Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

China disambiguation

I wanted to get opinions about the China vs. Taiwan disambiguation pages that have been popping up of late - for instance:

All of these have been created in the last month, and I suspect more are to follow. I notice, too, in the instance of Administrative divisions of China, the page mover cited NPOV as their reason, which of course doesn't come into play for disambiguation decisions.

IMO, what matters here is WP:COMMONNAME (and for cases like County (China), WP:TWODABS). I also believe that anyone typing China is looking for the PRC, unequivocally, and Taiwan's desire to claim the name as well is irrelevant since it isn't the common usage.

OK, so what do I want? First, I'd like to know if people agree with this stance (perhaps China = PRC is not a world view), and secondly, if anything should be done about this trend. --JaGa^talk 17:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you that "China" is the PRC. However, Wikipedia:NC-CHN#Political NPOV, the result of long, contentious discussions, advocates strict neutrality with regards to referring to either PRC or ROC as "China" without qualifications. older ≠ wiser 17:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I hadn't seen that. Does it really address article titles, though? This seems like instruction creep - and a dangerous precedent of using NPOV in the determination of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (or lack thereof). --JaGa^talk 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a completely novel precedent. See WP:MOSMAC, which was the result of an ArbCom intervention. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Network computer

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Network computer#Article content. Trevj (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Discussion needs closure (and/or action)

See Talk:Black Saturday. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Disambiguation needed

Members of this project may want to note that {{Disambiguation needed}} now takes a date parameter (see the template's documentation). On a related note, I have proposed here that the documentation be changed to direct editors to put the template after a link instead of including the link as a parameter to the template itself. Your comments on whether this change is desirable would be welcome. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange But True

Could one of you please look at Strange But True? When I went there tonight (June 30 2011), I expected to get to the Michael Aspel programme and was disappointed to see I got to an article on a newspaper column. Many thanks if you could link into this. Incidentally, if you go to Strange but true, you will see the disambiguation tag on the talk page. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a hatnote pointing to the TV series and to an album of that name. And removed the dab tags as this was not a dab page, even though it includes a list of things with the name. Station1 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@ACEO, if you would have added the ? to your query, it would have taken you straight to the page you wanted. The thing to remember is that every title is case and character sensitive, and if you're not careful, you may wind up elsewhere. Be that as it may, I have taken the entries out of Strange but true and put them in Strange but true (disambiguation) where they belong, and added hatnotes to the other listings that have articles. ArcAngel (talk) ) 04:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the list at Strange but true should have been moved to Strange but true (disambiguation). It doesn't disambiguate articles on WP. Most of the items either don't have a bluelink, or the bluelink mentions the phrase only in passing, as a link back to strange but true, or not at all. Station1 (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

RM notice: China

Another move request has been filed for China to be made a disambiguation page. This will affect this project, given the incoming links. See Talk:China. Nightw 19:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

History subsection incomplete DAB pages

There are a few examples of incomplete disambiguation of articles on history, e.g., History of Pomerania (1933–present) and History_of_the_United_States_(1980–present). Incomplete disambiguation is generally easy to take care of, if the full DAB page contains the links as well, but here the "full" pages are not disambiguation pages, nor really have disambiguation pages - they are articles on the history, and somewhere link to the articles linked on each of those DAB pages, but not like a regular DAB page would. My gut feeling is either to just delete (or redirect to the main history page, better yet) the DAB pages (it does seem unlikely that anyone would search for one of those terms...), or... maybe make a separate DAB page History of Pomerania (disambiguation) to link to all pages with the form "History of Pomerania (qualifier)". The latter suggestion feels rather unnecessary, though, especially since all of the individual history pages are generally linked to from the history pages, when talking about that time period. I did want to discuss it though, especially since there was some discussion a few years ago of what to do: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_19. I guess these pages used to exist when those time qualifiers were the articles that existed - and one of the rationale for keeping them (and not deleting them - a redirect would be fine) was in case of any old external links to the pages. Anyway, I'm leaning towards just redirecting towards the broad history article, but let me know what you think. -- Natalya 21:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with redirecting to the broad topic article. The title "History of the United States (1980–present)", for example, is not ambiguous and there is no reason it should either be a disambiguation page, or redirect to one — it refers unambiguously to a single topic, which Wikipedia editors for reasons of convenience (either for themselves or for the readers) may have decided to split up into several subtopic articles. That decision to divide a topic into subtopics does not make the title of the original, broader topic "ambiguous", as explained in more detail at WP:DABCONCEPT. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Not having heard from anyone else (and yet seeing that many folks are around when a more debated topic comes up below!), I'm going to assume that no one has a problem with this, and will take care of it. Thanks, Russ. -- Natalya 19:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Middle names

User:Epeefleche insists on adding Robert Sherman Halperin (who, according to the article, goes by "Bob" and "Buck") to Sherman. I can't convince this editor that Halperin doesn't belong there, per WP:PTM and the general rationale of dab pages, so I've come here for third opinions. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Said another way -- Editor Clarity insists on deleting Robert Sherman Halperin from the Sherman dab page, under a section entitled Middle Names. His edit summary for his deletion: "We don't count middle names". I demonstrated to him that his assertion was false -- that we in fact have 200 such pages in which we list people's middle names. He didn't admit that he had been incorrect as what we do, but simply then backed up to take the position that those 200 pages are wrong.

