Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Field day

Field day deserves to be a dab page given the number of hatnotes and the content of the current page. See also the discussion on the talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"Field day" may deserve a dab page, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also deserve a primary topic (an article at the base name and a disambiguation page at Field day (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see that any of the possibilities (including the article currently at the primary topic name) could be considered the primary topic. I would bet that most people hear "field day" and think of the idiom first. bd2412 T 04:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. For that reason Field day should be the primary dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
At that point, you're requesting a move of the article currently at the base name to be moved. See WP:RM for that process, since the earlier attempt was reverted (and so not uncontroversial). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Feedback request on the MOS

There's been a complaint that my stating the style guidelines is just me against consensus. If any other project members would like to help explain the old consensus (or help define the new one if it has changed), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Broad Street Historic District. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Chickadee

While watching recent changes I saw this edit. My initial inclination was to undo the edit as improper for a dab page. Then I noticed that the page had a bird-stub tag. I couldn't very well revert an addition of content when the addition was invited by the stub tag. Shoould the tag be removed? Does the tag refer to additional disambiguations? This set of circumstances may not ever happen again but I would like some feedback on how best to address the issue. If there even IS an issue. Thanks Tiderolls 00:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, if its properly referenced, that info would be suitable for the actual bird page at Tit (bird). The stub tag is also misplaced for a dab page. --Tesscass (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I will message the editor that has added the content as I feel their edits are in good faith. We'll see where it goes from there. In the short term I will remove the stub tag (and leave a message on the dab talk page). If anyone wishes to weigh in, please...the more, the merrier. Thanks Tiderolls 00:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I commented it out (and tweaked the other parts of the page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the work JHunterJ. I'm a newbie re: dab pages and I appreciate the help. Tiderolls 00:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD of interest

Possible category discussion of interest to members of the Project is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hitomi

Could someone have a look at and maybe improve Hitomi (disambiguation)? I've made a few changes from the previous version, but it's still in pretty poor shape - partially due to my relatively low level of expertise with dabs. Thanks. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I split it into the dab page and a new Hitomi (given name) page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

New world order

My head's spinning - an editor had created a new dab at New world order (disambiguation), parallel to the existing dab at New World Order; there's an article at New world order which until a moment ago didn't have a link to the dab page. I've over-written the new dab page with a redirect to the old one, but I'm not sure how we treat matters like this where the capitalisation is critical. Anyone else like to have a look? PamD (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question on treatment is. Your current arrangement looks good. There's a discussion on caps-differences going on now at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision)#RfC: Should we allow article titles that differ only by capitalisation? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

New world order, New World Order, New world order (disambiguation)

There are still problems identifying and locating articles regarding this set! --Ludvikus (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

End of copied section (let discussion continue):

As it stands at present New world order is the primary usage of that phrase, and has a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page for other uses (and which currently picks out one major use, conspiracy theory, as worthy of its own specific mention, which is non-standard but could be reasonable if it's a near-primary usage of the version with caps) (and which I've just updated to make it correctly link to the dab page via a redirect). There is no single primary use of New World Order, and that leads to the dab page. That seems OK. What problem do you think is still outstanding, Ludvikus? PamD (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion at Talk:New World Order#This is a DAB page -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
FUI: I made the formal Move proposal here (can you check it out & fix things, if necessary?): Talk:New world order --Ludvikus (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Class 1000

Could someone turn this into a proper dab? Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with it now? BTW, {{disambig-cleanup}} can be used to request proper dabbing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be descriptions/alphabetizing/sections for different topics? I just came here because I'm always confused when it comes to dabs. There should be a dab-creation guide or a dab MOS. Thanks for the {{dab-cleanup}} tip, I'll use that from now on. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There is one: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) --Tesscass (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
But in general, descriptions are required only when then link itself isn't enough to direct the reader to the sought page, and ordering it by likelihood of being the article sought. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

World domination

Some people created a hodge-podge for World domination page. Someone from experts in disambig pages, please assist in cleaning up; see its talk page, Talk:World domination#OR tag & Talk:World domination#Prove it - Altenmann >t 20:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Azalea

There are many Azalea articles, but no dab page and my to-do list is full. Anyone else interested in taking that on? Matchups 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One has been started here. --Tesscass (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Orange Bowl

Until Sept 2, 2009, Orange Bowl was the dab page and Orange Bowl (game) covered the game, and Miami Orange Bowl covered the stadium. On Sept. 2 the Orange Bowl (game) was moved (with a duplicate history) to Orange Bowl, the Orange Bowl (game) history is now attached to Orange Bowl (disambiguation), which is the dab page (without its prior history). I am not sure whether I discribed this correctly, but for example the current Orange Bowl talk page redirects to Talk:Orange Bowl (disambiguation). Did someone mishandle the execution of this? Would it make more sense to the Orange Bowl as the dab page because people may accidentally link to it, not understanding the two different senses of the term? In other words, would it be best if we just undid the Sept 2 change? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The most common use for "Orange Bowl" is in fact the ACC conference game, which was named after the Miami Orange Bowl. The tennis game is not the most notable entry. Right now, there are just a bunch of talk pages that still need moving about to fix up after the article moves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

