Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:16, 21 August 2008

Disambiguation

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

• WT:D
• WT:DAB

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Requesting clarification

The section #Disambiguation pages says: "Only include related subject articles if the term in question is actually described on the target article." Does this suggest that acronyms must be cited first? For example, does Bam's Unholy Union have to make an obvious reference to either "BUU", "B.U.U.", "B-U-U", etc., before warranting inclusion at Buu (see also this discussion)? If this is indeed so, then this cleanup was entirely legitimate. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been rumbing on for a while at BUU and recently on my talk.. Common practice has always been to disambiguate articles by their acronym / initials, whether or not the initials are explicitly referenced on the page. This is an entirely different situation to the example given on WP:D that Sess is taking as the basis for his edit. I'm not sure why this level of wikilawering to remove links from disambiguation pages is necessary, but this would be a very dangerous precedent to set (User:JHunterJ has already been doing so, link on my talk page), a ton of dab pages would have useful links removed from them under this incredibly strict and imo dispirited interpretation of the guideline, and there will be a shitstorm of editors who, like me, see no reason to remove useful, valid links to articles from dab pages simply because "the initials are not mentioned in the article". Come on. Deiz talk 17:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the only reason to link to acronyms is because the acronym is listed in the article, but that certainly is the easiest way. My goal when dealing with pages of articles that may be referred to by an acronym is to keep all the articles on the page that people really do refer to with that acronym without overcrowding the page with extraneous articles. So, what I usually do is first check the article. If the article really does list the acronym, that's almost always good enough for me to leave it on the page. If the article doesn't list the acronym, I do a Google search of the article name (sometimes with the acronym), to see if there are references to it being referred to by the acronym. Usually, either a number of references will come up (in which case I leave the article on the page) or nothing will come up (in which case I usually take it off). If it still seems unclear (or, if the topic of the article is not an internet-friendly topic, and therefore may not have information avaliable via Google), I'll drop a line on the talk page of the article in question (or on the talk page of a related Wikiproject) to ask those more familiar with the subject if it really is referred to by this acronym. In the end, I find that this allows me to keep valid links on an acronym disambiguation page while not filling the page with unnecessary links, making it harder for people to find what they need. It may be hard to verify for many organizations if they really go by the acronym (unless it's the WWF, for example), but I think we can find a middle ground. -- Natalya 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WWF appears to need a good cleanup, would you know of any other examples? AFAIK, the pages RK, AS, DB, DMZ (disambiguation), and AL only list articles which mention the dab term (the same may happen to DC per the discussion there). Alas, this is not the case for Bam's Unholy Union, I see no reason why it should stay on the Buu dab, and the guideline concurs. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an abundance of informal acronyms for everything, some of which are just made up on the spot. If "BUU" is a non-rare acronym for this show in reliable written sources, why not include that for clarification, sourced, in the article Bam's Unholy Union? However, in mine own searches, "BUU" does appear to be quite rare as an abbreviation for "Bam's Unholy Union", its usage being confined to filename's for DVD rips, a peculiar case, and to forum comments with silly abbreviations like "u" for "you" and rampant misspellings, unreliable for determining language syntax. —Centrx→talk • 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Then that's just it. If someone can come up with a reliable source (as was once done for Horsepower's acronym) then Bam's Unholy Union remains on the dab. Consensus? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is all about reliable sources, no? If there's such a source for it, then it sounds like it should belong. -- Natalya 23:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're all missing the point. We are not compiling an article containing a sourced, referenced list of acronyms, we are aiding ease of navigation around Misplaced Pages. Disambiguation pages are not lists, and are not subject to the same rigours or sourcing - how many dab pages do you see with a refs section? This flies completely against common practice and the spirit of Misplaced Pages, two things which are far more important than a technical misinterpretation of a guideline which makes no reference to this strict requirement. In any case, you've noted it yourselves - Bam's Unholy Union has indeed been referred to as BUU, the reason being that it is intuitively obvious to refer to things by their initials, hence the reason we provide links to them on dab pages. I'm against redlinks and tenuous spellings on dab pages, but if something is referred to by the exact initials of the target article there should be no reason not to help our readers find it. Deiz talk 02:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite our agreement here, Deiz has re-inserted the link . Any assistance required. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I don't know if we need to be fighting so much over this. The BUU disambiguation page isn't even a very long one, so it's not as though one extra link is going to make navigating it extremely difficult. (that's usually the goal in ferreting out unneccesary links) Myself, I'd just say leave it there, because it's not doing any harm, and may be valid to have there. But if that isn't satisfactory, Deiz (or anyone), can even just one link be provided anywhere that shows that more than one person refers to it as "BUU"? Really, it seems like that's all we need.

