Jump to content

Template talk:Disambiguation/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Edit request - Limit categorization to article space

I see in the template code that the intent of this template is that it does not categorize outside of article space. However, it is adding Category:All disambiguation pages outside of article space, such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harun Abdul Rahman. Could someone please make the appropriate tweak to the template to fix the categorization? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Although the comment in the template code states "Don't categorise when not in main (article) space", you're correct that I'm specifically concerned about miscategorization of talk pages. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: I think I see what you are trying to do now. It would probably be best if there was a way to both suppress the category as well as return an error message (possibly to refer the editor to use a different template, such as {{Wikipedia disambiguation}}) if the template is placed in any space other than the article name space. I'm not confident enough to do this myself at this time, but there was a similar edit recently done on {{RMassist}}, so I'll ping that editor to see if they can provide assistance with that, given that the edits are probably rather similar. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done: In addition to the fact that there are several dab templates (and if this one is altered then the rest should be altered, as well), it seems the most efficient way to make this change would be to alter {{Dmbox}}, which transcludes to more than 302,000 pages. A discussion has already begun there to see if there is a good reason to track disambiguation templates in all namespaces, or if talk pages should be automatically excluded. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 12:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the template:main other categorization used by this template. Nowhere is it categorizing into Category:All disambiguation pages. But this template uses Template:Dmbox, and there I see: 

{{category handler
  | main = [[Category:All article disambiguation pages]][[Category:All disambiguation pages]]
  | template =    <!-- Don't categorize on template pages. -->
  | other = [[Category:All disambiguation pages]]
  | nocat = {{{nocat|}}}   <!--So "nocat=true" works-->
  | page = {{{page|}}}   <!--For testing-->
  }}

where the default is | other = Category:All disambiguation pages, and there is no | Wikipedia talk = override of that. Template:Wikipedia disambiguation also uses {{Dmbox}}. Perhaps another template editor can confirm my analysis. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: From what I understood from that analysis, to accomplish the task requested here, Template:Dmbox may itself need to be edited to allow the template that transcludes it (such as this template) to use a parameter to allow/disallow the inclusion in Category:All disambiguation pages when itself is transcluded. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the Module:Category handler documentation, it seems to me that a solution would be to add the line | talk = , so we have:
{{category handler
  | main = [[Category:All article disambiguation pages]][[Category:All disambiguation pages]]
  | talk =    <!-- Don't categorize on talk pages, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/xxx. -->
  | template =    <!-- Don't categorize on template pages. -->
  | other = [[Category:All disambiguation pages]]
  | nocat = {{{nocat|}}}   <!--So "nocat=true" works-->
  | page = {{{page|}}}   <!--For testing-->
  }}
Unless anyone can think of any scenarios where we do want to categorize certain talk pages that transclude {{Dmbox}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I support changing the template to not-categorize talk pages (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michal Levin). There are some valid dab pages in non-article namespaces (e.g. Book:George Bush). If a dab template is placed on a talk page then it could display a message saying that categories have been suppressed (rather than a DPLbot-type notification). DexDor (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think this may be one reason why this template has nocat={{{nocat|}}} in its Dmbox. All one has to do is add the "nocat" parameter to the template as follows: 

{{disambig|nocat=true}}

... and I have done that. The only change to this template's code that I see is needed is the comment about where interwikis go, which should read: 

<!-- Add categories to the /doc subpage and interwikis to Wikidata, not here! -->

– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
PS. Since this is a high-risk template, I won't make that edit until this discussion has ended. PS added by – Paine 