I also pointed out to him that its inclusion is appropriate per wp:common sense -- inasmuch as middle names have progenies that match those of first names and surnames; especially, a name such as this one will be of interest to a reader at the project for much the same reason. In short -- a reader looking for use of the name Sherman should be allowed to see not only where it is used as a first or last name, but also where it is used as a middle name. He had no direct response to this, but seems perhaps more focused on his understanding of the rule rather than the rationale for the rule.

I invited him to mention my thoughts when raising the issue here, but he seems disinclined, so I've spelled them out briefly myself.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You wrote "... spelling out your thinking and mind" rather than "mine", and I was multitasking, so I didn't pay much attention to what followed. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides, why is it my responsibility to present your arguments? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the typo. You had no responsibility, of course -- it was an effort at a more civil way to kick off the discussion. As to my other points, I stand by them. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are to direct readers to articles they are looking for, not to offer matter "of interest" to people looking for the "progenies" (is that the right word?) of the name. By all means add people with the middle name to a "Sherman (name)" page, but they have no place on the dab page. Even people with the name as first forename should strictly not be on the dab page unless they are commonly known by it alone ("Elvis" etc), but WP:MOSNAME allows a "People with the given name Xxxx" section if there isn't a "... (name)" page. I don't see that this should be extended to middle names. Perhaps WP:MOSNAME would benefit from a note to make this clear. PamD (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Clarityfiend and PamD; the purpose of a disambiguation page is not to list every possible usage of a term or name, it is only to identify those Wikipedia articles concerning topics that might be known by that term or name. The inclusion of other information on a disambig page is not WP:COMMONSENSE at all. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also not a persuasive argument; it just proves we have a lot of disambig pages that need to be cleaned up. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Also agreeing with both Pam and Russ. Unless there are explicit indications that a person is commonly known by their middle name alone, it is not ambiguous and does not belong on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Sherman page is actually a bit of a mess: it contains the sort of information about the name which would be appropriate on a "... (name)" page (which could include middle names of course), but also includes many places etc which should not be on such a page but have a worthy place on a disambiguation page. I think there need to be two separate pages, and a collection of incoming links need to be tidied up too. I might have a go at sorting this out. PamD (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I had the same thought. Also, looking at the "evidence" provided by Epeefleche, while some of the pages in the search are already name pages rather than disambiguation pages, there are a number of disambiguation pages that either need to be split or simply require some basic cleanup. older ≠ wiser 12:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly gone ahead and split the page into a dab page at Sherman and Sherman (name). (It had been "Sherman (surname)" earlier in its history, moved with the rationale that not all entries were surnames). I've also disambiguated all the incoming links, which were mostly the tank, the General, and the town in Texas, with a handful of others. I'm sure other people will disagree with some of my decisions and want to tweak the dab page, but I'm fairly happy with it as it stands. I do think that the tank and the General need to be singled out as the two most likely meanings when someone searches, or carelessly links to, "Sherman". PamD (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Middle names are given names, but not (usually) "go-by" names. If an anthroponymy list article exists listing people who happen to have been given the given name, I don't see any reason to exclude the middle-name-holders (of course, I don't see the reason for the anthroponymy lists either, so this is neutral on that). But unless the individual goes by the middle name, there is not even the tenuous ambiguity the first-name-holders have, so they do not serve any reader by listing them on a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I generally agree with JHunter's above opinion -- it follows the logic of listing first names and surnames in the first place. The reasons for listing middle names (and indeed the reasons for conferring them in the first place) generally follow the reasons for listing (and conferring) given names and surnames. At the same time, Pam's solution is elegant -- she moved the middle name to a new page she created, a "Sherman (name)" page. The reasons for including the name there are, of course, the precise same ones that we would use to keep it on a dab page. No difference at all.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that JHunterJ was referring to anthroponymy list articles, which serve different purposes than a disambiguation page -- there is no point to listing middle names on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 03:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that this discussion stems from one editor's misunderstanding of the term "given name". Since the middle name is a given name, simply list people who have that middle name (where it seems necessary) in the given name section. I suspect there will be very few cases where we would want to list people who have a particular middle name, but there are probably a few cases where it makes sense. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "middle name" is not necessarily, a given name -- though Delicious says that is the case. The wp article makes that clear. I imagine that is why we have the phrase "middle name". And the wp article. It makes for a good read, though it is shy on citations for my taste. A good example, while we are on the subject of Shermans, being Eleanor Sherman Thackara. But even more than that, there is clearly a difference in how different cultures/countries use the middle name.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In the name in question, Robert and Sherman are given names and Halperin is the surname. The middle name, Sherman, is also a given name. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In the name in question, if the subject's mother's name was Sherman, it is more likely that "Sherman" was a second surname. We simply don't know the answer. Sometimes middle names are (second) given names. Sometimes they are (second) surnames. Sometimes ... per the article, in some cultures ... they are simply middle names. It is not always apparent. Without more, one would not know whether in Bob Sherman Jones the name "Sherman" is a second given names or a second surname ... but what is certain is that it is a middle name. In some cultures, as the article indicates, this is especially uncertain.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether a middle name is a given name or a second surname is tangential -- on a disambiguation page, the relevant question is whether there is ambiguity in how the subject is commonly known. older ≠ wiser 23:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