To clarify my statement about reliable sources, I think a reliable source would be great to solve this dispute, but I (and hopefully others) would settle for a less-reliable-that-showed-that-more-than-one-person-refers-to-it-by-the-acronym source. Otherwise, to follow suit, we'd need to remove quite a lot of acronym links, which would probably be detrimental to the overall navigation. -- Natalya 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we do something like Emu (disambiguation) does? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean separating out things that go by "Buu" and things that go by "BUU"? I don't see why not. It's not a particularly long list, but I can't see why it would hurt. -- Natalya 01:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would feel a lot better if you made the edit Natalya. Do you want to though? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I have no problem doing so. A question, though - does this help to solve the disagreement over the inclusion of Bam's Unholy Union? -- Natalya 12:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it surely would. What do you think about Taemyr's suggestion below? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I am having difficulty seeing the need for a disambiguation page here at all. We say nothing about the element, and the acronyms inclusion is strenuous. I'd say move the dragonball article over the dab and then see if one should include a hatnote to Bam's Unholy Union. Taemyr (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're halfway right. There are too few items, but I don't a hatlink to Bam's Unholy Union will be appropriate. What do you mean "move the dragonball article over the dab"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that we do need the link for the element. True, there's not a lot of information on it, but it is a valid use of "Buu", and someone could come looking for it. -- Natalya 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, do we really need the disambiguation page? Hatnotes should suffice, as the guideline says. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Won't hatnotes only work if there are two articles? There are three, if we keep all of them (which it seems like we should). -- Natalya 12:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Business (disambiguation)

Could somebody help me by taking a look at Business (disambiguation)? Today an editor, I am sure acting in good faith, updated the page so that it includes what looks like every WP article that has the word business in it, grouped alphabetically, and almost all of them with no comments. This isn't what I thought disambiguation pages were supposed to be, but before I go to the editor who made the change, I want some feedback here to see if I am off base in thinking that was not a good change to make. Comments appreciated. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Try Business (disambiguation) to avoid typo in the above! Yes, looks pretty ghastly. PamD (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to old WP:MOSDAB-compliant version. --Russ (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Brought in line with mos:dab ... ferrets needs checking. Abtract (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh... I saw your edit summary, Abtract, and I thought ferrets had something to do with the mess. But anyway, back to real things, it looks like the term for ferrets is legitimate. From Ferret#Terminology_and_coloring, "A group of ferrets is known as a business.". -- Natalya 11:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've improved the link. Abtract (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And I've just seen what you meant about the edit summary ... very funny. :) Abtract (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just posted a heads up on the users's talk page. Thanks for the help! UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The page has been put back to its long-formed version. Rather than get into an edit war, I'm going to (also) post on the user's talk page, to see if we can come to an understanding about disambiguation pages. -- Natalya 14:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguating people and things

In applying the WP:D guidelines my reading and interpretation when applied to the Comics Project led to this general structure (as moving down the tree as more disambiguation is required):

• (comics)
  • (Marvel Comics), (DC Comics)
    • (comic book), (story arc)
• (writer), (artist)
  • (comics writer), (comics artist)

However, the Project's naming conventions suggest this general structure where "(comics)" is the general first level of disambiguation for both people and things (titles, characters, etc.):

• (comics)
  • (Marvel Comics), (DC Comics)
    • (comic book), (story arc)
  • (writer), (artist)
    • (comics writer), (comics artist)

There has been a long debate on the Comic Project talk page and I thought it worth running this past the people here for an independent assessment. (Emperor (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