When editors (for any one of several reasons) put a dab tag on a talk page it would be much better for it to automatically not be categorized than for it to be categorized until an edit is made to add "|nocat=true" which will then need to be removed again if the page is a draft dab page that is then moved to a different namespace. DexDor (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess I have to play devil's advocate here – Isn't that why there is template documentation? Reading the documentation lets an editor know how to use a template. When a new editor makes a dab page in talkspace, then an experienced editor will come along and suppress the category and will know to remove "nocat=true" when the article goes live. It's just a matter of reading, experience and a few keystrokes. – Paine  10:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is, of course, a way (perhaps several ways) to automatically suppress Category:All disambiguation pages in {{TALKSPACE}}; however, allow me to make two points:
  1. As you have shown with your example (which uses {{Hndis}} rather than {{Disambiguation}}) several other dab templates exist that would also have to be changed.
  2. While the {{Dmbox}} template could make a sweeping modification, we should also consider what the category itself tells us: This category lists disambiguation pages in all namespaces. (For technical reasons it does not list pages in the template namespace, but there should be no disambiguation pages there anyway.)
"All namespaces" includes {{TALKSPACE}}. – Paine  11:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: True, documentation, in theory should be enough, but we have that one issue that can happen at any time: human error. I know I've been guilty of that a few times myself. Steel1943 (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, Steel, which is why I added the "nocat" ability to this template's documentation. It was already mentioned in the template data table, but nowhere else, so I mentioned it up in the parameters section. The point I made is that it is possible that there is good reason to track dab templates in all namespaces, including the talk namespace. When I read the above quote from the category, to me it means that the designers wanted to track "all disambiguation pages" in all namespaces. They probably would have preferred to track (errors in) template space, but were unable to do that due to technical limitations. – Paine  12:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Include article name in explanation

Instead of:

  • This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.

it would be easier to understand if we include the article name:

  • This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title title or variant spellings.

Probably you gurus can get this from some variable or other magic? Thanks. 84.51.142.52 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a good idea. We just need to strip "(disambiguation)" from the title, for titles where there is a primary topic for the term. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've coded a new version of that does this in the template sandbox. For demonstration purposes, I implemented it at:
I'll leave this for at least a week and if nobody has any objections or reports any issues with this, I'll boldly implement the change. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Have you tested it with parentheticals other than "disambiguation"? For instance, Zero (band) or Simple (song)? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Tested on Zero (band) and seems to work fine. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Parentheticals other than disambiguation tend to be incomplete disambiguations. I've fixed those two examples. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    It's all well and good to say that these parentheticals shouldn't exist, but the fact is they do, and we need to take them into account. There are another 450 or so at the moment. See User:RussBot/Possible incomplete disambiguations. And undoubtedly others will be created from time to time. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Zero (band)" is such a great message. There are not actually any articles associated with that title. There are articles about bands associated with the title "Zero". --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
      • If (band) were stripped off the message, it would be misleading, because that partial dab does not include all of the "articles associated with the same title". In fact, the current template message is misleading in those cases, if one doesn't understand that the text inside the parens is a disambiguator. Do we have legitimate titles where parens are not showing a disambiguator? I just moved an article where parens were used for a subtitle; our convention is to use a colon to separate the subtitle. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure this is such a great idea. Disambiguation pages often contain related ambiguous variant spellings and this edit implies that only one term is ambiguous. This may encourage editors with a tendency for narrow black-and-white interpretations of rules to want to create separate pages for each and every variant, which IMO would be profoundly unhelpful for readers. older ≠ wiser 13:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    How about adding the words "or variant spellings" to the end of the sentence? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Right, this issue is independent of the original proposal, so we have either:
    This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. → This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title, or variant spellings. --or--
    This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Farming. → This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Farming, or variant spellings.
    For example C&S, C & S, C and S. But this might feel a bit odd with most titles which have no variant spellings. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Where does this leave us? Shall we implement the initial proposal and then continue discussing whether to add something like "or variant spellings" to the end of the sentence. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    That's what I'd like to do. Perhaps a new parameter can be added, which when set, adds the variant message. Add that only when there are legitimate alternates (not typos). Wbm1058 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done – the new enhanced version is now live. I'll revert my sandbox demos. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dab parameters

The documentation has recently been changed (without discussion) to say that for certain things (airports, callsigns, surnames, given names) the parameter should be used even if there is only one entry of that type on the dab page. For other things (human name, church, fish etc) the rule remains that the parameter should only be used if there are "several items of that type". IMO, this is an example of rules-creep - having different rules applying to different sorts of things makes maintaining dab pages more complicated (especially as editors may "promote" their favourite type of thing from being in the "several" list to being in the "one or more" list). In the case of airports/callsigns there was a disagreement between this documentation and the category text, but it would be more consistent to change the category text. In the case of names no reason has been given for introducing an inconsistency except for "these types are not actually ambiguous" (what does that mean?). I propose we go back to the single rule that several entries are required for a dab page to get a parameter rather than having different rules for different types of things. An alternative would be to use "one or more" for all types of things, but that would mean categories should be added to thousands of dab pages. For background see Talk:Goer and edits to Goer. DexDor (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on airports or callsigns, but names should not be lumped in with the other parameters. They technically do not belong on disambiguation pages at all, since a list of name-holders is closer to a set index. The only reason they should be in a disambiguation page is if there is no sourced information on the name in addition to too few entries to justify splitting out into its own article.
Using Goer as an example, if M520 Goer didn't exist, then it would redirect to Henci Goer and correctly be placed in Category:Surnames. If there were three people with the surname Goer, it would either be split out as a separate set index or placed in Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists. Yet if there are only one or two name-holders it suddenly does not deserve to be treated as a valid surname? —Xezbeth (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The category pages for airports and callsigns explicitly say they are used for one or more. And clearly it doesn't apply to the parameters that do not represent types of ambiguous entries, namely: split, chinese, surname, and given name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Linguistics