When it is a second surname (which we don't of course always know), it may often be a name by which they were commonly known. This is likely the case, for example with Eleanor Sherman Thackara. This will not always be clear from a person's bio.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, both individuals you have used as examples come from the United States and although it is not uncommon for surnames of ancestors to be used in the US as middle names, they are still given names, not surnames. You are right that this is not the case in all cultures, but that doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cultures vary: my father was born in France to British parents, and they wanted to use his mother's maiden name as a middle name (Scottish tendency, I think, as well as common in USA). The French registrar said "Non": they couldn't give the child two surnames. So he never had a middle name. His brother, also born in France, had middle name "Georges", because the registrar wouldn't accept "George"!. PamD (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Without other indications, it is an exceptional case that individuals are commonly known (in an ambiguous manner) as their middle name. older ≠ wiser 00:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Where a term is most likely to be a given name, I think the base page name should be an article on that name, and other uses should be moved to a "Foo (disambiguation)" page. In this case, I think Sherman should be an article on the given name, or on the use of the term as a first and a last name if both uses have the same origin, and other uses should be at Sherman (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that as a general principle, but I think in this case, the given/family name is not the primary topic for term "Sherman" and the disambiguation page is correctly placed. older ≠ wiser 21:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I considered carefully whether to split the existing page into Sherman (a dab page) and Sherman (name) or into Sherman (name, as primary usage) and Sherman (disambiguation). I decided, partly on the basis of the experience of checking and fixing all the incoming links to Sherman, that there was no primary usage (the tank, the city in Texas, and the General were all the intended target of substantial numbers of links). It is certainly not the case here that the "term is most likely to be a given name".

But even if the term is most commonly used as a given name, that does not imply that people searching Wikipedia for it will be looking for that usage. Consider "John": the word is probably most commonly used as a given name. The dab page at John has links to John (given name) and John (surname), and dab entries for various saints, rulers, fictional characters known as "John" with no other name, as well as a scatter of ships, computer programs etc (no places, interestingly). Very few people looking for the Wikipedia article on John Xyzzz would look for him just as "John". They might search under "Xyzzz", not knowing the given name. Lists of people having a term as a given name (whether first or middle) really do not belong in disambiguation pages. They are fine in "...(name)" or "...(given name)" pages: these are not disambiguation pages, are not within the scope of WP:MOSDAB, and most of the disambiguation enthusiasts who freqent this talk page will happily leave them alone to be worried over by WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy. PamD (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would bet that all of the cities (and the tank) are named after people. bd2412 T 00:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but derivation is not necessarily an indication that the name is primary. older ≠ wiser 00:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Right. Otherwise sheep shearer would be the primary topic for "Sherman". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Check please

Can someone check the second and third of the three edits I made to RUC. I want to make sure I'm understanding things. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a blue link to the entry for Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee. I made some other edits too, but they weren't corrections to yours. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Transcluding Wiktionary definitions

I have started a discussion at the MOS for a crosswiki-transclusion-like template for definitions. — Dispenser 14:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)

This used to be an article about the films, but they were since split into two separate articles covering each part (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2). There is some dispute about what should be done about the original page. Should it redirect to one of the articles (with a hatnote for the other article) as is the current situation, have its own dismabiguation page (bearing in mind that the two articles themselves don't need to be disambiguated) or redirect to the main disambiguation page at Deathly Hallows (disambiguation), or simply deleted? There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) but it's going nowhere. Some help from editors familiar with the guidelines would be much appreciated. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions on DAB pages

Is it always wrong to keep dictionary definitions out of the main listings on disambiguation pages? Currently, WP:DABNOT and MOS:DAB seem pretty clear that such definitions ought to be handled at Wiktionary, via link at the top of the disambiguation page, but I'm wondering at what point, if any, an exception could be made.

The example I had in mind is QFT, to which the definition "Quoted For Truth" (a not uncommon internet acronym) keeps being added. I reverted the latest addition (edit summary: "making people click to Wiktionary is annoying and unnecessary"), but I'm wondering whether I shouldn't give in to an apparent localised consensus. --88.109.60.234 (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary seems to give different answers depending where you look. wikt:QFT gives Quoted for Truth, while wikt:Appendix:Internet_slang#Q gives Quoted For Truthiness and omits the former, though it is clearly derivative. Personally, I don't think leaving a brief definition with a link to wiktionary is such a big deal, although it could open the door to abuse -- i.e., why select only one acronym to expand from wiktionary -- why not include every one? That would be undesirable duplication. Also, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Including definitions, which is not exactly the same, but might be adapted. older ≠ wiser 11:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing bad in (numerous) links to Wiktionary, but these links should be designed as links to Wiktionary, not disguised as Wikipedia's dab entries. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Robinson (disambiguation)

Apologies if this is the wrong place to put this, but I couldn't find any other sensible way to deal with it.