R to disambiguation page

When I first read WP:INTDABLINK (always use a title with "(disambiguation)" when intentionally linking to a dab; create a redirect for this purpose when necessary) I assumed that it specifically applied to links from non-dab articles. Does this apply to links from the "See also" section of dab pages as well? -- ToET 01:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why wouldn't it? Such links are certainly intentional links, and the objective is to make such intentional links explicit. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. It applies to every intentional link to a disambiguation page, for the same reason: so that looking at "What links here" for disambiguation pages can immediately identify those which link there intentionally vs. those that need to be examined and corrected. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm puzzled that an editor has recently been removing the {{R to disambiguation}} template from redirects to dab pages where the dab page is a the main title (ie without "(disambiguation)"), and this seems to be supported by the text at Template:R_to_disambiguation_page, but I'd have thought it relevant to label the redirect at AND which directs to the dab page at And and also the redirect from Pedalpusher to Pedal pusher (disambiguation). In both cases, the redirect is a valid intentional link to a dab page, which ought to be able to be separated out from unintentional links to the dab page which need to be fixed. PamD (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the naming is not in sync with the usage. As I understand it, it would be better titled "{{R from (disambiguation) title}}" or "{{R for intentional disambiguation links}}". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed: Renaming the template would go a long way to clearing up any confusion.--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
With Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages reporting 27,103 members, is it too entrenched for a name change? -- ToET 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing two different issues. Redirects do not need to be identified as intentional links to dab pages; they already show up on the What Links here page labeled (redirect page). Templates on redirect pages are meant to tell you why a particular redirect exists. {{R to disambiguation}} is specifically for identifying a particular kind of redirect--Ambiguous term (disambiguation), redirecting to the dab page Ambiguous term--that exists so that it can be used for intentional links to Ambiguous term. The redirect AND, on the other hand, exists for a different reason and should be tagged with {{R from other capitalisation}}. And Pedalpusher with {{R from alternative spelling}}.--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Within the context of WP:INTDABLINK, I find it helps to speak of redirects targeting, not linking to, other pages. -- ToET 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(← Making room)
I am the editor PamD mentions above, who recently removed a bunch of these tags. (See User talk:Thinking of England#R to disambiguation page.) Given the template's imprecise name, I was pleasantly surprised to find only 4% misuse. Many of the 4% did not even target dab pages anymore (and some never did), but most do, and I am having trouble deciding on replacement tags for a lot of them. The same tags that work for redirects to regular articles don't seem appropriate for redirects to dab pages that disambiguate several distinct terms. For instance, do {{R from other capitalisation}}, {{R from title with diacritics}}, and {{R from plural}} (with their accompanying categorization as unprintable) really apply to UPA, Melián, and Kids, given that they are all separate words that are emboldened and disambiguated (sometimes in a separate section) on their target pages? -- ToET 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A big discussion on style

Those interested in this project but who aren't watching the style guidelines may still want to check out WT:MOSDAB#Straw poll on recently-discussed revisions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That they all may be one

That they all may be one isn't really disambiguating anything, it's just pointing out that a number of institutions have used the same Biblical phrase as a motto. What to do with it? bd2412 T 00:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like usage, rather than encyclopaedic. Suggest that the data be transwiki'd to Wikt: billinghurst (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I see some encyclopedic matter there, more than a mere definition, and even more than what BD2412 describes, but agree it's not a dab page. How about removing the dab tag and adding a cleanup one, unless you're inspired to actually do some of the cleanup yourself. And billinghurst can do an AFD if s/he would like. Matchups 01:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Years of Lead

This is a proto-article waiting to be born. bd2412 T 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Tortoises and turtles , turtles and tortoises

to all newbie here, if this troubles you (the added link and or this explaination of it remember this is "Just my humble opion JSo9-10(no fax can be found here)" seriously though this does create a cirular reference that I feel was missing / If you can help reduce the clutter in this section and see the point I am making here and can state it more clearly let me know at JSo9-10 (talk) I will be happy to cut the size and confusion by "edit")

In the spirit of: Turtles and tortoises in popular culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popular_culture I created a new page where people can keep adding pop culture content, so that this page can focus on the biology. We have done the same at Frog, creating Frogs in popular culture. Hope everyone agrees that this is a good idea. Best, Samsara contrib. talk 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(disambiguation) Technology Turtle (robot) , a class of educational robots used most prominently in the 1970s and 1980s See also Tortoise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_(disambiguation) User talk:JSo9-10 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Neural network (from user talk page) Comparison of brains and computers However problematic, brain-computer comparisons are fun and help readers get a sense for the many interesting aspects of computation. I added a sentence to point out that Turing only applies to static functions (aka off line) while new theories of neural computation have developed non-Turing computing models (see Maass and Markram ref). Another point I'd like to add to the same paragraph: computers now have lots of embedded auxillary processors further blurring the what we mean by "computer" JohnJBarton 05:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