I created Category:Linguistics disambiguation pages. Would it be appropriate to add ling as a parameter to this template, in order to put pages in this new category? — Eru·tuon 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Could someone add this parameter to allow easy categorization of linguistics disambiguation pages? — Eru·tuon 04:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Phonetics disambiguation, also created on 1 January 2015‎, places pages in Category:Linguistics disambiguation pages. Use that. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

dab for Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask)

We're trying to create a dab page at Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask), but {{dab}} seems to be confused by the asterisks. Using the page-title= parameter does not seem to help. Trying to create the dab footer and categorization manually has issues as well (see the talk page). Any suggestions? Rwessel (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I implemented a |ignore_parentheses= parameter for articles whose titles include parentheses that are not partial disambiguation. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Retarget "internal link" away from WhatLinksHere

Should we retarget the If an internal link led you here, you may wish... to point to https://tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/dab_fix_list.php?title= which contains links to my Dab solver tool. The downside is that it might be out of date due to replication lag. — Dispenser 01:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Since there's been no opposition and the change enhances WhatLinksHere; I suggest we move ahead. Could an admin please change: {{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page-title|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|namespace=0}} → {{fullurl:toollabs:dplbot/dab_fix_list.php|title={{FULLPAGENAMEE:{{{page-title|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}}}} — Dispenser 15:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't think that either WhatLinksHere or the Dab solver dab_fix_list are appropriate link targets for "internal link". If anything, that should go to Help:Wikilinks. I think linking "change the link" to Dab solver dab_fix_list is a better idea. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Request deactivated - discussion ongoing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense, Dab solver doesn't work backwards. And its been this way 10 years, why point to a help page explaining the concepts of linking vs. the list of links themselves? I've reactivated the edit request as the change is only an improvement to what exists. — Dispenser 15:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Request deactivated - discussion ongoing - The fact you don't agree with Ahecht doesn't mean the discussion's over, especially when you haven't even sought input from the project claiming an interest in the topic at the top of this page. Bazj (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I left it at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Change "internal link" on disambiguation template. I'm asking to improve the link we already have. Ahecht is debating the wording, sometime I'm not qualified to debate. — Dispenser 19:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

page-title parameter and ***

The page-title parameter seems to be necessary for ***, according to the documentation, although the link didn't provide a reason. An editor recently removed it, I reverted referring to this page's documentation, a second editor than reverted me. Noticing the bottom of the page, the version with page-title lists the page as three widely spaced bullet points, while the version without lists the page as three asterisks. So whatever was wrong with not having page-title, it seems having it isn't correct either.

Anybody here want to get involved or figure out what the right thing is? Thank you. Choor monster (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am the person who removed the parameter |page-title= at ***, because I noticed a problem it caused at the page (three widely spaced bullet points were displayed instead of three asterisks as it should be).
I look into the template's history and found out that this parameter was added to this template since Feburary 2008 with the explaination "adding workaround for ***". The doc page was updated with further explaination for this situation shortly after. I guess there was a problem with the MediaWiki software back then when asterisks confused the software with the wiki codes for lists. Or maybe the software couldn't handle Special:WhatLinksHere/*** correctly. But asterisks' no longer causing problem in both situations. I guess the parameter page-title is needless now. Tran Xuan Hoa (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Two-letter, three-letter and four-letter disambiguation pages

I would be grateful for assistance so that parameters could be added to the template for two-letter, three-letter and (potentially) four-letter disambiguation pages. Thanks Greenshed (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC) ...and also one-letter disambiguation pages. Greenshed (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Acronyms