I've spotted a minor error on the Andrew Robinson (disambiguation) page.

Andrew Robinson (UK politician), leader of the Pirate Party UK should be Andrew Robinson (UK politician), former leader of the Pirate Party UK or possibly Andrew Robinson (UK politician), founder of the Pirate Party UK or some combination thereof.

I can't make the change myself, because I am Andrew Robinson (UK politician), founder and former leader of the Pirate Party UK, and I don't want to commit the sin of editing information about myself.

2.24.27.221 (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Andrew Robinson

Correction made, Andrew. Thanks. By the way, although editing information about yourself is discouraged, it isn't a sin, and I think most of us would consider it not only permissible but indeed highly desirable to correct factual inaccuracies about yourself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The war on drugs

Presently, a search for "the war on drugs" takes the reader to The War on Drugs (a documentary) which has a hatnote: "For the band, see The War on Drugs (band)". A search for "war on drugs" redirects to War on Drugs (the military and domestic campaign against illicit drug use) which has a hatnote: "For other uses, see War on Drugs (disambiguation)." Wouldn't it be more efficient if both search terms found War on Drugs (1300 hits a day) with a hatnote to the disambiguation page? The War on Drugs gets about 25 hits a day but I'm betting most of those were looking for War on Drugs. Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask for this advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is relevant to your question. If you decide a redirect is needed for "The War on Drugs", read over WP:MOVE as you would need to move the current article to something like "The War on Drugs (film)" —Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave it for a day or so and then give it a shot. I'll point Talk:The War on Drugs to this conversation. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the hatnote on The War on Drugs, but I'd also support a move of the documentary to make way for a redirect to the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think the clear primary topic (indeed the topic of the film) is the activity. bd2412 T 17:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As a contributor who is fairly knowledgeable about this topic (the U.S drug policy, not the film) but who is also quite an avid watcher of documentary films and a self-proclaimed documentary nut, I would have to say that I am strongly in favor of reversing the two; a search for either "The War on Drugs" and/or "War on Drugs" should lead one to the page for the war on drugs (as this is probably...in fact, almost definitely, what the vast majority of English-speaking people think of when they hear/think of the phrase "war on drugs") but that page should include a hatnote leading to disambiguation OR to the film, but preferably to the former. I don't care how it's set up in other languages, but in English that's how it should be, without a doubt or a second thought. The War on Drugs should be the primary topic, even if it is phrased as "the war on drugs". The fact that this is the title of the documentary simply doesn't even come close to warranting the way it's currently set up; the documentary is obscure at least, but certainly not a major documentary film (I've never heard of the film until just now, anyway, and I watch a lot of documentaries). I think a move of the page for the film over to "The War on Drugs (film)" is a far superior solution to this issue. Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 9:45 AM EST, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd do it but don't know how to make an italic title. I think what's required is

Move The War on Drugs to The War on Drugs (documentary) or The War on Drugs (film)
Redirect The war on drugs to War on drugs
Add The War on Drugs (documentary/film) to War on Drugs (disambiguation)
Add "For other uses, see War on Drugs (disambiguation)" to the top of The War on Drugs (documentary/film) and The War on Drugs (band)

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Diane Thorne (dab)

Can somebody delete this one? The actress is actually Dyanne.... :( :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I placed a speedy deletion tag on the dab page, reversed the move of Diane Thorne and put {{distinguish}} hatnotes on both of them. Station1 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

insurance

I created the disambiguation page for “Insurance”, and I don't think it is complete. Could someone help me fix it? I have it on my watchlist. Thanks, An editor since 10.28.2010. 03:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
PS: there's a song about disambiguations: “Disambiguation, Disambiguation”

Thank you for your work on this page, but I'm afraid it just isn't appropriate. None of these entries is a valid dab page entry - they are all terms including the word "insurance", but not articles with titles which are ambiguous. Rather surprisingly there seem to be no novels, films, bands, small towns, etc called "Insurance", which would necessitate a dab page. The various sorts of insurance are covered in the article Insurance. There is no need for this dab page so I have prodded it. I thought about CSD G-6, "unnecessary dab page", but realised this could not be called a non-controversial deletion. If you are interested in helping with disambiguation pages, please learn more about them first - see WP:MOSDAB. For example, you labelled it as "Orphan": in an ideal world every disambiguation page would be an orphan - there should be no incoming links. Thanks. PamD (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see someone else has moved it to List of insurance topics! PamD (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, converting this to a list was an only useful thing to do. It was evident that the page contains zero ambiguity and therefore has no chance as a dab page, with amboxes or without, and does not matter under which criterion it will go deleted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

~~Yeah, yeah, whatever, t~~ Thanks for your work. An editor since 10.28.2010. 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Make {{dn}} use Dab solver