I generally dislike any indentation on dab pages. If its important enough to have its own page, its important enough to stand on its own on the dab page. Just MHO. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about disambiguating links like Wolverine (comics) and Alan Grant (writer). The indenting is to demonstrate the "tree" of disambiguating starting with "(comics)" and then moving to something like "(DC Comics)" (e.g. Sandman (DC Comics) and Sandman (Marvel Comics)). See the discussion here (and given in the first post) for more debate on this. (Emperor (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

(comics) is not a great choice for a disambiguating phrase, IMO, since the articles subject is rarely comics themselves, but for fictional characters or other things the alternatives like (comic book character) are probably too long to be useful. For real people and other real things involved in the creation of comics, I would definitely disagree with the use of (comics) as a dab phrase, unless the articles is about a group of stand-up comics. If the comic connection must be at the "top level", (comics writer) or (comics artist) or (comics creator) would be my suggestion to start from. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Spliting

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to split the article into BP (disambiguation), bp (disambiguation), and Bp (disambiguation) in http://en.wikipedia.org/BP_%28disambiguation%29, and in extension, for all other pages like this?68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No! Er, I mean, I don't think that would be optimal. From a user's perspective: I'm going to type "bp" into the search box, not "bp (disambiguation)". I would then like to see what articles might have been named "bp", which might include Bp and BP possibilities.

From an editor's perspective, having three separate articles would be a maintenance nightmare, and I will guarantee that you will not see people keep "bp" "BP" and "Bp" articles neatly separated in their own pages; people will add their fave to whichever dab page they see first, or add it to two or three of them "just to be safe." Wikilinks from articles will link to whatever is written there, which may not necessarily go to the right page.

In short, the proper resolution of "BP", "Bp" and "bp" is ambiguous. Send them to (the same) disambiguation page. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

signing in agreement --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

School Article Disambiguation

A user has asked that I refrain from adding disambiguation links to an article page: this one in particular. His argument is that Franklin High School (New Hampshire) is not an ambiguous title and doesn't require a disambig link. I have to disagree. The base name "Franklin High School" refers to well over a dozen schools in the United States alone. And the disambiguation link at the top of the article allows a person to return to the main disambiguation page, regardless of where you came from. When I Google "Franklin High School," the first page from Misplaced Pages is for the Franklin High School in New Orleans, not the disambiguation. It's been my practice to add disambiguation links to every school article linking from a disambiguation page. Is that incorrect? I have cross-posted this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Schools --Jh12 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that links back to disambiguation pages are potentially very useful, and am pleased you've found an example of a Google search result which illustrates this. But I can remember (though not find!) a previous discussion in which our view was in the minority. It's not just schools: if someone googles Joe Bloggs and the first hit is "Joe Bloggs (footballer)", a link from that page to "Joe Bloggs (disambiguation)" would help them to find the "Joe Bloggs (violinist)" who they are looking for. At the least, I suggest that such hatnotes should be allowed and not deleted. PamD (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think that links back to the disambiguation page can be useful in this sense. We usually think about the unlikelyhood of someone typing "Franklin High School (New Hampshire)" into the search bar, and really meaning a different Frankline High School, as an argument against links back to the disambiguation page. However, the point of Google (and other search engine) searches is a good one. I don't think there's any particular harm in having the links there, and it appears as though it will aid people in navigation if they are searching from venues other than Misplaced Pages. -- Natalya 23:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Hatnotes#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous is against the use of such hatnotes in general, and your friend is right in that it's not an ambiguous title. But exceptions are listed there, and the scenario you describe seems like a good additional exception. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the statement there: "the problem is that the reader would not have ended up at tree (set theory) if they were interested in other types of trees, as tree does not redirect there." That isn't so - the Franklin High School example illustrates. It assumes that people only reach WP pages from within WP, and ignores the fact that Google points many searchers to WP pages, though not necessarily to the page which answers their question. There has been lengthy discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Hatnote over a period of years (I knew I'd discussed it somewhere, forgot where till JHJ's reminder that WP:NAMB was the policy concerned). PamD (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just in case we appear to be disagreeing: I agree -- the scenario here involving a Google search is a good reason to place such hatnotes on this kind of article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to consider changing those guidelines, then? Conceptually, anyone could reach a disambiguated article via a search engine. -- Natalya 11:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, a note somewhere about school articles here or at the project-level would be greatly appreciated. There doesn't seem to be any documentation concerning the use of disambiguation for education institutions and there are over a thousand of them listed here. Many thanks for all the input, --Jh12 (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not specific to schools, but applies to all disambiguated pages, surely? PamD (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's please beware of solving every conceivable scenario, at the expense of usability. Consider how many people will come to a page by search engine vs. by other messages. Do we really want to clutter pages to cover edge cases? I would argue that very few people would be served by such a hatnote, but every reader will be at least slightly distracted by it. Not to go all slippery slope here, but what if they typed "Franklin" by accident instead of some other high school name -- should we include a link to a list of all high schools? If not, why not?

