Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Is there a primary Stroud?

Two ongoing move discussions (Talk:Stroud, Gloucestershire#Requested move and Talk:Stroud (disambiguation)#Requested move) hinge on the question of whether Stroud, Gloucestershire is the primary topic for "Stroud". Comments welcome (I'm trying to combine the discussion at the first of those two venues).--Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Na

User:AeronPeryton has questioned my familiarity with the disambiguation guidelines, specifically as they apply to Na.[1] If reverted again, I will just tag the page for clean up for fresh eyes, but if anyone would like to chime in before that, please do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an accusation worthy of a smile. Looks well handled, but on my watch list. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Have at. If you have a lot of time, you might also respond to AeronPeryton's dissertation on Talk:Na. I suspect any repetition of what I've already said coming from me will be lost. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-English characters in dab page, article page, redirect page names, up for RfC

See WT:Article titles#Non-Roman characters in redirects to articles, where an RfC has been opened on the use of non-English characters in page titles for disambiguation and redirect titles (and there appears to also be discussion about article titles) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sirian

I hereby provide you the new disambig page Sirian which was a redirect to the Sirius Mystery. I also made Sirians a redirect to Sirian, and that page was previously a (pretty absurd) redirect to the Assyrian people, who are also called Syriacs. The reason for existence of the disambig Sirian is of course that there are myriads of myths, sagas and stories about extraterrestrial beings from the star Sirius. The topic is nearly not notable – at least not for me, so I won't cry if you decide the article existence is mote. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Great Backlog Drive

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Geier

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy § Geier
Geier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alas, the article "owner" is resisting efforts to rid this article of things brought up merely in order to state that they have nothing at all to do with the article topic (Geier#William Butler Yeats) and a partial dump of a book catalogue (Geier#Prominent Authors with the Surname Geier). Witness the "Geier Glove" and "Geier Sausages" and the reference to Hitch (movie) in this revision of Geier hitch to see the pattern here. The attention of more editors is needed. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

    • I'm suggesting that this needs the attention of more editors to even make that determination. Maybe it's anthroponymy, maybe it is surname disambiguation. But what it's been written as so far is just one giant incoherent grab bag of stuff some of which isn't even related to the purported subject at all. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Geier
Please don't refactor other editors' talk page comments. I looked at the article. I figured out that it wasn't a disambiguation page, and I gave you good advice on where to solicit help. That is not "handing it off" -- the reason we have multiple WikiProjects on Wikipedia is because not all editors are familiar with or interested in every aspect of Wikipedia. If you want help creating Geier (disambiguation), we can help. if you want help cleaning up an anthroponymy article, the editors in the anthroponymy project can help (I hope). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
            • That's laughable. You're the one refactoring things around here, no-one else. In your latest edit you refactored out two of your own comments, which I've restored for you, making a nonsense of the conversation. Take your own advice. No-one else has touched your comments but you and you alone, whereas you've been busy removing your own and mine. And you obviously haven't given the article more than a superficial glance if you looked at lists of people, ships, and random other things called "Geier" and thought "That's not my problem. That's not disambiguation.". You're bureacratically wasting time with your repeated refactoring of this ongoing discussion, rather than addressing the problem at hand. You're certainly not being a help with the problem at hand in any way. Uncle G (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This is daft - there are now "Main" templates pointing in both directions between two copies of the first part of this discussion. I've added something to the version at "Anthroponymy", because the discussion was supposed to be going there. I don't care where it's discussed but please ensure that there's only one ongoing discussion. PamD (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    That is the proper place for it. The only discussion remaining here is to finish clarifying that surname articles are not disambiguation pages, in case there is still any confusion there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I turned it into a disambiguation page. Fences&Windows 22:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancient (disambiguation) --> Antiquity

Currently, Ancient (disambiguation) and Ancients redirect to Antiquity, which, in turn, includes a number of proper nouns identifying entities (bands, fictional characters) as "Ancients". It seems to me that these should be two separate disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 16:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It gets worse: Ancient redirects to Ancient history, which has a hatnote pointing to Antiquity. Antiquities is an article and has no hatnote, despite the claim at the dab page that it includes the term. It's all a bit of a mess. PamD (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's separate out Ancient (disambiguation) and Antiquity (disambiguation), re-redirect Antiquity to Antiquities, and hatnote Antiquity (disambiguation) on Antiquities. bd2412 T 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page tagging

