Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

Proposal: keep two-item dab pages

Proposal: Change Disambiguation and Deletion policy pages to eliminate deletion of two-item disambiguation pages.

IMO, deletion of disambiguation pages based on wp:TWODABS NEVER makes sense. If neither of two exact match items is primary, all should agree the dab is needed. If one of two is primary, the dab page is not absolutely required, but if it is created, it should be kept. Why?

  • 1. Readers seeking the primary use meaning get to it immediately, are unaffected by the dab.
  • 2. Avoid wasting editors' time in monitoring Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic to find dabs which can be eliminated, and time wasted by other editors in AFDs and other deletion processes.
  • 3. Disambiguation pages are glorified redirects, and wp:Redirects are cheap Like the essay wp:redirects are cheap says about redirects, disambiguation pages also "take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around." (Restated per comments.)
  • 4. Another exact match may turn up soon, or eventually, and can be added.
  • 5. A disambiguation page can hold other items useful to readers that are not exact matches, in the list of items being disambiguation or in "See also". Readers don't necessarily know their target is not an exact match; partial matches are helpful.
  • 6. Technically, we violate Wikipedia's promise to contributors that they will receive credit, each time a two-dabs page is deleted and then recreated later with two or more items.
  • 7. Deletions of two-dab pages are, like all other deletion actions, a negative that contributors often experience as an insult or dismissal or otherwise as a turnoff. People need 7 or 8 positives to counter a negative experience. Negativity drives down participation.

Why not?

  • 1. Readers seeking the non-primary use meaning will arrive at the primary use topic and, instead of seeing hatnote taking them directly to the non-primary use, they might be directed to the disambiguation page instead, requiring one more step. But:
    • a) If the non-primary use name is long and would make the hatnote unwieldy, readers might already be directed to the disambiguation page, under current policy.
    • b) We can simply choose not to require the hatnote to go to the disambiguation page. Change wp:TWODABS to allow it explicity: "If there is only one non-primary use on the dab page, the hatnote can go directly to that."

