This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
User:Anarchyte undid my revision 1011915982 of this Article and restored the redirect, stating that it "needs more before becoming a standalone article." I did not notice (I am new) and s/he is correct. However, checking the history of the article shows that so far there were three redirects: Domestic water system then Tap water then Water supply network. Actually, I can add many more. The reason is that almost everything that deals with water can be considered as a Water System.
On the other what I explained according to a credible reference embodies all of these, and all water systems. So what is the solution? How about having the "unambiguous" thing of Wikipedia and list the possibilities? I never done it, but probably you can do it. But I also can do it. Mitral8 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: I read the disambiguation page a little. It seems it deals with One to Many situations. For example the word Joker comes in many situations, or the word Mercury refers to many things. However, "Water system" is the opposite, it is Many to One, i.e., many articles and topics think of themselves as also "Water system". For example, currently "Water system" redirects to Water supply network article, which does not uses "Water system" in its title. It used to be Tap Water. Also and Irrigation system is another type of "Water system". Am I right in such a characterization? Of course, both types of relationships (One to Many, and Many to One) are logical. Is there a solution in Wikipedia for the second type? Much appreciated and sorry taking your time. Mitral8 (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitral8: You may have misinterpreted the purpose of disambiguation ("dab") pages. Pages are linked from, not to, these pages. Take QQQQ for instance. While none of the entrants are called "QQQQ", they have some relation to the name. Hence if 'water system' were to become a dab page the entrants would need to be, in some way or another, referred to as a water system. I do think this page could turn into a dab page with initial links to Water supply network, Tap water (or its redirect Domestic water system), and Public water system. You likely know of more topics than I do, so feel free to turn this into a dab page. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitral8: I have returned water system to its original redirect target. This is primarily for technical reasons: a page should not be a redirect to a page of the same title plus "(disambiguation)"); and there are a considerable number of other articles linked to it, many of which would be broken if it were changed. You may wish to examine all those pages, since a few, possibly quite a few, may not really want to be linking to water supply network - you'd know better than me. When multiple articles link to a redirect and really want to be linked elsewhere, I consider that a good indication that a disambiguation page is needed. When the vast majority are linked to the correct place, I find that an indication that you shouldn't touch the redirect although it may simply be that someone has already cleaned up the exceptions. Water system (disambiguation) itself needs considerable work and I have serious doubts that it really works as a disambiguation page. Please read WP:DAB and MOS:DAB for instructions on what a disambiguation page is and how it should be laid out. Lithopsian (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithopsian: Thank you for your time and ideas. I made this change because Water System is very generic because almost everything / every-system uses water. In making the change, the users of the article Water system should think a bit hard what Water system they mean (or just leave it ambiguous). I find this important for any writing, including encyclopaedias. Your list that shows many diverse articles using Water system is a proof of this. I hope this makes sense.
What follows are my thoughts on various comments that you wrote (put them in bold):
1-a page should not be a redirect to a page of the same title plus "(disambiguation)": You are correct. I first MOVED the Water system article in order to change its title to Water system (disambiguation). I thought this action automatically gets rid of the article Water system but it seems it did not. Please let me know how to delete the article Water system, if so proved desirable?
2-there are a considerable number of other articles linked to it, many of which would be broken if it were changed: You are correct, I did not think of this. I checked a number of them and I can edit those by pointing to the redirect article. Of course, this needs a period of time to see the responses to the changes. In this period, we need to have the two articles of point 1 above. Is this the way to do it?
3-When the vast majority are linked to the correct place, I find that an indication that you shouldn't touch the redirect although it may simply be that someone has already cleaned up the exceptions: You are correct. As I mentioned water system is very generic, and I assume that the majority of the articles that refer to it do not mind to be more specific. Besides there are other generic phrases, such as, Water, Water Resources, Water Users, Water Providers, Water Services, … Anyhow, at the end, there may be people that insist using Water system in an article and not its redirect. This is still ok, as long as they do not utilize the link of the Water system, i.e., they will be just two words without the link. But if somebody rejects all of these (I presume non-existent), to me it is not logical and a third person should decide. Is there a mechanism for such situations?
