Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

help with cleanup

Hi, I'd like to know more about cleaning up DABs, and the MOS doesn't make sense to me. What should be done about Camera (disambiguation) in terms of what is see also, and what deserves a link? i.e. is camcorder a good link? How about digital camera?

I'm asking because I do minor cleanup on DAB pages sometimes and I'd like to be better at it. 018 (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would move some of the camera types (and delete others, like MRI) to "See also" with short or no descriptions, or even to a list article List of camera types or something and link that from the See also section. Camcorder and digital camera could go there too. All the stuff currently in "Other" would just become the main list. Camera, the primary topic, would be bumped up out of the list. Other stuff:
  • The blue link in the wasp entry should be to Gelinae instead of Wasp, and as a red link should go to the end of the main list
  • Camera (biology) should be merged into the dab as a {{tl|R from incomplete disambiguation
  • Camera obscura, Apostolic Camera, and Musica da camera would all go to See also or be removed as partial title matches
  • Camera (film) needs to be pipelinked to put the title in italics
  • Fix pipelink Camera (daily newspaper in Boulder, Colorado) for use Camera (newspaper) instead, with a description.
  • Chicago, IL should become Chicago, Illinois (or just Chicago).
Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, how does it look now? 018 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Very good. I did make additional changes, though. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for all the help. What is the rule for inclusion in the main list (that is not see also)? 018 (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Those entries should be ambiguous with the dab title (by itself). If the dab page is X, subtypes of X are not ambiguous, and partial title matches are not ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
So, homographs are in and titles that contain but are longer than the word are out (i.e. in camera for the camera article). But I would think you could include something that is usually or almost always shortened to the same word though and what about homophones? 018 (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
If the article indicates that usage, then it's ambiguous, yes. I generally expect homophones to be in the See also list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Tower

Please check my addition to The Tower. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I made it an intentional dab link. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Two 'Argument' DABs

I have recently rewritten Argument (disambiguation) to (I hope) comply with MOS:DAB. I then partially copied content from that page to Argument (mathematics), which is also a DAB. Might it be better instead to redirect the latter page to the former? See discussion at Talk:Argument (mathematics). Cnilep (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've redirected Argument (mathematics) to Argument (disambiguation)#Mathematics and added {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. I've also changed the internal link on Domain of a function to Parameter. Thank you for your advice. Cnilep (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD on Masonic Lodge (disambiguation)

Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Lodge (disambiguation) would be welcomed. This is a dab page of all or mostly NRHP-listed places that conforms with wp:MOSDAB's MOS:DABRL guideline/policy, but one experienced dab editor is arguing that the disambiguation page is invalid. Help addressing would be appreciated. --doncram (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Happily the AFD was withdrawn and closed. Other eyes regarding 3 related, questionable edits by the experienced dab editor, discussed at User talk:Station1#what's up now, would be appreciated, though. It's the same issue as for #questionable edits section above. --doncram (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation page reverted? Vandalized? I'm confused.

I recently joined this wikiproject and need some help. I went to the list of pages that needed attention and began working on the Billing page. There is a town in India called Birring that is also spelled as Billing, Baring, Benning, Warring, Birringh and Bining. There was some scattered information on the Billing page that mentioned the town. I established the Billing page as the disambiguation page and provided a link to the information at Birring. Now, I go to the Billing disambiguation page that I created and it's a mess. Has it been vandalized? Did I do something wrong? I'm not sure what's going on. Help? ;) Cindamuse (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you did nothing wrong. Basically you did a good job restoring what was there previously[1] (except the See Also section and the {{Disambig}} tag go at the bottom of the page). It wasn't exactly vandalized; it looks like someone was trying to do a copy-and-paste of the Birring article to Billing in order to use the title. Possibly good intentions but it still should not be done that way. You were right to try to restore it as a dab page. Another editor has since reverted to your version, and I just fixed it up slightly now. You just happened to pick a tricky page. It could still use some fine tuning; the first 3 items are longer than usual and there should normally be only one blue link per entry. Station1 (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help (as well as JHunterJ) and comments. Much appreciated! Cindamuse (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles

FYI, Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Adel

I seem to be getting into an edit war with an editor who wants to add a lot of forename entries to various dab pages and has different ideas from me about categorisation of dab pages. Would be grateful for any third opinions on this one! PamD (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

May be best to go ahead and split the name list from the dab page (leaving either one at the base name -- no opinion there). Leaving them combined is supposed to be a timesaver, and potential edit wars kind of defeat that! :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
THe other editor wants to add 3 categories: Category:Place name disambiguation pages which I thought was only for placename-only dab pages, and Category:Arabic-language surnames and Category:Arabic masculine given names which are not appropriate for a dab page, I think. PamD (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to any of those cats there. {{disambig|geo}} is used for putting dab pages that have placenames but aren't placename-only into that cat, for example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion at Split

We could use a third opinion (or more) at Talk:Split#Fictional magazine. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Abuse (disambiguation)

If someone has some spare time, could you take a look at Abuse (disambiguation)? I removed two items that I don't think are ambiguous and another editor re-added them since they are "2 more meanings of the word 'abuse'" (see Talk:Abuse (disambiguation)). I think we've both considered the other's opinion but still disagree. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

So chimed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DAB challenge :)

Hey, rather than participating in tearing-down activities around here, :) , why not consider partipating in this month's DAB Challenge?  :) It's not too hard, even i could get onto the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links#DAB Challenge leaderboard this month, my first time trying. Full current listing here. I am kinda surprised not to see names of frequent contributors here, there. :) --doncram (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Revolving door (disambiguation)

Am I correct in thinking that Revolving door syndrome should be merged into Revolving door (disambiguation), and its content dispersed to the relevant articles?

At the disambig page, I was planning on linking the title to 1) Recidivism 2) Revolving door (politics) 3) I'm not sure, maybe Health (gaming)? google "revolving door afterlife"

Advice (or assistance) appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Existing article is a clear dict def. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Savages

In addition to forms of the word savage, and the disambiguation at The Savages, we have, at the moment:

  1. Savages, a 1973 play
  2. Savages (film), a 1972 film
  3. Savages (1974 film), a 1974 TV movie.
  4. Savages (company), linked from Airco DH.6, and clearly requiring some text

There are a number of other films in IMDB with the name "Savages";

  1. Complete Savages (2004 TV series) at IMDb
  2. Savages (2001, Spain) at IMDb
  3. An Island of Their Own (2001, Hungary) at IMDb
  4. (2012) at IMDb
  5. Savages (1975, TV movie) at IMDb