There are roughly 14,396 disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia that do not have associated talk pages. I have requested approval for a bot to fix this problem. Would some folks who are familiar with this WikiProject mind heading over to the request page and giving their two cents? Thanks! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mind saying what the "real" problem is? I don't think seeing a red is a problem and a missing talk page is not a problem if nobody had anything to say. . . What am I missing? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I'm with John. In the absence of discussion, the absence of a Talk page is a good thing. Creating them just to let people know it's a disambiguation page is pointless, and also becomes "make work" during page moves. Since I do a lot of disambiguation page moves as part of the cleanup, malplaced, and incomplete disambiguation problem spaces, I'd prefer to leave empty Talk pages empty. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Chiming in on the "what's the point" angle: if I'm working on a dab page and see it has a talk page I'll click to look at it in case there has been any relevant discussion. It's a waste of time when there's nothing but a dab project template. I vote against such functionally-empty pages being created. PamD (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed bot

A bot is being proposed at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 39#Dab and taxa update bots. Editors may wish to contribute to the discussion there. --NSH001 (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RFD about what is now a disambiguation page, National Historic District

Some comments from wikipedians familiar with disambiguation policy would be welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5#National Historic District. A redirect at National Historic District was proposed for deletion, and an alternative of replacing that with a disambiguation page has been proposed.

Full disclosure: I am the one proposing deletion of the redirect or disambiguation page. The term "National Historic District" is not valid under any national historic designation program or any other regime; it is effectively a typo appearing in a scattered few small local nonprofit or commercial websites, posted by ignorant writers. None of the items offered under the proposed disambiguaton page are valid synonyms for the bogus phrase. There were about 50 wikipedia links to the bogus phrase which i have replaced, so now there are no links from mainspace. I suggest deletion of the phrase, to undermine future inappropriate usage of the phrase. Comments there welcome. --doncram (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Disambig templates

There's a discussion regarding disambig templates over at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_7#Disambig_templates. Mhiji (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sumi

Hi! I am not too familiar with disambiguation pages, but Sumi looks like a very unusual one and should probably be split into several articles. bamse (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That looked like an old-style multistub; I've reverted the most recent edit and it now has a more typical appearance. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

MOS:DAB

I started a discussion that editor's here might be interested in: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Contradiction in people section.Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Snow bunny

Snow bunny is currently a "disambiguation" page with only one potentially ambiguous link (Snow Bunny) plus a link to Skiing. I would redirect it to Snow Bunny, but the See also section linking to Beach bunny and to Wiktionary give me pause. See also a mention at WP:Articles for deletion/Buckle bunny. Opinions? Cnilep (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would redirect exactly as you propose. The current unsourced dictionary definition doesn't belong on a dab page, especially where the two linked articles make no mention whatsoever of the topic. If someone ever wants to convert it to a real sourced article about snow bunnies, they can always use the title. In the meantime, just add the {{R from other capitalization}} template to the redirect. Note also that Beach bunny is tagged to be transwikied to wiktionary. Station1 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Waivers