Newbie here but i think John said it perfectly... "However problematic, brain-computer comparisons are fun and help readers get a sense .... what we mean by "computer" JohnJBarton 05:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)" Also i have read edits and comments about +/ ( read "and or") requesting simpler, less technical/medical/scientific explanations, And received one in person from my son last night while not suggesting a child’s version of Wikipedia something akin to a "Bill Nye the Science Guy's" { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye_the_Science_Guy }/ everyman’s link on each disambiguation (Neural network)page would be helpful / welcome. JSo9-10 (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) d More Examples Below that add clearity (i hope) i am going to attempt to add a link to Turtles and tortoises in popular culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popular_culture I created a new page where people can keep adding pop culture content, so that this page can focus on the biology. We have done the same at Frog, creating Frogs in popular culture. Hope everyone agrees that this is a good idea. Best, Samsara contrib. talk 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Turtle (robot) Walter Grey Walter's Machina Speculatrix a.k.a Turtle on the Beam Robotics Wiki Grey Walter: The Pioneer of Real Artificial Life, Holland, Owen E. *Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Artificial Life, Christoper Langton Editor, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1997, ISBN# 0-262-62111-8, p34-44. Elmer the Tortoise In 1949 Grey Wlter built his first ‘model animal’ – Elmer the tortoise - using only two electronic brain cells


By Owen Holland


it all began several years ago ......... the famous neurologist Dr. Grey Walter built his robot tortoises.”

I can’t remember..., but his words somehow stuck in my mind. I knew ... how the brain worked. He did not think humans

were intelligent

{This line "He did not think..."is what hooked me. i believe that Dr. Grey Walter's work should be Linked on all the Following pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_(disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_(disambiguation) because of the simplicity and elegant design of the Tortoises. These circuits are simple and easy to construct, study and understand. While he and many others may not see a link here i humbly submit "I see a very early and IMPORTANT LINK."JSo9-10}

humans were intelligent just because they had ten billion brain cells, but rather because their brain cells were connected up in many different ways. So he built his first ‘model animal’ – Elmer the tortoise - using only two electronic brain cells, Elmer the Tortoise @ http://www.nzzfolio.ch/www/d80bd71b-b264-4db4-afd0-277884b93470/showarticle/a868cc7c-e399-48eb-8faf-1996a558e288.aspx

Just my humble opion (no fax can be found here) JSo9-10 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes for article sections that are primary topics

Sometimes a primary topic for a term will be a redirect to a section of another article. If such a topic has a disambiguation page, where should the disambiguation hatnote go? At the top of the article, or at the top of the linked section? While it is tempting to say "at the top of the section", which would be more intuitive for regular browsers, I wonder if this would cause accessibility issues, and whether the hatnote should go at the top of the article? I can't find any specific guidance on this, however my impression is that current guidelines imply that it should go at the top of the article. Example topics are Roger Rabbit (dabhat at top of page) and Jessica Rabbit (dabhat at top of section). Note in this particular case, the dabhats could be combined if they were located at the top of the page. --MegaSloth (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd suggest that either A) if a redirect is a primary topic (i.e., there is a page with the same title as the redirect with "(disambiguation)" appended), then a section redirect should not be used -- the redirect should drop the user at the top of the article and the article should be constructed such that the section heading is easy enough to find; or B) the disambiguation note (no longer strictly a hatnote), should go in the section -- because if readers are redirected to the section and wanted a different topic, they are left asea and unless they are familiar with Wikipedia conventions, they'd have to flounder about in the article to find the hatnote in order to get on to the topic they were looking for. A third possibility is to carefully consider whether there is in fact a primary topic if the target is a section of a larger article. Perhaps readers would be best served by a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rights of way in the United Kingdom

Just two articles, basically addressing the law of right of way in different parts of the UK. One is stubby, maybe some kind of merge is in order? bd2412 T 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

BEM

Please excuse me if this is superfluous, but no guidance on whether to list here is given one way or the other at WP:SPLIT. I've marked BEM for splitting and discuss why at its talk page.

I've also fixed {{split dab}} to get rid of the superfluous comma, and added test cases and tidied up the documentation a bit. I hope this is all OK.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering it is nearly Remembrance Day in the United Kingdom, I can imagine other editors may think I got to this DAB by searching for the British Empire Medal, but actually I got here after editing at József Bem. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Interpenetration

This dab page needs some work. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

well then take WP:BOLD and work on it. Si Trew (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Simon, but the reason I posted this request for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation is for a project member to take a look at the page and either format it to current DAB style guidelines or offer some input on what should be done with the page. Please feel free to ignore this request if you are not a member of the project. Thanks, again. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Houghton

Why is there no discription on the mayority of the names - after I added all this details to Lurie i feel that it is useless. Seems to be at a very low priority at EN:WP. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done - but someone should check it over, since there's a lot of small detail there, so I may have missed something or let a typo through. --NSH001 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Palladio