At the present time (at least according to Special:WhatLinksHere/Savages), all the links to Savages refer to the play. Any ideas how to proceed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to create Savages (disambiguation) and put the 4 items on the page with play as the primary topic. I would not add the imdb movies unless they have articles here. Once created, there might be some discussion about what is primary and whether there might be a merge with other pages, but I think it would be a good start. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Another view. Page views suggest that Savages is not the primary topic, see [2] vs [3]. I would move Savages to Savages (play). Then I would redirect Savages to Savage and add all the Savages pages there. This is more in line with WP:DPAGES, to combine singular and plural terms on one page. Tassedethe (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm an experienced admin, but I'm not up on disambiguation details; in fact, my creation of a subdisambiguation page of 55 (number) at 55 mph may have been incorrect, which is why I'm asking here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Done, although I left the plural and singular separate. The singular seems long enough to warrant the division, per WP:DPAGES. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I think we should include with WP:DPAGES criteria whether the singular and plural might be mis-entered by the user. In this case, I think most readers would probably enter the "correct" version and therefore two pages make sense. There are other pages where (to me) this would not be the case. . . --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Termas

The page Termas contains only one proper link, to Termas (buddhism), which actually redirects to Terma (Buddhism & Bon). The three other bullets define similarly spelled words in Spanish, Portuguese, and a slang usage in Brazil. Terma (Buddhism & Bon) should probably be moved to Termas, possibly with a hatnote disambiguating Thermae, the English (via Latin) cognate of Spanish & Portugese termas. Cnilep (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed a move. Discussion is at Talk:Terma (Buddhism & Bon). Cnilep (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New reports and tool

See posting on WT:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#New reports and tool. — Dispenser 18:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Masonic Temple Building

Can someone take a look at the latest diffs for Masonic Temple Building and Temple Theater? I keep getting reverted. The former has about 10 redlinks with bluelinks that make no mention of the topic and so are dead ends, plus other minor issues. The latter has one entry with the same problem, which also happens to be a partial title match, and a second entry with two bluelinks. Outside opinions/edits are welcome. Station1 (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on a sample of one, the entries are probably correctly present but incorrectly linked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Masonic_Temple_Building_(Denver,_Colorado) , for instance, indicates that List of RHPs in CO is not the right blue link to use in the description, but National Register of Historic Places listings in Downtown Denver, Colorado would be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Station1 needs to follow the procedure described in MOS:DABRL, to click on a red link and then click on "What links here", in order to reformat those supporting bluelinks if they bother him so much. Another good alternative is to wait a while for articles to be developed at the redlinks, when it will be appropriate to delink the supporting bluelink anyhow, rather than refining them. I have spent plenty of time doing such bluelink refinements to meet the demands of disambiguation-focused editors, already, by the way, and I provided really lovely supporting bluelinks in all the new dab pages i created in the recent drive to finish out NRHP disambiguation. But there do remain more that could be refined. Note it is stated "If the only pages that use the red link are disambiguation pages, unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description." However, it is wp:POINTY disruptive of the development of wikipedia for an editor to go around deleting valid article topics, when the "what links here" test shows a valid link from a NRHP list-article. Also, for some NRHP entries, the "what links here" test won't work perfectly due to punctuation differences between the redlink showing on the dab page vs. the one on the county NRHP list-article. Repeating an offer made to Station1 on his Talk page previously, I offer here, again, publicly, to Station1 that if he wishes to fix up all the easy-to-fix NRHP entries on a dab page and then notify me, i will fix up the harder-to-fix ones. Otherwise, I suggest stronger actions be taken against Station1 if this behavior continues. It is discussed in 2 discussion sections further above and extensively at Station1's Talk page already. --doncram (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You are unnecessarily creating work for other editors by not following the guidelines, Doncram. You should follow the guidelines in order to use appropriate blue links in the descriptions of entries you are adding to disambiguation pages. You quoted the part of MOS:DABRL about which red links are appropriate for dab pages, but in the same section it says The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term, and I think it is more WP:POINTY disruptive to go around reverting to invalid blue links to dab entries. I don't think sanctions are warranted for failing to take you up on "if you'll first clean up the easier messes I made, I will then fix other messes I made". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a glib, unfair first sentence. I have worked hard over about 2 years now to work with you and other disambiguation-focused editors to accomodate your opinions and to refine the guidelines/policies about dabs where they do not make sense. There is no satisfying all of "you". I am not primarily interested in dabs, but consider my being a member here a tax i that i pay, on behalf of other editors working on historic sites articles, to protect the proper disambiguation and development of historic sites articles. I have developed most of the system of dab pages covering NRHP-listed places and it is perfectly good, and was done with a lot of consultation and accomodation. I not long ago completed a big push to finish it out, and during that I took further care to dot the i's and cross the t's according to one current version of dab policies and guidelines. I am sorry that the system does not accomodate everyones' wishes; it simply cannot because their wishes are often contradictory. Now, the current main problem recently in the dab pages on my watchlist is one editor, Station1, coming by and simply deleting NRHP entries that he does not like. He knows better, he knows these are valid entries, just imperfectly formatted. If i don't happen to notice, then there are other edits coming in and it gets messy and more time-consuming to fix. Or simply there is good devleopment of disambiguation that was contributing properly to wikipedia, that is simply lost. It is that wp:POINTY disregard for building, which seems sometimes like it must be for sake of making an implicit do-it-now demand upon me, a volunteer editor (like you and that editor too), that seems unreasonable. JHunterJ, i have come to appreciate, gradually, your contributions by your participating here and providing a steady perspective. But, that is a cheap shot at me just now. I do think continued deletions of valid NRHP entries that are just not perfect in his and your view, willfully disregarding the basic validity of them, should cause some consequences for the editor. The same editor is disagreeing with other settled questions, too, in disregard of consensus. I am frustrated at how much of my Wikipedia life is consumed with this. I would like to be done with this, and need some compromise, some help, in bringing it to a close with this one editor who seems to be the one determined editor tearing down the structure that has been built. It stinks, and I do need help. --doncram (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
While I agree with you, Doncram, that Station1 is a bit over the line when he flat out deletes the entries for not complying with the guidelines (especially the one about having 2 bluelinks.. just remove the brackets; it's not that hard), the point still stands that you are the one that created the problem in the first place by creating/editing the dabs with faults. It seems to me that any time anyone does something that goes against what you have done in the past, you spend an hour writing a book on some talk page instead of just shutting up and fixing the problem. Maybe you wouldn't be "frustrated at how much of [your] Wikipedia life is consumed with this" if you actually addressed the issues instead of whining to everyone and their mom. Yes, Station1 is to blame for his blatant deletion of material, but you are also to blame for creating the material with enough faults to warrant deletion. This thread is thousands of bytes of information that could have been devoted to an article somewhere instead of this pointless conversation. There will be no consensus reached; everyone will simply lose interest and you will be the last to comment, so that will be enough justification for you to claim a consensus that you were right, and you'll go on about what you were doing – never fixing the problem. It would make life a lot easier for all of us if you – and everyone else for that matter – would just shut up and edit. No blaming, no bickering, no fighting, no drama... just work. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that reminds me, i am caught between a posse of critical NRHP-focused editors (who really really hate short stub articles) vs. the disambiguation-focussed ones (most of whom hate the red-links that not having stub articles causes, once disambiguation is set up). It is truly impossible to satisfy all. Thanks Dudeman for ur help. I got ur back, too, whenever u need it.  :( --doncram (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
My first sentence wasn't glib or unfair. Those dab guidelines aren't contradictory. The current main problem isn't that Station1 is deleting entries "he does not like". They aren't "valid entries, just imperfectly formatted", they're disambiguation page entries that serve absolutely no navigational purpose for the reader. It appears that in your "big push" to "finish" the NRHP ones, you took some shortcuts, probably based on a misunderstanding of the guidelines. That wouldn't be unusual, given your stated disinterest in disambiguation. Rather than demanding satisfaction from us or Station1, though, the better path forward would be to feign enough interest to incorporate the now-understood guidelines (the link in the description not only has to be blue, it also has to lead to an article that discusses the topic) -- in the meantime Station1 (and other editors who come across these navigational misdirections) can simply comment them out rather than deleting them, and then you (or other editors) can have an easier time figuring out which of the appropriate blue links could be used instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
That was glib too. The big push, as proposed in discussion section still open way above, was relatively recent and all done meeting all your demands that seem to meet current consensus i think (but there's still contention about order of entries and other aspects i think), while Station1 is occasionally finding older dab pages that comply with what was previous consensus as i understood it. I don't want to get wp:POINTY in response, but should i engage in a campaign to comment out everything i don't like in some other area, rather than fixing it? --doncram (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm certainly willing to comment out rather than delete entries if that will avoid conflict. I'd previously offered to do that but was rejected. Station1 (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but i absolutely do reject commenting out entries, as discussed with station1 previously. It misses the point. Commenting out effectively deletes the items from usefulness for readers and editors. Please note that while all the NRHP-related dab pages have been created, not all of the dab pages have been cleaned of incoming links. The dablink fixing on NRHP list-articles and other articles requires having the dab entries available. Also readers want to know that they are at the right dab page, they want to know whether or not there's an article on the wikipedia-notable item of their interest. And, where older dab pages include a link to "List of RHPs in STATE" that does take them towards the NRHP-list-article which shows their place in meaningful context, just one or two further clicks away. And, as articles are created, even if no one kept refining the supporting bluelinks, the situation would be entirely remedied. Station1, why not go along with my offer here and on your talk page, to which you did not ever respond IIRC? --doncram (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but a link to the state NRHP list is decidedly unhelpful. The state lists are mostly subdivided into separate lists by county. If the link on the disambiguation page has no indication of what county the redlinked entry is in, the state list is of very little use. I think you are confusing what is helpful to editors in the NRHP project with with what is helpful to general readers. older ≠ wiser 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you advocate sanctions for declining offers, Doncram, what sanctions do you propose for that absolute rejection? In this case, commenting out effectively has no impact on the item's usefulness for readers, since it had not utility to begin with -- it leads them to a list article that does not mention their sought information. Commenting it out may even improve usefulness, since it will avoid surprise and confusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a lie, to say there is no utility for a reader looking for an NRHP-listed place, to find it on a dab page, even if the entry's supporting information is not formatted as you currently wish. Note, the MOSDAB guideline previously specified that a redlink was A-Okay if the procedure of clicking on it plus What links here would get you to an article where the same redlink was used. It has been during this long-running contentious process with you, that the nice practice of adding a supporting bluelink became actually required under that guideline. As I have explained many times in this long series of discussions with JHunterJ, Bkonrad and others, and has been previously acknowledged by y'all, a reader looking for an NRHP-listed place, say if it is mentioned in a local newspaper, would like to find it at a dab page, verifying that (a) they have looked it up correctly (it is not spelled differently, they can stop searching) (b) no article for it exists (c) it appears, accurately, that Wikipedia would welcome an article being started and they could contribute a picture or the local newspaper mention or whatever, and (d) the state NRHP list bluelink points them towards county-specific list-articles, where they can find their way to a bit more about the place, including its coordinates and NRHP listing date and they can find other articles about comparable places. To insist at this point that information is of no utility verges on being, well, I'll stop. Also, please note the current state doesn't satisfy YOU, but it does satisfy many NRHP editors who hate the creation of new stub articles on each topic. And, the current state does help avoid much confusion and further work in AFDs and Requested Moves and contention as new articles are no longer created at ambiguous names.
I have, again, invested hundreds of hours in this, and it is a good system better than all previous states, despite the current flavor of complaints. And, again, it will all clear up even to your satisfaction as the articles are created, which continues at a good pace. I create articles when i am not battling to defend the supporting disambiguation structure against this stuff. --doncram (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
And you should still battle less, by finding the correct links instead of simply reverting the deletion of the incorrect ones. That you have explained your side many times does not increase its acceptance. And stopping after you accuse other editors of lying is too late. There was no lie -- the problem with the entry was not "formatting" as you say, but that it led the reader to a Wikipedia article that made no mention of the topic at all. That's the wrong link, not an "incorrectly formatted correct link". You should invest the next hundreds of hours in providing content for the Wikipedia readership (as the NHRP project would like) or in providing navigational assistance for the Wikipedia readership (as the Disambig project would like). Your hundreds of hours of prep work providing navigational assistance for future editors who might one day decide to add content on whichever of the red links are notable enough for coverage is just generating churn. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've been noticing almost every day in the Daily Disambig that a few more NRHP disambiguation pages are leaving the problem set of disambiguation pages having links to them. Today i notice four:

In general these have been finished indirectly, by the work of NRHP editor User:KudzuVine, who is marching through all the NRHP list-articles to find and add pictures, as well as make other cleanups. In some casess he is now using Dispenser's dablink fixing tool but i think he is mostly doing it manually. The dablink fixes are only possible because the dab pages exist and provide the correct links. Dispenser's dablink fixing tool would not recognize commented out items, and nor would I expect KudzuVine to find commented out items while doing his work manually. It is essential for such sensible development of wikipedia for the known, valid redlinks to be kept live in the disambiguation pages, whether or not they are perfectly formatted. Also, NRHP article creation continues. --doncram (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Three of the four contain nothing but 2 or 3 redlink entries each, and should not exist, imo, because the search engine is much more inclusive in finding phrases in articles. Washington Historic District has only one valid bluelink and should be redirected there unless and until some of the redlink entries are created, or at least their broken bluelinks are fixed. Station1 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Station1. Thanks for commenting; it is best to talk this stuff out here rather than disagreeing by edits in multiple articles. Yes, the Courthouse Historic District, Thomas Earl House, and William Lowry House ones do currently show only primary redlink items, but note there is a fully MOS:DABRL-compliant supporting bluelink provided for each one. The consensus talked out first in #feedback requested on NRHP dab pages discussion above, was that this is okay/good, for reasons discussed there. It was discussed specifically for application to the "Morey House" dab page which is just like these three. I thought that was well-discussed and is a clear consensus, but you may possibly disagree. Can you pls. consider that discussion above, and comment (perhaps up there, after JHunterJ and my comments on that point) whether that is in fact the consensus of editors?
Those 3 were created relatively recently in my push to create the remaining dab pages needed for NRHP disambiguation, and to head off time-consuming difficulties with articles being created at incorrect names. It seemed to be consensus of editors that proceeding with that was good development of Wikipedia, and i did fully comply with all standards in that. About the Washington Historic District, that is one of the older NRHP-related dabs that does not meet the changed, current disambiguation standard for redlinks. I did not check them all but agree that its supporting bluelinks are not generally compliant with MOS:DABRL. However, I don't agree that it should be redirected. It could either be improved by a disambiguation-interested editor like yourself, or we could just wait until the redlinked article topics are all created, or I or other NRHP editors could get around to fixing it up further. I am a volunteer editor like yourself, doing what i can, and this is hardly important relative to unsourced BLP articles and other problems in Wikipedia. Also it is not a growing issue, in fact it is a shrinking issue as articles are being created, and the dab is serving needs for readers and editors to find out what articles exist and what are consistent titles to use for them. So redirecting it or otherwise erasing it would be destructive of Wikipedia. If you searched you could find other dabs with NRHP entries that way. I would certainly oppose your redirecting or deleting any of them. But if you actually want to fix them up (in advance of their being fixed naturally), i offer again to work with you to do that at some steady pace. So far I believe you have not commented on my direct offers to you to split the work in revising those. Would you do some of the required editing in that one, to start, now? --doncram (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
"The dablink fixes are only possible because the dab pages exist and provide the correct links." Sorry, but that's not true. If the dab pages weren't there, the same list of red links could and should exist at project (sub)pages or user (sub)pages. Using them for something other than disambiguation does not necessarily mean that they are disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me or vice versa. For regular NRHP editor User:Sanfranman59 to be fixing article name conflicts in NRHP list-articles like National Register of Historic Places listings in Napa County, California, where he changed a link from "Thomas Earl House" to "Thomas Earl House (Napa, California)" in this edit, it is helpful/necessary to have the dab page for Thomas Earl House in existence. Otherwise he could not discover that "Thomas Earl House" was not a unique name. Without the dab page there would be two NRHP list-articles with redlinks both pointing to the same article name, and when the article would be created by a California editor, say, it would make the link from the Michigan page be pointing to an incorrect name. In that edit, Sanfranman59 was actually fixing a dablink, so that the link would point to a specific redlink rather than point to the dab page. The effect is that he fixed an article name conflict, by an edit that can be viewed as a dablink fix. That's what i was talking about. There is no wish by me or other NRHP editors to use the dab pages as list-articles to be developed. The dabs provide secondary structure to support the explicit NRHP list-articles that we work from. We are using the dab pages for disambiguation; they only work for that if they are at their proper name. Also they are serving readers too who might be looking for one of the two places named Thomas Earl House. By NRHP list-article i mean the county/city/state lists, not any dab page. Does that clarify? Otherwise i don't understand at all what you mean to suggest is not working properly. --doncram (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Alrght, retracted. The solution still seems to be to put the appropriate blue link into the disambiguation page when adding the entries to the dab page, not adding the entries and expecting other editors to find the links you should have used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fireflies (song)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Fireflies (song)#Other songs with the title "Fireflies" about the inclusion of a hatnote in the article Fireflies (song). You guys are the experts so I'm putting a request here. There are no other songs with articles, but there are other songs listed on Firefly (disambiguation). Should the hatnote be there? AnemoneProjectors 18:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proof