It seems that Wikipedia doesn't want to add just any possibly relevant acronym, unless it has an accompanying article. I would have liked better a policy where a bullet in a dub page could stay there if useful to readers and hinting at a to-do list for contributors. I just learned today that is not the case. There are projects which aim at exactly that, e.g. Acronym Finder (btw, that page looks very much self-appointed, with no link to similar sites.) Acronyms, especially TLAs, are a special case of uncovered titles inasmuch as people are unable to look up the relevant pages in Google until they know the acronym definition. I ask:

  • Is it feasible to categorize dub pages which refer to acronyms (heuristically or otherwise)?
  • Can Wikipedia endorse one or more acronym finders and add a bottom template with a link to their search pages?

Thank you
ale (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If there were not rules against adding nolink/redlink entries to dab pages then many dab pages (especially those for TLAs) would likely be overwhelmed by such entries as, for example, children who attend Foo Bar School want to put a mention of it in wp and put it in the FBS dab page. Some fields (e.g. IT, web chat rooms) create new acronyms at a huge rate many of which are likely to be forgotten about in a few years. It is not realistic for a dab page to list every possible meaning that an acronym could have.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "categorize dub pages which refer to acronyms" (or how it might be useful) and I think there would be resistance to putting a link to a (non-Wikipedia-empire) acronym finder onto dab pages.
I suggest you put the meaning into Wiktionary (e.g. see this[1]) and check that there's a link from the dab page to Wiktionary. DexDor (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: The OP has also started a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms_and_acronym_finders. DexDor (talk)
Then one of them should be closed per WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could modify this template to incorporate the templates mentioned in the title, which are commonly used on the disambiguation pages themselves. (This has been done on the Dutch Wikipedia, see nl:Sjabloon:dp.) <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion, but as with the Dutch template, I would just code this directly rather than transclude {{look from}} and {{in title}}. Probably should have a parameter to allow overriding the default and suppressing this feature on pages where it isn't needed or desired. In fact, I would first make it an option which was turned off by default. We currently have 4263 transclusions of Template:Look from and 6006 transclusions of Template:In title. I believe the vast majority of these transclusions are on disambiguation pages. To avoid redundancy the option should be turned on at the same time as the redundant transclusions are removed. Only after all the existing transclusions have been removed can we make showing "look from" and "in title" links the default. Worth coding up something to do this in the template sandbox. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 23 July 2016

A protected redirect, Template:Disambig, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Disambiguation]]
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Disambiguation]]

{{This is a redirect|from move|from template shortcut}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{This is a redirect}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the protection categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  22:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Redrose64!  Paine  13:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

overcategorizing

Hi there,

adding {{Disambiguation|given name|surname}} to an article apparently categorizes it in category:Disambiguation pages, category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists, and category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists. I think that the first cat is overkill, since the two that follow are subcat of it. --Jerome Potts (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of subcategories, all dab pages are placed in Category:Disambiguation pages and this is intentional, not redundant. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Template disambiguation pages

This should be edited so that the template detects if it’s in the “Template” namespace, and if it is, it says “This disambiguation page lists templates…” instead of “articles.”
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 16:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a patch for this request ready to deploy from Template:Disambiguation/sandbox. wbm1058 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Using the demospace parameter of {{template other}} to avoid clumsy includeonly's. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It doesn’t seem to work. It still says “articles” when used in the “Templates” namespace. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
After Bkonrad’s revision, it works now.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the "clumsy includeonly's" was so that the template itself (the only page effected by the includeonlys – Template:Disambiguation) would still say "articles". This is "pseudo-documentation" and we don't want to mislead others into thinking that this template is intended for disambiguation of templates, while other similar templates such as {{Human name disambiguation}}, {{Airport disambiguation}}, {{School disambiguation}} and {{Disambiguation cleanup}} are intended for disambiguation of articles. Alternatively we could surround all the template code with includeonly tags, so the pseudo-documentation did not appear on the template page at all. We do that if the bare template generates bad syntax or {{error}}s when it is not transcluded.

The demospace parameter is intended for use on documentation pages, which are typically in the Wikipedia namespace. If used on this template, it should just be employed as a parameter pass-through:

| demospace = {{{demospace|}}}

We should not hard-code a particular value for that parameter into this template.