There's a great line in WP:MOSDAB: "Disambiguation pages disambiguate Misplaced Pages articles, not the World-Wide Web." I think the same principle should be applied to hatnotes as well.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The same principle does apply to hatnotes, in that we don't use hatnotes to direct Misplaced Pages readers from Misplaced Pages to sites off Misplaced Pages: "This article is about pursuing animals. For the engineering company, see http://www.hunter.com". It does not apply in the sense that you imply, that the path from the World Wide Web to Misplaced Pages should be ignored at the expense of reader utility.

I agree though that not every such page indexed by Google needs a hatnote; I would suggest a guideline that mentions something like "appearing near the top of a Google search on the base name" or something similar. Or even just mentioning the possibility and allowing the consensus at the Talk page of the page in question have sway. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course that the principle as it stands does apply to hatnotes. I guess what I'm looking for is a reflexive guideline along the lines of "Misplaced Pages can't anticipate every entry point from the WWW." On reflection, though, I do agree that it makes sense to anticipate reasonable entry points from outside of WP. I just don't think we need to be prepared to direct someone who came in to Franklin High of New Hampshire (the New Hampshireness of which would be very clear in the hit summary of any decent search engine) to Franklin High of not-New Hampshire.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, I think WP:NAMB has at times been simplistically interpreted to justify removal of hatnotes that fail to meet some mechanistic criteria regarding the structure of the title and that oftentimes it is helpful to give readers easy access to exit routes if they happen to get to a page that could reasonably be confused with others of a similar title. But OTOH, I would not want to see carte blanche given to use hatnotes in any case where a user might possibly land on an incorrect page. For example, I routinely remove hatnotes on articles such as Athens, Michigan, which linked back to Athens (disambiguation). The likelihood of a user reaching that page intending some other Athens is minimal, and in such a case, IMO, the clutter factor overwhelms the vanishingly small benefit to the hopelessly confused. However, for cases where there are multiple places within a state sharing the same or similar names, I think it is entirely reasonable to have a hatnote -- for someone not from the state (and even for many in-state), it is not always immediately obvious from the title alone which place name in a state is which. Similarly I think personal names can be easily confused and parenthetical descriptors may not be mutually exclusive. For example, here is one I just found: John Reid (politician) should almost certainly have a link back to John Reid as there are several other persons with that name (excluding the use of the middle name/initial as disambiguation) who are also politicians. So in sum, I think judiciously applied, intelligent hatnoting is in general a good thing, but shouldn't be overdone. older ≠ wiser 14:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So, hatnotes on pages that, even when disambiguated, have other articles of similar names and similar subjects, presuming that someone might pick that article but have meant the other ? That seems like not a bad way to allow for some more helpful hatnotes, but not adding unnecessary clutter to all pages. I do agree - it wouldn't be good to see hatnotes on every page that was ever disambiguated, but perhaps we can find a way to add some helpful ones. -- Natalya 16:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

+1. There's another very good example of this already in WP:NAMB: "a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator)." So I'd be totally in favor of a dablink for Franklin High (New Hampshire) if there were a second Franklin High in New Hampshire.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose part of the problem is I still believe the benefit outweighs the cost. Previously, school names lacked a location in parentheses (many still do). And although that problem is being corrected, it also occurs because high schools with the same name haven't had a Misplaced Pages page made yet. In the case of Benjamin Franklin High School (New Orleans, Louisiana), there are two Franklin high schools in Louisiana. Franklin High in Franklin, Louisiana (which Benjamin Franklin High School in New Orleans may be confused for if you don't say "Ben Franklin High" in Louisiana), doesn't have a Misplaced Pages page yet. The Dab helps confirm that there isn't a page for the other Franklin High since there's only one Franklin High in Louisiana on Misplaced Pages and when a page is created, you will definitely want the hatnote.