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Proof#Reorganisation relating to a proposal by another editor to (1) split the Proof dab pages into sub-pages, and (2) replace some of the dab links by an overview/summary article, Proof (truth). -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Should Shipping be a dab page?

The article shipping has tried, over the years, to be about different topics. I think the root of the problem is this: in different ENGVARs, the presumed primary topic is different. In some, the term is closely linked to movement of people/materials by ship, and in others it is linked to movement of materials by means such as ship transport, air transport, road transport, rail transport etc. The idea of turning the article into a dab page was proposed by another editor in 20079 and received no comment. The article has never been successful as a summary, and is currently pretty bad.

Any feelings on whether this article should be turned into a dab page? It currently has somewhere around 750 incoming links. Thanks. HausTalk 05:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Franciscan Tertiary aka Tertiaries

Franciscan Tertiary refers to Tertiaries and then the page is not quite helpful either. Someone who has some knowledge may want to give it a through brushing. billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Stevie

I ran across this apparent problem several weeks ago, probably when the page happened to show up in the list of Recent Changes, but I didn't know what to do about it. Rather than mess the page up further, I have now located this project talk page and hope that this is an appropriate place to address the subject.

Until 16:12, 26 May 2010, "Stevie" was a disambiguation page: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stevie&direction=prev&oldid=364320253

Then IP user 82.11.42.64 edited the "Stevie" page to have content, referring to "a British pop solo singer and songwriter". At that point, the Stevie page lost the disambig template, but the talk page for Stevie still has the DisambigProject template. Probably not really vandalism, but rather a good faith edit that was not executed properly. Since it was an IP user, we can't judge his or her level or experience, and probably his/her talk page will not be an effective place to discuss the matter.

The new Stevie page has been marked as an orphan.

I'm still a wikipedia novice, and I'm not sure what should be done, but in my opinion the original Stevie page should be restored -- that is, probably to the version as edited by Munci at 19:14, 3 May 2010. If the new Stevie page is worth keeping, it would need to be retitled as something like "Stevie (pop singer)", and I can see that if the page is to be retained it will need substantial editing (remove reference to Stevie template, for example), but I am not at all a subject matter expert who should undertake that little project.

NameIsRon (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the recent content to Stevie (singer) and noted on the talk that the history is at Stevie for GFDL attribution. I then reverted to the dab content. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I split and merged the histories. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Hello. Could someone from the project take a look at and compare Bias and Bias (disambiguation)? Is there a significant difference between the two pages? When I visited bias, I was expecting an encyclopedia article. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias is an article, although perhaps not a very good one. I'm not sure which project would want to be alerted to its need for improvement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OBF needs to be created

A disambiguation page should be created for OBF. Here's a first draft to get you started:

OBF can refer to:

{{disambig}}

Thanks. 72.244.203.111 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. A few of these may not need to be included as they seem to have no corresponding artcile. Disamibiuation pages are primarily intended to disambiguate between existing articles, although in my opinion they can also have other purposes as well. And thank you for the heads up! Chrisrus (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Love Bug be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

The notice quoted above has been in place since November 2008, but there has been no response to it whatsoever. Can anyone see a valid reason for the continuation of the split between Love Bug and Love bug (disambiguation)? I doubt it, and I'd merge them on my own if the task didn't require administrative intervention, but it seems to me that it does, so... Waltham, The Duke of 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it's clear that they should be merged. Why do you think it requires admin intervention? Just merge them and replace one with a redirect to the other. (I don't know which is the more appropriate target title - probably Love Bug, given that that's the form most of the entries will take.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've merged. PamD (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of the merging of the two pages' histories, Kotniski, but it seems not to be an issue, after all. Thanks for taking care of this, PamD. I can finally get my watchlist below 90 titles now... Waltham, The Duke of 19:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote templates