I still want to deploy the version I have waiting in the sandbox. Given the {{High-risk}} message on this template, this isn't supposed to be a place for bold editing, especially for an enhancement intended to benefit only a handful of "clumsy" uses of this template outside of mainspace. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support using your sandbox version. 99% of the time this template is going to be used in article space, and the example should reflect that. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. I've deployed my version. wbm1058 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

New parameter

Can someone add a "tndis" parameter like so {{disambiguation|tndis}}. It would save having to add Category:Title and name disambiguation pages manually.--Nevé–selbert 21:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Done | tndis = [[Category:Title and name disambiguation pages]] added to Template:Disambiguation/cat. Cabayi (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request for inclusion of short description template

Please consider the inclusion of {{short description}} to provide a Wikipedia:Short description for all disambiguation articles. This has been suggested as a more efficient means of inserting short descriptions to disambiguation pages than inserting them on each page by hand or bot. I have tested the requested code in the sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Disambiguation/sandbox&oldid=833222484 and as far as I can tell it does the job. RexxS has checked that the API returns the appropriate message - see:

The precise text of the message is open to discussion, and, as it will be in the template, can easily be modified if a better option is found. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I suggest taking out "the same or" from the text, and possibly the first instance of "Wikipedia". This otherwise looks fine to me, but we can wait for more feedback. Dekimasuよ! 21:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The proposal is to insert the following at the beginning of the text = parameter

{{short description|Wikipedia disambiguation page - a page providing links to Wikipedia articles with the same or similar titles}}

I think that should be a lot shorter. I don't use a mobile device to access Wikipedia much but I thought the existing description was more like "disambiguation page" which fits much better on a small screen. People quickly learn what "disambiguation" mean and don't need a full definition each time. Johnuniq (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I support the change in principle but would suggest a few changes.
  1. Move {{short description|...}} outside the transclusion of Dmbox: it doesn't form part of the text in the box
  2. Omit the word Wikipedia, for brevity and because the template will get plagiarised in forks and mirrors
  3. Make the change in {{Dmbox}} rather than here, so that it also applies to other Dmbox users such as {{Human name disambiguation}}
  4. Add a parameter {{short description|{{{shortdesc|Disambiguation page...}}} }} to allow more specific descriptions: for example, hndis can use {{Dmbox|shortdesc=Human name disambiguation page...}}
— Certes (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Certes,
  1. Why should the short description be outside the Dmbox? If you do not have css to see it enabled, it will not be visible, if you do, where would you want it to be? In most cases where it is added individually it is likely to be at the top of the article where it can be recognised as an annotation to the title. On disambiguation pages, it would either be in the box, which to me makes some sense, or just above the box. where it loses context.
  2. I would happily omit one instance of "Wikipedia", for brevity. What other sites do with it is their problem. If they display a reference to Wikipedia it doesn't bother me at all. In some cases it may be the only reference to Wikipedia on their page.
  3. See next
  4. Would it not be simpler to just use a different, more relevant, short description in the other templates using Dmbox than to complicate the system with extra parameters? It is quite possible that I simply misunderstand this suggestion, so feel welcome to explain in more detail how it would work. I would simply add {{short description|Human name disambiguation page}} to {{hndis}} and the equivalent wherever needed in other templates. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
For 1., you're right that the location of the short description shouldn't affect its appearance. I just thought that someone editing the template might not expect to find it in the middle of the template code for a box at the bottom of the page. For 4., making the change in Dmbox would also affect disambiguation pages which don't use {{Disambiguation}}, but this sword may be double edged as Dmbox is also used for non-dab pages such as {{Ship index}}. Neither of my suggestions is an obvious improvement but they're decisions to be made. Certes (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I suggest avoiding double edged swords unless they provide significant advantages. Keeping it simple also has advantages. If others come up with better ideas later, it can be changed. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Alternative short descriptions to be considered:

  1. Wikipedia disambiguation page - a page providing links to Wikipedia articles with the same or similar titles (original)
  2. Wikipedia disambiguation page (minimalist)
  3. Wikipedia disambiguation page - a page providing links to Wikipedia articles with similar titles (trimmed)
  4. Disambiguation page - a page providing links to Wikipedia articles with similar titles (trimmed more)
  5. Disambiguation page - a page providing links to articles with similar titles (expurgated version - no reference to WP)
  6. Disambiguation page (absolute minimum)
  7. Disambiguation page providing links to articles with similar titles (RexxS' proposed compromise - see explanation below)

Add other suggestions above here...

