Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Foo foo town, Oregon

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)]]