This disambiguation page should be at waiver (disambiguation), right? Smartiger (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The ambiguous term appears to be "waivers". It might be Waivers (disambiguation) if Waivers should be an {{R from plural}} to Waiver. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow your reasoning there. Such "ambiguity" as exists is equally in the singular as the plural, as can be seen from the inbound links, which are from the text "waiver", "waivers", or even "waivered". Some of the "specialised" articles just happen to use the plural for grammatical reasons. Given the strong presumption in favour of singular terms in article names, forcing a distinction without a difference between "waiver" and "waivers" seems highly undesirable. Smartiger (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not forced; it exists. There are other acceptable arrangements too, but since the NFL and NHL articles are titled "Waivers", and the sections in the MLB and NBA articles are titled "Waivers", that is the better disambiguation title, either for Waivers (currently) or Waivers (disambiguation) (if Waivers is an {{R from plural}} to Waiver). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little lost. Setting aside the merits or otherwise of those article titles, if someone is looking for either sort of "waiver" or "waiver" (or someone being waived/waivered, etc), or linking from such, how does singular vs. plural help them in the least? The forms of the articles names are purely for grammatic reasons, not because an inbound "waivers" is in any sense more likely to be about sports, or a "waiver" not. There's absolutely no "information gain" there whatsoever. Just because we have pages like elections in the United States, no-one is seriously going to suggest that elections would be a sensible alternative or addition to election (disambiguation), for example. Rather, the plural should redirect to the primary sense, and the disambig should be conventionally named. If you're going to continue to revert this move, and aren't going to come up with a substantiative reason why, I guess I'm going to have to file a RM. Smartiger (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It compares directly with Election (disambiguation). The articles there have the ambiguous title "Election" (singular). The articles on Waivers have the ambiguous title "Waivers" (plural). Substantive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Eh, it really isn't. The central point, which I shall try to get an answer on one last time on, is whether looking for "waivers" is more likely to be sports, and "waiver" the original, unspecialised sense, than vice versa. It clearly isn't. Having a disambiguation page named on the basis of what grammatical number a narrow majority of its targets happen to use is not unhelpful to either editors or readers, looks ridiculous, is nonsense on its face. If the people looking for those pages happen to already know what form of their possible names were at, they'd hardly need to be at such a disambiguation page, so why on earth should that be a predominant reason for naming it? Smartiger (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Please further refer to: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals): "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English", and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the disambiguation page: "If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page", and "Singulars are preferred to plurals." Smartiger (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Eh, please move the articles that are titled with plurals first, then the disambiguation page should follow. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
... did you actually bother reading any of that? I'm moving these back; please don't revert again without familiarising yourself properly with the appropriate conventions. Smartiger (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Gentle people, I applaud all interest in helping to cleanup disambiguation pages on Wikipedia, but is it really worth an argument on something so minor? We have so much other work to do at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup, perhaps we should work through the backlog first, and then come back to this "waiver" question? --Elonka 17:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's rather the counsel of despair, isn't it? Someone doesn't like a change, and is thereby able to prevent any change by making it "too much work" to implement? What's the point in having guidelines, exactly? Smartiger (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Since the guidelines are being followed here, I don't think you have a point. It isn't "too much work" to re-title the actual articles that are out of convention, if this is a bee in your bonnet. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and expanded the Waivers page with other entries that might reasonably need disambiguation for the term "waiver" or "waivers". There is a discussion about changing the page title at Talk:Waivers, I recommend that we continue there, to see if we can reach consensus on what the page should be titled? --Elonka 18:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
JHunterJ: The guidelines aren't being followed; I've already cited chapter and verse, and you breezed right on by them. It seems unlikely to be fruitful to repeat the exercise, at least this side of an RM. You misunderstand (or else misrepresent) my point about "too much work"; I'm not saying that about the target pages at all. Those cases are in the first instance, more arguable, and in the second, the title of this page shouldn't depend on any such moves. Elonka: thanks for that. It now appears that the majority of the outbound links are at singular titles. By JHunter's own (non-guideline) criteria, this should now, therefore, be at the singular title; by the three actual guideline criteria cited, this should be at the singular title. Smartiger (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Wedgwood

There is a dispute occurring about disambiguation cleanup at the Thomas Wedgwood page. Additional opinions would be appreciated, thanks. --Elonka 19:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wedgwood (disambiguation) is a related bit of a nightmare too! PamD (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well it was: I've now cleaned it up somewhat though others may have other ideas. PamD (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
... and there's Wedgewood (disambiguation) too ...! PamD (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for disposition of Spambot article

I just ran across the Spambot article, which currently is a dab page with no actual spambot entries, but instead is a list of related topics with much different names.

It appears to have existed as an article with some problems but potential until July 2010, at which point it was cut down to the pseudo-dab page it is today.

My thought is to revert it back to its July 2010 article form, since if treated as a dab page, the best "fix" would appear to be to delete it. Any thoughts? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that your thought is exactly right. It's somewhat references, so at least one of the "issues" is incorrectly flagged. Half a dozen other languages have articles on this topic. Curious and over-zealous extirpation. Smartiger (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Abdul Khaliq (disambiguation) nominated at WP:RFD

Abdul Khaliq (disambiguation) has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD#Abdul Khaliq (disambiguation). Your opinions are welcomed. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Hunter / William Hunter

Could use additional opinions at Talk:William Hunter as to whether or not the page should be split into "William Hunter" and "Bill Hunter" pages. --Elonka 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

MOS:DASH and dab pages

There is an interesting requested move at talk:Poland–Lithuania concerning dash employment. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

White rabbit

There seems to be endless discussion (partly fuelled by one obsessed user, but not only) about how to handle the terms "White Rabbit" and "White rabbit". Given that the Alice character has been deemed to be the primary topic for "White Rabbit", where should the uncapitalized "White rabbit" go to? See discussion at Talk:White rabbit.--Kotniski (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"When logic and proportion / Have fallen sloppy dead / ... / Remember what the dormouse said: / Feed your head". --Redrose64 (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Rancid