For the record I would accept any of the first 6, though #4 would be my first choice at this stage. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Also find #7 quite acceptable. Remember that changing the text is trivially easy if new text is agreed on. I see it as quite possible that someone who sees the short description one day will have a better idea and suggest it. If it is a better idea we change it. No problem. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The more I look at #7 the more I like it. Moving to my 1st choice for clarity and concision.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq -- we have to remember that this is primarily going to be viewed as a subtitle below the article name on mobile. I think the explanation of what is a disambiguation page is not necessary -- it should be clear enough from the first few lines of the page; and will rapidly get very very old, if people use Wikipedia on mobile any more than a fraction.
There was some debate in old discussions as to whether such pages need a subtitle at all, if they include "(disambiguation)" in the page title. I don't mind the repetition -- it doesn't offend me; but there were some who raised this as a specific issue, so it should probably be reviewed. Jheald (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Getting some short descriptions done is a useful thing in itself. They all add up towards getting the job finished. If there are well motivated reasons why they should not be here, and there is consensus, they can be removed easily. My opinion at this point is that at worst they do no harm, and at best they clarify what might be a group of somewhat confusing pages for some readers. Also, if we don't put them in, we will not get feedback on whether they are useful.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
As long as it will make sense to a new reader it should be OK. A little old to an experienced user is not a train smash. They will learn to ignore it, as one does. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I put {{green}} around the comments to make the proposals easier to see. Another factor is that only the first few words of a description are visible on a phone. We need input from people more familiar with mobile access but I suspect the explanatory descriptions would not be visible on many devices. Template talk:Short description#Checking results may be of interest where I found some examples of dab descriptions from Wikidata. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
My compromise suggestion would be:
  • Disambiguation page providing links to articles with similar titles
It has to be short to be useful on a phone. Many visitors who see the message will actually be seeing the word "disambiguation" for the first time, and a very brief explanation of disambiguation would make sense to me. --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
So where are we with this? I support Rexxs's option, think we should add it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I think there are three of us specifically in favour of RexxS' option, nobody specifically against the inclusion in the template, no alternative suggestions, general support in concept, and a very easy change if we find there is a problem with it. If we go with RexxS' version we may have feedback. If we do nothing we will never get anywhere. If I could make the edit I would do so. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Galobtter, I think we leave things for a week or so to see what feedback it generates, then look into the special category disambiguation templates, where the short description can be tailored to suit. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter, TheDJ, RexxS, DannyH (WMF), I see that the inclusion of {{short description}} in {{disambiguation}} does not seem to stop the API call returning a Wikidata description. I state this based on the gadget script that TheDJ wrote and the assumption that it works correctly. A Long Walk is one of the examples I tested. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
it takes some time for things to update, some of the disambiguation pages now use the new description (e.g 1964 Olympics) (showing per the script) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Categorisaton