The current process described in wp:Disambiguation's wp:TWODABS section involves tagging TWODABS disambiguation pages with {{Only-two-dabs}}, and allowing deletion if, after some non-defined length of time, other items are not added. Let's stop the bureaucracy, reduce slightly the pipeline of articles into AFD, stop the slow churning that goes on here, and get rid of one small component of Wikipedia's negativity. RFC reopened by Gorthian (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC); originally opened by --doncram 16:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Hatnote was notified about this discussion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Instead, unnecessary disambiguation pages should be speedy deleted as housekeeping, and would actually address some of your concerns concerning AFD. This is a proposal going in the wrong direction. You also have a non sequitur, dabs aren't redirects so WP:CHEAP doesn't apply. They do require some maintenance, especially who people who don't know WP:DDD try to add their non-notable band to a dab, for example. -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    I don't understand the "strong" reaction. Keeping the two-item dab page keeps its Talk page, too, where discussion of the non-notable band will then be kept. A hidden comment on the dab page itself can warn editors not to re-create the band item: "Consensus at Talk page [or specific AFD, or wherever] is that band X is not notable". Editors involved will watchlist the dab page and will see if Band X reappears, anyhow. Deletion means the band advocate will create a new dab page, or struggle to figure out how to do that properly, instead of getting the guidance (and links to informed, experienced editors on the topic) that they need. As new contributors (often), they should be treated with courtesy, rather than be frustrated with bureaucracy and no information. This is easy and efficient to do, if the page is kept, IMO.
    Tavix, how do you mean this would address my concerns at AFD? The proposal aims to eliminate this category of AFDs. Right now there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severna Park (disambiguation), where arguably it is a two-item dab, but additional items that are at least partial-matches can usefully be mentioned (plus there may be future exact matches, etc.). It would be easy to speedy keep such a dab page, and its Talk page would record permanent link to the AFD, heading off future deletion and re-creation cycles. ‎I must not understand something that you mean. --doncram 17:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    If a disambiguation page is useful, then yes, it should be kept. The example you mentioned could be one of them. That's optimally where AFD comes in to play: to discuss those borderline disambiguations. I don't see any problems with the way things are done now, and would strongly oppose any proposal that eliminates the ability to delete unnecessary disambiguation pages in this fashion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    That being said, you're welcome to argue for the keeping of disambiguations when they appear at WP:AFD, using some of these reasons if you wish. -- Tavix (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support There aren't that many dab pages that go to AfD, but the ones that do often seem to involve WP:TWODAB discussions that are so pointless that I (and probably many others) get entirely put off keeping an eye at the delsort. Anything that does away with all this pointless chin-wagging is welcome. We should summarily either delete these (only PRODs are workable as this is far from CSD territory), or keep them, and I think the latter is the more maintainable approach: then the dabs won't go through recreation and redeletion, and the dab page (even if superfluous for now) can get expanded.
  • In other words, I agree with the reasons given in doncar's proposal. And to them I add one more: dab pages (even ones containing only two entries) are easier to link to from the see also sections of other, similarly named dab pages. Uanfala (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If there is no primary topic, then a two-item page is needed. But if there is a primary topic, the dab page is useless. A hatnote at the primary is much more efficient. Mainspace is littered with too many dab pages as it is; many can't be helped, but the fewer that are there to stop readers in their tracks while switching articles, the better. And, as a constant maintainer of dab pages, I must say that your statement that "disambiguation pages are glorified redirects" is pretty ingenuous. There's a lot of thought and effort that go into a good dab page, even if there are only two entries. — Gorthian (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with Gorthian (especially on the agonising about whether or not to create a small DAB page). There are many cases, especially in {{hndis}} and {{geodis}}, where no article is or is ever likely to be WP:PRIMARY in English Wiki. Some of those have big DAB pages in non-English Wikis, and a DAB page with links to those Wikis is the best solution.
    That said, I do believe that 2-link DAB pages should be flagged up for attention. They are often bad. DAB pages which give you a choice of (for example) only Famous band and My mate's redlinked garage band with the same name need a good close look. Narky Blert (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are a lot of gray areas between "just two items with one primary" (delete & forget all) vs. other (keep)! The non-notable band becomes more notable. Someone goes to the trouble to create a redlink in a suitable article, justifying inclusion of the redlink as a legitimate item in a dab. Etc. (see collapsed list.) The dab Talk page can/should serve as an incubator about articles that are needed, but can't if it may be deleted at whim. Deletion of two-item dab pages cuts the discovery process abruptly, loses all info accumulated, and unnecessarily raises the burden of fact-finding going forward. If each of 10 arriving editors is aware of one so-far-unrecognized legitimate item, but unaware of the other ones, each separate creation of the two-item dab page is defeated. Under current policy you have to know of, and successfully defend, three legitimate items at once in order to get a sensible dab established. Why not just let info accumulate, and eliminate "high-stakes" (delete or keep) dispute?
10 areas for valid disagreement
  • whether there is a wp:primary topic or not (establishing a local consensus that one of two items is primary, "wins" the deletion of a two-item dab, despite the call being marginal or there being continuing disagreement, and despite the fact that "primaryness" can easily change with events in the world. Note that one wp:primary item can "defeat" each of 10 separately arriving items, while if all of them were arrayed it would be clear that there is no primaryness.
  • whether the topic of a third item, say a non-primary one, is allowed. While creating a couple thousand dabs about historic sites like "Smith House", etc., I for one have had to go create stub articles on topics unrelated to my interests, to make a third entry, just to make a dab stick, i.e. to stop the deletion of a dab that I know is needed to avoid future conflicts in article creation later, that I know will grow to have many items. I have seen editors seek deletion of third-item articles in order to bring the number down to two, so they can "win" deletion.
  • whether an item is a perfect match or not. For one item named "John Smith House", there may be a supported statement in its article that the house is also known as "Smith House", which seems to be enough for it to count as an item on the dab. The article on another item named "Jane Smith House" may lack published source showing it referred to as "Smith House", while local knowledge and/or common sense says it is sometimes/often termed that. This item can be disputed as not a legitimate third item.
  • whether a redlink item is allowed, or counts in justifying a dab. Redlink items are in fact allowed by MOS, as long as they have a supporting bluelink to an article that uses the redlink in context. Those other usages can be contrived or contested, in order to achieve keeping or deleting of the redlink. Even if the redlink stays, new editors and some experienced editors can dispute the redlink counting as a third item.
  • whether a "blacklink" item supported by a bluelink is allowed, or counts. E.g. a house in a notable historic district named exactly "Smith House" that is marginally notable, or that is notable (could have an article) but is covered well in the historic district article. It should be mentioned to help readers, but is not a blue-link, and an article is not wanted, so it is not a redlink either.
  • The likely validity of a new item is often supported by a source added along with the item, but the source is pared away by police enforcing the prohibition of sources on dab pages, and later the item is contested. Relevant sources supporting creation of needed articles should be moved to the Talk page and allowed to accumulate. The Talk page can/should serve as an incubator, but can't credibly if it may sometimes be deleted.
  • Does a useful "See also" to a similar dab count towards reason to keep a two-item dab?
  • What if there is a primary item and just one validated other item, but one or two or five or ten blacklinks or See-Also's or redlinks, etc., that are usefully mentioned to serve readers in the dab? Where draw the line?
  • Does accumulated knowledge in the edit history and at the Talk page count? What if there is just one nearly-valid item to "remember" at the Talk page, or if there are 10, with lots of research reported?
  • I am sure there are more gray areas where dispute really happens. Sue me, if this isn't 10 yet.
The battling to "win" deletion offends me. The deletion of all that can accumulate on emerging items, relationships to other dabs, etc., offends me when it happens. --doncram 04:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, with conditions. A two-link page at a "Foo (disambiguation)" title is generally harmless. The harm comes when the disambiguation page is in the wrong place. bd2412 T 16:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Less wasted effort. — Dispenser 19:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Such disambiguation pages are harmless, even if mostly unneeded. The effort involved in deleting them is more than any benefit. older ≠ wiser 20:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This whole proposal goes against the very idea of disambiguation. Disambiguation pages serve as navigational aids, and when they don't serve any navigational purpose, they should simply be speedy deleted as housekeeping. It seems like most of the support are from people who don't want to deal with them at AFD, which I strongly feel is necessary for borderline cases. My advice to you all who don't want to deal with them is this: don't. Leave the effort for people who want to make Wikipedia a better place by making it more optimal to navigate. -- Tavix (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Can you explain how the existence of these disambiguation pages in any way impedes navigation? Or how deleting them enhances navigation? older ≠ wiser 21:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Disambiguation pages are navigational aids. When they have been bypassed by a hatnote, they no longer have any navigational function. When they don't have any navigational function, they no longer have any use, and should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
        • A disambiguation page can still serve a navigational function even if it's bypassed by a hatnote – it's easier to link to from the "see also" section of another, similarly titled disambiguation page. I guess this is more of a question about the optimal layout of "see also" sections, but the situation I'm having in mind is one where there are three or four dab pages that have very similar names and that all link each other. If some of these dabs were done away with per WP:TWODABS, then each single link would need to be replaced with the corresponding entries from the dab page, and that's a bit untidy.
          If a disambiguation page doesn't serve any navigation purpose, then it's there for people to add to and so is some kind of draft, isn't it? Maybe we don't want to have drafts lying about in mainspace, but here at least they are precisely where people would look for them. Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Just to clarify, I don't want to delete any disambiguations that serve functions via see also and can be expanded. When it's reasonable for them to be expanded, but don't know how to do so, I usually just add {{only-two-dabs}} to it; in fact I did so just last week with Kathryn (disambiguation). While technically a "two dab", this serves other purposes by linking to similar names, as well as Lake Kathryn (disambiguation). So I think we're in agreement for the most part. I'm just deathly afraid that this proposal will limit these kinds of discussions that have worked well at AFD for so long. I'm really disappointed that people see these kind of discussions as a "waste of time" and I would encourage them to see the benefit these discussions have. Sometimes they result in the expansion and improvement of the disambiguation page, which is a huge benefit for readers that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for those extra eyes on it. -- Tavix (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
            • Wouldn't ALL disambiguation pages benefit from expansion and improvement? Why put a sign on the subset of two-item ones, alone, that these will be deleted, if they are not improved. Why hold hostage the editors that set them up or that see permanent merit in having them?
            • The {{only-two-dabs}} does not indicate that "See also" items suffice, in lieu of an exact-match Wikipedia article. The template explicitly nominates Kathryn (disambiguation) for deletion. It says "If no other topics can be found within a reasonable time, the disambiguation page might be deleted." In practice, that encourages arriving editors to consider deleting by AFD or PROD or simply by administrative action without discussion, all of which happen, as a matter of "housekeeping" or ensuring that "if disambiguation doesn't serve navigation to Wikipedia pages" it must be deleted. I want to remove the "DELETE ME" sign on that dab page and others like it. Right now, literally, I want to remove the {{only-two-dabs}} tag on Kathryn (disambiguation) and put a DO NOT DELETE injunction on it instead. --doncram 05:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
              User:doncram "Wouldn't ALL disambiguation pages benefit from expansion and improvement?" 1. no and 2. many yes. Most of the time 2. involves removing redlinks and nolinks so the improvement is contraction - the opposite of 1. Also, the subjective "reasonably likely item" is too often taken as all items, again the opposite of 1. . Our systemic bias towards pop culture and recentism is a growing problem on dabs - they're filling with sometimes minor fictional entities. User:Bkonrad, do we all agree that twodabs with a Wikt link is useful, and twodabs with an useful incoming link is useful? Worth adding that to twodabs to eliminate those from deletion? Widefox; talk 11:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I admire doncram's extensive list. Of all the issues around disambiguation, this one stated policy seems most likely to provoke disagreement and hinder efficient navigation. Good judgment will still be required, but the argument will not necessarily start with this particular prejudice. [Nice work on expanding Kathryn (disambiguation).]  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a hatnote is one click, via a dab is two. Let's just KISS for readers/writers. There's merit in the proposal, but 3 is invalid as dabs aren't redirects. 6 goes against 3 in that they're either trivial or they are more substantial contributions. IMHO we have quite a free hand with dabs as they are more functional than creative works so aren't IMHO covered by copyright. As navigational aides, we should focus on navigation not writer's perspectives. 5 is covered already by my interpretation of TWODABS - the see also items count so would result in more than two items. 7. without facts about this being an issue, I'll assume it is negligible and base judgement on 1-6. Now, if there's utility in the dab title being prompted in the search interface or mobile interface I'd reconsider. Do agree the dabs don't hurt, much (maintenance). Widefox; talk 22:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Keeping the dab page does not cause 2 clicks. See proposal part "Why not? 1-(b)". If there is just one non-primary usage on the dab page, then the hatnote can just point to it. While we can still keep the dab page, for several reasons (remembering past discussion, allowing revisiting of whether an item is primary or not, keeping edit history for when the dab page has 3 or more everyone-agrees-upon items, avoiding unnecessary AFDs, etc.). --doncram 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
      Keeping the dab page may cause 2 clicks. Hatnotes on primary topics can and sometimes do point to TWODABS dabs (see examples I've fixed here) rather than directly to the non-primary topic (and sometimes maybe that's arguably useful e.g. when it has a wiktionary link). Then the dab and hatnote does cause 2 clicks. In terms of blame for that, it's the dab providing a seemingly more comprehensive target for the hatnote (although if there's no prospect of expansion, it remains a wasted extra click). An {{other uses}} wouldn't even be correct as there's one other use. The main arguments of this RfC apply to deletion are general, and while they are valid points, and TWODABS is a borderline issue, they apply generally and maybe are best taken up generally rather than specifically for TWODABS. Widefox; talk 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have added an RfC tag and added this discussion to Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Responding to the RFC. It seems to me that, where there is a primary topic, a hatnote is a much simpler and easier to use solution than a two item dab page, and is therefore to be preferred. Where there is no primary topic, sure, but that's covered by the policy already. The reasons given for the change seem trivial to me, and, as pointed out by others above, dab pages are not "glorified redirects" so I don't personally see that that particular point even applies. Anaxial (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: unnecessary dab pages don't help the encyclopedia. If a topic has a primary topic and one other usage, a hatnote serves the reader better. If there is another usage, a hatnote is still often the best solution. If there are more, which might include useful "See also" links, then create a dab page: it won't be eligible for deletion under twodabs. If there is no primary topic, then of course we need a dab page for the two or more articles, at the base name, and with a redirect from "... (disambiguation)". PamD 08:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    I'd also scrap the paragraph about {{only-two-dabs}} which seems an absurd complication: if a dab page isn't yet needed, use a hatnote; when a dab page becomes useful, create it. If you feel an urge to have a dab page where it doesn't yet appear to be needed, then find some more legitimate entries to add to it and then modify the hatnote to point there. Simple. PamD 09:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    I've been thinking that we should get rid of {{only-two-dabs}}. It just doesn't seem very useful. But that's a different RFC.— Gorthian (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    This proposal, this RFC, includes changing "only-two-dabs" (perhaps essentially gutting it). Now-bolded in proposal: "Change wp:TWODABS to allow it explicity: 'If there is only one non-primary use on the dab page, the hatnote can go directly to that.'"
    It's helpful if someone wants to give others time to look for other entries. It'd be best to use WP:TFD though. -- Tavix (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    The category it generates is useful. Maybe the language could be changed, or maybe it could be hidden. Not where my attention is at the moment, though. Maybe later. — Gorthian (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    I've used {{only-two-dabs}}. If we aren't going to delete twodabs then we should get rid of it. Like most things twodabs, there's small cost and small benefit. A large maintenance template does seem out of proportion. Widefox; talk 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment do we know about usage for these superfluous dab pages (one primary topic, one other topic i.e. failing TWODABS). They are orphans, but how much traffic do they get through the desktop/mobile search? Anyhow, it's better to have a long hatnote than a two click (via a superfluous dab) navigation. Generally I'd agree that over time they're likely to pick up items. Widefox; talk 12:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Anaxial and Widefox. This is about the number of clicks it takes to get to the content. Each DAB is another click required. If you have two articles, flip a coin, make one of them a primary and use a hatnote; problem solved. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Allow WP:PROD nominations of WP:TWODABS dab pages, exclude these pages from WP:G6, close WP:AFD discussions of such pages as "speedy keep". I have had mixed results with using G6 for deleting such pages (i.e. sometimes these get deleted, sometimes they don't). SSTflyer 07:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    The CSD rules for disambiguation pages are fairly restrictive—to the point where TWODABS are excluded from being speedy deleted. That's the reason you've been declined when trying to delete these via G6. That doesn't explain why you support this proposal, however. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    User:SSTflyer/CSD log which {{db-disambig}} nomination was incorrect? Yet, two were deleted per G6, one was not. This is the inconsistency that is problematic. When a rationale for supporting a proposal has not been presented, "support per nom" is implied. Also support per JFG, WP:NOTBURO. Orphaned disambiguation pages are harmless. SSTflyer 00:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – There are strong interactions between WP:TWODABS and WP:PTOPIC, which are sometimes misinterpreted in dab discussions, leading to long-winded debates essentially boiling down to personal preferences, so we could use more clarity in the guidelines. I would suggest the following decision tree:
    1. If term "Foo" has a clear primary topic and several homonyms, keep the primary article at the base name, place others in a dab page and point a hatnote there.
    2. If term "Foo" has a clear primary topic and only one other notable meaning, keep the primary article at the base name and point to the other article from the primary's hatnote.
    3. If term "Foo" has no clear primary topic and several homonyms, place the dab page at the base name and hatnotes to the dab on articles where confusion is likely.
    4. If term "Foo" has two strongly dominant meanings but none of them is a clear primary topic, place the dab page at the base name with both strong meanings on top and weaker meanings below; add hatnotes in the top two articles pointing to each other in addition to the dab page.
I don't have an exact wording suggestion at this time but I think the connection should be clarified. In particular, point 4 is new and broadly reflects current practice. Adding it to the official disambiguation guidelines would settle many perennial discussions. — JFG talk 10:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@JFG: I agree with your proposal, yet I'm unclear why you support doncram's proposal. At the moment, this proposal is only over situation #2. You mention wanting to use hatnotes, but that would bypass the disambiguation page, rendering it useless. By supporting this proposal, you're saying that you want those useless disambiguation pages kept and not deleted. Is that what you're wanting to support? -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I and some others above don't agree that a dab page with just one non-primary item is "useless". Even if the primary-usage page has a hatnote just to the non-primary use (and not to the dab page, as in the proposal at "Why not? 1-b"), it keeps a record of proposed dab items in edit history and at the Talk page, and it keeps discussion and links to any AFDs, and so on. A dab page is never useless. --doncram 20:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
off topic
User:Tavix, on the other hand, you support keeping 29,000 "Lastname, Firstname" type redirects that have no usage (at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 24#Stromboulopoulos, George). How is that consistent? --doncram 20:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
doncram, that's an altogether different matter and there are past discussions like this one from last year. These redirects should ideally be handled by a process different from brute and random manual labour, but that hasn't happened yet. And at least they serve a more immediate (if limited) function in helping searches. Uanfala (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
All this proves is that people have differing opinions as to what is useful for differing topics. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tavix: In situation #2, having a disambig page is indeed not mandatory but it's also harmless. There are cases where it's even necessary, for example homonymous titles of non-notable songs which don't have their own article and whose dab entry points to the album or the band. The nominator's point #4 (a third notable meaning may appear soon) is another case I've seen often. I also agree with people who opined that we should collectively spend less time arguing over dab deletions. — JFG talk 22:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Results of a study to inform this discussion: I made what is I think a pretty good attempt to gather a decent sample of AFDs where TWODABS was argued and to analyse what happened. Brief results are:
    • Out of 28 cases, 21 were "Kept" or have since been restored: 21/28 = 75%, where IMO all should agree that the AFD was costly and a waste of time. Of these
      • 8 cases were where editors rounded up or made up or whatever additional items so dab would be saved.
      • 8 cases were where dab was deleted, but editors have since restored the dab, usually with 3 or more items now. (None of these were done properly in terms of having edit history restored, per our obligation to give credit fairly to editors.)
    • Out of 28, 5 were "Deleted", and have not yet restored = 5/28 = 18%, where some will agree AFD was costly and simply more work was created, more work is yet to be done to restore sensible dabs. (I make case already that all will agree 2 of these should be restored immediately.)
    • Out of 28, 2 were "Deleted" validly = 2/28 = 7% where the community focus was productive. Really these were not TWODAB or even ONEDAB cases, they were ZERODAB cases, though: no articles of the topic name remain at all.
  • I will comment further probably, but wanted to announce this quickly. The study is here. Please use its Talk page for comments, questions about the study itself. --doncram 14:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • So it sounds like the AFD process worked exactly the way it should. The TWODAB's that could be expanded, were, which is a benefit for Wikipedia that probably wouldn't have happened without more eyes on them. The one's that couldn't be expanded were, for the most part, deleted, which is also a benefit for Wikipedia. Stifling these pages from going through the AFD process would result in less success stories like the ones you mentioned. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
      • No, every time one of these involving TWODABS was deleted, it should not have been. All debate was a waste of editors' time. Where deletion happened, it only created more work later, and it should be reversed every time. Tavix, as an administrator involved in this, I will ask you or other administrators separately for you to restore deleted articles and to make edit history merges for every one of these "D" ones. IMO, going forward, there should be no deletions based on TWODABS at all, AFAICT. The TWODABS interpretation in practice should not have changed. --doncram 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Deletion of TWODABS make sense when they can't be expanded and they aren't linked anywhere since they don't function as navigational tools. A hatnote saves readers a click, so there's literally no point to them. We're going in circles though, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. -- Tavix (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
        Firstly, good study work. Again, the crux isn't about dab pages, but about deletion in general. If we agree with deletion in general (and we do), then dab pages (being predominantly functional rather than creative) is the least controvercial deletion. Without hindsight, that's a WP:CRYSTAL. Widefox; talk 16:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If the title is one without "(disambiguation)", if there is a primary topic, it is redirected there and the alternate usage is handled by a hatnote. If it has "(disambiguation)", and the plain title redirects to the primary topic along with a hatnote directing to the only alternate usage, the title is unnecessary. If neither of two things is the primary topic for a term, a disambiguation page is already allowed by policy. The system that is already in place works more efficiently than what is proposed here.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For a subject with a primary and secondary topic, If the TWODABS dab link replaces the hatnote on the primary, then you're just making more work for the readers with multiple clicks. And if it doesn't, then what's the point of even having a separate dab page? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - by allowing these pages to remain, we are encouraging their creation. And #6 is only relevant if the new page actually uses content taken from the old page - and I doubt that this happens much. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • strong support two-item disambiguation pages should neither be required nor prohibited. There existence is not harmful so there is no benefit to be had in deleting them, they do not need to be linked from hatnotes and so do not require extra clicks, but are there if people want them - many is the time I've wanted a topic that I know or suspect is not the primary topic but not known what the disambiguation used is. In these cases I search "topic (disambiguation)" to land straight at the disambiguation page avoiding an unnecessary click on the main article. When that page doesn't exist I have to go through hoops to find what I'm looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    Their existence is not harmful: but I think it can be. Consider: Two articles exist, "Thingabc" (the primary topic - a village in Lancashire) and "Thingabc (album)". A hatnote on "Thingabc" points to the album. No problem. The editor who then wants to create "Thingabc (film)" finds the article at the base name, and expands the hatnote to point to this third sense of "Thingabc". No problem. But if in the mean time someone has created the unnecessary "Thingabc (disambiguation)", not linked from the primary topic, then the hatnote will be expanded but not the dab page. If anyone then finds the dab page they will not be led to the film. So the existence of a dab page unlinked from the primary topic is potentially harmful, as well as unnecessary. PamD 07:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    There is a very, very simple solution to that - mention the existence of the dab page on one or both the article talk pages and/or in a hidden note for editors with the hatnote. It also exists currently as an issue if there is any unlinked dab page - which is not in my experience at all exclusive to ones with two items (particularly if there is not universal agreement on what if any article is the primary topic). Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    Or as another solution, just check the what links here and/or search for page title matches when you see someone update a hatnote to see if there are other entries not listed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    Or looking at it another way: your examples are great ones demonstrating the maintenance burden on these unnecessary pages. -- Tavix (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    This sort of maintenance "burden" is not significantly different from that for any disambiguation page. I'm constantly coming across terms with a parenthetically disambiguated title that are not included on an existing multi-term disambiguation page. IMO, having an existing two-dab page to start with makes it easier to add more terms than to create a new one whole cloth. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not suggesting that the maintenance burden is any different, the fact that there is one is enough. It's silly to have to be burdened by something that's entirely unnecessary. I'm not convinced that any page with (disambiguation) affixed to it is a search term, so it's trivial to waste editor's time for things like that. My experience is different than yours as well, as I'd rather start with a clean sheet. To each their own I guess... -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Two-item dab pages should be deleted for housekeeping reasons, not encouraged. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support  It shouldn't matter if there are three or two items on a dab page.  Deleting such pages creates chaos when the number changes between two and three.  The deletions are both busywork and destructive.  Thryduulf clearly explains how a two-item dab page can allow readers to bypass loading a long primary topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Disambiguation pages shouldn't be removed unless they are for only one thing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Iazyges: the disambiguation pages being discussed here are only for one other thing. Could you clarify what you're talking about? -- Tavix (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Tavix: by only for one thing, I meant if it was a disambig page with literally one thing on it, which doesn't deserve a disambig page as it's one thing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as others have noted, deletion of two-item disambiguation pages takes up energy that could be used elsewhere. Leave whether a disambiguation page is needed up the the discretion of the editor creating the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support keeping of dab pages with two names/items in principle. But suggest that editors encountering two item situations should avoid a new dab page where appropriate. For folks who are strongly against two-item dabs, I would disapprove of (but not oppose) their efforts for further deletion. (Perhaps find a sysop willing to correct these situations quickly and not clutter any backlogs or render other requests less visible). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Andy M. Wang: Could you please clarify a few things? You seem to be advocating two different things here. You wish for a "sysop to correct these situations quickly", but how can that be done when you are against the deletion of WP:TWODABS? Deleting the twodab is exactly how that situation is corrected. You also want to avoid new dab pages, but keeping two dabs encourage these to be created. I'm also unsure how you can both disapprove but not oppose the deletion of two dabs. (If it helps, I'm a sysop willing to correct these situations). -- Tavix (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Tavix: I'm not convinced that the existence of two dabs encourage people to create them; people see dabs with multiple items, and think that a new topic to something that has one item probably deserves a dab when a hatnote is all that's needed. And about "disapproving", the idea I had was, if people really don't want to see the two dab corrections in backlogs, perhaps make a separate venue for the folks who care about it. (I haven't worked with dabs much... apologies if that's offensive, and I certainly don't mean any.) I don't feel strongly either way. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Andy M. Wang: Let's say someone creates a TWODAB. We allow it to exist, so that editor goes ahead and creates more two dabs because no one deletes it. Now more of these exist, to the point where other editors see them and create their own. That's how the existence of these encourages more to be created. Once more and more are created, the maintenance burden for those who update disambiguations also increase as well. Does that make sense? -- Tavix (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Tavix: Struck. What is your opinion on hatnotes that include the text similar to "for other people of the same name, see X (disambiguation)", which I believe may mislead relatively new editors create dabs, even for two items? I think the "(disambiguation)" suffix is fairly well-known. We allow it to exist ← as a user who feels strongly, warn and handle, don't know what else to say. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    That hatnote works great when there's multiple other people with the same name. When there's only one other, lesser known person, the best thing to do would be to have the hatnote link straight to the other person (eg: For the Foobarian person, see John Doe (foo).). -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose editing of disambiguation and Deletion policy pages to eliminate deletion of two-item disambiguation pages, but support making it clearer that WP:TWODABS allows such pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
..........BTW Interesting to note above several comments above from those that do not realize that WP:TWODABS does allow Twodabs, and misreading the proposal In ictu oculi (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support. It is utter pedanticism that drives these perfunctory deletions. I'll have no part in that. The Wikipedia may be harmed by the existence of a two-dab-page meme is a myth; the opposite is self-evidently more truthful, that Wikipedia is improved by it, and poised to further improve through it.--John Cline (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Basically, this simplifies the system by permitting a wider range of perfectly clear variations and avoiding technicalities. Sometimes a 2 item disam p. is the natural way to do things--in my own editing practice, when there can reasonably be expected to be additional entires. Under the current rules, this requires doing them over again; under this rulem, one just adds the new entry to the disam page. The basic concept for this in NOT BURO. Sometimes we need uniformity, even if it makes things complicated. This is a case where we don't need it. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The very presence of around 44,000 two-entry dab pages, as listed at User:RussBot/Two-link disambiguation pages/040 confirms these entries to be an indelible aspect of Wikipedia and provides an illustration of the potential disruption that would be caused by their removal. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Roman Spinner: We aren't talking about those two-entry dab pages, we're discussing two-entry disambiguation pages that have a primary topic. The question becomes whether a hatnote is sufficient to link to the second entry, or whether we need to use the disambiguation page. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional support solely for those two-entry dab pages with a primary topic that contain an additional element, primarily section header "See also", which points to other, similar, dab pages, names or components. Without such an element, the dab pages in question should not be created and, having been created, may be subject to deletion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: that could be that the arguments used at AFD do not always reflect the opinion of the voter. As long as there is a WP:ALLCAPS which carries a seemingly supported concept, many will quote that, even if they think it is rubbish, to fit in with the crowd. Here is the place to decide if it is rubbish or not. Agathoclea (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't that what you just did though? When you supported this discussion, you simply stated "NOTBURO", which does nothing to figure out whether something is rubbish or not. In my referenced discussion, plenty of people supported their position with a lot more than "Delete per WP:TWODABS". -- Tavix (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • One could say that. Or in this case it is shorthand for "I do think it is really a very stupid idea to make life difficult for readers and editors just for the sake of pointless process-wonkery which has no real benefit to anybody but the few who get a kick out of deleting things at WP" Agathoclea (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for showing your true colors. I'm pretty sure those who oppose this aren't "a few who get a kick out of deleting things at WP", but rather people who see that two-link disambiguation pages are useless as navigational tools and their deletion is simply housekeeping that goes a long way to help clean up the encyclopedia, but I'm sure you can't or won't see that through your "deletion = bad" lens. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It has been explained above how such deletion is actually harmful. Sometimes deletion is needed. That is the case when the content is harmful - allowing non-notable articles harms the credibility of wikipedia as a whole, allowing attack articles harms the attacked, allowing copyfraud opens Wikimedia up to litigation and risks the platform. This deletion is not like that. it is rather similar to removing wikilinking from redlinks just because there is no article for them (yet). I am sure people who do that will call it "simple housekeeping" just the same. Agathoclea (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • And? Yes, that is the passage we are discussing at the moment. "Not needed" does not imply a strict need to delete (at a proven cost to the project), but is a time and effort saver for the editor who comes to the point where otherwise they would be forced to create the dab page, because there is a shortcut. This does not rule out the fact that the dab page could still have been the better option for the project, but insisting on creation would be equally harmful. Agathoclea (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I keep seeing people arguing "keep vs. AFD"; no one seems to mention PROD, another route to deletion that this proposal would (maybe?) affect. Prodding takes little time or energy on the behalf of editors, and helps clean up unneeded pages; because of this, quite a few deletions of two-entry dab pages take place that are decidedly not a waste of time.
I have opposed this proposal partly because it would limit flexibility by taking away an option for handling two-entry pages. Not every two-entry page with a primary topic is automatically deleted or unnecessary. But those that are unnecessary can be quicker to take care of (such as the AFD Tavix linked to) when WP:TWODABS can be invoked. Taking away TWODABS won't reduce the number of deletion discussions; two-entry dab pages will still be brought to AFD each time an editor feels one is unnecessary or harmful. But the discussions will most likely be more convoluted and involved if TWODABS cannot be used, and end up wasting more time.— Gorthian (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Obviously we're not done with this yet, so reopening the RFC. — Gorthian (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose major changes, although the 2DABS section is very wordy and could do with copy-editing for concision.
To my reading, the section discourages creating disambiguation pages for two pages, in favour of hatnotes, mentions three-way hatnotes as an option for three pages, and encourages disambiguation pages for three or more pages. However, it does not imply an imperative to delete existing 2DAB pages.
This is appropriate. Situations vary. If there are precisely two well known topics for the title, hatnotes make sense, and are cheap. However, other situations may benefit from a 2DAB disambiguation page. These include two obscure topics where there is possibility of similarly titled other topics, or a wiktionary entry. DAB pages are also cheap, and have an advantage of making easier to create the third page, or to place the wiktionary linkbox.
In other cases, a 2DAB page for related topics may be considered an indicator for a WP:MERGE. 50th parallel is an arguable case.
But in the end, this proposal lacks evidence or rationale for something being broken and needing fixing. Writing governance like this on guideline talkpages is at odds with minimal barrier free editing by volunteers. Don't disempower editors from making their own decisions without good reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. "If one of two is primary, the dab page is not absolutely required, but if it is created, it should be kept" is sensible. I'm assuming the dab page is named "X (disambiguation)", right? What's the harm in having it -- even making it -- in addition to the hatnote on the primary-topic page. It just makes everything neater IMO to have the dab page as a fallback, even though it will almost never (or maybe actually never) be accessed by the reader. It just seems a more tidy structure. Thus, to "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed" add "(one may be be created if desired)" or something. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Sensible and well thought out proposal. One other editor has commented that some oppose !votes don't seem to have read the proposal, and in fact I can only find one who seems to have both read and understood it. Similarly and as another has commented, most oppose !votes don't seem to know what the current policy is, which is in itself very good evidence (perhaps proof) that it needs tweaking. Andrewa (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I have trouble accepting "twodabs" as sole justification for a deletion, but dabs so scanty should still be deleted if they don't show some other evidence of being useful. As proposal said, discussion history on Talk Page and edit history can be worth keeping. But not for every topic ever created! Maybe clarify decision criteria (per JFG above, but including example cases for low amounts of content - 1 item, delete; 2 items, delete only if...)? Egmonster (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Mobile phone safety

Re Mobile phone safety, more opinions are sought at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile phone safety . Widefox; talk 01:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

So I've just created a guide on how to change the link color of disambiguation pages: Wikipedia:Visualizing disambiguation pages.