I really would like to see the Hatnote-templates into a straight useful list (or Template/doc etc.) I am not new here, but I still cannot find the appropriate hatnote template (somewhere a FAQ I missed? -- says it innit). -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How about Template:about? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
eh, which links to:
Extended content
* Template:Other uses (transclusion) (links) 
   * Template:Other places (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Otheruses-number (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other uses2 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other places2 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other persons (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Redirect (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:For (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:This (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:About (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other uses of (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Redirect2 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Distinguish (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other people2 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Redirect3 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Template messages (links)
   * Template:Redirect4 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Distinguish2 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other hurricane uses (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Two other uses (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:For2 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other places3 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Island-town (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other ships (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other people3 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Redirect6 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:KIA (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other uses5 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Boeing Year disambiguation (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other uses6 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Otheruses-word (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Broken ref (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Redirect7 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:For3 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:The (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Redirect9 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other uses-section (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Smoking (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other use (links)
   * Template:Redirect10 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Highway detail hatnote (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Navbox other uses templates (links)
   * Template:Otheruses4 (redirect page) (links)
   * Template:Test equal (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other people4 (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Redirect-distinguish (transclusion) (links)
   * Template:Other persons/sandbox (transclusion) (links)
* Template:Redirect-distinguish2 (transclusion) (links)
See what I mean? -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the three main "Lists of examples" you might be looking for, are:

  1. Wikipedia:Template messages/General#Disambiguation and redirection - the short list, of the most common templates.
  2. Template:Other uses templates - documentation - the complete list, where the green documentation comes from, on each hatnote's template page.
  3. WP:HATTEST - examples for the variety of parameters available in each.

HTH.

Possibly one or more of those should be listed in {{Dabnav}}. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunderland

Would members of this WP please note, the when a link to the present day city of Sunderland, Tyne and Wear is being dabbed, and the date is before 1 April 1974, the correct link to use is Sunderland, Co Durham. Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what this means, as Sunderland, Co Durham is a redirect to Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, and anyone resolving links to the dab page at Sunderland will want to link to articles and not to redirects. PamD (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Dab for only 2 entries

At Devon Bridge, there is a disagreement between User:Doncram and myself about whether a disambiguation page with only two entries, or whether a redirect to the more common usage and a hatnotr pointing to the less common usage, is preferable. What is the current practice for cases like this? Note that neither name is used as an article title but both are alternative names. However, in Talk:Housatonic River Railroad Bridge, it is clear that the alternative name is uncommon for one of the cases and common for the other. I will defer to what is common practice in these situations. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TWODABS. bd2412 T 22:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
BD, would you do us the favor of restoring the Devon Bridge disambiguation page, per policy. Polaron redirected it 4 times to another article. Only after that, and his getting reported at wp:3RRNB does he bother to ask for any other input. Grr. Anyhow, i reverted him 3 times and it would technically be a 3RR vio for me too, if i restored it one more time. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. It seems my preference is correct then, at least until someone creates a third article of comparable usage to the current redirect target. Doncram, I think there's your way of getting a separate disambiguation page. But for now, a hatnote seems sufficient. --Polaron | Talk 22:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You're reading the policy wrong. Dab page justified if there are two usages, neither primary. Your hatnotes, too, were insufficient to convey that there was any other bridge of that name. I'm off for a while now, could anyone else explain? --doncram (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, someone please explain how what I did was wrong. In one of the usages, there is debate about whether the name is currently used or not. In the other usage, there is no disagreement that is is an alternative name in current use. --Polaron | Talk 23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Given the number of places named Devon (and the fact that there is an entire category for bridges in Devon, England), I would be absolutely stunned if there were not dozens of notable bridges known as the "Devon Bridge". That aside, the question here is whether one of these bridges actually constitutes a primary topic for the name. I think it's highly unlikely, since it is not even the primary name of either bridge, and there are very few bridges that are famous enough to be the primary topic among similarly named things (London Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge come to mind). bd2412 T 00:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. It is Polaron's contention, however, that Washington Bridge (Connecticut), whose wikipedia article gives Devon Bridge as the third name for that bridge, is the most notable. I'd appreciate if someone would restore the dab. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in giving this discussion another day or two to draw additional opinions. Right now, it seems to be at an equipoise, so if no one has a contrary view, I'll reestablish the disambig page on Tuesday. bd2412 T 02:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If these other bridges are notable, someone should make articles for them. Until they're made, there is no need for a disambiguation page per the policy linked to above. --Polaron | Talk 02:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Polaron, no one agrees with you that Washington Bridge (Connecticut) represents the primary usage of term Devon Bridge. Specifically the main editor who once disputed use of NRHP nomination documents in general and the application of the term Devon Bridge to a different Connecticut bridge has agreed to drop that (and to agree to Devon Bridge being stated as 2nd name for that bridge, and to agree to the disambiguation page). Also at your talk page Orlady's comments are that she does not agree, though for whatever reason she has not deigned to restore the dab page either. Your intervention just seems to mess up an agreement in place, to no particular end, and for no high purpose. It's just an unexplained whim of yours, it seems. I personally am once more offended by your attempting to force your way by multiple unexplained, repetitive edits, ignoring attempts by me to open real discussion. And then only eventually after you are brought to task at wp:3RRNB do you deign to talk here, to cast about for some argument. Your first try at an argument or two fails, and now you are hanging your hat on your claim that Washington Bridge is primaryusage, which is lame. It would be funny but your "Polaronics" (e.g., see Talk:List of cities proper by population#Polaronics and Talk:List of cities proper by population#Polaronics, Part 2 for another editor's partly humorous current commentary) are repeatedly disruptive. --
Among existing articles, what is the predominant usage? This is so straightforward that your actions are inexplicable. If there are these other notable Devon Bridges, please create articles for them. --Polaron | Talk 13:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've created another article since people who are intent on creating this particular dab page can't be bothered to. --Polaron | Talk 16:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, very well done. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Harrumph! Upshot is that, only after discussion at wp:3RRNB, here, and User talk:Polaron, Polaron deigns to cease with unexplained, unjustified edits, and maintains that he was justified all along. And puts in an extra "Undo" of an edit by me, in order to refine something but appear to be undoing something positive. I don't care about getting "credit", but I do care that P is getting away with causing undue contention by his passive-aggressive edit pattern. He only comes forward with a source when he absolutely must; everything is a pain with him. So, harrumph. Hopefully done now. --doncram (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
OTOH, you could avoid all of that by creating the stubs. But that is a pain, I suppose. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Vis-à-vis

Vis-à-vis could use a glance... or something. I've never seen so many wiktionary links in an article before, let alone one this short.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-LGBT