In the case of "Franklin High", we have a large number of secondary institutions in the United States with almost identical names. They serve the same purpose, same age levels, are publicly funded, use an American curriculum/testing, American extracurriculars, and all fall under the United States Department of Education. When searching LexisNexis and JSTOR, it becomes clear that even published, reliable sources have difficulty pointing out which specific "Franklin High School" they're referring to. It was mentioned before that "the problem is that the reader would not have ended up at tree (set theory) if they were interested in other types of trees, as tree does not redirect there." But these aren't even different types of trees; they're all the same thing and the likelihood of winding up at the wrong city is not improbable to me. I would say confusion from being at one of thousands of US high schools with the same name outweighs clutter. --Jh12 (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That sort of logic treads awfully close Misplaced Pages is not a directory. High school articles, once created, have tended to survive WP:AfD discussions recently. However, disambiguation pages are not primarily intended to be a complete index of all possible articles--but rather a guide to help locate existing articles. Red links are generally discouraged on disambiguation pages, although some wikiprojects have created Set Index pages for topics with a narrowly defined scope and for which the project can define style guidance that may be somewhat less stringent that WP:MOSDAB.

Of course, even if school disambiguation pages are considered as set index pages rather than disambiguation pages, that doesn't really address the appropriateness of using hatnotes on otherwise uniquely named school articles. While I don't find the argument based on Google searches as a reason for including hatnotes to be very compelling, I also don't really care all that much about school articles in particular. That is, the vast majority of school articles are crappy, under-referenced permastubs and the presence of a hatnote really has very little impact on the relative quality of such articles. older ≠ wiser 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A slight digression: last Friday there was a story about how privacy advocates have been beating up Google for not having a link to their privacy policy on their front page (it was one level down off another menu). The Google folk agreed they needed it there, and Page and Brin agreed it should be added -- but only if another word was removed from the front page. So they finally found a word they could remove (it turned out to be "Google", oddly enough), and the front page now has a privacy link, but still remains at 28 words.

This is a company that understands the principle of avoiding "death by a thousand cuts."

If you have three minutes to spare, and you haven't seen it already, watch the "What if Microsoft designed the iPod package?" video.

Again, I'm all for dablinks where they make sense. Automatically disambiguating every already-disambiguated high school or person without considering whether it's really necessary is not necessarily sensible. For the rare occasion where someone lands in New Hampshire when they really meant to be in Louisiana, there's always the search box.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) PS Aside from perhaps unfairly denigrating school articles, it might be worth considering whether such a hatnote would survive the scrutiny a school article would receive if it were to become a featured article. There have not been many featured school articles to my knowledge. One such fairly recent one was Plano Senior High School, which has no hatnote despite other schools that might easily be confused Plano High School. Should there be a hatnote on Plano Senior High School linking back to the dab page? In that case, probably so since the article titles convey no information about the state. But if there is only one school in a state with a specific name (or any easily confused variant thereof) and the state is included in the article title, I really don't see the benefit in having a hatnote link back to the general disambiguation page. To reach such a page, a user would essentially have to be in a clueless mode clicking randomly on links from a Google search hoping to get lucky. older ≠ wiser 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Google toolbars offer an "I'm feeling lucky" option. So no clueless randomness required. Granted, I'm feeling lucky searches only hit the problem when you reach:

Franklin High School
"Franklin High School"
wikipedia "Franklin High School"
site:wikipedia.org "Franklin High School"

the final search on this list, so maybe the hatnote isn't as useful there. But if I had hit it with the first or second, I'd be in favor of the hatnote, and I wouldn't object strenuously if I hit it with the third. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so I'm completely clear on this: in order to provide full support for users who A) like to click on "I'm Feeling Lucky" and B) are somehow unable to retype their search into the WP search box when it turns out that no, they were not lucky, we should add otherwise superfluous hatnotes to thousands of WP pages?--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Except for the "superfluous" and "thousands of", and the entire "somehow unable to" predicate. I don't think "thousands of" Misplaced Pages articles that have parenthetical dab phrases in the title will be landed on by I'm feeling lucky searches on the non-parenthetical part. If they were, that'd be one item in favor of making that article the primary topic. In the cases where such an article is the target, the hatnote wouldn't be "superfluous". Casting users' non-optimal behavior as unworthy isn't part of the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, except for those :-)...

Actually, the "thousands" came from below, where it was mentioned that there are "well over a thousand existing school articles," presumably all of which were candidates to have dablinks added, plus various person and other articles that had been proposed as candidates as well. "Otherwise superfluous" was based on my interpretation of your statement, which seemed to say that the potential for a visitor arriving via "I'm feeling lucky" was in itself sufficient justification to add a dablink that would not otherwise be necessary.

And... yes, at some point we do have to consider a visitor arriving via non-optimal behavior as outside of the scope of our efforts. If someone is looking for information on Cheez Whiz brand processed cheese food spread and caulking, and decides that Googling for "trout" and clicking on "I'm feeling lucky" is the way to do it, we have provided for their non-optimal behavior by having a search box readily available on the page. Additionally providing a dablink to "Cheez Whiz" on the trout page, although helpful to this one benighted soul, is a disservice to all other readers of the trout page who are not at all interested in this fascinating nearly foodlike substance.

So yeah, that's a bit of a stretch, but it does establish that there needs to be some limit to our helpfulness. The question is now where to draw the line, and the guidelines (well, at least one guideline) have drawn a reasonable one: if the page has a clearly unambiguous title, don't add a disambiguating hatnote. It further mitigates by saying that if there's reasonable opportunity for confusion, a hatnote may be necessary. I don't believe that in the case at hand there is any confusion about whether Franklin High School in New Hampshire is actually in Louisiana, and to say that it should have a dablink because there are other cases, but not this one, where there are two Franklin Highs in a state, is not correct.--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's more than a bit of a stretch. No, I agree that "This article is about the fish. For the processed cheese food, see Cheez Whiz" would be ridiculous, in a way that the hatnote proposed earlier is not. :-) Feeling lucky on a google search of the base name is infinitely more reasonable than searching for cheeze whiz with "trout". After checking my google searches, I think that (a) Franklin High doesn't need the hatnote (although the idea isn't ridiculous) and that (b) a WP article that can be hit by "feeling lucky" on a Google search of the article's base name would be a reasonable opportunity for confusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll buy that. We can call it the "'feeling lucky' rule of thumb." And I think we agree the article in question does not pass this test.

Now that I see it in print, I really want the hatnote on trout, though.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that a "rule" covering this would be appropriate. For one, the page rankings of Google (and many other search engines) are dynamic--often very dynamic. At best, I think if it can be shown that a particular WP article with a fully disambiguated title appears as a top hit for a base name search with some consistency over time, then there may be a rationale for a hatnote linking back to the dab page. But I suspect such cases would be rather rare. older ≠ wiser 12:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the "rule" should be as it is now, that the hatnote should be added if there's a reasonable opportunity for confusion. I'd be in favor of adding another example of such an opportunity to the guideline, and leaving the decision, as ever, up to the consensus of the Talk: page of the article in question. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors do seem to be able to talk things out; I think it would be okay to leave it up to discretion when a hatnote in such cases would be useful, especially since there doesn't appear to be a clear way to determine if it should be used or not. -- Natalya 14:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a hatnote should be added to Plano Senior High School and the article also needs to be moved to Plano Senior High School (Plano, Texas). I'm not sure what the importance of a school article would have to do with school disambiguation. As long as we have school articles, there should be a way of navigating between them. I can understand reluctance on clutter, but we still have well over a thousand existing school articles with the same basic name and in many ways are related to the same subject. There haven't been any objections on this at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Schools and I am amazed there is so much resistance here. If there is consensus for such hatnotes among the people working on these articles, will Disambiguation move in and remove them? --Jh12 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The resistance here is fairly moot, IMO. The guideline against them is over at Misplaced Pages:Hatnotes, not here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why resistance here and not there? Because "there" is where people think about schools, and "here" is where people think about disambiguation.