Hello. I was looking at the Rancid disambiguation page and in my opinion typing Rancid should redirect to the page Rancid (band). There are currently four other entries in the disambiguation page. There is an article about a Swedish film that is currently a stub. The one about the software (RANCID) is poorly developped while the two other articles actually wear different names : the process of rancidification and the magazine Rancid News, that was called Last Hour in its later form. None of them seem as notable as the band, and all four articles are either stubs or poorly developped compared to the band's article. What do you think ? Maimai009 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rhetorical question: what was the consensus when you proposed this change at Talk:Rancid? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually if you visit this page: Talk:Rancid you would see that I have not proposed any consensus on it. The main reason is that I'd bet few people visit talk pages about disambiguation pages. I posted here instead in the hope of having (constructive) replies. Maimai009 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Its best to try there first. People that care and know a lot about the various topics are more likely to speak up there. If you or others have general questions about the guidelines, we can help with that. And if we have time and sufficient interest, we might jump in an learn what we can about the topics, but the people watching the page are more likely to do so. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the tip, I'll give it a try. Maimai009 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I did visit Talk:Rancid, which is what made the question rhetorical. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Neglected reports

The mosdab checker is using a new naming which uses mnemonic letter instead of the weird numbering. The new changes also address other small issues with usability. Additionally, three new checks have been added:

  • H: Lists 30+ items without any section break (Huge list)
  • U: Line without any hyperlink (Unlinked line)
  • X: Line with 250+ characters and HTML tags (Excessively long line)

These new issues will slowly appear as I will not rescan all 11,000 pages or 5.8% of all disambiguation pages. This number is disappointingly high due to the random data collection used.

On a related note some of the reports at WP:DBR#Disambiguations are being neglected. — Dispenser 08:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

GEM=gem

Hi, afaik in dab GEM=gem. -DePiep (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily - sometimes such pages are split if the combined page becomes inconveniently long.--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
True, and sometimes they're split even if short, if there is little danger of readers going to the wrong place. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
All fine with me. -DePiep (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Bias (statistics)

In my opinion this can't remain a dab page. It needs references, it probably needs the nav table, it needs the lengthy explanations, it needs to mention things for which there is an article. Also in many articles linking directly to this page is the best approach since some/many articles (e.g. Idempotent matrix) refer to all types of bias. Bottom lines, it doesn't quack like a duck, it doesn't look like a duck. Maybe it's not a duck? Opinions? --Muhandes (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the dab tags. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote templates

At the moment there is some cleaning up going on in the hatnote business. Since many are, especially historically, redirect & disambiguation related, it might be interesting for you Projecters. documentation is growing up; some are for TfD. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese radical disambiguations

Twenty-one Chinese radicals (out of the 214 on the list of Kangxi radicals) are currently either disambig pages or redirects to disambig pages. Chinese radicals are the equivalent of letters of the alphabet, and the primary meaning in each case should be the character itself. I propose that these should, therefore, redirect to articles on the characters, in the same way that 干 presently redirects to Radical 51. The pages at issue are: 力 勹 十 又 士 大 小 尢 幺 廴 廾 弓 文 方 曰 木 欠 止 片 皮 黃. Most of the corresponding articles have yet to be made, but this is something that should be done. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese radicals have some aspects in common with letters in an alphabet (such as the Latin, Greek, or Cyrillic alphabets), but they aren't equivalent. And not all articles on letter topics are primary. π, for instance, goes to the number rather than to pi (letter). I don't see a problem with some radicals being primary topics (such as 干) and some not (where the radical leads to a disambig page or even to an article on one of the other ambiguous possibilities). 干 (radical)-style titles might be consistently available, whether the article on the topic of the radical is at the base name or not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think π is a rare and unusual case, and I can't think of any Chinese character that has a comparable alternative to the letter itself as a primary meaning. Chinese characters have not been adopted worldwide as mathematical symbols. While it is true that many of these characters also double as words when read in context, where we have such a thing in English, the word is a separate article (such as I (pronoun) and A and an). Many of the existing radicals (such as 冂, 儿, 田, 鬼, ) already redirect to articles on the radicals, while others redirect to the list of radicals, and still others redirect to common meanings of the characters (such as 卜 to Dowsing, 卩 to Seal (emblem), and 工 to Craft). Even those that redirect to disambig titles do so inconsistently. For example, 小 redirects to small, only one of several possible meanings of the character. 皮, which most commonly means "skin", redirects to pi (disambiguation) because it is most commonly pronounced "pí", and 木, which most commonly means "tree" redirects to MU because it is pronounced "mù". Many more remain red links. The current scheme is, in short, a crapshoot with no rhyme or reason, and it should have some order imposed on it. I would suggest that as a general rule, absent any special showing of an overriding symbolic meaning, the symbols should redirect to articles on the radicals. Special cases we can deal with as they arise. bd2412 T 19:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't think of any either, or tell if any of those primaries are correct or incorrect. But: the current guidelines for determining primary topic already work for letters and radicals. They don't need explicit separate treatment. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
My concern is not so much the treatment of the characters as the fact that, for the disambig pages and disambig redirects listed above (and for redirects to non-disambig pages), articles on the characters do not even exist. Our coverage of Chinese radicals itself is highly inconsistent. bd2412 T 18:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I gotcha. WP:LANGUAGE might be of assistance there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force clearly had other ideas about 文. William Avery (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the personal names which happen to contain the character, and would not be known by that character alone, the entries on that page are merely definitions of the word represented by the character, and would just as suitably be placed in an article on the character itself, titled with the radical number. This page brings to my mind our various ongoing discussion about when a page not containing examples of ambiguous links should not be called a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 21:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't Ask