The dab Anti-LGBT seems to be primarily a list of articles, or even a category, rather than than a dab. Should it go to AfD? Thanks, Lionel (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nelson - primary topic

Do we think Lord Nelson is the primary topic for Nelson? Please comment at Talk:Nelson#Requested move.--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Command prompt

Hello! My dispute with user: AlistairMcMillan needs a mediation (at least a look from the third party), see Talk:Command prompt#Disambig or redirect? -- Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

New templates and categories

Just noticed that some new templates and categories have been created. Just wondering if there is general support for these or if they only add needless complexity. For example:

Thoughts? older ≠ wiser 12:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

All 3 should probably be deleted (category and template). For the same reason Template:TLA and its siblings were deleted - needless complexity (and generally problems with overlap of non-TLA disambiguation content).
The only remnants of that old system are at:
Which are purely reference tables for the convenience of maintenance.
Possibly the creator of these categories, might want to turn Category:Redirects from letter-word combinations into a project-space (or userspace) list, before it is deleted.
HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the categories
-- are incomplete, since they of course leave out redirects from
  • "Redirects from letter-word combinations e.g., Big O-->a disambiguation page including Barack Obama."

    Perhaps some of these categories could be melded into a single omnibus dedicated specifically to name redirections? Or is it better to have separate lists, depending on the type of name that is being redirected?

Alternatively, if the comfortable status quo is still longed for by the community wishes, I suppose I would agree that the template for the Category:Redirects from letter-word combinations could simply be turned into an alternate of that for Category:Redirects from abbreviations, folding the former's content back into the latter, larger category, from whence most of it came. I believed that pulling out the letter-name combinations made Wikipedia easier to navigate but perhaps the reverse was true.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As a further note, I've found a glitch in Wikipedia's system. The Category:Redirects from abbreviations does not list abbreviations that are actually in article space, e/g, TMZ, KFC, etc. This is because if someone did put in an {{R from abb}} template on, say, Tmz or Kfc, it might be argued that in these cases it is not a redirect from an abbreviation, since it continues on to an abbreviation. In such a case, this thinking would render the resultant list less usable, since some abbreviations would necessarily remain missing (those used as article titles).--~~
Btw there's also
Two more, a very well-populated omnibus cat: Category:Redirects for convenience--and yet another barely populated one: Category:Redirects from a modification of the target name.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambig deletion discussion

I have started a discussion about deletion of {{disambig}} at Template talk:Disambig#Delete this template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

random attacks on nrhp disambiguation

User:Station1 in edits like this removes what he knows to be valid entries from Lincoln Building dab page;

And in a new twist, he removes changes disambig tag to SIA tag on Stokes House disambiguation in edits like this.

I reverted both of those, but he re-stores them. Note, I have here and elsewhere offered several times to this editor to split the work if he feels compelled to address old bluelink formatting issues (despite the fact they are going away naturally as articles are created, I've offered to do the hard items if he will fix the easy items). Looking at other recent contributions by this editor, i see other problems being caused, and reverted some. I don't want to review all of Station1's edits myself. Can others help, please?