It is based on Wikipedia:Visualizing redirects and can be very useful by allowing you to quickly identify (especially faulty) disambig links in articles.

Note that the color could be changed.

--Fixuture (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets already has "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Anomie/linkclassifier is useful for this (as linked to in the see also of that page). Not sure where this is going? Wikipedia:Visualizing disambiguation pages is a copy of Wikipedia:Visualizing redirects and the former doesn't need to be created while the latter does seem {{historic}} and that tag could be put back on it. Regards Widefox; talk 12:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Alright, didn't know that, thanks! I'm wondering why it has no "Display links to redirect pages in green" then? I'm going to let the page get deleted now.
@Widefox: Why does the latter seem {{historic}}? Apparently there's no setting as for disambig pages yet (and if so the page should be updated with the location of said).
--Fixuture (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Scoops

I don't do much with dabs and redirects, so I'm posting here for advice. I just created Scoops, an article about a 1930s UK magazine. I made the title without disambiguation because all the articles listed at the dab page, Scoop, are for the singular form, so this is the only article with the plural name. Scoops previously redirected to Scoop, unsurprisingly. It now has a hatnote, but since there's no dab page named Scoops (disambiguation) I've pointed the hatnote at Scoop. Is there a better way to do this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: You could create the redirect Scoops (disambiguation), point it at Scoop, and use that for the hatnote. Or you could use the (presumably already-existing) redirect Scoop (disambiguation) in the hatnote. Any time you make an intentional link to a dab page, the link should have "(disambiguation)" in the title. That tells other editors (and some tools) that this is a deliberate link and does not need to be disambiguated. Thanks for asking! — Gorthian (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Done; I took the first option. Thanks for the help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I disagree and have moved the page to Scoops (magazine), as any of the objects listed in Scoop (disambiguation) could be refered to in the plural. Pppery 21:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback requested for disambiguation page. Also is "IN" required for most headings/subheadings?

I would like your opinions on the ADA page. I tried to organize the long list into manageable and sensible categories (Headings and Sub-headings). I also tried to put the more recognizable items closer to the top (rather than put headings in alpha. sort). Your thoughts? Would you do it differently?

Another question: the Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area has the word "In" preceding most headings and subheadings, yet I don't see this very often. Should "in" be used headings and subheadings?

Thanks Dig Deeper (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that essay is in error. We don't use "In" in headings. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You say that like it's a settled point of consensus, when, as far as I can tell, it's never once been discussed before. I don't have an opinion on "in", but I do have a strong opinion on false implications. —swpbT 20:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a settled point in consensus, because, as Dig deeper observed, we don't do it in the wild. But I gave up long ago getting any consensus to change WP:D or WP:MOSDAB to reflect how to actually best do disambiguation pages. So keep them in the essay, and the guidelines, or even make a bot request to go "fix" all the dab pages out in the wild. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
That saltiness isn't doing a very good job on defense. The point stands: unless consensus was explicit, the word "error" is an error. The most you can say accurately is that the essay differed from common practice. You wouldn't like being told you did something wrong when you didn't; neither do I. —swpbT 14:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Your saltiness didn't do a great job either, and I don't mind when my errors are pointed out. The essay is in error: it and common practice (aka consensus) are disconnected. See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
As a practical matter, "In" is superfluous; over the tens of thousands of pages at issue, its inclusion would ten to be a time-waster. bd2412 T 16:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Consensus is not clearly established on this matter. WP:MOSDAB#Grouping by subject area uses "In science:" and "In world music:" as examples of grouping schemas (although not strictly speaking as section headings) and references the essay Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area. I think by and large, the current tendency is to avoid using "In ..." formations, but they are not exactly rare, IMO. That is, it's more likely to see a page edited to replace such "In ..." headings than vice versa, but there are many still out in the wild and I do occasionally see an editor adding this style of heading. older ≠ wiser 17:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Yep, the guidelines aren't very good. "Section headings should be as simple as possible; Sports is preferred to Sports people or Sports figures" (note it doesn't say "In sports"), but then the example isn't as simple as possible, and then "On longer lists, section headings should be used instead of, or in addition to, bold headings." contradicts the consensus not to use bold headings as section substitutes. Or I thought that was a guideline somewhere, although I can't find it now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. I'd just note that it's usually best to avoid creating sections that contain only one or two entries: they create clutter that gets in the way of navigating between sections and they make the table of contents unnecessarily long. It's OK to place the entries in the "Other uses" section. – Uanfala (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dig deeper: Looks better than before! There's one error: in the Military section, there's an entry with a red link but no corresponding blue link on the line. You can look for the subject on Wikipedia and add a link to an article that mentions it (but it must be a red link there, too), or remove the entry entirely. See MOS:DABRED.
Also, go for the briefest descriptor possible with enough information to get the reader where they want to go. For instance, "an event at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference to recognise innovation and excellence in software and hardware" could be shortened to "an awards event hosted by Apple". Shortening descriptions yet keeping essential information is a kind of art that you'll develop as you go. There are plenty of dab pages to practice on! — Gorthian (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll delete the Swiss army thing (I was unsure about that one), trim the apple description and I'll try to have at least 3 entries per category. Oh I'll I'll forgo the multiple uses of "in". Cheers!Dig Deeper (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For a long time I've wanted to say that I never use the "short list format" ie "In" as detailed in MOS:DABGROUPING, consider it obsolete, and I convert all I come across to the "long list format". Two reasons, 1. KISS - the format takes more effort to write and more importantly IMHO looks less clear for all list lengths both on desktop and mobile 2. the lack of sections is significantly less useful as a navigation aid for our growing proportion of mobile users which are aided with a section menu for the section headings. It would please me to drop/deprecate that format completely from MOSDAB and the essay (which I've seen for the first time). As User:JHunterJ points out, according to style elsewhere (I've seen it recently but can't place where) the short format seems to contradict our broader style guideline. Widefox; talk 01:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

And there are accessibility problems as well. I think the last time the issue was discussed was in February. Maybe the time is ripe the update the MOS? – Uanfala (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I've held back for years waiting for it to appear obviously outdated. Widefox; talk 02:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Long list format? In other words no more
==subheadings==

..or TOC in the disambig pages, just categories? Dig Deeper (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No. This discussion is about the "In ..." format for short lists. The (more common) section headings "long list" format is not being discussed. Widefox; talk 12:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. It seems clear that the use of "in" is not needed and not desirable anymore.Dig Deeper (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I found the advice against using bold for groupings: WP:PSEUDOHEAD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

James Oakley

Moved to Talk:James Oakley (County administrator) § Disambiguation
 – — Gorthian (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Gorthian, I understand your point that it belongs at the article talk page, but that has few watchers, which is why I sought input here from editors knowledgeable about disambiguation and independent. I still invite anyone who sees this to have a look and make a comment. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The question seems to be "what qualifier should be used in this article's title?". The disambiguation project can tell you that yes, a qualifier is needed, but the selection of qualifiers has its expertise in the naming conventions, such as WP:NCPDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, JHunterJ, I have posted a request at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#James Oakley. EdChem (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Third industrial revolution

I'm looking for some opinions on what to do with this DAB page. It was originally a redirect to Digital Revolution. Then it was made into a DAB when a book by that name was added. The only link to it is from 3D printing, which adds another wrinkle.

I don't see anything in Digital Revolution that talks about it being a Third Industrial Revolution. I don't think the original redirect should have been created and I should remove it entirely - leaving a one item DAB page which would need to be deleted.

3D Printing says 3D printing is the third industrial revolution. That needs to be unlinked. I could put 3D printing in the DAB page and keep it as a two-item DAB. MB 06:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

MB, I would redirect the page to the book, after unlinking the 3D printing reference. The original redirect was made because for four years, Digital Revolution began: The Digital Revolution, also sometimes called the third industrial revolution, is.... There are a few different mentions of "Third industrial revolution" on Wikipedia, including two other books, but Rifkin's book dominates the search. The others are only passing mentions, nowhere near article status. — Gorthian (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Gorthian, OK sounds reasonable. Change made. Thanks. MB 14:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Wings (the band)

Hi. I am surprised that explicitly visiting "Wings" goes to "wing" (the generic part of a bird), despite the band Wings being a famous one. Could someone confirm that this matches policy? I'm having trouble with the legalese. (For the sake of clarity, pretend there's nothing else called "wing" or "wings" on the entire wiki: just the bird-part and the band.) Equinox ◑ 03:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If you type "Wings" in the search box, you get presented with a list of possibilities that includes the entry for Wings (band).
Otherwise, you're going to get the redirect which follows the policy of redirecting from plural to singular.
So I would say things are working according to policy. The hatnote on Wing will get you to the disambiguation pages for both "wing" and "wings", and from the Wings (disambiguation) page you can see why there may not a good case for Wings (band) being thought of as a WP:DABPRIMARY. To get what you want, you'd need to establish that this is an exceptional case like Snickers.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Miana & Mianeh

I stumbled onto these two DAB pages, both for geo locations. There are places called Miana in each. I could put everything into Mianeh and redirect Miana to there, or put all the Mianas in Miana and add See alsos in each referring to the other. Does anyone have an opinion which solution is better? MB 06:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Mikhail Bogdanov

This DAB was created a month ago (and not by a new editor) but clearly has issues. Since there is only one notable person by this name, there is no need for a DAB page. I can remove the red-linked one per MOSDAB. Then what? I could take it to technical requests at RM to move the artist back to the primary name, or should I go to AFD first since the editor who created the DAB is likely to object? MB 07:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

By looking at what the editor was working on at the time I've traced the revolutionary to [[1]], where he was chairman for 4 days in the turbulent times of 1917 (and was previously linked from there to the dab page). So it's a legitimate dab page ... but likely that the artist is the Primary topic so shouldn't have been moved. Aleksandr Odintsov is similar, but has the blue link already. PamD 08:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Parenthetically disambiguated title that's still kinda-sorta ambiguous?

I told a coworker yesterday that I was planning on seeing "Star Wars" after work and she knew what I was talking about (moreso than she would have if I said "Rogue One"), and basically any time a new Star Wars film has been in theatres it has almost certainly been referred to (casually) as simply "Star Wars". Does this mean that the article title "Star Wars (film)" is still technically ambiguous, even if only during periods when there is a new film in the franchise?

I posted on the talk page saying that perhaps a headnote should be added linking to the article that lists all the other films, but then I remembered that someone once told me that we don't use parenthetical disambiguators that don't by themselves fully disambiguate titles. The Avengers (2012 film) can't be moved to The Avengers (film) for this reason even though it is a much more common search than the only other film with that title. "Star Wars" is kind of muddier because it's rare to refer to any film other than the first simply as "Star Wars" in print (although it almost certanly does happen) or retroactively, and only one film was ever released with that as its "official" title.

So would a headnote be a out-of-place because it would explicitly undermine the parenthetically disambiguated title? I really don't think an RM to Star Wars (1977 film) would be a good idea, mind.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That'd be up to the WP:NCFILM project. Some projects have that kind of guideline, others don't. -- JHunterJ (talk)

Talk:'Round Here and Talk:Round Here (disambiguation)

Both RM discussions are ongoing. I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Major cities and sports teams

Hey all, a few months ago I posted a question regarding whether a major city's sports teams should be included on dab pages for the city's name, over at Talk:New York (disambiguation)#Sports. Being a dab talk page, it's far from shocking that the response was crickets. However, I'm still curious about the issue, so I wouldn't mind if some dab-minded folks weighed in. Thanks - Antepenultimate (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Where is the Template/How do I create

Hello All, I wish to create a W:DAB for Norker, for reasons stated on it's talk page. However, when I googled Wikipedia Template, and disambiguation, I couldn't find any template that showed how to easily create one. I successfully used a template to create a redirect and was hoping there was a template for protocol pages like this. Does anyone know where it is if it exists, and if not how to easily make a DAB page? Thanks L3X1 (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@L3X1: There appears to be no content needing a dab page. If there were just one or two articles using the word "Norker" to which is was useful to direct readers, it could be done with a "hatnote" on Norker.
But if you do have a reason to create a dab page, there is no template which will do it all for you. If it is a dab page with no Primary Topic (ie it is not at "... (disambiguation)"), you can start it with {{subst:refer}}, which produces the opening line. End with {{disambiguation}}. In between, type it yourself following the pattern of existing dab pages, and looking at WP:MOSDAB. PamD 08:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll make a hatnote.L3X1 (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

'Tis the Season

More opinions are sought at (our most viewed dab page ~1M/day every year) Talk:'Tis the Season. Widefox; talk 13:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking for discussions about disambiguation with "The" prefix

Are there any guidelines or related discussions about whether or not "The" as a prefix is enough of a disambiguation between two topics? I am having difficulty finding anything because "the" is not searchable as too common of a word, plus "article" being both grammar and what we call Wikipedia mainspace pages. Please ping me here if you know of something to read. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: There is actual guidance for this question: see WP:DPAGE. Terms with "the" are usually included in the same dab pages as those without. — Gorthian (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
"commonly", not "usually". It's not uncommon for terms with "the" to be included on the same dab page as those without, but it's also perfectly common for terms with "the" to have their own dab pages separate from those without. The cases are handled case-by-case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
"Usually" is definitely accurate, both descriptively and prescriptively. Separation of "the"-preceded entries is, and should be, relatively rare, and should only be done with good reason. —swpbT 14:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Not definitely. You can read "commonly" for yourself in the linked guidance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
And it's tangential anyway. Erik was asking about using the prefix as the distinguisher between two article titles, not the combining of titles on a dab page. So informative, but WP:SMALLDETAILS is the fit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:THE has a strong influence here, and makes WP:SMALLDETAILS dubious on this point. Because we have an almost universal practice of dropping "The" from the front of everything except titles of published works (including bands – we only retain it when the source usage overwhelmingly favors it), SMALLDETAILS would only apply to a) work titles, and b) bands and other things (The Hague) where the version without the "The" is almost never encountered in sources. Even for bands that virtually never applies, because the definite article is dropped in many constructions ("John Lennon's Beatles years", etc.) when they would not be for titles of works ("J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Further clarification for Primary Redirects for Surnames

After participating in a handful of move discussions, it seems like we might want to document some of the factors involved in when a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is appropriate for surnames. It is already pretty well established how to handle people as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for mononyms. But I see move requests go both ways, many of the times rehashing the same points, for when a PD is appropriate when a mononym is not involved. It seems to me that when it comes to names, that are not clearly a mononym, the only case for a PRIMARYREDIRECT is when the surname alone is an extremely COMMONNAME. There seems to be a lot of support that surnames such as even extremely popular targets such as Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, William Shakespeare and Otto von Bismarck. It appears people become particularly impassioned about these being PRIMARYREDIRECTS based on what comes to mind, so we end up with exceptions like Obama. The current discussion that comes to mind is Talk:Gladstone. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay: I agree this needs to be addressed and have noticed the trend as well, but Talk:Gladstone is a redlink.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish:The page was moved; the (closed) discussion is now at Talk:Gladstone (disambiguation). — Gorthian (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

RfD of interest - Tylenol

The RfD Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#Tylenol might be of interest to this page's watchers. Tylenol (a drug brand) currently redirects to Paracetamol (Tylenol's active ingredient), yet at the same time there is a disambiguated stand-alone page about the brand: Tylenol (brand). --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC should be clarified

I suggest that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs some clarifications:

  1. Incoming pageviews are not the be-all and end-all of the determination; sources are more important.
  2. A slight majority of pageview preferences (e.g. in the 51-65% range) is never enough to establish a particular article as a primary topic, especially if source research suggests otherwise.
  3. A pageview preference around 75% is not sufficient for something to be the primary topic when there are multiple notable things of the same sort (e.g. songs) by that name and we have at least three articles on them, nor when there is a large number of notable things by the name (e.g. more than 5). A 90% pageview ratio would indicate a primary topic in such a case, however, if the topic was not something very recent.
  4. WP:RECENTISM applies, and Wikipedia does not move articles around on the basis of what is temporarily popular/notorious right now, which may result in sharp but short-lived pageview and news-coverage spikes.