I for one will not move in and remove them, although I've already imagined a great logo we could put on our Disambiguation Squad brassards if we were to do so... . But if in the course of editing an article I happened to find a superfluous dablink, I would give serious consideration to removing it.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But the "I'm feeling lucky" doesn't fit what the average person uses. Try typing "french military victories". Even the Franklin example takes you to the webpage of the Franklin in Seattle. When searching for Franklin High School on Google, Yahoo, MSN, and Ask the problem remains. And how can the purpose of disambiguation be to think about names without regard for the content of the articles? There has to be a middle ground. --Jh12 (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, this is totally unrelated to the actual discussion, but for a little bit of humor in the midst of this long discussion, NapoliRoma's comment about Disambiguation Squad brassards (which cracked me up), reminded me of a comment that User:Yamara made once: "This results in troublesome efforts to achieve pleasant syntax, and it looks ugly, but it is what's done, and the rest of WikiProject Disambiguation will enforce this with a certain mercilessness. This I know from grim experience." I feel like we should have pitchforks and torches! /off-topic-ness. Back to the real discussion. :) -- Natalya 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's never good to take Misplaced Pages too seriously. After all, it's a volunteer project. And if you do make WP:WPSCH medals to place on your uniforms, make sure you link to the project; we can always use the free publicity. --Jh12 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing stars

See Talk:Star (classification)#Related articles and redirects for a current issue and Talk:Star (classification)#Disambiguations for a proposed solution. Comments and other help welcome. Andrewa (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Weeds

The DAB and hatnotes are sprouting like, ha, weeds. There's a variety of quite confusing DAB, potential DAB and redirects growing around weed and weeds. Right now:

• Weeds is a partially-complete disambiguation page; I would argue that it's of more service to redirect to Weeds (TV series) directly as that's the most relevant result. Failing that, weed (disambiguation) might be a good redirect.
• There's a lot of mention of 'widow weeds' - an old English term for mourning clothes. Widow Weeds currently redirects to Widow's weeds, which is a disambiguation page between the clothes (which has no actual entry, it's mentioned once in the mourning page, section on the UK) and the album.
• Weeds (TV series) currently has an inaccurate hatnote saying weeds redirects here (it did yesterday) and to refer to weed for the plant, which has Weed (disambiguation) at the top.