Could someone create this page and clean up the some of the article tags (the small print ones at the top of each article)?

Please also add

What? See also Don't Ask. Is there something there that can be improved? -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

On hurricanes

Hi. I am working in the Hatnote department (guidelines available), bureau Template:Other hurricanes. Hurricanes are:

(from the /doc): "Hurricane" equals: "A hurricane is referred to by names such as tropical cyclone, tropical depression, tropical storm, typhoon, cyclonic storm, and simply cyclone. Sp this template pertains to all these storms.source: wikipedia]."

From usage of the template {{Other hurricanes}}, I see a multiple forked way of dab.

Existing

My question is: is disambiguation in this storm-season correct? Tripping is:

name is also a personal name
name is reused over the years
prefix used changes between "cyclone" and "tropical storm" and more

or: what with the pattern (storm type) (personal name) (year)? -DePiep (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Blackfoot

I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America for help with the incoming links to Blackfoot. A right mess. DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I did revert to the previous primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The subject is a horrible mess, contradictory redirects left, right and centre. The dab page is a mess too. DuncanHill (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sky Dome

I've seen a thunderhead in the sky once that was too big for my eyes (or the light filtering through the skydome) to handle. Is there a technical term for when the naked eye sees a thunderhead that "bends" because it's too high for the hemisphere to physically show a straight-up thunderhead from your point of view? Or is it simply known as "Skybending" or "Skydome Effect"? 71.87.112.14 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Article page is a dabpage, talk page is a redirect

I've asked at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 40#Article page is a dabpage, talk page is a redirect for a bot to help fix these. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if we can also bot-delete the disambiguation page talk pages that consist only of the dab project tag? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

dab page and primary topic

Re: Rosalie (disambiguation), which has the following single line:

"Rosalie", a song by Bob Seger from his 1973 album Back in '72, covered by Thin Lizzy on their 1975 album Fighting Snowman (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
If viewed as two topics (the song by Seger and the song by Thin Lizzy), it can get two. If viewed as one topic (a song by Seger covered by Thin Lizzy), it can have one (with a single blue link). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Cytherea

Should Cytherea REALLY be a disambiguation page? The meanings listed are: -an epithet of Aphrodite (by far the predominant meaning)

-two generic names which are invalid, because junior synonyms

-an insect genus that is obscure enough not to have an article

-a silent film that has been lost

-a pornographic actress (I do admit that this is the primary reference found by Google, but the case of a 21st century pornographic figure vs a classical matter is practically the paradigmatic case for Internet bias.)

Surely Cytherea should simply redirect to Aphrodite... Vultur (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Cytherea is the appropriate place for this suggestion. I have responded there. Note that every editor can justify dismissing the criteria that do not support his or her desired primary topic. We typically do not dismiss the criteria. Synonyms are not invalid. Google web searches are not the only tool in the box, and book, news, and scholar searches are also useful (but do not favor the goddess either). Traffic stats are not too useful here, since the base name dab gets fewer hits than the prospective primary choices, so those readers are not coming through the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
And it just occurred to me, if you're going to discount synonyms, then Aphrodite is out too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd argue that an *epithet* of a deity is a very different linguistic phenomenon from a junior synonym of a taxonomic name (which, ideally, shouldn't be used). But the rest does make sense; I guess leaving it as a disambig is best. Vultur (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ruling needed on Cardboard