A tremendous amount of pointless churn and dispute could be avoided at WP:RM (i.e., at the talk pages of thousands of articles, discussions which don't have anything to do with actually improving the articles), if these clarifications were added, in whatever wording and whatever number adjustments seem reasonable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I think there's definitely a need for some broader discussion on that. In a recent RM it turned out that a pageviews ratio of 3x, and an even higher proportion in search results, was apparently not enough for many editors. – Uanfala (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY already makes it clear that neither pageviews, incoming links, or usage in external sources are conclusive alone, and that recentism applies. Other parts of the proposed text don't so much clarify the guideline as modify its meaning: Your assertion that "sources are more important" than pageviews, percentage benchmarks, and the idea that the number of other targets bears on whether a particular target is primary, are all modifications to the guidance, not clarifications. That's fine if you get consensus, but it's an important distinction. I would be wary of introducing numbers as firm guidance, especially as it undermines the message that pageviews are not a conclusive factor. If there is breath being wasted at WP:RM over primary dab topics, it may help to clarify or reinforce this guidance in some way, but I don't believe the proposed text, or any minor variations of it, will accomplish that goal. We need to go about this more systematically: what specific part of the guidance are people failing to follow, or is generating disagreement? Can we clarify it without introducing new guidance, or is new guidance, such as a percentage rule, necessary? —swpbT 14:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I think there is a fundamental disagreement in that some editors believe it is preferable for readers to land on an article rather than a disambiguation page, even if the case for primary topic is marginal (as in many cases where there are only two topics) or even to the extent that an article is always preferable to a disambiguation page. Other editors believe it is preferable to place a disambiguation page at the term if there is no clear basis for establishing the primary topic. Another factor that plays into this is the first-come, first-served way in which Wikipedia article titles are assigned where it becomes the burden of challengers to change the status quo and prove that the current occupant of the title is not the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 14:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't think the current guidance leaves room for either extreme (always land on an article or always land on a dab) – anyone insisting that one of those extremes is "the way things are done" is either unaware of or consciously misrepresenting WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, and should be chastised on that basis. The guideline is clear (to me) that the existence of a primary topic is always a case-by-case question. We're not going to head off those questions here, nor should we try. I believe the guidance should go no further than to say, as it does, "weigh these factors, not these, discuss as needed". —swpbT 16:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
        • While I used the extremes to characterize the positions, such arguments are nonetheless common in discussions and whatever chastisement might occur typically has the effect of water on a duck's back. FWIW, I agree primary topic is something to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but I'd also support stronger language in the guideline that a disambiguation page should be the default except when there is a clear primary topic (and I would also support language to raise the bar a bit on what role pageviews play in determining primary topic — i.e., pageviews is too unreliable a measure for a simple majority to clearly establish a primary topic). older ≠ wiser 16:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
          • I'm not necessarily opposed to those changes, but I'd want to see clear proposed language and ideally some more users supporting it. Like I told SMcCandlish, this goes beyond clarification and into new guidance. Tangentially, the problem of users ignoring guidance goes far beyond this guideline. "Strengthening" the language in guidelines might help, but what we really need IMO is harsher treatment for users who repeatedly go against what the guidelines already say. —swpbT 18:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
            • I don't think we can have harsher treatment for editors having different opinions or even for disagreeing with some guideline or other. An updated guideline might make it easier for closing admins at RMs to weigh the various arguments or to reverse bad closes. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
              • I'm not talking about expressing disagreement with guidelines, I'm talking about behaving as if a guideline you disagree with doesn't exist. The latter is a very different animal, and I don't think it's usually dealt with firmly enough. But that's off track. Like I said, a change to this guideline should start with explicit proposed language (probably in a new section - the explicit proposed language that started this one is DoA.) —swpbT 13:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
                • If there's any explicit language, I think it shouldn't attempt to draw a boundary – such a boundary can't be drawn exactly and there is a contentious middle ground. I think it should instead provide some upper and lower bounds on this middle ground – by giving one example of a ratio that almost everyone agrees is indicative of a primary topic, and another one that everyone agrees isn't. – Uanfala (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Primary topic, in my view, is one of the worst policies en.WP has ever adopted. Tony (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Having the FAQ banner

I have seen so many discussions about "primary topic" and all the dab stuff. Yet there's not an {{FAQ}} banner. If we have an FAQ on top of the page, what frequently asked questions shall we insert? --George Ho (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding hatnotes and disambiguation

There is a (somewhat disorganized) RfC being held at Talk:Nissan_Caravan#RFC on disambiguation hatnotes for 'Caravan' named vehicles seeking to determine whether longstanding disambiguation hatnotes distinguishing Nissan Caravan and Dodge Caravan which were removed unilaterally by User:Mr.choppers in opposition to other editors prior to initiating an RfC should instead remain in place/be restored in some form. --Kevjonesin (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

When to include a dictionary entry at the top

I've had debates with other editors about whether it's appropriate to have a dictionary entry as the lead sentence (paragraph, page...) on a disambiguation page. MOS:DAB seems quite clear on this, at MOS:WTLINK:

"When a dictionary definition should be included (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation § What not to include), rather than writing a text entry, create a cross-link to Wiktionary."

However, that "(see link)" clause kicks back to here, specifically WP:DABDIC, where it says:

"A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context."

This gets interpreted as a license to add a lead dictionary definition to any disambiguation page.

Looking back at when this was added here in 2006, the revision summary refers to what "was agreed on WP:MOSDAB", which did not say at that time anything about exceptions -- it just said, as it does now, "no; include a Wiktionary link".

I don't believe I've ever seen a dab page where adding a top definition of any kind is helpful for disambiguation. Practically by definition, if there's a disambiguation page, the "common meaning" is ambiguous. (If there's a preferred meaning, that sounds an awful lot like a primary topic, and we have a well-defined practice for dealing with that.)

I propose striking the sentence " A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context." Alternatively, I would like to see a clearer description and examples of when this would be appropriate.--NapoliRoma (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Support striking the sentence per NapoliRoma's rationale. Wherever explanatory text is really needed, it is allowed, but suggesting the practice in the guideline has led to over-application. —swpbT 15:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Question. Have there been cases of over-application? What I've seen so far has tended to be on the other end of the spectrum – people being overzealous in applying the MOS or taking as proscrived anything that's not explicitly allowed. – Uanfala (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
When this topic has come up before on dab-related talk pages (sorry, can't find a reference to link to at the moment), I think the general opinion was that a brief definition was appropriate in some cases with the argument being that that simple definition may be all that some reader may need (i.e., it is unhelpful to force them jump to another link just to look the term up in wiktionary). FWIW, I'm OK when this is used judiciously and anytime we try to make hard and fast bright line rules we usually end up causing even more controversy than warranted for such a trivial matter. older ≠ wiser 15:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

LRU disambiguation

Okay, I'm a little confused with where to put this so if I'm in the wrong place, I apologise. I haven't dealt with disambiguation pages before, I don't think.

I was looking up LRU on Google and was directed to the disambiguation page on Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRU

The first entry was clearly the one I wanted but I was a little confused by the brief summary, which is sometimes all you need to know, so I read the article. Having done so, I'm wondering if the text on the disambiguation page is accurate or should be changed. (Please note, out of my field of expertise, which is why I'm throwing this over to someone else.) The text reads:

"Line-replaceable unit, a complex component of a vehicle that can be replaced quickly at the organizational level."

It's that word, 'organizational' the I'm wondering about - should it be 'operational' instead?

Thanks for dealing with this, whoever does.

Mathsgirl (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the explanation. I took the opening line from the article and replaced the description on LRU. - GB fan 11:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Over-disambiguation

We need to introduce and explain this term somewhere, and provide an anchor for OVERDIS, OVERDAB and OVERDISAMBIG shortcuts to it. The concept comes up frequently at RM, and has for years, but is not properly codified in the DAB rules.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as I've been working on disambiguation pages, I've never run across that term. What does it mean? — Gorthian (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess it's a title like "Joe Blenkinsop (English footballer, born 1965)", when plain "Joe Blenkinsop (footballer)" would distinguish him from the existing "Joe Blenkinsop (philosopher)" and "Joe Blenkinsop (guitarist)". (Imaginary example). PamD 08:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, how about adding the following to the end of WP:NCDAB #2:

The parenthetical phrase should only include the minimum information necessary to distinguish the topic from others with the same name. For example, if there is only one footballer named "Joe Blenkinsop", his article should be titled "Joe Blenkinsop (footballer)", not "Joe Blenkinsop (English footballer, born 1965)".

The anchor for the proposed shortcuts can go at the top of bullet #2, if no one objects. I'm not sure we need to introduce the term "over-disambiguation" to the text (like Gorthian, I haven't come across it before), but we can if people feel otherwise. —swpbT 16:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Order (mathematics) and Order (number theory)

Something needs to be done about these two WP:INCOMPDAB pages. bd2412 T 23:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If any changes are to be made, this will definitely have to be done by someone with relevant subject knowledge. – Uanfala (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Fake news (disambiguation)

More opinions on the styling of a primary topic are welcome at Fake news (disambiguation) in the section Talk:Fake news (disambiguation)#Primary topic . Widefox; talk 00:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

DETERMINEPRIMARY clarification

In

Shortcut

"Among several other proposed criteria that have never won acceptance as a general rule, we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic:

The last two seem like they are supposed to be indicators that something should *not* be the primary topic. But "we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic" and the first two examples seem to say 'these questions are *independent* of whether this should be the primary topic,' which is not the same thing. I think this need clarifying. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This was brought up recently. I agree they are confusing, and I don't think either fits in this list of irrelevant criteria. The next section (Birmingham, Perth etc.) conveys that relevance only to particular groups is a relevant criteria for determining a primary topic. And the recent prominence bullet appears to be at best a restatement of the longterm significance criteria, with a contradictory example; if arising recently wasn't a valid criteria, you would want an example of something that was primary even though it was recent. I would get rid of both bullets; I don't think they clarify anything.--Trystan (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
While I agree these are still a bit confusing, they are better than they were previously. I think some better examples, and perhaps some counter-examples might give better context for application. I'm not really sure I follow @NPalgan2: in saying only the last two are supposed to be indicators that something should *not* be the primary topic. As I read the list, they all seem to be describing criteria that in various ways are not exclusively determinant of primary topic. And I'm also not sure I agree with @Trystan:'s assessment that the next section (Birmingham, Perth etc.) conveys that relevance only to particular groups is a relevant criteria for determining a primary topic. That section seems fairly clear that even though for some groups (such as USians and Scots) Birmingham and Perth might have one specific primary referent, in the global context the primary topic for these terms are otherwise. That is to say, I think it describes the third point rather than contradicts it. For the fourth bullet, I agree it is largely a restatement of long-term significance older ≠ wiser 19:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right about the 3rd bullet, it agrees with and summarizes rather the contradicts the following material about Birmingham and Perth. I don't see a problem with the 3rd bullet.
The 4th bullet... it could be stated better. Do people ever really make the argument "Yeah, maybe Use X is not more notable/common/searched-on than Use Y, but Use X has ascended to widespread notability and prominence recently, so Use X should be the primary topic"? If so, doesn't "whaaat? don't be silly" suffice to quash that? Needs to be rewritten if kept. Herostratus (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that also true of the third bullet? Surely no one ever proposed that having primary relevance limited to only certain groups was a good indicator of a primary topic. The last two bullets, rather than previously-rejected positive indicators of a primary topic, are valid criteria that weigh against something being a primary topic, which is something else entirely. I'd suggest rewriting the introductory sentence to be broader, such as:

Some general principles for determining a primary topic include:

These are improvements, IMO. Although in #4, I think I'd characterize the typical point of contention as more often popularity than "notability and prominence". An example where there is no primary topic (although one topic is overwhelmingly more popular) is Madonna. older ≠ wiser 20:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Pages about hurricanes and tropical storms

What to do RMs on hurricanes, tornados, and tropical storms, like Talk:Hurricane Kathleen (1976)#Requested move 5 February 2017? I don't think I can provide so many. Clearly, those RMs come and then usually fail. What else to do about this issue if we can't limit the number of such RMs in the future? --George Ho (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Given the IP number on that one example, and the behavior, this is pretty certain to be a sock of User:N-C16. I would report these to WP:SPI. (See the archive here). If the RMs have been opened within the last day or two, ask for a block. If not, a block won't be useful. But keep an eye out for more. — Gorthian (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right; ones that were done one week ago are not useful. But the RMs were relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Somehow, Hurricane Trudy (1990), whose name that IP challenged, was merged into 1990 Pacific hurricane season. Pinging SkyWarrior about this, though I must put good-faith and thanks to him/her for those efforts. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe they can be procedurally closed, if they were all opened by socks. You might ask at WP:AN, since you're aware of all of them.
I thought that multiple-tropical-storm pages were set-indices now, instead of dab pages. These RMs have not been coming up on the DAB project alerts. — Gorthian (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, you alert the admins there. I'll notify the related projects about this discussion. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I filed an SPI. Now I'll go ask for procedural closes. — Gorthian (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I posted it at ANI. I'm off to bed; I'll check back in the morning. — Gorthian (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I notified WT:WikiProject Disambiguation and WT:WikiProject Tropical cyclones about this discussion. The sock issue can be handled differently, while the matter is about tropical storms and hurricanes themselves. George Ho (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I was pinged here, for obvious reasons. Essentially, I relisted them all RMs without comments for the simple reason of, well, given this issue, I expected most of them to get at least one oppose !vote; because of that, I didn't want to close and move it as uncontroversial since it very much was, and I didn't want to close it immediately as not moved because, well, that's just bad faith. If socks opened the RM then that's a different matter, but I honestly didn't suspect that at the time, nor did I realize (or notice) that some of the RMs were open just a single week after the other one closed. SkyWarrior 11:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@SkyWarrior: I replied at ANI about the ones currently listed at RM. Seems like a lot of work to be made. You can do the "procedural close" and point to either the ANI case or a recent SPI case. George Ho (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like NeilN beat me to it. Thanks for the heads up anyways, I'm only on Wikipedia for a few hours anyways on the weekdays so I can't get around to doing these things if they happen during a time I can't be on. SkyWarrior 19:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Putting aside the sockpuppet issue for a minute, my interpretation of WP:NCDAB is that you should only use parenthetical disambiguation in titles when natural disambiguation isn't possible. In the case of hurricane names that have only been used once, there is no need for further disambiguation if the title is "Hurricane XXXX", so I would favor removing the "(year)" part in those cases. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Thanks for your input. Question: are "tropical storm" and "hurricane" interchangeable? If not, why are base titles redirected to SIAs? George Ho (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure I understand. Can you give me an example? Kaldari (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Tropical Storm Allison (disambiguation) includes cyclones, tropical storms, and a hurricane using Allison. Cyclone Allison redirects to that SIA. Hurricane Allison previously redirected to Tropical Storm Allison (2001), but I recently changed its target to the SIA. Another is Tropical Storm Colin, redirected from Hurricane Colin and Cyclone Colin (created by me). Tropical Storm Kiko, redirected from Hurricane Kiko. George Ho (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: I would say that a hurricane is also a tropical storm, but a tropical storm isn't necessarily a hurricane. So including hurricanes in the Tropical Storm set lists is fine, but I personally wouldn't redirect Hurricane X to a set list unless it actually needed disambiguation. Otherwise, we're just adding an extra step for anyone trying to find the article for that hurricane. Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Kaldari, there are extensive style guidelines for storm articles; they mostly agree with you. — Gorthian (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Shall we continue the case-by-case method, or shall we make a wider, central discussion? George Ho (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 35#Category:Set indices on storms. None of the set index articles on tropical storms should have "(disambiguation)" in their titles, but the project hasn't decided on how they'd like to phrase the "List of XXX named YYY" titles instead. But that project would be the appropriate place for the discussion, I hope. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Does WP:INTDAB apply to set index and other list articles or does it even matter?

There are discussions in several venues concerning this question.

Additional input welcome. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancient tree

Comments from editors interested in dab pages are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient tree. — Gorthian (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What not to include

Should we add Wikipedia:Namespace and Wikipedia:Subpages (particularly ones in user-space) to the list? I just like things to be explicit. As it is I'm not completely sure what consensus is. I'm fairly certain but I'd like to be 100%. Not really sure if it is notable enough though. Endercase (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal at WP:NCTV to harmonize the text of WP:NCTV with MOS:TV

As a result of this discussion at WP:TV, there is a discussion on a proposal to harmonize the text at WP:NCTV with the text at MOS:TV#Naming conventions in regards to the necessity of disambiguation text for List of episode or List of character articles. Please add any thoughts or comments to the discussion on this proposal, which can be found, here. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification regarding: "Principal relevance only to certain people or groups"

WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY currently says:

...