By the way, if changing "disambig" to "SIA" on every dab page including any NRHP redliink items were allowed, I would be glad for that to be done. However that satisfying this one editor who doesn't care about being accurate with that distinction, I am sure it won't satisfy others, and would no doubt cause other problems. I resent the useless churning. --doncram (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This entry
is incorrect. The blue link in the description needs to take the reader to an article that mentions the ambiguous entry. The boilerplate shortcut that you use perhaps for editor efficiency is incorrect. Those entries should be corrected, and deleting them is one way to do so -- if no editor has bothered to find an appropriate article, perhaps no reader will be looking for it. But there wasn't anything wrong with
so it should have remained.
Disambiguation pages are not SIAs, and if there is ambiguity, a disambiguation page is needed, so I agree with you on keeping the disambig tag on pages that disambiguate ambiguous articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. My point is that if an editor actually cares about the supporting bluelinks within a disambiguation page, s/he should fix them, like in this easy fix to make a couple bluelinks more specific in the Stokes House dab. That just requires clicking on "what links here" for the redlinks to find the now-more specific bluelink. On the other hand there are more difficult fixes required for some NRHP entries, still, such as this fix of a typo in NRHP list-article that should have linked to same redlink as one in Lincoln building dab. If refining one particular dab page having NRHP entries is so all-fired important now, my offer has been that I am willing to do the "difficult" fixes. Note again that the dab pages were probably created perfectly according to then-current MOSDAB rules, or the bluelinks were correct but no longer are only because NRHP list-articles got split out since. But if the editor is just going to destroy useful disambiguation then i think the editor should be censured or blocked in some way. --doncram (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm assuming that you are an editor who cares about the entries that you add to the disambiguation page. You describe the simple enough steps that you would have to do; please do them instead of using the incorrect shortcut links. The dab page "probably" wasn't correct by then-current rules, nor was the blue link correct at the time; the page histories provide a better memory. The disambiguation that was "destroyed" wasn't useful. I see nothing censurable nor blockable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I gotta love your bureaucratic style. Since we have discussed this many times, you know i know that you know that i know that you know it is more complicated. It is hokus for u to imply with your bland injunctions that i am doing something wrong, or uninformed. A little review: The disambiguation pages needed to be created so that the NRHP list-article editors could detect that there were ambiguous links and refine them, in a long process winding down now. Now the supporting bluelinks on the disambiguation pages can mostly be refined relatively easily, if that is someone's priority. Or, we just wait while the articles get created at a steady pace. The only thing clearly wrong is for someone to tear out the disambiguation set up. I do recognize that it is hard to secure community consensus that edits like Station1's rise to the level of formal censure or blocking. It is just the kind of low-level passive-aggressive stuff that tends to ruin the experience here on this great website, though. --doncram (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of otherwise well-respected editors that you seem to be in routine conflict with. The constant seems to be your editing style and reactionary manner of defending yourself. True enough that Station1 could perhaps go the extra mile to fix the multitude of malformed (and almost entirely useless) additions for NRHP redlinks to disambiguation pages made in the past, but really the burden lies with whomever seeks to add such entries. older ≠ wiser 21:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The NRHP redlink items are not useless additions; they have permitted the resolution of thousands of article name conflicts, saving much editor time and confusion elsewhere (in the process of mainspace article creation and avoiding lengthy requested move processes, etc.). Even if the NRHP items are imperfectly formed, they do serve readers already, too, who want to know whether an article on their local NRHP place exists or not.
I dunno about how things might have been different, but yes i have to agree there are some now-entrenched patterns of behavior going on. I and others have built a pretty good structure of disambiguation supporting NRHP items; Station1 is one disambiguation-focuussed editor who does not value that and tends to destroy some of that; it causes some conflict. And also there are other editors with now-entrenched views that NRHP articles should not be created as stubs (which would be preferred by the disambiguation-focussed editors). And there is one editor who has long campaigned to redirect NRHP article topics to town/village/hamlet/neighborhood articles, which doesn't relate much to disambiguation but does relate to what you'd see in my history of conflicts with other editors. I doubt it would have been rational for me to donate my time to Wikipedia, to help build the system of NRHP list-articles and supporting structure, if I could have imagined there would be so much conflict and non-appreciation. It happens that i feel i have gone the extra mile a few times over, and there is no satisfying everyone. Bkonrad, I laughed upon noticing your edit summary referring to something "dumbass". There's lots of dumbass stuff here. It would just be nice if people could simply choose to stop with the dumbass behavior that tears down pretty good stuff, instead of simply choosing to improve upon it. I do thank you for fixing up the supporting bluelinks in a couple of the 3,000+ dab pages having NRHP items. That's nice to see. An NRHP-focussed editor fixed up a couple then stopped. If you wanted to lead a campaign to fix the remaining ones up, i would not particularly agree it is a good use of time since they are all getting fixed naturally, but I would help. In fact, i do help, i do such bluelink refinements all the time; I just resent the dumbass deletion-destructive type of behavior that i observed again and brought up here. Bkonrad, I do appreciate your agreeing, basically though you couch it with some sarcasm perhaps, that Station1's behavior is unhelpful. --doncram (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
If you don't love the bureaucracy, you should avoid stirring the bureaucratic pot by coming here to request censure or blocking, and instead clean up the at-issue entries. "The disambiguation pages needed to be created so that the NRHP list-article editors could detect that there were ambiguous links and refine them" is hokum -- if your project needs a to-do list, create a to-do list in the project space (using a sub-page or whatever). If you want to create a disambiguation page for things that really do need a disambiguation page (ambiguous articles), you need to list the ambiguous articles instead of the incorrect shortcuts. Since we have discussed this many times, you know I know that you know that I know that you know about that option: I keep pointing it out, and you keep opting instead for the bureaucracy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Re JHunterJ's comment of 12:18 above: I didn't see any mention of a Lincoln Building at Lincoln Building (Little Rock, Arkansas), listed on the NRHP in Arkansas. I do try to check the bluelinks carefully before deleting. Did I miss something? Station1 (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Both of the original links are incorrect. The correct links should have been to National Register of Historic Places listings in Little Rock, Arkansas and National Register of Historic Places listings in Champaign County, Illinois instead of the state lists, fixed here. The criteria for including redlinks suggests that redlinks should only be included when an article also contains the redlink, which can be determined with some tedium by checking What links here for the redlinks. While the original entries for the NRHP that linked to the state lists were useless -- either Station1 or Doncram could have fixed these at any time instead of reverting each other and complaining here. older ≠ wiser 10:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I have no idea what I thought I saw, but you're right. I only agree with 1 out 3 of the original complaints then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JHunterJ for more bland implications that don't apply, such as "If you want to create a disambiguation page for things that really do need a disambiguation page (ambiguous articles), you need to ...", etc.All of the dab pages have been created. There are no more dab pages being created. All of the dab pages created in the last big push comply fully with the specific bluelinking. Articles are being created for redlinks, slowly, so the "problem" is declining not increasing. But there are a couple thousand dab pages, however, that have redlink NRHP entries. There is me plugging away some at refining the supporting bluelinks, and sometimes others do a couple. (Thanks Bkonrad for refining the bluelinks in the Lincoln Building dab! Also NRHP editor Dudemanfellabra refined bluelinks in several dab pages recently, but stopped.) There is one editor, Station1, randomly arriving at them and sometimes deleting the NRHP entries, in deceptive edits. Station1 has not responded to requests to cooperate in fixing them rationally. I think it is fair to say the problem, at this point, is that one editor's behavior. --doncram (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem is with the malformed entries on the disambiguation pages and what to do with them. Station1 is justified in removing the offending links, even though others might try expend the extra effort required to salvage such malformed entries. The burden for ensuring that such entires are properly formed and meet the criteria for inclusion lies with the editors who seek to have them included. older ≠ wiser 12:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, Doncram. Bland implications seem appropriate in response to tepid accusations of malfeasance. Whatever the motives for your last "big push", they apparently had more to do with the NRHP project than the disambiguation project, because they resulted in disambiguation pages that didn't disambiguate ambiguous articles. You needed a better "big push", and you resent that your misplaced efforts aren't being met with the additional efforts that their misplacement has demanded. Deleting disambiguation entries that lead to articles that aren't ambiguous isn't deceptive. Adding entries to disambiguation pages that link to articles that aren't ambiguous is closer to deceptive. I'm sorry these implications are too bland, but perhaps civility and avoiding personal attacks means that we're stuck with the bland and tepid civil discussion over why your incorrect entries can be deleted or corrected by any editors (including you and Station1) who feel like deleting or correcting them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Glad to know where you stand. JHunterJ, I don't know what you are meaning by your also-bland assertion that in the last "big push", my motives "apparently had more to do with the NRHP project than the disambiguation project, because they resulted in disambiguation pages that didn't disambiguate ambiguous articles". I was referring to my focussed effort to systematically create several hundred needed disambiguation pages, working off User:Doncram/NRHP disambiguation/checklist#this program-generated list of NRHP places having ambiguous names, a list which i generated in March 2010. I completed that push to create the missing dab pages in response to, and with updates to, several discussions here. In every new dab page that i created i implemented the more specific bluelink format that you want. So, I don't get what you mean by that comment, but I assume you are not remembering that correctly and/or the point you were trying to make is not important.
Okay, I wonder about organizing some kind of permanent solution here. There is conflict present between WikiProject Disambiguation's focus on making nice disambiguation pages that comply with MOSDAB rules, vs. WikiProject NRHP which has had a legitimate need to set up disambiguation of article topics (avoiding naming conflicts and much drama that would occur elsewhere). One way to avoid some current problems would be to have bot run to create all the NRHP topic articles as stubs, but there is very strong opposition by some NRHP editors to that, and that would push problems to elsewhere. The current position taken by Station1 and supported, or not condemned now, by Bkonrad and JHunterJ, is that deletion of NRHP entries is justified. I hope you can agree that this is problematic, at a big level between big groups of editors.
You can blame me for having proceeded with the disambiguation pages not as you now wish. I happen to think I did a great job, consulting and compromising with WikiProject Disambiguation editors many many times, and the dab pages have been serving well in many ways. I got involved when there used to be frequent conflicts over attempts to delete disambigation pages involving NRHP entries. Also there used to be many conflicts over primaryusage, where the existence of one article amidst redlinks on a dab was asserted erroneously to mean that the one article was primary and that it meant moving the dab was justified. Those particular conflicts doesn't happen at all now; there's been plenty of progress. The fact that i have many times brought up problems here does not mean that i personally am the problem; i have effectively been the representative of WikiProject NRHP on many issues here where there simply were fundamental conflicts, now mostly resolved.
I did use the "List of RHPs in State" type abbreviations in setting up dab pages. You can censure me for that, but it made it feasible to get the system set up, and the "problem" with that is minor, relative to a lot of things. I happen to want to blame Station1 now, for being the one editor derailing a status quo that was working. But if you want to blame me and support Station1's type of editing, you can. Though I don't agree with Station1, I have some sympathy for Station1's perspective, that he is impatient and feels that his deleting actions are a way to force others to take action on something that he thinks matters. This is vaguely like User:Kevin forcing the big issue over unsourced BLPs by his taking unilateral action to delete BLPs, back in January.
An obvious possible resolution is to revise the several thousand dab pages to show the more specific bluelinks that you prefer. Let me ask you to make a deal. I agree that they should all be fixed, but gradually, involving both NRHP editors and disambiguation-focussed editors, according to some orderly process. I also don't want to do all the fixing, unless it is at a very slow pace. Station1 agrees to stop his behavior and/or the others of you agree to stop him. You agree to stop his behavior now, and to participate in discussion to some consensus with NRHP editors, with you coming to discuss it on NRHP turf, probably at the wt:NRHP talk page. You and I both agree to abide by a consensus of editors, about what are reasonable terms (e.g. deadlines, and/or commitments of NRHP and disambiguation editors to work on the bluelinks). If consensus is not reached, then we agree to ask for and abide by a 3rd party decision.
Is that too grandiose? Can you agree to that in general? I am trying to propose a way to reach a permanent solution here. Please comment. --doncram (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"The current position taken by Station1 and supported, or not condemned now, by Bkonrad and JHunterJ, is that deletion of NRHP entries is justified. I hope you can agree that this is problematic, at a big level between big groups of editors." The current position taken by the disambiguation project is that entries on disambiguation pages that do not disambiguate ambiguous articles can be deleted. I hope we can all agree to this. The problem with using incorrect links is not "minor" as you claim. There is long-standing consensus for this (that disambiguation pages disambiguate ambiguous articles, and that MOS:DABMENTION means that entries that link to articles that don't mention the ambiguous title are incorrect). I would welcome, however, an agreement that you and Station1 (or other editors) can work out regarding the timing and approach to fixing the problems that you have created while solving other problems. I would suggest that you and Station1 work that out civilly and while assuming good faith, rather than demanding blocks or censures. There is probably a perfectly workable compromise between the two of you that can avoid the bureaucracy that you both objected to earlier and also are apparently seeking now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