Currently, {{Disambiguation needed}} links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing links and while written newbie friendly, simply has too many steps. So I suggest we point the link to the more intuitive Dab solver tool. I have added a &editintro= parameter (works just like in MediaWiki) so we can include instructions at the top. I also suggest that we include an icon to differentiate the interactivity from the other fix templates. — Dispenser 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but it would probably be better to continue to have the text ("[disambiguation needed]") link to the explanation, and the icon link to the tool. Typical users are not expecting clicking an ordinary wiki-link to take them to an off-site tool. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you from m:WikiMiniAtlas that even after adding the downward arrow to the icon that people still regard it as decoration. We also link to the Toolserver from a lot of pages. I could re-skin it match vector, but that's going to bring deeper confusions rather the shallow one about the skin. — Dispenser 15:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal within the scope of this WikiProject

I made a proposal that might be relevant to this WikiProject at WP:VPR#Allow the inclusion of references and redlinks in disambiguation pages. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Usage of LNC template on two letter dab pages

Most two letter dab pages, like for example Mo seem to use Template:LetterCombination. I question the rationale behind the assumption that a reader who visits Mo also wants to visit MN, MP, LO or NO. Furthermore, what is the point of directing a reader from one dab page to another one that is not ambiguous with the first one? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I too can't see the point in this template, and would like to see WP:MOSDAB explicitly state that such templates are not appropriate in a dab page. I can see the point in referring from Mo (2 letters) to M0 (letter + digit), but not the "browsing through the alphabet" setup. PamD (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To my amazement, there is no link between those two confusable pairs of characters! Surely it's much more useful to provide such links, in both directions, and also between MI and M1, than to provide the 4 links offered by the above template? I'm just wondering whether there should be a template for the (26 (a-z) x 2 (2 directions) x 2 (both O/0 and I/1) =) 112 links suggested by these thoughts? What about Om (disambiguation) and 0M, neither of which link to each other? Hmmm: make that 224 uses, to allow for O/0/I/1 +letter combinations too? We could say "why stop at 2-character", but my instinct is that there's more likely to be confusion when there's a single digit and single letter than for longer groups of characters. PamD (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So what should we do about this template? Should it be removed from all articles? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I remove it when I happen to edit such pages. IMO, such navigation boxesare only appropriate where the page is about a particular set of things named using some sequence of letter/number combinations and are at best tangential clutter on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then should we perhaps request a bot that removes the template from all pages? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

O/0 and I/1 in 2-character dab pages

I wonder what's the best way to link 02 and O2, HI and H1, and similar pairs? I think they are confusable (see discussion above) and that it would be useful to link them.

WP:MOSDAB says that the See also section can include "Terms which can be confused with Title" and also says "When appropriate, place easily confused terms in a hatnote.". I think I favour a hatnote myself - probably {{distinguish}}? At present some pages have links in the See Also section (AO and A0), some have hatnotes (O3 has a "see also" hatnote, though assymetrically 03 links in a See also section!) some have nothing (A1 and AI).

A clear reminder of the existence of the other page would also help remind editors not to add incorrect entries to the dab page - I've just removed an "O2" from the "02" page.

Or are they not confusable at all, and any hatnotes would be as disfavoured as the navigational boxes discussed above?

PamD (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've used {{distinguish}} in the past, and favor it. I don't have any real issue with a link in "See also" instead, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Year dab

I just posted a note to Template talk:Year dab#Basic problem, but it might be better discussed here. New template from February seems to conflate integer articles and disambiguation pages for ambiguous titles that happen to also be integers. I think this is not good for readers looking for the ambiguous topics (as opposed to just numerical geekery around a number, which other readers will enjoy finding on the (number) page). I just created 200 (disambiguation) to go alongside 200 (number), for instance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to be the wording which the template produces when there exists an "n (number)" page but not an "n (disambiguation)" page. It links to the number page but "for the number (and other uses)". The actual links displayed are OK: the hatnote at 200 reads perfectly, while 201 is wrong. In many cases (like 2011) the number link is a redirect to a group of numbers, which makes it all the more confusing for someone who is looking for an "other use" in a case where there is no dab page (either because there are no articles yet for "other uses" or because there are but no-one's made a dab page!)

The template needs to be changed so that the wording displayed when there is a number page (or redirect) but no dab page is just "For the number, see n (number)". PamD (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking further, there's a horrible mess of treatments of numbers. Consider "2125": it has an entry on page 2000 (number), in the section "Selected numbers in the range 2001–2999", to tell us that it is a nonagonal number. But you can't get to that information from 2125, which is a redirect to 2120s. Not a pretty sight. It seems that the year pages have been decreed to be Primary Use, even for future years (not sure how far: 3000 is a straight dab page, though 3001 redirects to 31st century!) and even when they currently have to be redirects, but without enough thought given to other linkages. PamD (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The template doesn't have any smarts. The hatnote at 200 is not that template any longer. It used to be this. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is: {{Year dab|200}} gives and {{Year dab|201}} (where no dab page exists) gives

Looks OK, except for the superfluous "(and other uses)" in the latter. Or am I missing something? PamD (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I was missing it. Thanks; mea culpa. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Alerts

BTW, me and H3llkn0wz subscribed your project to WP:AALERTS. Your report page is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts (if you want the alerts to show up in your watchlist, watch that page). We also transcluded it on the main project page (here) but how you present this is really up to you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nanshan vs. 南山