Among several other proposed criteria that have never won acceptance as a general rule, we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic:

I know this has been discussed before, but that third bullet is still causing confusion. At this discussion Laurel Lodged has interpreted the third bullet to mean that certain people (like Patrick Leahy cannot have "principal relevance" which Laurel seems to think means an article about a person cannot be a primary topic for the name of the person. I am going to modify the wording to be similar to the 2nd and 4th bullets so that it's more clear:

  • If a topic has principal relevance only to certain people or groups

If anyone has any suggestions on how to clarify it even better, that would be great. In particular, maybe someone has an example in mind? Thanks. --В²C ☎ 16:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Talk of moving the goal posts. This is a highly unethical thing to do in the middle of a discussion I would have thought. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If it changed the meaning as understood by consensus, it would be. If it's merely clarifying the intended meaning, it's not. Does it not make sense to you? As I said in the discussion, it makes no sense whatsoever to interpret this to mean that articles about people cannot be primary topics. --В²C ☎ 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The problematic wording of this section was very recently discussed. There seemed to be tentative consensus for the following version:

Some general principles for determining a primary topic include:

  • While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative. (Kennewick, Washington is primary for Kennewick over the much older Kennewick Man)
  • Being the original source of the name does not make a topic primary. (Boston is about Boston, Massachusetts, not the English city that first bore that name)
  • A topic may have principle relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as a local place name), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience.
  • A topic that has only achieved to widespread popularity recently should be weighed against the longer-term significance of alternative topics. (Muse does not take the reader to an article about a current band)

--Trystan (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Trystan, regarding the revised fourth bullet, I think the main concern is when topics that are recently popular are also likely to be brief in popularity. However, say an unknown is nominated to be on the SCOTUS and all other uses of that name are relatively obscure. This person's popularity suddenly spikes of course, but given that she is now on the SCOTUS we know this is not just a flash in the pan, and therefore the recentism is not very important. Can we capture that? How about this?

  • A topic that has only achieved widespread popularity recently and its likely long-term significance should be weighed against the long-term significance of alternative topics. (Muse does not take the reader to an article about a current band)

--В²C ☎ 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be wary of encouraging debates on the future long-term notability of any topic. Simply being appointed to SCOTUS might be enough to launch someone ahead of the pack to become a primary topic, but I wouldn't base that decision on assumptions about their future judicial career.
Since the fourth bullet seems to be just addressing something covered i with greater clarity under the "long-term significance" criteria, perhaps it could just be taken out?--Trystan (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
That's fine with me, but I think the whole long term criteria stuff is an abomination. --В²C ☎ 23:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Reference to "long-term significance" is probably the single most important improvement to Wikipedia Disambigatuation/PrimaryTopic, because it reminds titling wonks about what project this is. An encyclopedia is an historgraphical scholarly work that properly recognises scholarly significance, which depends on usage in scholarly sources. The abomination is a guideline that points editors towards emulating imagined search engine criteria, looking at ghit, and attempting to psychoanalyse what hypothetical readers seek when using a term in a search.
With regards to "relevance only to certain people or groups", I agree with Trystan, and note that for the case of Patrick Leahy, he was once the highest ranking US Senator not counting the ex-officio senate position of the Vice President, which is a pretty extreme case. People should not be granted "PrimaryTopic" status on the basis of a general criteria of being a certain type or person, that would be abominably broad and would generate absurdities, no, Patrick Leahy should be PrimaryTopic for that name on the basis of deeper analysis, on the basis of quality international sources introducing him as such. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying historical significance doesn't matter, I'm saying it doesn't need to be considered explicitly because it's implicit in usage. Except for WP:RECENTISM, for which we already always accounted, historical significance is already appropriately accounted for by looking at usage in reliable sources. I mean, how do we measure historical significance if not by usage in reliable sources anyway? --В²C ☎ 01:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised at how agreeable that answer is, thanks. I need to think on this. Historical long term significance should be judged through sources, yes. How to word it better ...? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
When you pull it out as a separate consideration, then you sometimes have the guidance of a reasonably objective consideration - usage in reliable source - in conflict with guidance from a very subjective consideration - how "historically significant" a topic is. I think it's fundamental to WP to allow the publishers of reliable sources to decide questions like how "historically significant" something is, and even they do it implicitly based on how much they publish about it relative to other topics that use the name in question. But we WP editors should not be judging historical significance directly ourselves. How to word it better? Excise all mention of "historical significance" from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. At most a note stating that historical significance is implicitly accounted for when we look at usage in reliable sources and that we should not be trying to determine historical significance directly for ourselves is all that should be there. --В²C ☎ 16:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A question to please indulge

The answer probably exist for this question, but I ask that an answer be indulged to me for I only have time for the asking right now. Is it allowed to link an ambiguous term to a Wiktionary page for disambiguation of the term and justification of the term's placement on a DAB page? Thanks.--John Cline (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

When a disambiguation page is a common word, it's customary to add {{Wiktionary}}, which adds a link to Wiktionary in the upper-right corner. -- Tavix (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
For linking to wiktionary from a dab page: MOS:WTLINK. – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
My thanks to both of you. I have reviewed the links included in your replies and together they have answered all aspects of my question in as much as I was curious to know. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What not to include

The section "Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What not to include begins with a discussion of what not to include in an entry and then has a discussion of what entries not to include. These are actually distinct topics that should be under separate headings.

As a separate matter, Under the heading "Related subjects" it says, "Include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article." I think that more guidance should be provide here, and also at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Examples of individual entries that should not be created and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards#Entries to clarify if an entry deserves inclusion if it is minimally mentioned in the target article. For example, Oukhellou consists of two entries, both of which are redirects, and in each case the name appears but the reader learns almost nothing about the topics. In particular, the entry Yazmin Oukhellou redirects to The Only Way Is Essex (series 20), and all one learns there is that Yazmin Oukellou was a member of the cast. Adam Oukhellou redirects to Ex on the Beach (series 6), and all one learns there is that Adam Oukhellou appeared on two episodes, that his hometown is London, and the names of individuals with whom he had "Ex" relationships. I believe that these redirects should be treated as if they were redlinks. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Red links, it explains, "A link to a non-existent article (a 'red link') should only be included on a disambiguation page when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." So, I would propose this language:

A link to a redirect should be included on a disambiguation page only if a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that redirect, and the target of the redirect describes the topic more than minimally. For example, do not include a link to the name of a person if the link redirects to an article has no biographical information about the person, or mentions only minimal facts, such as their home town or the name of someone to whom they are related.

If you agree that this is a a problem, please offer constructive suggestions and improvements on this language and placement among Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. If you disagree and think the Oukhellou entries are proper for Wikipedia disambiguations, please share that as well. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Oukhellou is a set index article. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles says "A set index article is not a disambiguation page." PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
True. At Wikipedia:Set index articles#Set indexes and disambiguation, it says, "Unlike disambiguation page guidelines, a SIA is allowed to contain red links to help editors create articles on notable entries." Here in Oukhellou, we have blue links to non-notable entries — entries that will probably never have real articles to replace the redirects. Wikipedia:Notability says "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." That seems apropos here. As far as I know, Yazmin Oukhellou and Adam Oukhellou didn't even have 15 minutes of fame and are likely to remain low-profile individuals who will never have their own biographical articles. If that is correct, should they be listed in a surname article? Moreover, if someday there is a mathematician named Oukellou and we get something like Oukhellou inequality, Oukhellou will then switch to a disambiguation; for this reason I believe that surname articles should have substantially the same rules as disambiguations for how to format entries and what to include. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with the second sentence of the proposed language. If a redirect is used in several articles, it can be a valid dab entry, even if its target says almost nothing about it – in that case, it's the equivalent of a redlink, which, it's established, can be a valid dab entry if it's used in articles. For actual redlinks, we ask that there be another blue link in the entry; for redirects, I think discretion can be used on that point, depending on the depth of coverage in the target page. —swpbT 13:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Liveable

Comments from editors interested in dab pages are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 21#Liveable. MB 21:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC criteria - proposal

The first part of PRIMARYTOPIC currently says:

Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.

There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:

  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

In many cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus determines which article, if any, is the primary topic.

Per the above discussion with SmokeyJoe, which I summarize as follows: giving long-term significance separate consideration is redundant to giving usage in reliable sources consideration (since usage in reliable sources already accounts for long-term significance by having more coverage of topics with long-term significance), I hereby propose changing the above to this:

Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.

There is only one criterion for determining a primary topic:

  • A topic is primary for a term, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Likelihood of being sought is primarily determined by looking at how the term in question is used in reliable sources and by article access statistics.

Note that by looking at usage in reliable sources we are implicitly accounting for the long-term significance of the various uses of the term in question. Wikipedia editors should not be trying to assess long-term significance directly ourselves.

--В²C ☎ 17:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • No, Long term significance, as evident in sources, is most important. What "a reader searches for" is what should be stripped. It is not connected to sources. It invites reliance on non-reliable sources like ghits and google ngram, it ignores the ten years now dramatic improvements in the internal search engine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • "What a reader searches for" is ultimately the whole point of primary topic - looking at usage in reliable sources is just a heuristic used to help determine what a reader is most likely to search, based on the assumption that there is a high correlation between what someone is likely to search and what commonly it is used in RS. That is, if one use is most common in RS then that use is likely to be most likely to be sought. This is similar to how we determine common name - by looking at usage in reliable sources to see which name of several is most often used to refer to a given topic, because we want to use the title most likely to be known by users for the title. --В²C ☎ 21:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
      • If ""What a reader searches for" is ultimately the whole point of primary topic", then do away with the whole thing. It is a serious corruption of the purpose of a title. You confuse title with keywords and unique identifiers. Wikipedia has a great search engine, and it dynamically assigns and weights keywords better than any human could, and Google does even better. Unique identifiers are great, bu they do not belong in the place of a title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible Oppose – While I agree that, in principle, long-term significance could be derived from a proper search in the universe of sources about the topic, removing the long-term criterion from the guideline would open the floodgates of weeks-long inane discussions, whereby people arguing long-term significance would be drowned by the masses of people arguing recently popular themes. Search engines are inherently biased towards recent entries (and by recent, I mean the last 20 years, basically since search engines exist, although most often results are skewed even further towards items published in recent days and weeks). Getting consensus on long-term significance based on a source search would place an unreasonable burden of proof for things that would look totally obvious to anybody with a modicum of culture. Examples:
  1. Go argue Martin Luther against Luther (TV series) for PT status on title "Luther": the father of the Reformation already lost primacy to a dab page, and I imagine that with the rephrased criteria, he would forever be buried under a UK TV crime show starring a charismatic actor.
  2. Fingering (music) vs Fingering (sexual act): editors had to fight hard to put music and sex on equal footing in a dab page; the long-term significance criterion was the appropriate stopgap.
  3. If we relied on abundance of sources, Donald Trump would be primary topic for "Trump", trumping trump cards (see the most recent discussion at Talk:Trump#Redirect to Donald Trump). Who even plays cards these days? — JFG talk 21:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Just to take that last one as an example, like it or not (and I for one do not), Donald Trump is BY FAR the most likely topic being sought when someone searches for Trump. That we take them anywhere other than that article is contrary to the whole concept of primary topic. It's because of the long-term significance criterion that we have these drawn-out discussions, impose 6 month moratoriums, etc. If primary topic was restored to its original intent we would have none of this nonsense, and Trump would be a primary redirect to Donald Trump as it should be. As far as fingering goes, the sexual act absolutely dwarfs the musical usage; no comparison. [2]. Long-term significance considerations is what causes these decisions to go awry. --В²C ☎ 22:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    For fingering, the musical usage has more incoming links overall (and fewer coming from navboxes) than the sex act. Google returns the Wikipedia article on the sex act as the first result. Readers aren't having any trouble finding the sex act article, and we're ensuring the more common links generated by editors writing about music end up in the right place. Plantdrew (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Google is a good tool for determining which page is most likely to be sought. Our obligation is to those using WP internal search, taking them to the page most likely to be sought for a given search term (the primary topic, or to a dab page if there is no primary topic). We don't do that by superimposing our impression of what the long-term significance is of the topics in question, overriding what page view statistics and Google tell us is the obvious primary (most likely to be sought) topic. --В²C ☎ 22:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    I disagree with your premise that the most popular topic is "the obvious primary": we are an encyclopedia and we must balance fleeting popularity against enduring notability; current guidelines allow us to evaluate this balance. Search engines (internal and external to WP) do a great job of showing the top possibilities for a particular term. Titling is very important to give readers a quick choice among homonyms, and our dab convention with parentheses does it splendidly. — JFG talk 05:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    JFG, we have WP:RECENTISM and that makes sense, but accounting for "long term significance", as most seem to interpret it, goes far beyond managing "fleeting popularity", to the detriment of the encyclopedia. For example, the Chevrolet Corvette consistently gets twice as many page views as Corvette, and that includes all the views that articles gets from people looking for the car, and yet Corvette remains the title of the article about the small warship instead of being a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the car. The car has been around more than 50 years. A fleeting popularity? I don't think so. Doesn't make sense. Doesn't serve our readers. --В²C ☎ 22:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    It makes complete sense. Corvette is an old word meaning small ship, and has been used for small ships historically. The car is a modern commercial product, and was named after the ships.[3] Wikipedia is a not-for-profit scholarly work constantly resisting infiltration by commercial influences. Throughout Wikipedia, commercial interests over scholarly interests are strongly resisted. Commercial products frequently attempt to subvert catchy words. Don't assist them. The readers are better served by logical titling than by ghit-based titling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    Well, that's the core question, isn't it SmokeyJoe? Is WP "better" if users searching with a given term are taken to the article they are most likely seeking (regardless of why), or to the article highbrow editors think they should see? --В²C ☎ 23:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    Your "core question" is based on a faulty premise, and attempts to deal with a problem by giving the wrong answer to the wrong question.
    When I use a fresh browser, one that doesn't know me, a google search for corvette shows me the Wikipedia article for the car as the second hit and the top Wikipedia hit. There is no issue there.
    It is not my fault that in Wikipedia, default view, the "search" box is not a search box, but returns the "go" result. It is someone's fault, a stupid decision. No search results, a large page downloads, people who wanted something else are supposed to work with hatnotes. A hatnote that is not particularly prominent (Wikipedia pages come with a lot of noise), but does interfere with reading the article. There is a real problem here, but the solution is not to alter article titles. Other solutions include: (1) Wikipedia searches should result a list of probable hits, not just take the user to a probable page; or (2) After entering a term into the so-called search box and being taken to a page, the user should have a prominent option of going to the real Wikipedia search engine.
    Lowbrow readers should use google. Note how Google, by default, unlike Wikipedia, forces a choice between "Google search" and "I'm feeling lucky". Google auto-responds, dynamically, to what they want, it is in the business of giving people what they think they want, and making them feel satisfied. Scholarship should not be dumbed down to suit people with little knowledge. Anyone who searches on "corvette" in a scholarly product like Wikipedia should have some idea what the word means. Everyone else is very well served by searching with google. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    SmokeyJoe, the premise my "core question" is based on is the same one that has always predicated PRIMARYTOPIC, COMMONNAME, etc.: It's about serving users that are using WP default "go" searching. If we are to consider how Google search works in our title decision-making then titles become totally irrelevant since Google ties search results to page contents, not page titles. So we could give our articles random titles and Google search would be just as effective (just as effective as it is with blog and website articles whose titles' connection to the respective pages' contents are often tenuous at best). But it's good to know that that is how you are approaching the problem. It's certainly contrary to how articles were originally named here, and I think it remains an approach contrary to basic WP principles. --В²C ☎ 01:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    So that is why PRIMARYTOPIC is so convoluted and illogical? If "WP default "go" searching" does not serve, fix the searching, don't stuff the titles. The title is the most important content on any document, and you, and nearly only you, in confusing it with keywords and unique identifiers, are damaging the product. The solution to bad WP default "go" searching is to fix WP default "go" searching, not change titles. I don't think you are right about COMMONNAME. COMMONNAME, unlike PRIMARYTOPIC, has multiple sound bases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I'm not sure what disturbs you with the "go" searching, as you call it. The WP search box, both on desktop and on mobile, displays a set of matching articles to the reader, dynamically as the query is typed. If we have a bunch of similar titles, it's extremely easy to pick the correct one, provided that article titles have been properly chosen (which is most often the case). You only get the "go" effect if you quickly type your search term followed by Enter. However, for most words, it's faster to push the down-arrow a couple times and "go" (or tap the entry you want on mobile) rather than keep typing the full word. Given this UX setuop user experience, adding an intermediary "search results" page looks totally superfluous. — JFG talk 04:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