An editor insists that Palladio must be a disambiguation page, even though it disambiguates only two articles. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, but perhaps some other editors could look at the page with a fresh set of eyes. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Palladio the architect is clearly the Primary Topic. But on looking at "what links here" I found two other uses, turned those links into redlinks, and then create a dab page at Palladio (disambiguation) to include those and the Karl Jenkins music. Hope that helps! PamD (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
And just found another appropriate entry for that dab page. PamD (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Questionable redirects to disambiguation pages

Crosslisting this from WP:DPL - I have finished paring down the initial run of redirects to disambiguation pages to a list of about 5,000 questionable redirects, about a third of which (so far) are divided into subpages based on the type of problem presented. This is going to take a while to get through, so please have at it! bd2412 T 05:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Canoe Lakes, Ontario

Comments would be appreciated at Talk:Canoe Lake (Nipissing District, Ontario) with regards to a proposed move of Canoe Lake (Nipissing District, Ontario) to Canoe Lake, Ontario (which is presently a disambiguation with only one bluelink, to Canoe Lake (Nipissing District, Ontario)). -M.Nelson (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done This item has been resolved through a discussion on the talk page Talk:Canoe Lake (Nipissing District, Ontario). --papageno (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Prudence

The Prudence page contains a section called "Feminine Name" which includes a list of people named prudence. Would it make sense to make a disambiguated page out of this section? Pollinosisss (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a proposal to split off an Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy article would be a better fit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Neko

I am having trouble with an anonymous user who keeps adding an external link/reference in the disambiguation page Neko, which is against WP:EL, WP:MOSDAB, and WP:DDD. Can someone give me a hand so that it's not just me reverting? Thanks. swaq 15:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of new template for disambiguation pages

A deletion discussion that may be of interest: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 12#Template:All pages. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused

There is a number of issues with Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. I'm reluctant to edit it, as there appears to be an ongoing NPOV dispute between two editors. Suggestions? PaulHammond2 (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've dived in... will see what happens next! PamD (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I have simplified it still further. Abtract (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Over-simplified I think - look at WP:MOSDAB, where all examples have a brief interpretation eg
Interval may refer to:
  • Interval (mathematics), a certain subset of an ordered set
  • Interval (music), the relationship between two notes
PamD (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all ... mosdab is clear that the description should be kept to a minimum ... therefore where there is only one film (eg) there is no need for a description. There are many examples of this throughout dab pages where films, books, places etc are listed without description when this is clear from the target article. In addition, on this page in particular, having no descriptions avoids arguments over what the descriptions should be ... which is where we came in. I won't fight you over it though. Abtract (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, MOSDAB seems to be inconsistent - agreed, it says "description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum", but every single example it gives has a description, and it mandates adding birth and death dates for people. I've always understood that we give a few helpful words, enough to identify the topic and also potentially to show the reader that we don't have the article they need: thus, giving the date of a film, the nationality of a footballer, etc which can make it obvious that this isn't the article they want. Other views? PamD (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This has come up before, with similar misunderstandings. The guidance to keep descriptions to a minimum, IMO, is not a goal unto itself and can be taken to an unhelpful extreme. The point of a disambiguation page is to help readers find a relevant page. In most cases, a brief description is helpful. For example, while there might be only one article about a film with a particular title -- that does not exclude the possibility that there might be other films with similar titles that either simply do not have articles or that have not made their way onto the disambiguation page. Including a brief description identifying the film beyond simply the title and that it is a film is, IMO, helpful. The guidance about keeping description to a minimum is intended to address the tendency of some inexperienced editors to include an entire paragraph of prose in a disambiguation entry. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The goal is not "make the descriptions as short as possible", the goal is "don't make the descriptions a replacement for clicking through to the article". Where the disambiguating phrase is also a "complete-enough" description, then no additional description is needed, e.g., "You're Welcome" (Angel episode). "film", by itself, is often not complete enough (unless the reader can be expected to know that there is only one film by the title). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
hmmm There is a lot of work to be done then 'correcting' all those descriptionless entries. Abtract (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
There's always a lot of work to be done on dab pages. And the work doesn't have to be done. I think the point is to avoid chopping another editor's non-redundant brief description just because it can be made even briefer, while still allowing chops of paragraphs and other non-brief descriptions. If one editor (A) doesn't see a need a for a longer description, then A doesn't have to add it, but if another editor (B) adds it, A also doesn't need to remove it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah I see ... it's a matter of principle. There was an edit conflit as Pam put her edit in place ... my edit was all ready to go, I thought it was better and more useful on this particular page (as I explained), I also thought it was closer to normal practice ... so I implemented it. I didn't bargain for matters of principle. Abtract (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to descriptions, I think it's useful to consider not just the guidelines--and I do try to keep my descrips brief--but users. Even when there are no other Wikipedia articles with which a particular article could be confused, I don't see the harm in giving users a bit of confirmation that the link they are considering is, in fact, the one they are looking for--or, for that matter, saving them the trouble of clicking it, if it's not the topic they want.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It's been changed yet again for some reason. PaulHammond2 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've just proposed changing the structure of these pages to move the film to primary topic status, based on usage stats. Would love input from any of you at the talk page. —Zach425 talk/contribs 08:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