There is a conflict about whether 南山 should redirect to Nanshan. Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force, seems like it should stay a disambiguation page. However, some editors are insisting on the redirect based on WP:ENGLISH. Please help. Thank you. --Tesscass (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any discussion about this at Talk:南山. Where has the previous discussion occurred? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No there weren't. But there were several redo/undos, sometimes with reasons given in the edit history. --Tesscass (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

AFD of interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boone Elementary School is one of four disambiguation pages with "Elementary School" in the title nominated at about the same time by the same editor. The other three all have been closed as "Keep" based largely on MOS:DABMENTION, but the discussion on this fourth one is still open and seems to be leaning towards "Delete," with limited participation. Members of this project may want to participate while the discussion is still open. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD notice: Template:Letter-NumberCombination

Template:Letter-NumberCombination, which is used on dab pages such as A1 (disambiguation) etc. has again been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 14#Template:Letter-NumberCombination. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dates on personal name DABs

It seems to me that dates of birth, and death where applicable, are helpful on personal name DABs, and should be suggested by guidelines. Someone searching for a particular person will often have at least a rough idea of when they lived.

The dates are less useful when the people lived at much the same time, but drawing the line on this seems problematical and unnecessary. Just put them all in. They don't change!

I'd suggest just years would do, for the same reason: The exact dates won't often help to identify the person, because if they're close then the reader won't often know which to choose.

Comments? Is this already in a guideline that I've missed (where?), or has it been previously rejected (apologies if so)? Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#People. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I see I came to the right place, thank you. I have been sometimes adding them even in ignorance of this guideline, I'll now do it consistently, they are often missing (I have just moved a case in point). Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Dabfix adds lifespans and film/album/book release dates automatically. — Dispenser 05:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As a frequent disambiguator I just want to register my strong support for this policy. Critical dates make the job much easier. bd2412 T 19:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"TSA" Disambiguation Page

Just a suggestion, the "TSA" Disambiguation Page should include the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) an in-school test run by the The Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA). The TSA is imporatant in Hong Kong, even if it is unknown in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.218.20 (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have an article on the Territory-wide System Assessment? Apparently not, as of now. Further the topic is not mentioned anywhere in the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority article. There is no article that discusses this topic as far as I can tell, so there is no reason to list it on the disambiguation page. If an article is written, then it should be included on the disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ebenezer

The page 'Ebenezer', which is listed under WikiProject Disambiguation, does not mention the character Ebenezer in 'A Christmas Carol'. However it does list a film adaptaion of it. The most famous person with that name might be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.218.20 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is listed - under "Given name". Has apparently been since at least Jan 2010 (only checked one earlier version). PamD 07:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Passion

More eyes and opinions welcome at Talk:Passion#Proposed de-disambiguation. I doubt I'm as objective since being labeled as a censor. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This one is still rambling on - see Talk:Passion. PamD 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Strawberry

Does it not bother anyone else that Strawberry is now a disambiguation page? A user types "Strawberry" into the search box, and the encyclopedia's response is "Sorry, we aren't quite sure what you mean, please clarify." Really? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I've moved it back to Strawberry (disambiguation) and redirected strawberry to garden strawberry. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The admin who moved Strawberry (disambiguation) to Strawberry seemed to be under the impression that WP:DABNAME mandated the move (per this edit summary). I have pointed out that it's ok for a term to have a primary topic and yet be a redirect (Elvis being the obvious example) on his talk page; hopefully, the point will sink in. --88.104.46.22 (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This may require an extended discussion as there is no agreement as to which is the primary topic. The history of the term is that it has been pointed at both Garden strawberry and Fragaria; and there are plausible arguments for both. See history plus talk pages - Talk:Fragaria, Talk:Strawberry (disambiguation) and Talk:Garden strawberry.

WP:FLORA and WP:DAB indicate that in such circumstances a DAB page named after the topic [rather than topic (disambiguation)] should be used. While I have a personal inclination toward having Strawberry point toward Garden strawberry, I can see that Fragaria also makes sense, so following the guidelines to have a dab page seemed the most helpful and least disruptive approach. When I looked at incoming links to Strawberry I noted that uses of the term within Wikipedia could indicate either article. Ones that were easy I pointed appropriately to either Garden strawberry or Fragaria, the rest I left pointing to the disamb page.

I suggest one of two possible discussions:

1) Rename Garden strawberry to Strawberry as the primary topic, and check incoming links to ensure it is the species Fragaria × ananassa which is wanted.

or

2) Have Strawberry as the disamb page which lists Garden strawberry and Fragaria as the main possible targets.