I am having some difficulty getting through to the handful of editors who are interested in Cardboard that (1) the primary topic for this term is the various forms of heavy paper stock, and (2) that term is not ambiguous, but is merely a genus encompassing several species. I hereby convene a special session of the High Council of Disambiguators to make a final determination of this question, and request a ruling that the title, Cardboard should be a non-disambiguating article describing the general concept of different forms of stiffened paper, and that the remaining ambiguous terms be removed to Cardboard (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412, Senior Editor III/Labutnum of the Encyclopedia T 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved for now. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Day the Earth Stood Still

Hello. In 2007, an editor disambiguated The Day the Earth Stood Still, and moved the original film to The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film). We now have three articles, the dab, the original film, and The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film). Shouldn't the dab page simply be the location for the original film, with a hatnote to the remake? Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It depends which is the primary topic. I don't know much about The Day the Earth Stood Still, but I would imagine that, yeah, the original movie's the primary one.
Disambiguation pages for two articles are rarely done, so it'd be best to decide whichever one is the primary topic. It's most likely the original though, as I said. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Between films of the same name seems to be the source of the problem. It makes no mention of possible primary topicness, and editors seem to be reading it as if it implies that there can be no film can be primary topic if two films are ambiguous. We may need to work with that guideline first, before redressing any of the affected film articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll raise the issue on the talk page. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Given that both films are high profile, I would suggest that neither is a clear candidate for primary topic, therefore it is correct to disambiguate. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
That could be true in this case. The arguments on the move requests don't indicate that reasoning, only that the film naming conventions dictate the format. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I would say that the 1951 is the primary topic. The second one is a remake of that one, which means it's subject matter is a direct relation to the 1951 film making that topic the primary topic. This isn't the case where you debate two different films that share a title and which one should be primary (or if neither should). This is a case of one film being a remake of another and that kind of makes the original the defaulted primary topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
That kind of ancestry relationship is not one of the criteria for primary topicness. It does often lead into the other criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The article about the 2008 film is viewed about twice as often as the article about the 1951 film[2][3], so in this case the earlier film does not appear to be primary usage. Station1 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It's true that the remake has higher visitor stats, but that's often the case with articles about recent topics. There was a similar discussion in the case of Avatar (2009 film) and it was decided that making such a recent film the primary topic would be reacting to recent trends. I think the case is analagous here: the original film is a classic, much more has been written about it over the years and making the remake article the primary topic would be just following the recent trend. The article on the remake was viewed over a million times in 2008, and half that in 2010. The original film should remain the primary topic and can be reassessed when the visitor rate to the article about the remake stops trending downwards. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Traffic stats are a tool, not the final determination. Google Scholar and Google Books results, two other tools, favor the 1951 film, for instance. This would be a place to apply the "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account" clause. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I was about to make a remark along those lines. The 2008 film was a bit of a flop; the 1951 film was very popular and has its place in pop culture. From the 1951 article:
  • "Since the release of the movie, the phrase Klaatu barada nikto has appeared repeatedly in fiction and in popular culture"
  • "... selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as 'culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant' "
  • "Lou Cannon and Colin Powell believed the film inspired Ronald Reagan to discuss uniting against an alien invasion when meeting Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985" (!!!)
  • "Danny Elfman [The Simpsons theme] noted The Day the Earth Stood Still's score inspired his interest in film composing"
--JaGatalk 03:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I made a request to move the 1951 film to occupy the primary topic slot. The discussion can be seen here. You may also be interested in discussion at Talk:Avatar (Hinduism)#Requested move 2 since the Hinduism-related topic was dislodged from its primary slot partially due to the 2009 film. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think either film as primary would be an improvement on the current situation where 14,000 people per month are landing on the dab page, where presumably none of them want to be, and which currently attracts a couple dozen incoming links. Which one to make primary gets to the fundamental question of the purpose of an article title. Is it a navigational aid to make sure the majority get to the article they are seeking as quickly as possible, or do factors such as derivation, educational value or scholarly attention take precedence, or is it a combination of those? It's pretty clear that at least 2/3 of readers are looking for the 2008 film and that proportion has lasted since 2008, so to me recentism doesn't seem to apply, but do the other arguments in favor of the 1951 film outweigh the 2:1 ratio of pageviews over time? I think reasonable arguments can be made either way. If the ratio was 10:1 or 100:1, though, reader preference would tip the scale at some point. Station1 (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Each films has higher traffic than the dab page -- more readers are reaching them through wikilinks than through searches. If we had a better measurement of how people were exiting the dab page, that would help address those concerns. It is a combination of those that you listed -- and which one "wins" should be hammered out at the move request discussion. And I absolutely agree about the ratio; a "big enough" ratio will also indicate that there isn't as much educational value or scholarly attention. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Adel