While recognizing the triviality of these proposed changes individually, since so much has been written here about Lincoln Building, and since this may serve as an example for other dab page changes, and since they've already been twice reverted, I need to mention that my reason for visiting Lincoln Building in the first place was that I had just moved Lincoln Building (1 Union Square, New York, New York) from that unwieldy and incorrect (incomplete address) name to Lincoln Building (Union Square, Manhattan) and needed to update the dab page listing. While there I noticed Lincoln Building (42nd Street, New York, New York) was also a redirect, so I updated that entry as well. If there are no objections from anyone other than doncram I will go back and update these again in a few days. Another much more minor change was to eliminate the extraneous description "listed on the NRHP in ..." for the Union Square and North Dakota entries, for three reasons: (1) The descriptions are not needed to disambiguate and MOS:DAB says "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary"; (2) Most people probably don't know what NRHP stands for; (3) It might appear to give undue weight to those items compared to the generally more important 42nd Street building. A third minor change I would now make is to move the Arkansas and Illinois entries to the bottom of the list; this in accordance with MOS:DAB#Order of Entries because the Arkansas and Illinois entries are not articles but rather entries that point to sections of other longer articles (Order of Entries item #3a vs. #4b) and because the 42nd Street building's article is the most sought so should be first (I thought about restoring the 42nd Street building as primary topic, but these are all low viewership articles so it's a little bit of a close call). I realize this is not crucial for such a short page but, again, I'd like to have others' opinions as precedent to avoid conflict with doncram if that's possible, rather than rehashing every time there's a revert. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Station1, the main thing is your simply deleting NRHP entries that you know are fundamentally valid. I doubt it is useful to talk about secondary formatting questions with the main issue hanging out there. To others, I am seeking to discuss some compromise between Station1 and me at Talk:Station1. We need some time to try that, before reporting success or failure in coming to any agreement. --doncram (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I think what everyone is trying to get across, both here and in prior discussions elsewhere, is that those entries are fundamentally invalid, they are not fundamentally valid. I would not, and I do not, delete things that I "know are fundamentally valid". Station1 (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Taken a little bit further (or too far, depending on your viewpoint), let's say that I discover an undocumented ambiguity Krplxm, and four articles are in need of disambiguation. I create the disambiguation page, but I'm in a hurry, maybe because I have also discovered 1000 other new ambiguities of four articles each. So I create the dab like this:
Krplxm may refer to:
  • a
  • b
  • c
  • d
so that other editors (either in the dab project or the project of Krplxm) can later come around, see that there are four entries, search Wikipedia for Krplxm, and fix each one of my placeholders. Now, to be sure, my entries are not formatted correctly. I and the project of Krplxm may see those entries as fundamentally valid, as they are placeholders for things that actually do need disambiguation, but the disambiguation project might see those entries as fundamentally invalid, since they serve no disambiguating function themselves. Instead of going through a big push to create my 1000 invalid disambiguation pages, I should instead take more time creating valid disambiguation pages, even though that will take longer and involve more work. (Actually the same amount of work, just I would do it instead of asking that the disambiguation project editors come clean up my invalid entries.) Again, that line is farther "out" than the actual cases here, and I'm sure that one of your would agree with the analogy and one would disagree. But my point is that there are two viewpoints, and that requesting censure or blocking is out of line. If you are working in good faith, Doncram might indicate the he or she will begin going back through the big push and correcting the invalid entries request that Station1 stop deleting the invalid entries while that effort is active. Station1 and other dab project editors might also assist with that effort. Doncram, if you have a list of the dabs in that push, we could list them on a project page and cross them off or delete them from the list as they are repaired. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, over a week went by, the changes were made exactly as described above, and were reverted within an hour. Station1 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Station1 and i seem to have come to a compromise agreement, in side discussion at User talk:Station1#compromise, about dealing with the dab pages that Station1 comes across, at his own pace. I am hopeful that will work. Thank you all for participating in this discussion here; your opinions here certainly contributed to, and shaped, the compromise agreement now worked out. This addresses just the dab pages that Station1 comes across and gives notice about.

About addressing the remaining pages having NRHP redlink entries (in advance of Station1 coming across them), per JHunterJ's suggestion, I'll put a starter worklist of those now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/NRHPdabcleanup2010. I'll leave suggestions for how to clean up these pages at the top of the worklist. In other WikiProjects i have participated in big cleanup drives on various topics working off of big worklists. I don't know of cleanup drives within WikiProject Disambiguation, but I hope others might be willing to help in this one. It is a finite, doable project to fix up a few thousand NRHP entries on several hundred dab pages. Editor's help will be appreciated! Thanks. --doncram (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_22&oldid=1078967796"