JFG, this is a topic that probably belongs on another page? "Go" searching, which I preferentially never use, but which is the only option in the default skin, and which looks analogous to the "I'm feeling lucky" option in Google, results in the searcher being sent to a page if a title or redirect matches, by passing the search engine. "displays a set of matching articles to the reader, dynamically as the query is typed" - yes, I have seen that. You assume a fast device and fast internet connection. If mildly not fast, is can be incredibly annoying, distracting, and leading to mistaken options activated, until you work out how to disable it, or you just accept that everything takes a long time. If very not fast, you don't see these things at all. Clearly, experiences can vary. I experience the full range in different circumstances, regularly. I do not know "UX setuop". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Clarified the "setuop", oops! I see your point and I also have experience using the site with varying quality of connection or device. Still, the "go there" behaviour, for an encyclopedia, is far more beneficial than for a search engine: you rarely want to "feel lucky" among millions of results but you can be pretty damn sure of what you'll get among a few terms to disambiguate. Even more so if we have a primary topic, which then holds the unadorned top spot over dabbed titles or partial matches. And for titles with no primary topic, dab pages act as cached and neatly prioritised search results. — JFG talk 05:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
UX setuop? I felt embarrassed at my technical ineptitude. The "Go there" function is often good, and the PRIMARYTOPIC setup is often convenient, and usually sensible. Just not always, especially not with topics that broadly recognised. Commercial products grabbing PRIMARYTOPIC for generic terms especially bothers me, and I know I am not alone there. What bothers me more is that sometimes the "Go there" function hides the existence of a myriad of unrelated topics, and if you are not in the majority set of readers, it can be confounding. Hatnotes are good here, although they annoy if your don't want them. When there is the least bit of concern of confounding special interest readers, I think DAB pages are fantastic. I have never been frustrated by landing on a small DAB page, it loads quick, it is simple, it always contains useful information in getting to what I want, including when I am not really sure what I want. --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
No argument there, dab pages are a very useful and flexible tool; in essence they are search results for ambiguous terms. When a few top meanings compete for attention, they are listed at the top of the dab page, and even readers on the slowest connections can zip to their preferred destination with one tap. And some readers will learn something in the process, e.g. that before being adopted as a sports car name, a "corvette" was already a sailing military vessel in the 1600s. Not bad for an encyclopedia! — JFG talk 17:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
—
SmokeyJoe, no commercial product is grabbing anything. Confirmed greater interest in a topic (that may happen to be a commercial product), and thus higher likelihood of that topic being sought when readers use the "Go" search, is what is "grabbing" PRIMARYTOPIC for that topic, and rightfully so. I see no reason to treat articles about commercial products subjectively, more or less favorably, given this quite objective metric. "What bothers me" is certainly not a strong argument for doing that. --В²C ☎ 17:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
"no commercial product is grabbing anything"?! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No, simplistic reduction to counting search hits, even if limited to reliable sources is guaranteed to produce as much if not more disputation than the current formulation. Consider that there are likely to be numerically more references to the entertainer Madonna in quality reliable sources than to the artistic/religious figure, yet that doesn't mean entertainer should become the primary topic (I don't actually know the count, but it is likely and illustrates what is wrong with this proposal). older ≠ wiser 00:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. It is error to simply count hits, or usage, or even reference, even is restricted to reputable reliable sources. These things miss the purpose of a title, which is to introduce the document below, and it is not necessarily what it is called after the first introduction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The availability of reliable sources is heavily skewed towards the recent past, especially when most people won't do more than a Google search. Reducing primary topic to Google Hits isn't what an encyclopedia should be doing, and the above comments note many examples where it would be detrimental and absurd to do so. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – As much as we might like it to, I don't believe the decision to establish a PRIMARY can ever be mechanically simple. It requires judgment from editors who have to consider how much more predominant a PRIMARY topic must be over other candidates to take over from a DAB page and whether the increasing popularity of a competing topic has reached the point where a former PRIMARY needs to give way. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. It's certainly a major change. There's a very good argument for it, true: serve the reader. But removing "enduring notability and educational value"... I dunno. Big step. While we don't want to be egregious prigs, neither are we entirely a pop-culture compendium. We have a scholarly mission to some degree, I guess. Nor is the past entirely dead and to be ignored. Figuring out a primary target is a bit of an art and has to balance all of these things, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not a major change, Herostratus. It's how primary topic was always defined and applied until a few years ago when the long-term significance criterion was added, which greatly complicated primary topic determination for dubious benefit. --В²C ☎ 15:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Well, a major change from how its been for the last few years, then. Herostratus (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll give you that, though I contend it's a change (back) to the better. --В²C ☎ 22:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Primary topic was NEVER EVER defined solely based on page views or a simple count of search results. older ≠ wiser 00:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Not explicitly. But it was forever defined purely in terms of "most likely to be sought, more often than ... ", and page views and search results were always used to determine that likelihood more than anything else. --В²C ☎ 01:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not poorly thought out. Insults are not usually necessary or helpful. Insults that are wrong on the merits... it's not a good look, so don't do it.
It is an extremely strong point to say "If we can (by deduction, by interpreting data, and by general application of our intelligence) determine that the great majority of readers searching on a term are looking for a particular article, then we should direct them to that article." And the person presented it well, providing before-and-afters and the exact text change proposed.
You don't have to agree with the proposition (I don't, after consideration). But it's ridiculous to just blow off the proposition with "poorly thought out". Herostratus (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
If we looked at percentages of articles for which there is conflicting guidance between "most likely to be sought" and "long-term significance", I'm sure it would be well under 1%. So from that perspective it's not a big issue. However, the percentage of articles with potentially controversial titles is itself small.

And what makes an article's title controversial? Unclear and/or conflicting guidance about what the title should be for that article. This is why my main goal within the realm of article titles at WP is wording and interpreting the guidance (policy, guidelines, conventions) in a consistent manner. Adding the long-term significance criterion to primary topic was probably the biggest step in the wrong direction in this respect that I'm aware of. I mean, it's explicitly creating conflicting guidance for the same title. Consider "likelihood of being sought" and the title should be A, consider long-term significance and the title should be B. Okay, duke it out!

What happens is that people can provide reasonable arguments based in policy for whichever title their personal predilections favor. It creates a steaming pile of excrement where WP:JDLI and WP:Wikilawyering "justifications" thrive. Obviously this proposal isn't going anywhere, but I urge everyone to think this through over the coming weeks and months, and remember these words any time you encounter an RM discussion involving primary topic, and the inevitable silly tug-of-war between likelihood of being sought and long-term significance arguments. People like to claim we weigh these two considerations, but we have no objective way to compare them. In the Corvette example both are man-made transportation devices and the car has twice as many page views as the small ship class, yet the ship class is at the base name because it has a longer history? My point is you can make strong arguments for either case, and there is no way to really settle this. Consider that we have the disambiguated Boston, Lincolnshire, founded around 1200, while the much newer namesake in America is at the base name. Again, it can arguably go either way. And it is argued both ways. And there is no reason to believe these and countless other cases with equally conflicting guidance won't be argued again. And again and again. All because some believe "long term significance" needs to be given explicit consideration. I say, the degree to which the long-term significance is significant is manifested within the likelihood of the topic being sought, so when we look at likelihood of being sought, we are inherently already giving long-term significance appropriate consideration. And that's all the consideration it requires. Giving long-term significance explicit consideration simply creates conflict about what titles should be. To what end? So articles like Corvette are not at titles like Corvette (ship)? Is that worth all the ambiguity (about what the title should be) and arguing? --В²C ☎ 16:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: I understand your point and your frustration, however I fundamentally disagree with your belief that we can gauge "likelihood to be sought" from page views or Google hits. Of course Martin Luther will always have fewer hits than Luther (TV series) but who can seriously argue that the latter should ever supersede the former in the sum total of human knowledge? In a case like "Corvette", where both subjects have the same order of magnitude of requests, the base title should probably be attributed to the dab page. But then you have a class of editors who are vehemently opposed to dab pages in principle (see New York as a perennial example), and in that case yes there must be a debate between tenants of the "popularity" vs guardians of the "long-term significance". Debate is good, debate is part of the pleasure of building an encyclopedia together, notwithstanding of our various backgrounds, styles and opinions. — JFG talk 17:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
With one brief exception in the last 90 days, Martin Luther is consistently getting two to three times the page views of Luther (TV series) [4]. This makes my point: the degree to which the long-term significance is significant is manifested within the likelihood of the topic being sought. --В²C ☎ 17:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Look at the stats for 2015, I suppose a new season aired and boom, good old Luther was drowned. — JFG talk 19:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
That's quintessential WP:RECENTISM, for which we already account in determining primary topic based on likelihood of being sought (we discount spikes in usage like that accordingly). --В²C ☎ 19:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I wish it were mere WP:RECENTISM, but people have seriously argued that the original Luther was not nearly as notable as the TV character. And that's even with the long-term significance criterion in force; imagine what would happen if we ditched it! Typical user comment: Martin Luther may well be highly notable, but his popularity among random wikipedia readers does not eclipse all other uses of the surname. Right, conveniently forgetting that nearly all other uses of the surname are derived from this one Luther guy from 1483. — JFG talk 22:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, what does "the sum total of human knowledge" have to do with deciding which topic is most likely to be sought when readers enter a given term in the WP "Go" search? --В²C ☎ 17:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Because we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. — JFG talk 19:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, hence we only have topics that meet our standards of notability. But once a topic is deemed notable (based on a relatively objective metric of having references in reliable sources), why put ourselves in the position of rating topics based on relative measures of notability, importance or historical significance? Who are we to do that anyway? Don't we try to avoid putting ourselves in the position of making such subjective judgments in other contexts? Why get in that ugly business with titles? Who really benefits from this anyway? Not readers who are more likely to end up at articles they're not seeking. Not editors who end up having to deal with more title disputes. I get the highbrow appeal, but I don't see how it really improves anything, much less enough to warrant the commensurate increase in disputes and controversy over titles. --В²C ☎ 19:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, many times the discussions about primary topic are pointless reiterations of entrenched opinions. Primary topics were originally intended for topics that were pretty much universally recognizable as primary topics (such as Bill Clinton, which was one of the early examples). Anytime a topic does not pass such a bar of obviousness, there is a very good likelihood readers would be best served by a disambiguation page. A variation of that had been part of the PT criteria until long-term significance replaced it. A relatively minor difference in page traffic doesn't establish a primary topic (even in two dab cases). IMO, we'd be far better off making disambiguation pages an automatic default except in cases where there is clearly established consensus that there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 20:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, and that's exactly what the longstanding usage standard (maybe it should be called the likelihood-to-be-sought standard) has meant to convey: highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Why isn't that good enough? In fact, by this standard Corvette should be a dab page. It's the long-term significance criterion that justifies keeping the relatively obscure ship class (relative to the car) at the base name. --В²C ☎ 20:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
You can test editor support for this proposal by requesting a page move from Corvette (disambiguation) to Corvette and from Corvette to Corvette (ship). In such a case, I would personally !vote for placing the dab page at the "Corvette" title, because neither article can be considered overwhelmingly more popular or more significant than the other. It's a simple algorithm: IF PT=NIL, GOTO DAB. — JFG talk 21:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the suggested changes to wp:primarytopic; it well serves the wp:before considerations that ought to be weighed when deciding if a primary topic exists and, (if so), what it should be. That the long-term significance clause elicits debate in such discussion strengthens its placement, in my opinion, rather than ground a premise for its removal.--John Cline (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Aside my objection to changing wp:primarytopic, I believe В²C has raised some valid points in the example given regarding the Corvette and the Chevrolet Corvette. In my opinion, the mitigation this example begs would find its better fit in changes to WP:NATURALDIS, where the consequences of reduced discover-ability, in this example, were first born.
Until yesterday, Corvette (automobile) has been a red-link even while knowing a large contingent of those searching "Corvette" would, undoubtedly, hope to reach the "Chevrolet Corvette" article. Its existence in blue will serve that group with increased discover-ability, especially when using Wikipedia's search feature. I think, therefore, a caution against choosing natural disambiguation without ensuring a redirect exists from its most predictable form would be useful there.--John Cline (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I think we have very different perspectives. Are you referring to Corvette (automobile) as "the most predictable form" for the title of the article about the Chevrolet Corvette? I'd say that form would be predictable only to WP wonks like us, not to general WP users. The only predictable form for general users is Corvette. Further, in the context of deciding titles, especially in considering whether a given topic is primary for some term, assuming users are using the WP search function is the same mistake as assuming they're using Google search. The whole point of primary topic is assuming users are entering the term in question and using the default Go function. That's why the criteria has long been based on likelihood that one is searching for a particular term when entering the term in question. Once we decide to disambiguate, because we decide the topic is not primary, we're no longer using the title that users are most likely to enter when searching for that topic. In the case of this car, that of course is Corvette, period. The fact that we take them to the article about the ship can only be rationalized by the long term significance criterion. The dab page for Corvette should be at Corvette, and that's how it would be if not for the long-term significance explicit consideration. --В²C ☎ 21:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing the explicit language valuing the long-term significance of a topic, which should count in the evaluation of primacy even where a flashy new topic has attracted substantial attention. Example: The film Avatar was hugely successful, combining with the use of the term in social media to dislodge the ancient religious sense of an avatar. That, however, should not be enough to declare the film the primary topic of the term. Cf Luther, referenced above. bd2412 T 21:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    Okay, obviously I'm in the minority on this issue, to put it mildly. But I remain baffled. I get that the ancient religious sense is more important. It's more encyclopedic, arguably. But the film gets about 8 times as many page views [5]. That means, for every 900 people who enter "Avatar" and click on GO, 100 will want the ancient meaning, and 800 will want the film. And yet we send them to the religious symbol. Why? Because WE think it's more important? What about what the user thinks? Why are we being so highbrow about this? And deliberately so. Isn't it being a little derogatory? --В²C ☎ 00:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    Don't forget that the ancient meaning is, in a way, the basis for the meaning in the film. bd2412 T 01:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
We are being so highbrow about this because a lot of us are snobs -- bigdomes, poindexters, highbrows, longhairs, call us what you will -- or at any rate would like to be. And so? We're not Entertainment Tonite and don't want to be. Yes we want to serve the average reader, but we don't exist just to serve the average reader, or to necessarily serve the most readers, or maximize eyeballs -- that's not our business model. (Yes, we are large and contain multitudes, Squiddly Diddly as well as The Decline of the West -- but the the scholarly and serious is closer to our hearts and gets more weight.)
That being said, there's a limit. We don't disdain the average reader, either If Avatar (Film) really has a 9-1 edge over the incarnation of a deity (and adding in all the other uses for "avatar", it must be more like at least 12-1 over the Hindu dealy)... that's an awful lot. That's a data point that indicates maybe moving the article might be in order.
But one thing to keep in mind is likely long-term significance going forward. In 2027, will those numbers still hold? If we think not, do we want to keep having to change it every couple years? Does the fact that Avatar (film) is um not exactly Citizen Kane enter into to the equation? It does to me. Mediocre forgettable movies usually lack long-term legs (although you never know) or interest to scholars of film history or whatever.
So as I said its an art. Consider this, balance that. That means for some cases, lots of gabbing about it. Oh well -- gabbing. That's Wikipedia!
Anyway, your proposal takes away the "Consider this, balance that" aspect of it and hammers down just on current popularity. It's too simplistic IMO. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the proposal gives appropriate balance to long term significance as that is appropriately reflected in usage in primary sources and even page view statistics, as long as we account for WP:RECENTISM appropriately. By giving long-term significance more weight than that ascribed to it by usage in reliable source, our readers, and balanced with appropriate consideration for RECENTISM, we are breaking the natural balance we are supposed to be reflecting. Frankly, the criterion requiring WP editors to judge something as inherently subjective as "long-term significance" violates WP:NPOV. --В²C ☎ 18:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
NPOV is not a synonym for "without common sense". If we were to follow your reasoning here, we would never be able to deem a source reliable or unreliable, because we also use our editorial judgment to make that determination. bd2412 T 19:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
We have guidelines on how to make an NPOV determination between reliable and unreliable sources. We have no guidelines for how to determine long-term significance or how much weight to give it. It's highly subjective. And totally unnecessary, IMHO. --В²C ☎ 17:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like we need guidelines to help determine long-term significance. bd2412 T 23:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I would love the criterion "topic that is the basis for other topics named after it" being included as an important point for long-term significance. From an encyclopedic perspective, this is this a strong reason for having things like Corvette or Avatar at the base name, or at least to oppose having a popular search term at the base name (like Madonna or Trump).

I would also like to formalize in the guideline that, in case of two or more topics competing for the term, those should be placed together at the top of the DAB page. This is common practice anyway, even if it has never been recorded in policy, and policies should reflect accepted common usage. Diego (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Long-term significance is important and sensible to use, as several editors have explicated. As User:In ictu oculi suggests, our general purpose here is to create an encyclopedia "for learning purposes rather than registering sales of entertainment products." And readers expect that. It would be surprising to readers, and not in a good way, if they found their way to pop music references, rather than to the fundamental topic being referenced. --doncram 15:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) for deletion - with wider consequences for 2DABS guidance

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Two On the Spot documentary TV series

Hi. The Hungarian On the Spot (documentary TV series) is a ambiguously titled as there was also a notable Canadian documentary TV series, which is now at On the Spot (Canadian TV series) -- indeed, I came across the Hungarian one by accident. I think they should both be retitled as On the Spot (Hungarian documentary TV series) and On the Spot (Canadian documentary TV series). I don't see why the newer Hungarian series would be granted the primary topic as a doc series. Do others agree? But then what would we do with the On the Spot (documentary TV series)? The gamut of On the Spot TV series are listed at On the spot, but these are the only two documentary series. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Separate disambiguation pages for Michael Flynn/Michael Flynn (disambiguation) and Mike Flynn

It may be noted that on July 23, 2012, the Mike Flynn disambiguation page was redirected to the Michael Flynn disambiguation page where it remained for nearly 5 years, until May 20, 2017, when these two dab pages were again separated (with the edit summary "More Mikes than Michaels"). Since most such dab pages keep the two forms combined (i.e. Mike Smith redirects to Michael Smith), editors may agree that, in this particular instance, "Michael" should redirect to "Mike". Taking into account that, less than a month ago, on May 27, 2017, General Michael Flynn became the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Michael Flynn dab page, the suggestion of combining all the Mikes and Michaels under Mike Flynn, rather than under Michael Flynn (disambiguation), has the additional advantage of eliminating the need for the qualifier "(disambiguation)". The current [as of this writing] WP:RM discussion at Talk:Mike Flynn#Requested move 13 June 2017 indirectly raises / touches upon these issues. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

8 redirects that might be DAB-able

Each of these have 2 #redirect targets (only the first works, of course), that someone here might want to turn into disambig pages, or at least fixed in some way.

