific lists that aren't disambiguations to form on disambig pages. And in no case do we encourage subject-specific disambig sections to have a header other than "Title is the surname of:" or "==Surnames==".) --Interiot 16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright. I'm in agreement for moving the (longer) lists to their own pages; that was one of my proposals in the earlier, longer discussion. I modeled the surname template off of the dab one, but making it clearly different from a dab tag makes sense too. Perhaps this discussion should be copied to the surname template's talk page? -- JHunterJ 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)