PVCI

This got created a few days back, I cleaned it up, but nothing links there and all the options are redlinks. Any admin out there want to delete it? Josh Parris 02:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification: The category Category:Uncategorized redirects has been nominated for discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15#Category:Uncategorized_redirects for a Cfd discussion related to this WikiProject. Believe this, along with the notification below may be helpful to this project. -MornMore (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Template:This is a redirect has been Nominated for deletion

Please see: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15#Template:This_is_a_redirect for a Tfd discussion related to this WikiProject. (related to the above notification)

Not positive I have the terminology correct, but believe this is whats called a 'meta-template', a template used to create other templates. The template: Template:This is a redirect was created by User:Lenoxus, a member of the Wiki_Redirect project. The template allows easily creating a specific template used to put TYPE redirects into a specific redirect category - "redirect of TYPE", e.g. "schools" and "hospitals", or "from alternative spelling" and "from alternative name". Categorizing redirects may also serve to facilitate disambiguation. -MornMore (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone here interested in undertaking the following task?:

The motorsport-related content of Ligier has recently been split off into a separate article: Equipe Ligier. But (almost) all the motorsport-related links still point to Ligier. I would like a bot to change the 500-or-so links in article- and template-space which currently point to Ligier to point to Equipe Ligier instead (with appropriate piping - see below) and then I'll go through and manually change back the handful that actually should point to Ligier. Specifically, I would like the bot to change all instances in article- and template-space of:
  • [[Ligier]] to [[Equipe Ligier|Ligier]], and
  • [[Ligier| to [[Equipe Ligier|
Existing links to Equipe Ligier should remain unchanged.

I initially asked at Wikipedia:Bot requests, but nobody there was interested and they suggested I try over here. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a suitable task for WP:AWB. If you're not comfortable doing it yourself, then you might want to ask for help at the Tasks subpage. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If AWB is the best solution then I can do that myself. I just wasn't especially keen on the idea of updating 500 links manually - that's why I originally submitted the task as a bot request. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That's certainly understandable; but I suspect the bot guys would look for a greater base than 500 edits over which to "amortise" the time needed to code or modify a bot in the first place. Let me know if you'd like some help; I'll be happy to knock off a few if you like. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done Done. DH85868993 (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Avatar discussion

I would invite everyone on the disambiguation project to please join the discussion at Talk:Avatar#Requested moves. Due to selection bias, I think the issue needs more input than from the few people who have watched the page describing the root meaning of the word. I feel that in the 17 years since "Snow Crash" borrowed it, the ancient definition is no longer the definitive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed reorganisation of Stifford pages

I propose the following reorganisation. The current disambiguation page for Stifford would become an article and would incorporate the text from the current articles on North Stifford and South Stifford. The North and South Stifford pages would become redirects to the new article. I will hold for a while to allow time for comments. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

List of things described as pied

Your input is requested at a deletion discussion here. Neelix (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

List of things described as pied was deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Roch (disambiguation)

There seems to be a need for a disambiguation page for Roch and St. Roch (in fact I can't believe there wasn't one - maybe it got lost in the history somewhere). I've started such a page at Roch (disambiguation), but don't have time to complete it now, so if anyone feels like assisting... --Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a rapid response! Nice work, people :) --Kotniski (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD about a disambiguation page

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Norwich. doncram (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gothic

I notice Gothic was recently changed from a dab page to a wide ranging article. Obviously none of the disambiguation tools now work on 'Gothic'. William Avery (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Restored. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll have to get back to work then. William Avery (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on Skating and discovered that a large number of the links require expert knowledge from the article author to disambiguate. I've placed {{dn}} templates in the past, but it's always hard to tell by looking at a list which articles have been {{dn}} tagged and which are potentially fixable by someone without expert knowledge. I'm suggesting, without having thought this all the way through, that tagged links get changed to [[example (dn)|]]{{dn}}, which redirects to [[example]].

In advance, I'd like to say I don't like the form of {{dn|linkname}}, because links in templates make it really hard to find them, and templates are too "advanced" for casual editors to understand (and thus fix the broken dab link).

Now, on the downside, there'd be a bunch of pages pointing at [[example (dn)|]], and once they're all gone you've got this crazy redirect - but redirects are cheap. A problem I can see is that if one disambiguator can't figure out what [[example]] is meant to dab to, it doesn't mean another will. You could go crazy nuts, and dump it in a link to [[example (dn biology)|]] meaning that someone who knows a bit about biology would be able to dab this particular link, but where do you stop?