How do you think the categorization should work? I don't want the pages to be categorized in Category:Articles with short description as currently done, because disambiguation pages are not articles; I created Category:Disambiguation pages with short description and added a parameter to {{short description}} before realizing that a category that is basically a duplicate of Category:Disambiguation pages isn't very useful. Maybe don't categorize it specifically at all? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Would Category:Pages with short description do? It is only needed for keeping track of short descriptions. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it is useful, vaguely, to keep track of article descriptions separately, since that matters more IMO. Planning this out, I think if we have other auto generated descriptions, it would be useful to categorize those separately in article category etc. Long-term I think it is useful to keep track of these sort of stuff. I think that 2 million number is for articles - that's how it was calculated? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It was an arbitrary decision by DannyH (WMF), based on some very dubious estimates of the number of "good" short descriptions on Wikidata. I will look for a link to the discussion. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Once there are ~2 million descriptions on English WP articles, we move to stage two, and at that point any page that doesn't have a SHORTDESC magic word will automatically be blank., and
When there are roughly ~2 million descriptions on article pages and we switch off the Wikidata fallback, then the content is under Wikipedia contributors' control. are specified in this subsection of the debate. So while getting the disambiguation pages populated by template is useful to the readers, it does not appear to actually contribute towards getting WMF to switch off the Wikidata descriptions for articles without a local short description. Your suggestion for different categories would make it easier to keep track of the critical 2 million, but that could probably be done by a Petscan search excluding disambiguation pages and any other non-article main-space pages, though I would not claim to be able to do that myself. There is a limit to what any small group can achieve in way of manually creating unique short descriptions for ordinary articles. With a bit of luck and by providing an example, we can hope that more gnomes will take the baton and do something more interesting than removing white-space an more challenging than spelling corrections. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. After thinking I reckon it would be best to get all disambiguation pages to have short description and then putting Category:Disambiguation pages in Category:Pages with short description, and disabling that categorization from {{short description}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
How would regular articles with short description get their categorisation if you did that? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I meant, adding an option to disable categorization, and using that Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter, I don't think you want to just put Category:Disambiguation pages in Category:Pages with short description. Every so often I come across pages that have been placed in that category through methods other than this template (usually by mistakenly adding the category without this template, or sometimes by some newly created template). older ≠ wiser 12:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I do suppose. We could make this template categorize in a subcategory of Category:Disambiguation pages, which would actually make it easier to spot these errors. Anyhow, I reckon we should probably spend more time getting more short descriptionsthan categorization :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
If we do nothing clever, adding {{Short description}} to {{Disambiguation}} will put dabs into Category:Articles with short description, which isn't entirely accurate. We can ask for {{Short description}} to be amended to have a {{{category}}} parameter, which defaults to Articles with short description but can be overridden to Disambiguation pages with short description‎ when called from {{Disambiguation}}. We can then put Category:Disambiguation pages with short description‎ into Category:Disambiguation pages and remove the latter from {{Disambiguation}}. That will leave the 50 disambiguation pages which circumvent {{Disambiguation}} as direct members of Category:Disambiguation pages. Does that work? Certes (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Seems good idea. The parameter already exists (I added it previously), {{{pagetype}}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The same should probably be done on Template:Surname (45,000 pages), Template:Hndis (54,000) and Template:Geodis (37,000 pages) and so on. Fram (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. bd2412 T 15:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes: probably all Category:Disambiguation message boxes except {{Dmbox}} and possibly all Category:Set index article templates, though it may be best to consult relevant Wikiprojects first. Certes (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I have done the first two that Fram mentions. I think that using consistent text for all types of disambiguation pages is best, but others may disagree. If there are a bunch of customized descriptions for different disambig and "set" templates, then a searcher who is familiar with disambiguation page... has to process those new variations rather than immediately locating the page via the standardized description. Nevertheless, Template:Surname already uses the description "Surname list", and I didn't change that, but added the "type" parameter to categorize. My main goal for the moment was cleaning out category:Articles with short description‎ so it is representative of actual articles (individual uses of the s.d.). It's processing as I write. Outriggr (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Another thought: the agreed-upon description for disambiguation pages should be moved into a template so it's alterable in one place. Outriggr (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Please also look into Template:Biology disambiguation. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added the short description template to all four relevant templates above.[1] There are others to be done yet, in the mentioned disambig category. I have created a template to hold the standardized string that will represent as many disambiguation pages as possible: {{Disambiguation page short description}}. Its contents are what was agreed to above, and what is currently in this (Disambiguation) template. Can someone please template-protect the one I created as it flows through to hundreds of thousands of articles.

[1] I was reverted on {{surname}} because "they aren't disambiguation pages". As such, these obviously-not-article pages are still polluting Category:Articles with short description‎. If anyone else would like to reason with the reverter, or add a new s.d. parameter & category for "sets" (to what end, I'm not sure), well a solution would be nice. Outriggr (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Most surname pages technically aren't disambiguation pages, though they serve a similar function. I think the template should give them a standard short description without the word "disambiguation", such as "Surname page describing a family name". We could mention a list of people, but not all of them have one. (There are too many Joneses to keep up with.) Certes (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, most surname pages actually are disambiguation pages. Even by the arbitrary definition in the documentation at Template:Surname ("Do not use this template on disambiguation pages that contain a list of people by family name and other entries."), you'll find that many of the pages where the template is used break that rule. A quick sample from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Surname turns up: Abati, Bunsen, Ichijō, Kornilov, Kuleshov, Kuznetsov, Mooney, etc. – 7 of the first 11 contain links to entities other than people with the surname. Personally, I doubt whether the argument is worth it. --RexxS (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
(Certes, the surname template has always had its own description - "surname list" - and the only desire was to not have "surname" populate the tracking category for "articles". Ideally we would track actual individual uses of the short desc in "articles". As RexxS points out, most surname pages look a lot like disambiguation pages... Outriggr (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC))