  1. Agcaoili
  2. Anup jalota
  3. Campbell Family
  4. ESSB
  5. Hacks (disambiguation)
  6. Monica Gonzalez
  7. OPLL
  8. Soap on a rope

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Tom.Reding, did you actually look at these before posting them here? I looked at them and only #1 and #7 are candidates to do anything. 2, 3 & 4 the second link was red. 5 only had one link on the page. 6's first link went to a DAB page and the second link was on the DAB page. 8 is not mentioned on the second linked page. I removed the second link from everything except 1 & 7. ~ GB fan 14:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I did, but I'm a DAB noob. Thanks for taking care of them.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
And I've turned #1 into a surname index and disambiguated #7. I think they're all fine now. -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:no source under discussion

Currently, Template:no source and Template:nosource, both of which redirect to template:di-no source, are nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Template:No source, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Maneka disambiguation page into Menaka (disambiguation) page

The introductory line at Maneka is: "Maneka is a common English spelling of the Sanskrit and Hindi: मेनका. It is also spelled Menaka, and may refer to:". Maneka does not even contain a link to Menaka (disambiguation), which also does not contain a reciprocal link to Maneka but does contain two (Menaka (actress) and Maneka Gandhi) of Maneka's five entries. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense to merge Maneka into Menaka (disambiguation), but given that the target also lists topics that can be referred to only as "Menaka" (and not "Maneka"), there ought to be a way to separate the two groups of entries. I think it's best to reorganise the primary headings by area: entities from South Asia (which can be referred to using either of the two variants) vs. entities from the rest of the world (for which only "Menaka" works). – Uanfala 23:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Tom Baker redirects to Tom Baker (English Actor)

I've started a discussion that may be of interest at Talk:Tom Baker (English actor) § Page Move.--Trystan (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Lhasa (disambiguation)

A move discussion is in progress at Talk:Lhasa (disambiguation). Narky Blert (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Other

A move discussion is in progress at Talk:Other (disambiguation). Other members of this WikiProject may wish to contribute. Narky Blert (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Links to a disambiguation page from a disambiguation page

In the WP:INTDAB section, one of the the examples is:

An intentional link to another disambiguation page that does not contain "(disambiguation)", placed in the "See also" section of a disambiguation page

It seems to make sense that this would apply whether or not it is in the "See also" section. Can we remove that from the example?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It's covered in WP:DOUBLEDAB but the example in Links to disambiguation pages is a little confusing.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The ultimate point is to always point intentional links to disambiguation pages through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect. In a "See also" section, this is generally also unpiped, so the reader can see that the target is another disambiguation page without having to follow the link. bd2412 T 20:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It's the same whether it's in a "See also" section or not. I'd like to remove the mention of the "See also" section from the example.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

William Brown and William J. Brown

I do some small-scale disambiguation work, but am not sure of the proper procedure here. William Brown (disambiguation) exists, and has a number of "see also"s for related disambiguation pages: Willie Brown, Bill Brown, William Browne, etc. William J. Brown (disambiguation) seems to have been created in August, with three men listed. Two of them showed up in the larger William Brown (disambiguation), but one (William J. Brown (architect)) did not, so I added a link.

It seems kind of weird to me to split out one middle initial and not others, and maybe not your standard procedure? For example, the Willie Browns do not show up in William Brown, I believe. I figured I'd ask here, but if there's a better place, feel free to point me to it. Cleancutkid (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If the subjects are known primarily as "William J. Brown", as opposed to "William Brown", then it makes sense to list them on a separate page. The question is whether the middle initials appear for convenience, or because they were used by the subjects or those referring to them. bd2412 T 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that seems reasonable (though I have no familiarity with these specific individuals, so I wouldn't know which way it should go). If that is the case, would "William J. Brown" go into the "see also" section? Should that happen for now? Cleancutkid (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know that it does any actual harm to have them in both places. bd2412 T 03:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Great Experiment

Advice appreciated at Talk:Great Experiment#Great Experiment please. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Actor vs. actress

Is there a style guideline as to whether the (actress) parenthetical should be used for female performers? I noticed the page Danielle Spencer (actor) was changed from Danielle Spencer (actress) but I cannot find a definitive statement on whether this change should hold. 93 15:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The selection or specification of parenthetical qualifiers is handled by the topic projects. In this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, perhaps. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Grand Prix (disambiguation)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Grand Prix (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Title and content issue regarding the Sex characteristics article

Hi, everyone. We really need your help on sorting out the following issue: Talk:Sex characteristics#RfC: Should the article be merged? If so, should it be the destination point for the merge?. A permalink for it is here. This issue concerns one Wikipedia article being titled "Sexual characteristics" and the other being titled "Sex characteristics." Because of this, a merge has been proposed to address confusion. At the moment, the thing that somewhat distinguishes the latter article is the inclusion of intersex/legal material. Some editors have opposed merging the article, stating that we should not be mixing the legal terminology about sex characteristics (which is mainly about intersex people) with the purely biological material about sex characteristics, and that two separate articles are therefore reasonable. Titles for renaming the latter article have been proposed. Other editors have stated that the latter article already mixes the two aspects, that one article can adequately cover both since the legal material also concerns biology, and that there are already existing intersex articles for the intersex/legal material; these can be used to address all of the intersex/legal material currently in the article, with nothing but a summary of the issues in the Sex characteristics article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Kate Lee (disambiguation) and Katherine Lee (disambiguation)

Two WP:RM discussions — Talk:Kate Lee (English singer)#Requested move 4 September 2017 and Talk:Katherine Lee#Requested move 4 September 2017 raise some issues which may be of interest to editors who contribute to resolving disambiguation concerns. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

All resolved, in a terribly complicated way. bd2412 T 22:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguating with diacritics that don't disambiguate anything?

Oisín is very often referred to as Oisin, and vice versa. This feels wrong to me, but it's prominent enough that I feel like someone must have thought about it and based the status quo on some guideline or policy, so I figured I'd ask here rather than open an RM and create a big unnecessary mess. I can't find anything on this page justifying it, just that natural disambiguation is better than parenthetical disambiguation

(It's not really the same problem since it does disambiguate, but it still feels completely arbitrary and looks ugly so I might as well also link this.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The guideline that this is presumably based on is WP:SMALLDIFFS. However, I don't think it is relevant: both the mythological character and the given name are known as either Oisín or Oisin and I don't see any strong affinity between either spelling and one of the meanings. The mythological figure looks like the primary topic of either spelling. I think and RM would be a good idea as it's likely to attract the opinions of the watchers of the two articles. – Uanfala 12:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: There's also WP:DIACRITICS which contains a reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. In my opinion there needs to be a new disambiguation page Oisin (disambiguation), to disambiguate Oisin the name, Oisín the poet and Oisin (film). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, especially since Oisín (with or without the diacritic) is a not-uncommon given name in Ireland, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

TWODABS template name

Now that we're at it, could we rename the template {{only two dabs}} to {{primary with two dabs}}? The template is being incorrectly applied to disambiguation pages with no primary topic, like this and this. There are not many DABs using it, anyway; so it wouldn't have a large impact. Diego (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

To be more literally accurate it should be something like {{primary topic with one other topic}}. older ≠ wiser 13:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but with that length, you start being "literary" in adition to "literally..." :-P
Template redirects should handle the problem though, so it shouldn't matter. If nobody objects and I don't forget about it, I'll make the move in the following days. Diego (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It's an improvement, but I might naively expect to see a template with that name on Roaming rather than Roaming (disambiguation). Certes (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
How about some variation of {{disambiguation of primary and another topic}}? If we don't find a better wording, I'll use {{primary topic with one other topic}} (after all, the article doesn't need an specific template, but the TWODABS page does). Diego (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree too that "one other topic" is a good name for the template as it is currently worded. But I have applied the template to 2-dabs pages with no primary topic thinking (although admittedly failing to do anything about it) that the wording of the template doesn't fit, rather than the name of the template is wrong. Doesn't there need to be a way of drawing attention to, and therefore categorising, dab pages with no primary topic and only 2 entries, in order to either encourage more entries, or move the page because there actually is a primary topic? (The section above is related) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing prevents us from having another template for two-dabs with no primary topic. This particular template was created because the disambiguation is redundant when there's a primary topic and one other topic. Though moving one of the two articles should not be encouraged if there is no primary topic, so the wording of this new one should be crafted very carefully in terms of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#No primary topic. Diego (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, and I think we should take an "if it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it" approach here. We've had the same disambiguation procedures and templates for years and they've worked well enough.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Choosing a primary topic from a choice of only two

The editing guideline cites an example, John Quested, where there are 2 articles to be disambiguated, but there is no clear primary topic, and gives a solution of a two-entry dab page at the base name. My problem with this is that everyone's a loser. Let's say 50% of readers want the RAF officer, and 50% want the producer (but didn't know when they used the Search box whether their query was an RAF officer or a producer). With the dab page, 100% of users require an extra click to get to what they want. If one of the articles was, even arbitrarily, chosen as primary topic, and had a hatnote to the only other topic, then only 50% of searchers require the extra click (good for users), and Wikipedia has one less WP:COSTLY dab page to maintain (good for editors). "There are three important aspects to disambiguation ... Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." So where there is uncertainty (or indecision) about which article of two to allocate as a primary topic, an arbitrary choice is better than no choice, isn't it? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, WP:PTOPIC exists mainly for reader convenience, but it's also partly about topical structure. If one article, rather than another, occupies the primary title, then this is a very strong implicit indication of that topic's primacy and significance. We don't want to be making this implication unless there are good reasons to, that's why an article that receives even twice as many views as its contender (and primary topics are never judged solely based on article traffic) is unlikely to be accepted as a primary topic. But even if we restrict ourselves to reader convenience, then it's worth pointing out that dab pages, unlike most articles, are small and load fast. If you're on a slow internet connection, or if you pay for your data, you don't want to wait (and pay) for a 100kB-long page to load only to realise it's not the one you want. – Uanfala 08:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Uanfala. We should not arbitrarily call a 50/50 split in favor of one topic or the other. I would be agreeable to a rule designating a topic with over two-thirds the traffic in a WP:TWODABS situation as the primary topic. bd2412 T 13:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I also agree. If there is no indication that one is primary, we should not artificially tip the scale in favor of one or the other. older ≠ wiser 13:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. A dab says "we're not sure what you meant"; an article with a hatnote says "we're fairly sure this is what you meant", which we shouldn't be saying if we're not fairly sure. —swpbT go beyond 13:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
If there are only 2 choices then an article with a hatnote says "We're not sure what you meant but in the meantime here's a thing you might mean, and here's a link to the other thing". That's more helpful than "we're not sure what you meant". I think we should tip the scale to get users where they want to be quickly and easily: the user can easily tip it back again. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. WP:TWODABS has been employed for years and without controversy or problems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
quickly and easily -- dab pages are generally smaller and faster to load than articles -- and they avoid any "surprise" factor for those who arrive at the wrong article. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
That may or may not be true, but as long as we have WP:TWODABS such an analysis doesn't really matter. You can make a case, with some evidence, to eliminate the TWODABS rule if you want, but I seriously doubt consensus would favor having innumerable tiny DAB pages replace all our {{For}} cases where TWODABS has been applied.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for any change to WP:TWODABS. I think it already is quite clear that a dab page is preferred where there is no primary topic. older ≠ wiser 09:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I occasionally navigate to articles by typing their full name and become surprised by finding a different topic under the base name, with no particular primacy over the one I was looking for. I have no qualms in such cases to move the article and create a two-entries disambiguation page at the base name, as required by this policy. I won't do this when the article has some reasonable claim to being the primary topic, though. Diego (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This policy does not require you to change from a primary topic to no primary topic when you find a two-topic ambiguity with a primary topic in place. You might boldly do so, but this policy does not require it, since one editor's surprise does not necessarily indicate that most editors would be surprised. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Diego Moya: I hope that when you create a new dab page like this you are careful to change all the incoming links which led to the previously-primary-topic article and which will now be pointing to the new disambiguation page. Failing to do so leaves some readers worse off than before if they follow a link which ought to go to an article but now leads to a dab page instead, and not all editors remember/bother to do this necessary followup to a page move like the ones you describe. PamD 19:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I check incoming links before making the move; if there are many, that's evidence that the topic may be primary, so I won't feel confident to change it. I also search for the ambiguous title; several times I've found four or five other articles which were not linked from any hat note, and the dab page was necessary. 19:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Diego Moya: Thanks - not everyone is as conscientious! PamD 20:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Small dab pages are very userfriendly. Hatnotes are not. They are like draft manuscript postit notes chapters prior to collation. They imply disorganised titling. Longer more descriptive titles would be the win-win. To experience the annoyance of hatnotes, try using a screen reader with your monitor turned off. Hatnotes should be the exception, and should be minimised. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The John_Quested example is an exemplar of dab pages and useful titles over ambiguous titles and hatnotes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting, because it's not a point-of-view I had previously considered, and, where there is a primary topic, it's exactly opposite to current guidance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: WP:TWODABS says to use a dab whenever there's no primary topic, and I think we both strongly support that part of the guideline. When there is a primary topic, it's probably better for the reader if the bare title leads there and we add a hatnote. However, as you point out, it can cause technical difficulties. That's not a two-dab issue: it's equally true if there are more than two topics. (I went into the recent New York debate feeling that the city was the primary topic but soon changed my stance to "if in doubt, disambiguate", partly because of the number of misdirected links.) I wonder if we can do something to identify commonly mislinked topics. For example, I found 16 pages in (subcategories of) Category:Organic chemistry linking to Tetrahedron: three were citing the polyhedron as a reliable source, but there were 13 false positives with actual four-pointed molecules. Certes (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if we can do something to identify commonly mislinked topics - Having a disambiguation page whenever in doubt definitely helps. I created First post, and now I get a warning every time someone creates a wrong link that may go to either The First Post (British) or Firstpost (Indian). The editor creating the ambiguous link to a DAB page will too get a notice from the bot. Diego (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:INTDAB