What say you? Josh Parris 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This scheme appears to have some advantages although I wouldn't say I'm a supporter as yet. This would need widespread community consensus and knowledge amongst editors to work as its impact would be right across Wikipedia. Another thing I have seen done is deliberately linking to term (disambiguation) and using {{dn}}. This distinguishes it from lazy linking to a DAB page. Sometimes when disambiguating if I can't see a suitable term I have deliberately created an appropriate red link rather than using {{dn}}, partly for the reasons you discuss. One thing I would say is, is there a need to actually create the term (dn) link? Leaving it as a red link would draw additional attention to it as something needing fixing, for example from WikiProject Red Link Recovery. --MegaSloth (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The upside of leaving it as a blue link is that there's hope for the reader to figure out which of the dab terms was intended; a red link gives them nothing. I've long wanted links to dab pages to be green, but I've looked into it recently and it would be computationally expensive to do so in the mediawiki software. The reading I take on someone linking to [[term (disambiguation)]] is that they're talking about the dab page itself; based on recent disambiguation, if the term is intended to be used to subsequent disambiguation I think one ought to link to [[term]] - because the editor can change the first ambiguous term to a second, more precise but still ambiguous term that another editor change change again - and if you link off to [[term (disambiguation)]] from a dab page you prevent that from happening if editors assume that links to [[term (disambiguation)]] are intentional. Josh Parris 02:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

DEA

Propossl to move of DEA to DEA (disambiguation) and changing DEA into redirect to Drug Enforcement Administration shifted to Talk:DEA#Requested move. older ≠ wiser 13:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hebron massacre and Hebron massacres

The first of these was a redirect, which I have replaced by a MOS:DAB-compliant dab page. I have nominated the second for deletion. These pages have a long history of POV-pushing and edit-warring (which I hope my changes will put a stop to), so some input from project members will be welcome. --NSH001 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember that I got involved in dab work because of an edit war over Bugs - one editor wanted it to redirect to Bugs Bunny, the other... something else equally plausible. I looked at the linking pages (none of them wanting either of the two options), changed it to a dab, WP:TROUTed the editors and the war just melted away. Good feeling. Josh Parris 14:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wittan

When looking for 'Wittan', I was redirectd to the unrelated term 'Witta'


Or maybe Witan which redirects to Witenagemot? I've added a "See also" to Witta which may help. PamD (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Weekend

Weekend is now a half-article, half-disambig. Two ways to go here - keep it as a disambig and move the article material to something like Weekend (time period), or keep the article material at Weekend and move the rest to Weekend (disambiguation). I support the latter. bd2412 T 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. bd2412 T 15:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Horse (disambiguation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I have moved the discussion below to the article's own talk page. Please add any further comments there. PL290 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This dab page currently starts: "The horse is hoofed animal." It has been changed several times to replace "animal" with "ungulate". I have reinstated animal each time, with an edit summary to the effect that it's clearest to use a simple and familiar term on a dab page, but it gets reverted without comment. Those with views either way may with to be aware, and possibly to contribute to a discussion if one starts on the article's talk page. PL290 (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that "hoofed ungulate" is simply redundant, like saying "four-footed quadruped" or "meat-eating carnivore". Definitely go ahead and try to engage this editor in discussion on the Talk page; perhaps something can be worked out.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I would opt for "The horse is a hoofed mammal." to match the Horse article's lede of "The horse (Equus ferus caballus)[2][3] is a hoofed (ungulate) mammal, ..." -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem dabs

Other interested editors welcome at Calbuco (disambiguation) and Dwarf (disambiguation). I have attempted to clean each of them and been reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to your version on Calbuco (dab), but this was instantly rv and the editor left a warning on my page. The editor also removed the clean-up tag. I've done my 2nd rv now, but based on the responses so far of this editor, I'm not confident that this will be over quickly. Boleyn2 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

JHJ, the reverter is relatively new. Might be worth a paragraph or two explaining what you are doing on the dab talk pages? (John User:Jwy talk) 23:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Never mind. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC

Someone else's turn now on Calbuco (disambiguation) - I'm losing patience with it. PamD (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See also the 3RR block -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation now has grown to 2880 articles, all listed there due to having {{dn}} tags on dablinks. --Una Smith (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington

Is the victor of Waterloo the primary topic for "Duke of Wellington"? Please discuss at Talk:Duke of Wellington#Requested move.--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This one still isn't settled - and although it doesn't strictly involve a dab page, there's a lot of disambugating to be done whichever way the decision goes (particularly if it is not decided that it's a primary topic, since many editors have made links to Duke of Wellington expecting it to link to the well-known Duke). Comments still welcome. --Kotniski (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion now closed, result no consensus. --Una Smith (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Which means - all those links to Duke of Wellington which are intended to point to that person (the first Duke) ought to be repaired. These aren't technically links to a dab page as such, but it's the same situation - anyone who's used to doing this sort of thing fancy having a go? --Kotniski (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Positive thinking