Adel has been a dab page since 2008 when I did a major cleanup. An editor has just done some cut and paste moving to make Adel a page about the male name "Adel", with lists of name holders, and moved the rest to Adel (disambiguation). I'm not sure that the name is the primary usage, and my inclination is to move the name page to Adel (name) - not sure whether the correct thing would be to revert to a previous version and then explicitly copy from that version, though I suppose attribution etc isn't an issue for dab pages.

I'd be glad if someone else would have a look and offer a view as to whether the current situation is right. Thanks. PamD (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I split the most recent edits off to Adel (name) to keep the rest of the edit history at Adel. older ≠ wiser 13:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

CATD

I can't find a guideline on this. Someone made a dab page for things that the acronym CATD could stand for, but all of the links are to pages that don't exist, and nothing links to it. I'm thinking speedy delete, but I don't see any appropriate criteria. What's the right thing to do here? Ivanvector (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

{{db-disambig}} can be used, but I found some appropriate replacement entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, that's even better. Thanks for pointing out that template, too. Ivanvector (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Departments and Ministries

We have dozens of disambiguation pages for various common government departments and ministries. In my opinion, not a single one of these should be a disambig page. Instead, each one should be an article describing generally what the purpose of such a department usually is, and identifying in a list the various countries which have such a department. Here is as complete a list as I could cull from special pages:

Cheers! bd2412 T 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Particle

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Particle, where a number of editors are seeking to foist what they perceive as a problem on us by turning this article back into a disambig page, despite the clear primary meaning for the term and the large number of perpetually unsolvable disambig links this change would generate. bd2412 T 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Finale

There were several pages on pieces of music, film or other art that linked to the DAB page Finale. That page currently includes definitions of finale in classical music, opera, and musical theatre with blue links to those key words, but none of the linked pages describe or define finale. As such, MOS:DAB suggests that they should not be included on the page.

Should such incoming links to the page be redirected to Wiktionary:finale? Or should they simply be removed? I have opted for the latter, removing internal links from La romanzesca e l'uomo nero, Matilde di Shabran, Ivan Susanin, The Scottsboro Boys (musical), Taualuga, Rozen Maiden and It's Tough to Be a Bug!. I would welcome a better solution, though.

I have also asked at WP:WikiProject Classical Music, WP:WikiProject Opera, and WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre for suggestions of somewhere else to link to. Cnilep (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not just have an article on Finale (music)? bd2412 T 04:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion is at Talk:Finale#Definitions. Cnilep (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Wood

I am a little unclear on the purpose of this dab page. When a user types in Norwegian Wood, they want to be taken to the song, not to the dab page. The current dab page lists a music festival which states on the article page that "the festival refers to the famous Beatles song Norwegian Wood". The dab page also lists a 1987 Japanese novel by the same name which clearly says in the article: "the original Japanese title Noruwei no Mori, is the standard Japanese translation of the title of The Beatles song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)"...the song is often mentioned in the novel, and is the favourite song of the character Naoko." The dab page also lists a 2010 film based on the book. Finally, the dab page contains two red links. It is obvious then, that all of the references on the dab page primarily refer to the song, and as such the dab page should be moved to Norwegian Wood (disambiguation), and Norwegian Wood should be redirected to Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) as the primary redirect, with a hat note linked to the dab page at the top. Are there any objections to this proposal? Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the primary meaning is the Beatles song, and every other meaning is a reference to it. bd2412 T 03:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:Norwegian Wood#Requested move. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Infantilism

Could someone at the wikiproject give a comment at talk:infantilism? It's an odd DAB page and I'm not sure I've enough experience to say for sure what is appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that this is actually the fifth page that WLU has involved in this conflict, which as shown in the chronology posted to number four, has been continuous since it started here. BitterGrey (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How should this work?