I propose changing "Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors" to "Direct links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are always errors". Because they are, as the rest of WP:INTDAB makes clear, and as WP:DPL regulars know all too well, Narky Blert (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(I have notified WP:DPL of this proposal, see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#WP:INTDAB) Narky Blert (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC))
Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace can be intentional, such as the "see also" link to Mercury (disambiguation) at Mercur (disambiguation), but are usually actual errors that need to be fixed, such as an article linking to "Mercury" that really intends the planet, not the disambiguation page at all. Where they are intentional, they need to be piped. I don't want to give the impression that the second kind of link can be "fixed" by piping it through Mercury (disambiguation) rather than pointing it to the article on the planet. bd2412 T 02:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Just noting that if the disambiguation page has (disambiguation) in its title then any direct link to it will be intentional, and hence presumably never an error. – Uanfala 08:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
"Presumably never an error" is an overstatement, since there certainly are some editors who will put "(disambiguation)" in a link without understanding why they are doing it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Russ is right. I think that it's one of the two ways inexperienced editors try to do something about a DPL bot nastygram. (The other is to pipe the link, perhaps with a capital, e.g. [[Fizzbuzz|fizzbuzz]].) Narky Blert (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not true at all. Hatnotes? Dab page "see also" sections? If you said that links to dab pages from within the body of articles are always errors, you might be right. —swpbT go beyond 22:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I deliberately put "direct" at the beginning of my suggestion. This sentence is the introduction to the section; the instructions about how to link to a DAB page when it's correct to do so (DAB pages, hatnotes, See also, everything in this group, ...) are a bit further down. The problem as I see it is, there is nothing unambiguous in WP:INTDAB to tell editors not to make direct links, or to be quoted at them if they do so and don't understand why it's wrong ("Ah, but my case is atypical"). Narky Blert (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I see your point - in fact, both statements are true, so why not include both, in some way? "Direct links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are always errors. Furthermore, there are very few circumstances under which indirect links should be made from to disambiguation pages to mainspace". bd2412 T 19:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@BD2412: I like your suggested wording. It's better than mine. It captures my point exactly, and puts it right at the top of the section. Narky Blert (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
That's no more accurate. The word "direct" here doesn't correspond to the typical meaning of the word at all, yet no other definition is offered. Hatnote and see also links are just as "direct", as anyone I know understands the word, as links in article body text. If anything, "indirect" would suggest piping, which isn't the issue at all here. The only way to avoid hopeless confusion is to say exactly what you mean: Links to dab pages from the body of articles are always errors. That is a correct and unambiguous statement, and it's no more verbose. To be clear, I strongly oppose demarcating links to dabs by anything as vague as their "directness". If you're going to say that something is always an error, you need to be very precise about what that thing is. —swpbT go beyond 20:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Swpb: It is not true that a link from the body of an article to a DAB page is always an error. See Edirne#History. Narky Blert (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
However, a link without a "(disambiguation)" parenthetical is always an error. bd2412 T 20:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm confused about what me mean by "direct" here, but regardless of that, links to disambiguation pages from article text are not always errors. You might want to link a term whose ambiguity is discussed (see for example the link to Pahari (disambiguation) at the end of the first paragraph of Hindko). Or, if discussing the cultural legacy of some classic, you might want to link to the list of subsequent works that have used the same title, and that will be found on the dab page. But these are examples I'm sure you have all seen, am I misunderstanding the point of the discussion? – Uanfala 20:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so what I think is going on here is that by "direct", Narky means "not redirected". Then it starts to make sense - redirected links to dabs, via the (disambiguation) bit, can be acceptable in various places in main space. Links to dabs themselves never are. If we can say " non-redirected" instead of direct, I think we'll be in agreement. —swpbT go beyond 20:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Another worthwhile suggestion IMO. Slightly cumbersome perhaps - but intelligible, and more precise, and precision is important. Narky Blert (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of preciseness, wouldn't non-redirected exclude intentional links if the dab page has "(disambiguation)" in its title? – Uanfala 20:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll throw in another suggestion - still more cumbersome, and my wording may not be best - "not redirected except as specified below". That's to catch FIZZBUZ redirecting to the DAB page Fizzbuz. Narky Blert (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala: I have seen and fixed more bad links to (disambiguation) pages than I have pairs of trousers which I dare to wear in public, or indeed cars which I have owned. If I deliberately create a link to a DAB page, I mark it <!--intentional link to DAB page-->. Narky Blert (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not about whether links are redirected. The only valid way to intentionally link to a disambiguation page from anywhere in a main space page is to use the form with "(disambiguation)" regardless of whether that is a redirect or a direct link. Any other link is likely to be erroneous (or if determined to be intentional should be updated to use the "(disambiguation)" form. And unfortunately, some inexperienced editors may try to resolve an ambiguous link by changing it to the "(disambiguation)" form rather than making it as {{dn}}. older ≠ wiser 03:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that all the editors who have contributed to this discussion agree on WP:POLICY. The only issue is the wording of this guideline.
One editor has suggested that my proposal of "direct" is unclear. That's good enough for me. If one editor finds it unclear, it is unclear.
Updated proposal:
"Links to disambiguation pages (whether directly or through redirects) are errors, with one uncommon exception. It is sometimes necessary to create a link to the whole of a disambiguation page. Such links must be either (a) a direct link to an article with the qualifier (disambiguation), or (b) a redirect through a page with the qualifier (disambiguation) to the disambiguation page itself. (NB this technique must not be used to hide a disambiguation problem. The correct approach to an unsolved disambiguation problem is to add a {{disambiguation needed}} tag just after the ambiguous link.)"
Improvements welcome. Narky Blert (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This language is very good, except possibly for the word "uncommon", which I don't think is necessary, or necessarily accurate. —swpbT go beyond 12:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I support the updated proposal, as long as it's clear which namespaces it applies to. (Certainly articles; usually template space with rare exceptions such as {{Disambiguation/doc}}; not talk etc.) Do we need the whole of, or can we allow links to Vague term (disambiguation)#Section as in the hatnote on Loved (song)? Certes (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Notifying all other contributors to this discussion, because we may be near a WP:CONSENSUS (though I am fully prepared to be shot down in flames if my further-updated proposal, below, is flawed) - @BD2412, Uanfala, R'n'B, Swpb, Bkonrad, and Certes:
My apologies for seeming to have launched this discussion and then abandoned it. A computer problem kept me offline for six days, and since then I've been busy idle. In the meantime, some editors have made useful additional points. An updated proposal, with strike-outs for deletions and underlines for additions:
"Links to disambiguation pages from articles (whether directly or through redirects) are errors, with one uncommon exception. It is sometimes necessary to create a link to the whole or a part of a disambiguation page. Such links must be either (a) a direct link to an article with which has the qualifier (disambiguation), or (b) a redirect through a page with the qualifier (disambiguation) to the disambiguation page itself. (NB this technique must not be used to hide a disambiguation problem. The correct approach to an unsolved disambiguation problem is to add a {{disambiguation needed}} tag just immediately after the ambiguous link.)"
Comments. (1) "Uncommon" added nothing, it isn't needed. (2) Links to sections of a DAB page (or indeed to an undivided DAB page, e.g. one with a surname list) can be valid and useful. (3) I have sidestepped the problems of links from category and template pages. They are wrong, but are less common; and the problem of links from e.g. file and talk pages is a lesser problem still. My aim is to hammer home the major problem right at the top of the guideline without overcomplicating it.
For the avoidance of doubt: my proposed change relates only to the very first sentence in WP:INTDAB, "Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors." Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I also oppose this, for the reasons Narky Blert gives, and because this is a solution in search of a problem. We don't need some "must" rule inserted here, when the proposer clearly isn't even aware of all the legit rationales for linking to DAB pages. INTDAB's current wording is adequate and accurate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Support – IMO, this is 100% there. As User:SMcCandlish doesn't like the "must", you could change it to "should", but I really can't think of a legitimate reason to link to a dab in a way that goes against this latest proposed language. (Nor is this "in search of a problem"; ill-advised links to dabs are created every day. Clearer guidance can only help.) —swpbT go beyond 13:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
To add some context - ill-advised links to dabs are created at the rate of 400-500 every day. And that is just to pages, not to total links – which are always several times that number.
"I really can't think of a legitimate reason to link to a dab in a way that goes against this latest proposed language." Nor can I. Narky Blert (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm also wondering what is the problem that this new and detailed wording is attempting to solve. If it's the situations that Narky Blert referred to previously – where users receive a DPL bot message and then rush to fix the link by appending "(disambiguation)" to it without understanding what's going on – then I'm not sure if this will help. The problem is not that the guidelines don't spell this out explicitly enough, but that these people don't read the guidelines. – Uanfala 13:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I can support this version. Good work. bd2412 T 13:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with those questioning the purpose or need for this revision. I think the current language is just fine and avoids the rather heavy-handed imperatives. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@older ≠ wiser: I take it, then, that you have not engaged in a Talk Page discussion where another editor quotes this guideline against you? I have. That editor was inexperienced, but very stubborn. The issue was only resolved when another WP:DPL editor ingeniously proposed removing the DAB-page link altogether, and then did so (a neat solution, closing down an edit war in which I did not want to waste my time). Narky Blert (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Whatever discussions I may have had on my talk page hasn't caused me to think this proposals helps (or at least that the current proposal doesn't actually do anything to help with editors who either do not read guidelines or who willfully misconstrue guidelines to suit their purposes). older ≠ wiser 10:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to dabs

Further opinions are welcome about their validity at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Redirects_to_dab_pages. (apologies for this adding this specific dab question Enclosure (disambiguation) to the more general discussion above where redirects are mentioned.) Widefox; talk 00:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that the language is good, and would be helped by a few examples. bd2412 T 00:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comma disambiguation

Recently at this RM discussion there was much disagreement over whether to use comma or parenthetical disambiguation in the title of two statue-related articles, which were recently moved to parenthetical style. Indeed, there are many articles in Category:Statues by subject use WP:COMMADIS rather than WP:PARENDIS to disambiguate the location of a statue, and there is nothing in WP:COMMADIS which prohibits its use to geographical locations only. Any thoughts? I personally don't see anything wrong with using comma disambiguation with such articles.--Nevé–selbert 16:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Personally, I see commas as part of the title, not a separate disambiguation. Articles like University of California, Berkeley are so named because the comma is part of the title, for example. Additionally, it's common to use comma disambiguation for localities because that's how they are commonly disambiguated. We see Austin, Texas, not Austin (Texas). Unless the comma is part of a statues name, parenthetical disambiguation should be used to signify that it's simply part of Wikipedia's disambiguation, and not a descriptor. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
And the two shortcuts linked are from the disambiguation section of WP:Article titles, so the discussion may get better thoughts there. From a pure disambiguation perspective, either work, because they solve the technical problem of not having two articles at the same title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree with Tavix; The name of Austin, in Texas, is "Austin", and is has no comma in it. These are natural language disambiguations, that don't have anything to do with Wikipedia in particular. There isn't any effective difference between Austin, Texas and Statue of Margaret Thatcher, London Guildhall, or Civic Center, San Francisco. They're all layers of location separated by commas. WP:NATURAL and WP:DAB both have us prefer natural constructions over parenthetic disambiguation, when a natural one is available. WP:NATURALDIS is presently worded to require that the exact construction be found in reliable sources, but this arguably an error; that provision is about Wikipedia disambiguation, so it has nothing to do with what other publishers are doing, it simply needs to match natural language patterns in English.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The form "Austin, Texas" is used in reliable sources. No one has provided any evidence that "Statue of Margaret Thatcher, London Guildhall" is used in reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 09:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Last sentence of my post that you're replying to already addressed that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
That's an opinion. But a large part of the acceptability of comma disambiguation for place names is that it is used by reliable sources. Where the names are not used in reliable sources it makes much more sense to clearly flag the arbitrariness of the Wikipedia convention rather than make a pretense of "naturalness" when it in fact has no currency. older ≠ wiser 12:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I read WP:ATDIS as a preference list of 1. natural, 2. comma, 3. parentheses; but with commas only applicable to place names, nobles' titles and similar cases. Is the statue a "similar case" for this purpose? I'd say not. Unless there's a natural disambiguation, such as a title "Iron Lady with Handbag" on the plinth, I'd go for parentheses. The railway stations discussed here are less clearcut. They're almost places, and rail companies do sell tickets to Foo (Barshire). Beware of using Barmouth as an example, as it's complicated by WP:DERRY. Certes (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Iron Lady with Handbag on the plinth would not be a natural disambiguation, but the title of the statue. Anyway, in what way is the statue not a "similar case"? I said above that "There isn't any effective difference between Austin, Texas and Statue of Margaret Thatcher, London Guildhall, or Civic Center, San Francisco. They're all layers of location separated by commas." I haven't seen anyone providing a convincing argument otherwise (just one against "Statue of Margaret Thatcher, London Guildhall" qualifying as a form of natural disambiguation). I do agree with your 1-2-3 assessment of ATDIS; but it indicates that Statue of Margaret Thatcher, London Guildhall is still preferable to Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall), unless there's a strong argument that this two-layer location name is somehow remarkably different in nature (not a "similar case") to Austin, Texas and Civic Center, San Francisco and so on. The only difference appears to be the size/scale of the first item in the layer of location names. We do have a lot of things like Englewood Station (Chicago), but railway and other such articles have been in a lot of naming flux over the last two years, and this is basically just a WP:OTHERSTUFF matter. I.e., I would think we should be treating these things all consistently, instead of veering between "Foo, Bar" and "Foo (Bar)" style for no clear reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning for new dabs

DPLbot politely warns editors who link to dabs. However, there's another way to create bad links: by moving an article and replacing (the redirect from) its old title by a dab. Most contributors to this talk page will have cleaned up after quite a few of those moves. Should we be notifying those editors in some standard way that they've done half a job? Of course, their contribution is positive (half a job is better than none) but sometimes they're the best people to finish it off. That's especially true in a specialised field where the distinction between meanings is subtle. (I gave up on White Russia (malplaced) and Modern synthesis, and asked for expert help.) Any thoughts? Certes (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Although the trigger may need some thought. It would be extremely annoying to issue a warning to an editor who is in the process of clearing out the links. The trigger would need to be something like there are X links (an arbitrary minimum number like say 30) from article space remain Y minutes (some arbitrary time like say an hour or so). older ≠ wiser 10:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ideally it should be made technically impossible for a non-admin to move a page with substantial incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that space, so that discussion and consensus would be required prior to such a move taking place. WP:RM#CM expressly states this. If an undiscussed move has such a result, I generally revert it and recommend that an RM be opened. Where there is a discussion, there is usually much better coordination with fixing incoming links. bd2412 T 11:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe admins and pagemovers. It's not uncommon for a move of a page with many incoming links to actually be a non-controversial technical move, e.g. to fix the wrong MOS:DASH glyph being used (I just fixed one of those a few hours ago, though fortunately nothing redirected to it, and it had very few incoming links, nor did the correction have anything to do with disambiguation pages).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
A radio button would be nice. "Are you moving this page to create a disambiguation page at this title?" If the answer is yes, don't allow the move. That way it can be done by the admin closing the move discussion. bd2412 T 12:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The standard message displayed after a page move already alerts the mover of the need to fix dablinks, so they should presumably be aware of that already. However, it probably won't hurt to have some system of sending them an additional notification. Agreeing that any messages should be carefully worded, and absolutely disagreeing that such moves should be banned altogether. – Uanfala 12:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ship index naming convention

There's discussion about standardizing naming of ship index pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Ship Index pages - another try and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Proposal that may be of interest. older ≠ wiser 20:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Heater

Resolved

I'd appreciate a third opinion on Heater please. I can't really discuss it with the other editor as they have a dynamic IP. I don't want to start an edit war, but does the team think I should keep reverting this change, or should we create a redirect such as Heater (building) → HVAC#Heating and divert the existing links there? (Hey, I found yet another way to create bad links...) Certes (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Certes: Where is the locus of the discussion? Heater just redirects to an article section, and Talk:Heater doesn't have much going on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, this one's been cleared up now. Another editor reverted the problematic change and it's not been repeated since. Certes (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Escort Ship

Your opinion would be welcome at redirect Talk page Talk:Escort ship#Convert to disambig page. Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The expression the AD era in number disambig pages

I'm appalled by the use of the expression "the AD era" in number disambig pages: (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) e.g., "the eighth year of the AD era". (The expression also shows up at Year Zero and Phantom time hypothesis.) When looking for an adjective to modify the word "era", there is already a perfectly good adjective in common use and it is common, as in, "the common era."

AD stands for the prepositional phrase Anno domini (in the year of the Lord), so the expression "the fifth year of the AD era" is literally equivalent to "the fifth year of the in the year of the Lord era", which is an abomination. Mathglot (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Looking

I have started a draft on the concept of "looking" which I expect will end up being the primary topic for about a half dozen current disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC on river disambiguation conventions

See new RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC about river disambiguation conventions. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to create a divergent naming convention for animal breeds

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: WT:WikiProject Dogs#Domestic animal breed page names, an informal RfC of sorts, in response to a WP:RM discussion the (entirely routine) outcome of which someone objects to. The proposal would reverse over two years of RM discussions to apply natural disambiguation to animal breed article titles, and instead impose not just parenthetic, but multi-word parenthetic, plus allow it to be variable by wikiproject. Perhaps this is a good idea, perhaps not.

I think broader input is needed specifically because a) it's an attempt overturn long-standing and many-times-confirmed consensus (which is possible but unlikely without a strong site-wide showing of agreement), yet b) the discussion has not been "advertised" anywhere but wikiprojects about animal breeds (i.e., the only editors who've ever favored parenthetic disambiguation in such cases, because it matches breeder jargon better, have effectively been directly canvassed, though I doubt that was the intent).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Partial disambiguation again

Proposal to have a primary parenthetical disambiguation (album) (other artist album) tabled by editor see Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions_(music)#Proposal for (debut album) etc. dab In ictu oculi (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

An interesting debate. Is it being argued that the album by Madonna is a primary topic for the incomplete disambiguation Madonna (album) because the other albums of that name are obscure? If so then they may have a point. Can anyone see a guideline as to whether primary topic rules apply to incomplete disambiguation? Neither WP:PTOPIC nor WP:INCDAB is crystal clear.
Other contributors seem to accept that the title should be Madonna (X album), where X is some synonym for the singer Madonna, but prefer a different word because repetition sounds silly. That argument should be easier to refute. Certes (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The WP:PDAB essay, an argument against the use of primary topic partial disambiguations as titles, was proposed to be a guideline, but that proposal was rejected by the community - so there is no policy/guideline/consensus/convention basis to oppose accepting primary topic incomplete disambiguations as article titles. I've seen no argument against using primary topic partial disambiguations as article titles that does not also imply a rejection of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC altogether, a position clearly not supported by the community. --В²C ☎ 21:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Certes: WP:PDAB is followed anyway since WP:INCDAB is already in the guideline, and therefore applied in Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions_(music) just as in (cricketer), (mollusc) or any other category. The current music guidelines are well established with several dozen self-titled albums each and every year requiring artist disambiguation: Avalon (Roxy Music album), to Avalon (Avalon album) or H2O (H2O album) vs H2O (Hall & Oates album) All Saints (All Saints album) vs All Saints (David Bowie album) (and those examples are from just 1996). ☎ has a history of wanting to increase ambiguity in titles, so much so that edit history shows ☎ agitating against corpus title reality more frequently than making content contributions. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A particularly interesting RM

Please comment at Talk:Prince Michael of Yugoslavia (born 1958)#Discussion. Andrewa (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Other

There is a discussion underway at Talk:Other (philosophy)#Requested move 30 December 2017 which may be of interest to editors who follow this page. Narky Blert (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:INCDAB at Vikings (TV series)

Please see discussion at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017. --woodensuperman 09:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it but must agree with the outcome. Partial dabs can have primary topics, by the way. And when they do, they should either title, or redirect to, the article about that primary topic. --В²C ☎ 21:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the outcome, but for completely different reasons. "Partial dabs can have primary topics" is nonsensical. A qualifying term in a title might suffice for an article, even with the same qualifier plus additional qualifiers have other articles. That IMO is up to the project(s) covering the topic, not up to the disambiguation project. That they (the topic project) have decided on or against a particular scheme of qualifier hierarchy is fine, and up to them. Disambiguation is accomplished as soon as a qualifier is added, regardless of what it is. "Partial dab" is the state of having a qualifier that doesn't fit the project(s) naming scheme, and so simply redirects to the disambiguation page. A qualified title that doesn't lead to a disambiguation page just isn't a partial disambiguation -- it's just an article title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Esplanade

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Esplanade#WP:PTOPIC? which may be of interest to other editors who follow this page. Narky Blert (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_46&oldid=1256627584"