Either (or both) discussions would be useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

- Should discuss at Talk:Strawberry and/or Talk:Garden strawberry, possibly with the appropriate WP:RM discussion. In any event, the reason given earlier, that a base name couldn't be a redirect, has been corrected, I think.-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  - What we need is a third option. TWODABS is generally considered inapplicable when there are more than two possible uses of a term, but what about this situation, where there are two overwhelmingly likely options and the rest are vanishingly minor? In this circumstance, it appears TWODABS should still apply; we should pick whichever one has the best claim to it as the primary, then have a hatnote saying, basically, you might mean this other one, or you might want to go to the disambig for other uses. bd2412 T 13:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    - There are several cases where the most likely topics are listed on the disambiguation page at the top before any others. There are also cases where a hatnote on the "most primary" topic (even when that is a redirected term) contains direct links to the secondary primary topics along with a link to a general disambiguation page. I think both practices are supported by current guidelines, so I'm not sure that any new third option is needed. In my opinion, I think the issue here is whether the common garden strawberry is the primary topic. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that readers looking for "strawberry" are likely to be looking for the genus. older ≠ wiser 13:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    - BD2412, twodabs doesn't say "pick whichever one has the best claim" -- it says if there's a primary topic, then do yadda yadda. If there is no primary topic (even among two, even if there are hundreds of others that are vanishingly likely), then the dab goes at the base name. Order of entries should then emphasize the two before the vanishingly likely ones. If there's a primary topic, then yes, {{two other uses}} should be used to point out both the other popular choice and the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ibrahim

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ibrahim (disambiguation), which I think could benefit from input from experienced disambiguators. --NSH001 (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirects from (disambiguation) to non-dab pages

There is a list of these redirects at User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation redirects/001 though to User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation redirects/032. I've started a page about handling them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Redirects from (disambiguation) to non-disambiguation pages where your thoughts are very welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If the target page is not a disambiguation page, the redirect should be deleted, and speedily would be fine. This would apply to lists (including set index articles) and number articles. If there is ambiguity and the (list) article doesn't handle it, then the redirect should be changed into a proper disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? These pages list titles pages with titles that are ambiguous to the search term, even if not technically disambiguation pages. They probably wont be used as internal links, but are useful for searchers - I know I'm not the only one who searches for "x (disambiguation)" when I think what I'm looking for is not the primary topic but I don't know the page title. What harm are they doing? Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this only highlights the confusion regarding the distinction between set index articles and disambiguation pages. In most cases, links to set index articles (especially when they are placed as the primary topic) are mistaken and should be disambiguated. older ≠ wiser 11:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If they need to have links to them corrected, they should be tagged and formatted as disambiguation pages, not set index articles. If they are articles, they shouldn't be the target of a (disambiguation) redirect. Making that distinction should help reduce the confusion between SIAs and disambiguation pages (and possibly highlight the mis-application of SIAs in some instances where dab pages should be used). It's not that they aren't technically disambiguation pages, it's that they are intentionally articles instead of disambiguation pages-- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you run smack into issues with completeness. SIA may intentionally include entries that are verifiable but which do not have articles and which would fail WP:DABRL. Yet links to such a SIA typically should be disambiguated. It sounds as though you'd want to have separate pages for "authentic" disambiguation content and SIA content. For example, consider the SIA Granite Peak -- it is likely that most links to that page are unintentional. Would you rather have Granite Peak (disambiguation) include only the blue links and those redlinks which satisfy WP:DABRL with a separate link to the SIA page? older ≠ wiser 14:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. If the SIA is actually an article, as it claims, links to it should exist, otherwise it's an orphan. It should probably be moved to List of mountains named Granite Peak or something. If most links to Granite Peak need to be disambiguated, a disambiguation page should be created at the base name to disambiguate those links to the possibly-intended articles. If most links to Granite Peak intend the list of mountains named Granite Peak, then the SIA remains at the base name as the primary topic, and a disambiguation page, if one is needed, would be at Granite Peak (disambiguation) -- but one might not be needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that by virtue of appearing on a separately existing SIA, the redlinks on the page would then satisfy WP:DABRL and a disambiguation page would end up duplicating the SIA content sans the additional information appropriate for an SIA but not a disambiguation page. A quick look at what's links here for "Granite Peak" indicates most of the links intend a specific peak, not the general list. The point is that most SIAs are in fact more like specialized disambiguation pages than they are like articles. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, they are mis-applied. They are acting as disambiguation pages, and claiming to be articles in order to sidestep the disambiguation guidelines. It's a problem, and contributes to the confusion that you noted. If there is a need for a list of peaks named Granite, then that list can be linked from the disambiguation page (once); each red link on the SIA would not need to be included on the dab page, minimizing the duplication. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense where there are heterogenous entities to be disambiguated. But in the case of many SIAs, there is no other type of entity to disambiguate. It seems rather arcane to separate the disambiguation from the complete list in such situations. older ≠ wiser 15:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This problem occurs repeatedly with surname pages. It is often convenient to have a page with a brief description of the origin and meaning of a surname (including sources), followed by a list of notable people who have the surname. At one time I called these disambiguation pages, but after harassment on the issue I switched to calling them just name pages, although they serve a disambiguation purpose. The fanatical appoach is to insist on two separate pages, but that can be a bit ridiculous when both resulting pages are rather short. More importantly it is less user-friendly, and user-friendliness should trump the rather over-strict rules of separation which have evolved. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bkonrad, if a disambiguation page isn't needed, then a (disambiguation) redirect isn't needed. Pointing a (disambiguation) redirect to a SIA just adds to the confusion. If we (or they, the SIAers) need to distinguish intentional links to an SIA vs. unintentional ones, we/they can come up with an accurate parallel. (SIA) or (set index article) redirects, or base name redirects to properly-titled "List of..." list articles (correct the links to the base name, assume links to "List of..." are intentional). SamuelTheGhost, the lists of people who happen to hold a surname but aren't ambiguous with the surname serve a different purpose than disambiguation pages. The disambiguation pages that disambiguate actually ambiguity are more user-friendly to readers who are trying to get to an ambiguously titled topic than the disambiguation pages that make them load (or worse, jump over) a list of unambiguous partial title matches first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) Here I have to disagree with Samuel somewhat. People with a surname are a partial title match and are included on disambiguation page mostly because of the practice by which people are sometime referred to by only their surname. Name-specific content, such as etymology, is not appropriate for disambiguation pages. When the list of surname holders grows beyond a small handful, I think it helps keep the disambiguation page focused on uses of the ambiguous term. As for given names, my opinion is that these have no place on disambiguation pages except where a person is commonly known only by the given name (e.g., Elvis). older ≠ wiser 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