4-Water system (disambiguation) itself needs considerable work: You are correct, but we can mention this for many other articles. One thing is sure, this page that is giving many uses of the generic phrase Water system is much more complete than the alternative that gives only one (a redirect). So this should be a good start.
5-I have serious doubts that it really works as a disambiguation page. Please read WP:DAB and MOS:DAB for instructions on what a disambiguation page is and how it should be laid out.: About this issue, you may have read my previous talks with the user Anarchyte above. Please read my entry at 10:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC) – I’m sorry, I am new and don’t know the W language to be able to give you a direct link. I appreciate knowing your thoughts and alternatives. Mitral8 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. Redirects are rarely deleted. Under very specific circumstances, they may be speedily deleted but that's not going to happen here. They may also be deleted after discussion but to be honest that's not going to happen either. Redirects are rarely harmful enough or useless enough to need deleting. However, the discussion may come up with new ideas about what to do with it, and often a consensus that avoids many future arguments. Something to consider if we can't reach some obvious conclusion here.
2. Feel free to fix them to point somewhere better, although try to avoid changing them if they aren't currently broken. We can take it as documented that there was some uncertainty about what other articles expected from this subject title even if you've fixed all the links that were previously a bit confused.
3. If editors deliberately link to an inappropriate article (as a form of protest?) then it can be corrected. More sensibly they can use the words "water system" and link them to any article they like. We shouldn't be worrying about any of that, just make the most sensible choice for the redirect.
4. Mostly done, I think. Your comment does appear to misunderstand what disambiguation pages are for and what redirects are for. Neither need be the gospel 100% truth on stone tablets about a word or phrase. They are both simply tools to get readers from where they are to where they want to be as quickly and effortlessly as possible. A redirect does this by taking them straight there and (despite the dab zealots) is the best solution whenever remotely possible. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for when a redirect should be used even if there are multiple possible meanings, and multiple possible WP articles, for a word or phrase. It might help to explain some of the things that a disambiguation page is not: it is not a definition, explanation, or description and definitely not an article; it is not a list of everything and its dog related to a term, synonyms, antonyms, terms that contain the dab title, etc. A disambiguation page has one and only one function: to be a list of existing (with a few exceptions) Wikipedia articles that a reader or searcher might reasonably have been looking for when they entered a particular term. These articles may each have short descriptions solely for the purpose of allowing a reader to pick one of them (the format is heavily constrained, see this article now for an example of the formatting, and note that each entry contains a single linked *article*, not a piped or redirected link). This is a non-optimal solution since it dumps the burden of working out which WP page they wanted back onto the reader, but it is often inevitable. A common compromise is to redirect to the most likely article for a term, then use a WP:HATNOTE at the top of it to indicate that there are one or two other possible article, or even that there is a whole list of articles (ie. a dab page).
5. Well that's what we have to decide. Anything at the current page title is obviously a disambiguation page but we have the option to add or remove entries, potentially to rename it over the redirect (probably would need wider discussion), or nothing. I think it is kind of OK right now. What would you want to change?
@Lithopsian: Thank you for your informative answers.
4-I liked your statement: A disambiguation page has one and only one function: to be a list of existing (with a few exceptions) Wikipedia articles that a reader or searcher might reasonably have been looking for when they entered a particular term. I also will use WP:HATNOTE
5-So, it seems that the Water system (disambiguation) is ok for now, but I will keep making it more complete (adding more relevant articles, once I find one) and then give it a better structure, like dividing it in Water systems in Urban, Agricultural and Industrial sectors. I also will change the links in articles linked to it and go from there. I presume these are ok. Have a great Spring time if you are in Spring. Mitral8 (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