When writing a DAB page for "Positive action", should I list all the more notable topics involving something I can confirm is a positive action of some sort or, should I list only the topic I think will be the most commonly searched term and any group or incident entitled Positive Action? ~ R.T.G 10:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation page disambiguate ambiguous Wikipedia articles, so they should list only ambiguous Wikipedia articles. You could make a List of positive actions and list things that you can confirm are positive actions of some sort, but only entries that a reader would be looking for as titled "Positive action" should be on Positive action (disambiguation). (And note that the primary topic Positive action → Positive Action should be set off from the rest of the list.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well that is very toungue twistery but I wont pretend not to understand it. Why would the person searching for "Positive action" not expect to find -the -definitive -resource -of -information -on *actions -which -are *positive? Where should I begin such a resource because every time I start to or suggest it someone says "Affirmative Action", that's the topic and when I ask about describing *actions* which are *positive* and the lengthy use of the phrase everybody becomes obstinate and clams up. I am becoming glad to see that Affirmative Action gets such mixed appreciation. Those who value it seem to show, I am sorry, a lack of intelligence and understanding. Playing stupid does not make things right unless you want someone to rob you. Dirty smelly entraptment. No wonder all reports say it's not working. Where did I read about a feeling of having your brain put into dirty water? This water stinks to high heaven. I would cry out for some positive action but nobody would even understand what I was talking about. ~ R.T.G 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Look, I am sure that action for equality in America is great but on Wikipedia it is all dur wur wuh and wah. I just can't respect that. ~ R.T.G 13:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I won't pretend to understand that. To repeat the answer to your original question,
  • No, you should not list all the more notable topics involving something you can confirm is a positive action of some sort on Positive action (disambiguation)
  • Yes, you should list only the topics that could be titled Positive Action -- that ambiguity needs to be clarified, and Positive action (disambiguation) is the place to do it.
If you want a list of notable topics involving something you can confirm is a positive action of some sort, create that list at List of positive actions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
So, that which is a positive action is not included in that which might be ambiguous to "positive action", only the singular unambiguous positive actions. Don't pretend to understand that either. ~ R.T.G 17:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
If I may, here's a comparison that might perhaps offer clarification (or might not): the Robot (disambiguation) page lists various things that are titled "robot," or referred to as "robot". It doesn't list famous robots such as HAL 9000 or C-3PO, because those topics are not referred to as just "robot"; for the same reason, you wouldn't locate the article about C-3PO at the title Robot, because he's not known as "Robot", he's known as "C-3PO". But C-3PO could be mentioned within the Robot article as an example of a robot, and he's listed on the page List of Robots, which is also linked in the "See Also" section of Robot (disambiguation).
By the same token, if a topic is referred to as "positive action," and could reasonably be located at the title Positive action if the other meanings of that term didn't exist, then it should be listed at Positive action (disambiguation). But if the topic is just an example of a positive action, or a type of positive action, then it should not be listed on the disambiguation page; it should be mentioned in the relevant article, and/or listed on a page such as List of positive actions. The assumption is that when the user looks up the title "positive action," the user is expecting to find a general article on some meaning of "positive action," not a list of various specific positive actions. As another example, if you look up shoe, you're not expecting to be taken to the article on high heels. Propaniac (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course it does not. Positive action in the acknowledged sense, actions with a positive goal, has no article. It redirected to Affirmative Action for a long time. I kicked up fuss about it and it was redirected to Positive Action, the phrase some human rights activist in Africa used to describe his actions, peaceful protests, in securing some freedom for his people in the 60s or 70s. That is great but he used the already existing phrase rather than coined it new. We should not want to mislead anyone if we do not have to. That is why I created the disambiguation page, to provide the other meanings of the the phrase but that has been tripped at every step. I prefer to believe that the wiki wants to provide the definitive in every case. Unfortunately that is the ideal but not always the case. Of course making disambiguation pages is about reading the Wikipedia Manual of Style rather than writing it and providing disambiguation as best we can but that's okay. All hail CMOS! The monkey who we made made us!! ~ R.T.G 08:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Channels 70 - 83

All of these - Channel 70, Channel 71, Channel 72, Channel 73, Channel 74, Channel 75, Channel 76, Channel 77, Channel 78, Channel 79, Channel 70, Channel 80, Channel 81, Channel 82, and Channel 83 - are highly problematic, with multiple linked terms per line, copious external links and footnotes, and some other indicia of being articles rather than disambig pages. bd2412 T 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

They are not disambiguation pages. They are chronicles of the broadcasters who used those channels, where they broadcast and where they ended up. ~ R.T.G 08:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Should we just remove the disambig tags, or should we move the pages to "List of" titles or the like, and format the disambig pages as disambig pages? bd2412 T 01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Japanese american band Zilch

I can understand the need to block talk pages on a disambiguation reason, but this band is officially titled Zilch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxReikoxX (talk • contribs) 05:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking. How can we help? I have redone Zilch as per WP:MOSDAB. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln

Just to let the appropriate WikiProject know there is currently a requested move discussion at Talk:Lincoln#Requested move to move Lincoln to Lincoln (disambiguation), comments from all are welcome. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New Page Patrol - Disambiguation bot

I'm forming a proposal for a bot. The intention of this bot is to immediately bring to the page author's attention that the article is linking somewhere other than they thought it would be linking.

The bot would inspect all new main-space articles except for redirects and dab-pages. Redirects are valid to point at dab pages, as are other dab pages. Any new page that has any links to disambiguation pages will have {{dn}} added after each link.