@JHunterJ, if the page is a list which requires disambiguation then I don't understand what you are saying. You seem to be inventing unnecessary complexities. I think it would be much clearer if we simply recognized SIAs for what they are -- specialized disambiguation pages, rather than making everything so convoluted. older ≠ wiser 16:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to solve the unnecessary complexities introduced by SIAs. Easiest, no-complexity solution, which I led with: delete any (disambiguation) redirect that doesn't point to a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's just pretending that the problem doesn't exist. older ≠ wiser 16:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, make up your mind, B. There are coherent consistent solutions for it along the "complex/involved" spectrum, but the ones on the low end of the scale "pretend the problem doesn't exist" and the ones further up the scale are "so convoluted". None of the solutions should pretend articles are disambiguation pages, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling something an article that is in all except name a disambiguation page is not helpful. older ≠ wiser 17:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That was another proposed solution: tag them as disambiguation pages if they're already disambiguation pages in everything by name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Then we have to deal with the SIA formatting that differs from standard disambiguation pages. I'd rather see them treated as a specialized type of disambiguation page. Links to them are fixed, but they can have formatting or content as appropriate for that type of page. older ≠ wiser 17:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, J, we have to deal with the world the way it is, not the way it should be. As long as we have a significant number of pages that claim to be articles but look a lot more like disambiguation pages (and, yes, we also have the opposite), I think Thryduulf is correct in suggesting we keep the "disambiguation" redirects to those pages. That makes it harder for me and anyone else who wants to clean up misplaced redirects, but I'm not in favor of inconveniencing our readers just to make life easier for editors. -- R'n'B (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Fully agreed. But the increasing confusion between SIAs and disambiguation pages inconveniences readers to make life easier for editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What are the inconveniences for readers? Mistaken links to SIAs that are not addressed by the disambiguation project because they are not counted as disambiguation pages? older ≠ wiser 17:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

SIAs that then incorrectly act as disambiguation pages without following the disambiguation guidelines put more clutter in between the reader and the article they were seeking. If that's not an actual inconvenience any longer, we should remove most of the disambiguation guidelines and incorporate the SIAs, number articles, surname lists, and whatever within the disambiguation project. I'd rather not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the current situation. Most SIA pages do function as disambiguation pages to some degree. They've been shunted off to a conveniently ignored corner, but with few exceptions links to such pages should be disambiguated. I'll leave the question open whether or not the formatting is actually a hinderance (or merely something different and unfamiliar to those steeped in the tribal lore of disambiguation), as my primary objection to how SIA pages are currently handled is that they are not included in the reports of pages with links that need disambiguation (I may be mistaken, but I don't think they do).

I'm gonna admit that I haven't read all of that, but I do want to point out the special status of X (disambiguation) pages. WP:INTDABLINK establishes these redirects as "intentional" links to disambiguation pages (usually from hatnotes and See also sections). Considering the specialized use of these redirects for that guideline, I've always considered cleanup - that is, deleting X (disambiguation) redirects that don't actually point to disambigs - to be a necessary task to avoid confusion. I've long considered asking for permission to speedy these at WP:RfD and/or here - I've even created a report for it - but I never got around to it. --JaGa^talk 20:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW what about at least deleting redirects that don't point to SIAs? I should be able to filter those out of my report. -ic (disambiguation), for instance, strikes me as sloppy, almost embarrassingly so. --JaGa^talk 20:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There are four sorts here - ones that could be CSD G6 deleted; ones that probably need deleting but should be discussed rather than done speedily (as retargetting or something might be possible but not obvious); ones that should be retargetted; and ones that should be kept. At the page I linked to above, I've tried to list attributes that sort them into the above categories. Redirects to set index articles should normally either be kept or retargetted.

-ic is tagged for the dab project and at one point was claimed to be a dab page, which is why -ic (disambiguation) page exists. Subsequently though it was realised that everything on the page was dictionary definitions, and so was soft-redirected. I agree the (disambiguation) redirect should be deleted, so I've nominated it at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)