All disambiguation message boxes in the category now have the short description added. Per Galobtter's suggestion at the wikiproject talk page, I moved the entire declaration to its own template, {{disambiguation page short description}}, rather than repeat a constant in various places. I have requested protection for the new template in three different places and still waiting. At this time, "set lists" are not affected by any of this. Outriggr (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Template protection alert

Vandals look for widely used templates or modules that are unprotected and put junk in them. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Template vandalism nested within Disambiguation. The vandalism was at {{Disambiguation page short description}}. If there are any similar cases, they need to be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Bypass a redirect?

This template uses {{Title without disambig}}, but that is just a redirect to {{PAGENAMEBASE}}. That causes many redirects, by the many disambiguation pages that transclude this {Disambiguation} template (if only in the "templates used" list that is shown while editing them). "Byp red" is not normally a valid reason for an edit, but, for efficiency of this active template, and to show a better example, I think it should be changed (unless there is a reason not to). (Alternative: If {PAGENAMEBASE} is disfavored (clunky? shouting?), instead of changing this page, consider renaming {PAGENAMEBASE} to {Title without disambig}.) -A876 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have bypassed the redirect. If you want to propose moving that template then Template talk:PAGENAMEBASE is the place to do that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 June 2019

Removed excessive space after "lists" in default message This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Template:Disambiguation.--Hildeoc (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Hildeoc (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Izno (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Izno! Right at the top of the template the default text is displayed: This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Template talk:Disambiguation/Archive 6. – Now, if you enter two spaces into your browser's search box, you should get the two spaces between "lists" and "articles" highlighted. Hence, the template code should be improved accordingly – so as to have that excess spacing removed (of course also in all transclusions). That is what I am referring to. Regards--Hildeoc (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not really possible without adding significant additional code. Is there a reason you think the double spaces need to go? --Izno (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hildeoc: I'm not sure most users will notice this issue. I use Google Chrome which appears to eat the redundant space, but I suppose some browsers may not do that. Does the version at Template:Disambiguation/sandbox solve the issue for you? wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: In fact, yes it does! Thanks a lot. Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done – wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 July 2019

Please revert Special:Diff/900033329 (the previous edit request) to restore the space between the type parameter and the word "articles" or "templates". On pages using parenthetical disambiguation like Pure (language), the removal of the space caused the template to render two words without a space between them (e.g. languagearticles).

I've added two test cases to the test cases page to demonstrate this using the template's type parameter. Compare the {{Disambiguation/sandbox| type=example }} and the {{Disambiguation| type=example }} test cases to see why the space is necessary (example templates with the space vs. exampletemplates without).

It's true that restoring the space would cause the template to emit two space characters when the template is not using the type parameter (and the title is not using parenthetical disambiguation). However, all HTML5-compliant browsers collapse multiple whitespace characters into a single space character (unless the white-space CSS property is changed to certain values that are not used here). Wikipedia declares its web pages as HTML5, which can be confirmed from the <!DOCTYPE html> DOCTYPE in the source of this web page. This means that all mainstream browsers released in the last 10 years will correctly render the two space characters as one space. — Newslinger talk 07:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Hildeoc, Izno, and Wbm1058, who participated in the previous edit request discussion. — Newslinger talk 07:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done DannyS712 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Set index article#Short description

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Set index article#Short description. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Useless short description

Per WP:SHORTDESC: "Where there is no useful short description possible, leave it out." The template boilerplate is as useless as the "Wikipedia list article" bits on so many list articles. Suggest it be removed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I would wait for a short while. WMF indicated that once enwiki has 2,000,000 short descriptions in place, they will reverse the widely criticised software change which forces Wikidata descriptions on us. We're almost there (over 1,900,000 depending how you count them). Let's wait for WMF to deliver on their promise before reducing that number. Certes (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Template protected edit request

Merge discussion closed; remove the template, and if you can implement the namespace detection (though that is just a suggestion, not part of this request), that would be nice too. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Nardog (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I would oppose implementing the namespace detection though. Just because the template is in e.g. the Wikipedia namespace doesn't mean all the links listed also are, and I don't see much benefit in complicating the code just to say "project pages". That said, "articles" should be "pages" in all non-main namespaces. Nardog (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_6&oldid=1138524512"