Is this a bad idea? Why? Josh Parris 06:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds useful to me. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But remember to allow links to disambiguation pages that are titled "Whatever (disambiguation)", whether or not they are redirects. If feasible, you could also {{dn}} links to redirects that target disambiguation pages if the redirect isn't titled "Whatever (disambiguation)". Cheers! --- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Consolidate discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#New Page Patrol - Disambiguation bot Josh Parris 00:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

One outcome of discussions about this proposed WildBot is a makeover of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing links. Now, however, it appears we really need two pages: one for how to fix dablinks in general, and another for how to fix dablinks that have been tagged {{dn}} (ie, dablinks that are hard to fix). --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

After an extensive discussion, the proposal now reads:

The bot will place a message on the talk page of any new namespace 0, 6, 10 or 14 article with ambiguous links.

(the namespaces are: 0 (mainspace), 6 (file), 10 (template) and 14 (category)).

Current proposed message template:

If you have any opinion to voice, the discussion is nearing completion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot Josh Parris 08:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this proposal is going to fail. If you have any opinion to voice, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot Josh Parris 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy on tagging disamb pages for projects

A disambiguation page is generally only tagged with WPDisamb, right? Are there some guidelines or policy regarding whether or not it should be tagged for multiple projects anywhere? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Disambiguation doesn't specify that no other projects can tag disambiguation pages. It is generally up to each project to determine how much they care about a page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of Bot Request for Approval regarding WP:NAMB enforcement

Hi, I'm requesting approval for bot-assisted editing to help enforce WP:NAMB by removing article name disambiguation templates on articles with names that are not ambiguous. The relevant request is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot 3. Any comments, etc. would be appreciated at the request page. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln, dealing with primary topics that are redirects.

Currently (and in my opinion correctly), Abe Lincoln is a redirect to Abraham Lincoln. There is however a musician commonly known by the same name, at Abe Lincoln (musician). My interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that in such cases, a hatnote should be placed at the redirect's target to point users at the alternate use. It is also my opinion that in this case the hatnote referring readers to Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) is insufficient because:

  1. It is inappropriate to assume that the reader will know that "Abe" is a common contraction of "Abraham"
  2. The musician's full name is "Abram", not "Abraham", a distinct and distinctly pronounced name.

Clearly at least one editor disagrees and has removed the hatnote. Am I out of line here or am I making a reasonable interpretation of consensus? --MegaSloth (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just the one hatnote (to Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation)) suffices in this case. I think any reader looking for the musician is going to click that link anyway - after all, it doesn't say "For other uses of Abraham Lincoln, see...", it just says "For other uses, see...". Too many hatnotes are a bad thing in my opinion - we don't want to distract every reader of this highly important article with a specific note about an article that virtually no-one (relatively speaking) will be interested in.--Kotniski (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, two editors disagree with MegaSloth: User:Unitanode, who deleted the hatnote, and myself, who had originally posted a remark about it for discussion at Talk:Abraham Lincoln. For the record, I think the tiny handful of people searching from the main searchbox for Abe Lincoln the musician will still be able to find him either through Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) or by employing other search methods, and that the additional effort this places on such users is more than outweighed by the benefit to the 13,000 readers per day of Abraham Lincoln in not having a special hatnote for the musician appear as the very first sentence on the page. And, after all, anyone looking for Abe Lincoln (musician) who knows his name was Abram will not be greatly inconvenienced to type in Abram Lincoln, and anyone who doesn't know that it's Abram will, if they type in "Abe Lincoln" and get the president, just assume that the musician must be a minor Abraham Lincoln who is listed on the disambiguation page—and then the disambiguation page will then both set them straight and point them to the article they want.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Equally respectfully, if we are counting "!votes" (which is not in my opinion a good idea), two editors agree the hatnote is required, myself and Rodhullandemu. The fact that the edit was left unchallenged on an article edited several times and presumably heavily watched and read for longer than one month suggests other editors noted and tacitly accepted the change. Further, WP:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate states "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the 'Go button', there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." This implies a wider consensus in favour of disambiguation. I would also value everyone's comments on my suggested compromise, reproduced below:

[G]iven there are arguably 3 articles competing for the title "Abe Lincoln" and in order to satisfy others' concerns and reduce the impact of hatnotes to this article, how about making Abram Lincoln a DAB page and adding a link to that (via Abram Lincoln (disambiguation)) by rewording the current hatnote? This avoids giving undue prominence to specific individuals and minimises hatnotes while appropriately disambiguating the term.

Alternatively if preferred, an Abe Lincoln (disambiguation) page could be created and linked from a single dabhat, although its contents would be rather thin.
--MegaSloth (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see the need to multiply dab pages or complicate the hatnotes - readers will already get quite easily to where they want to go, as we've described above. "Disambiguation is required", certainly, but there are different ways of doing the disambiguation, and I think the current setup is more efficient than what you're proposing.--Kotniski (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we are discussion the hatnotes on that page, I posted my reasons for restoring the hatnote to Talk:Abraham Lincoln. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_19&oldid=1140132799"