Template talk:Broad-concept article
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation page or hatnotes?
[edit]Should this be changed to specify that creating a disambiguation page might not be necessary per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation page or hatnotes? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- To editor Emmette Hernandez Coleman: If I understand you correctly, this would depend upon how many entries there are on the dab page. Many of the pages tagged with this template have several entries, so for conciseness, it may not be appropriate to add this message to the template. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Category
[edit]Should there be some sort of categorization? Seems it might be helpful, at least administratively, to be able to locate articles tagged with this beyond looking at what links here for this template. older ≠ wiser 19:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, older ≠ wiser – This is handled by the
all =param, which adds tagged pages to Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)- OK thanks. That parameter is so intuitively named! older ≠ wiser 11:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:DABCONCEPT versus WP:DABPRIMARY
[edit]- This discussion began on this page.
Re: WP:DABCONCEPT versus WP:DABPRIMARY
The description for the WP:DABPRIMARY template is not correct in all cases - sometimes a page presented as a disambiguation page is not merely a primary topic, but is the only topic. That is, the page needs to be converted into an article, and no disambiguation page is needed at all. The former WP:DABCONCEPT template captured that situation, but perhaps the current template could be given an option to include it. bd2412 T 13:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, BD2412 – when the two templates were merged, I tried to include the important content of both templates. When I compare the new with the old, I thought I did it correctly. How would you reword it, or what would you add to include the option you appear to feel has been omitted?
- Old Dabconcept template
 | This disambiguation page should be converted into a broad-concept article, describing the primary meaning of the term. Additional meanings linked to this term should be moved to a separate page with "(disambiguation)" in the title. |  |
- New Dabprimary template
| This disambiguation page is at this title because the primary topic does not yet have an article. A broad-concept article is needed that describes the primary meaning of the term. Upon creation of that article, this page should be moved to Template talk:Broad-concept article (disambiguation), and the primary topic moved to this page title. | |
- Something like this:
| This disambiguation page is at this title because the primary topic does not yet have an article. A broad-concept article is needed that describes the primary meaning of the term. Upon creation of that article, the current content of this page should be deleted, or if there are additional meanings, moved to Template talk:Broad-concept article (disambiguation), and the primary topic moved to this page title. | |
- Note, for example, Genetic variance, Fried cheese, and Comment spam. These are pages that merely list subtopics of a single concept. There is no disambiguation needed at all between them, so the page should be converted without creating a separate disambiguation page. By contrast, Alien Nation has a primary topic (the franchise), but needs a disambiguation page to cover topics unrelated to this primary topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that does make it much clearer, thank you! Let me massage it a bit to try and make it more concise. I see three possibilities:
- Pages like your examples that have only topics related to the primary topic,
- Pages that only have unrelated topics, and
- Pages that have a mixture of related and unrelated topics.
- So maybe this to cover all three?:
- Yes, that does make it much clearer, thank you! Let me massage it a bit to try and make it more concise. I see three possibilities:
- Note, for example, Genetic variance, Fried cheese, and Comment spam. These are pages that merely list subtopics of a single concept. There is no disambiguation needed at all between them, so the page should be converted without creating a separate disambiguation page. By contrast, Alien Nation has a primary topic (the franchise), but needs a disambiguation page to cover topics unrelated to this primary topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
| This page title is the primary topic and needs its own article. When a broad-concept article is written that describes the primary meaning of the term, it may be moved to this page title. Unrelated topics on this page may be moved to Template talk:Broad-concept article (disambiguation), while related topics may be used in the new article. | |
- At some point, if it's okay with you, it would be best to transfer this discussion to the Dabprimary talk page. – Paine 21:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. I appreciate your solution. bd2412 T 22:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, bd2412, and the changes have been made. – Paine 23:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. I appreciate your solution. bd2412 T 22:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- At some point, if it's okay with you, it would be best to transfer this discussion to the Dabprimary talk page. – Paine 21:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
(disambiguation) (disambiguation)
[edit]Is there some way to word this template so that when it's put on a page that has " (disambiguation)" in the title, it doesn't end up doubling the word? (See Foreign relations of Libya (disambiguation) and Improvement (disambiguation) for examples.) — Gorthian (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Those seem inappropriate uses of the template. Why would a primary topic have "(disambiguation)" in the title. I expect these are likely leftovers from page moves. older ≠ wiser 11:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Or else the topic itself (ignoring the "disambiguation" in the title) is actually the concept. I think glacier retreat (disambiguation) is an example of that. The "primary topic" there is a redirect to a small section of another article. — Gorthian (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- That seems to be stretching the already dubious (IMO) utility of the template. Seems like that page should just be tagged as a stub and perhaps moved over the redirect (where strangely enough the term "glacier retreat" is linked to Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Seems to need the attention of subject matter experts more than disambiguation gnomes. older ≠ wiser 01:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Or else the topic itself (ignoring the "disambiguation" in the title) is actually the concept. I think glacier retreat (disambiguation) is an example of that. The "primary topic" there is a redirect to a small section of another article. — Gorthian (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I came here after trying to put this tag on Girl Scouts (disambiguation). Maybe we need a different template for this, but perhaps this template could be enhanced to perform the function.
- What I mean is that Girl Scouts is an unambiguous term, and thus the unnecessary disambiguation page should be merged into Girl Guides, or deleted.
- Improvement is unambiguous too, so Improvement (disambiguation) should be merged into Improvement. It's just a list of partial title matches.
- Foreign relations of Libya is also an unambiguous topic. Foreign relations of Libya (disambiguation) should be merged into that. It's just a list of WP:summary style sub-topics. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)