Should SHARP, a disambig page, be folded into and redired to Sharp (disambiguation)? It seems odd to have two, and most similar pages I've found use only one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a regular here, but might be able to offer an uninvolved opinion: See wp:Disambiguation#Double_disambiguation. It describes cases like this as rare but gives examples (suggesting that they aren't against policy). Have you thought about proposing a merger and seeing what others there think? BitterGrey (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Right. They are allowed to be merged, but they are not required to be merged. The decision should be made based on length of the lists and the likelihood that a reader reaching one page would have intended a topic on the other. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I decided to be WP:BOLD and combined the two dab pages. PamD (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nth Man

It doesn't seem particularly complex, but some input on how to handle the situation being discussed at Talk:Nth Man might be helpful.--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been solved quite well with an appropriate primary topic and a dab hatnote. --Bejnar (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Intellect

There is a discussion at Talk:Intellect about where the term intellect should point:

I thought members of this project might have an opinion, in which case please discuss at Talk:Intellect.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Burma place name disambiguation

When it is necessary to disambiguate Burmese place names at the township level, which of two forms should be preferred: "Kontha, Ayadaw Township" or "Kontha, Ayadaw"? The shorter form might be preferred because it is short, but the longer one might be preferred because it avoids confusion with similarly named districts, and district disambiguation. For example with "Kontha" there are eight occurrences in Sagaing Region:

  • Kontha, Katha Township, Katha District, 24° 17' N 096° 32' E
  • Kontha, Mawlaik Township, Mawlaik District, 23° 35' N 094° 30' E
  • Kontha, Kale Township, Kale District, 23° 29' N 094° 06' E
  • Kontha, Ye-U Township, Shwebo District, 22° 48' N 095° 12' E
  • Kôntha, Kani Township, Monywa District, 22° 47' N 094° 43' E
  • Kontha, Tabayin Township, Monywa District, 22° 31' N 095° 29' E
  • Kontha, Ayadaw Township, Monywa District, 22° 22' N 095° 25' E
  • Kontha, Budalin Township, Monywa District, 22° 19' N 095° 12' E

The first first four can be distinguished at the district level. However, in Monywa District there are four instances of "Kontha" so they will need to be distinguished at the township level. Are there other pro and cons? --Bejnar (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad concepts are not "ambiguous"

Hopefully Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad concepts are not "ambiguous" will prove to be a useful new policy - please review and apply liberally. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A better disambiguator for Chris Robinson (animation scholar)?

Hi, I've been doing a bit of work on Chris Robinson (animation scholar), and while a LOT of references are still needed it's become clear that he may be notable for alot more than his animation scholarship. Robinson is, by my count, an Ottawa-based animation historian, non-fiction author and screenwriter; film festival director; and ice hockey writer and historian. So I'm thinking to rename with the geographical disambiguation Chris Robinson (Ottawa), per Christopher Robinson (Rhode Island). However, the RI Robinson was a state politician and I worry that a geographical disambiguation like this would indeed suggest such a formal link to the region mentioned. I've tried without success to find more detailed guidelines about what should go in the parentheses, over and over what's found in WP:PRECISION. Does anyone have any suggestions or advice regarding this idea? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I always try to make the disambiguator as simple as possible. Most of his work centers around writing, so I would consider moving it to Chris Robinson (author). --JaGatalk 05:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
That's true. It's just that he's also notable for directing one of the world's biggest animation festivals and screenwriting (for the first time) in a Genie Award winning film, and I'd hate to lose those aspects. So if I have to lop off something -- and not go with his city as a disambiguator -- I guess I'd opt opt for Chris Robinson (animation): that way I'm just losing the sports-related work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Whichever you use, you can add the others as redirects if you think they're likely to help people searching for him. Station1 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

species disambiguation pages

While stub-sorting I came across P. erecta and cleaned it up. But I haven't come across this group of dab pages before and wonder whether I was right:

  • Clearly it isn't a stub
  • It's a dab page not an article so I don't think it should have had an italic title - OK?
  • The See also link to Erecta (disambiguation) didn't seem appropriate - but perhaps ... ?

Any views on this? There's a whole family of similar pages. PamD (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the "See also" is OK there. I also subst'ed the {{refer}}. Agreed on the italic title.-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the ital title, as all the results on the page are properly italicized taxonomic identifiers. I also think the "See also" is fine, since there are other taxonomic uses of Erecta listed on the target dab page, and someone typing in "P. erecta" might realize that they are actually looking for, say, B. erecta. bd2412 T 14:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The topic articles happen to have italicized titles. I'd rather leave the disambiguation page title (and the refer-to intro) unaugmented -- any topics with that title, italicized or not, will be included on the same dab page, and it doesn't gain us anything (other than chrome) to add it to the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Either way is fine with me. I suppose we should have a consistent rule, but I see nothing wrong with italicizing the title, or not. bd2412 T 15:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_24&oldid=1142535179"