I don't know who would type in "weeds" and expect to find mourning garments. I would guess anyone typing in "widow weeds" or a variant thereof would be looking for the album or the clothing. But overall I'm just not sure what the best idea might be. I don't think it's standard practice to include in DAB pages links that could concievably be related in some way. There was an AFD debate a while back here that seemed to center on this idea. Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Lists was cited then, and it seems to apply here. Any guidance would be welcome. WLU (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple. Weeds should be targeting Weed (disambiguation) and the hatlink on Weeds (TV series) would be taken off. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if we could get an article (even a stub) for the mourning sense of the term "Widow's weeds". I'm going to see if I can find anything. Even if not, it seems okay to link to the section of the mourning page from Widow's weeds. Perhaps we could put a link to that disambiguation page in the see also section of Weed (disambiguation), since it doesn't totally belong in the regular section. I think Weeds redirecting to Weeds (TV series) is fine (as long as we don't think we're furthering Misplaced Pages's systemic bias). If it does that, however, shouldn't the article be located at the title "Weeds", not redirect to "Weeds (TV series)"? For the hatnote at Weeds (TV series), if it ends up being located at "Weeds", we could have the hatnote link to both Weed (as it does now) and to Weed (disambiguation), since Weeds (disambiguation) redirects there. -- Natalya 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there is also a Weeds (film) it would be best if "Weeds" is a redirect for the dab page. Concur? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on if we think there is a primary topic for "Weeds" or not. I'm not familiar with the film, so I don't know if I can give a neutral opinion on if there's a primary topic or not, but the TV show article is definitly very in-depth (if that speaks at all to the primary topic-ness). -- Natalya 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to do then? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, see what other editors think on the primary topic subject. -- Natalya 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the dab and moved (for now) the TV show to the base name, although the primary topic discussion (if it happens) might move it back. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we take the plants as the primary usage for Weed and the TV series for Weeds, with each of them having a hatnote pointing to one dab page at Weed (disambiguation) which includes both single and plural forms (with redirect from Weeds (disambiguation)). Hatnote at Weeds could usefully continue also to point to the Weed primary usage. There's a similar single/plural mix at Saint (disambiguation) - though until a moment ago there wasn't actually a redirect from Saints (disambiguation), and it's a different scenario in that there's just the one primary usage. PamD (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) So it looks like we're getting there. Right now we have Weeds (disambiguation) as its own disambiguation page. I haven't thought enough about if it's more useful to have it as its own page or combine that with Weed (disambiguation), but either way, I'm going to add a link to Weed (disambiguation) at Weeds (disambiguation). -- Natalya 10:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Given I thought there were only 2 pages that would qualify for weeds (dab), I was unsure. Thanks to some great detective work revealing that there are many potential pages, I'm heartily in favour of Weeds (TV series) being a separate article, weeds redirecting to the DAB page, and weeds (disambiguation) having a lead of "Weeds is the plural of the plant weed. Weeds may also refer to:" Putting weed (disambiguation) and weeds (disambiguation) in the respective plural and singular pages seems a good idea. WLU (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested lead there indicates that weed is (your choice for the) primary topic of "weeds", so (with that lead) Weeds would be a {{R from plural}} to weed, not to the dab page. But the discussion of what, if anything, is the primary topic should take place at Talk:Weeds. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Village pump

Thread at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#ALL disambiguation pages to end "(disambiguation)".

I'm sure people here will want to contribute to that discussion. --NSH001 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mystical 7

Discussion pointer: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Secret Societies#Mystical 7. --Geniac (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the cutoff for primary usage?

Hi, Loodog and I are having a discussion at Talk:New York#Hi there I have a proposition about what proportion of Google hits would conclusively demonstrate that one title clearly was the "primary usage", and therefore should be the target of the main article. For example, "New York City" gets double the Google hits that "New York State" does, for a 2:1 ratio. Loodog is claiming that this is not enough, but that the proper ratio would be closer to 10:1. I think this discussion needs the input of some specialists in disambiguation. Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You will likely get differing personal opinions on this topic, but overall, there is no guideline for how many Google Hits (or any similar ranking) determines a primary topic. Frankly, I am glad for that. I think that our current guideline from Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Primary_topic stating that "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." is clear enough. If it's obvious what the primary topic is, then it should be the primary topic. If there is enough legitimate disagreement over what the primary topic is, enough so that general comments about the topics in question cannot decide a primary topic (and thus, that one must resort to Google rankings), then there isn't a primary topic, and for the overall benefit to all Misplaced Pages users, the disambiguation page for the term should be located at "Term". -- Natalya 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Google hits do not define usage. They reflect what is written about on the internet, so are biased towards the recent and what interests internet users (predominantly the young, the technological, and the affluent). If you look at Google hits, it might be "obvious" that "Madonna" is a singer. I see that Misplaced Pages editors have decided there's no primary usage. Speaking as a Brit, I'd have expected to find the city at "New York", and the state disambiguated - but another peril of google hits is that you can't expect to find "city" or "state" (or any other pair of disambiguators" neatly attached to articles using "New York" in either sense, so you'd have to manually check and count all the ghits before you could analyse them anyway. I think consensus is all: as is written somewhere, if there's substantial disagreement about the primary usage, then put a dab page there and let everything disambiguate. PamD (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is, eventually, what happened. Consensus does work, after all.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I think you got it wrong there! From outside the USA, "New York" means the city, no question about it, so I'd have expected it to be the primary usage. I wonder if it would be useful to add bold links to the city and the state at the top of the dab page, as those two are co-primary usages, to coin a phrase, and it might save a lot of people having to look any further down the page? PamD (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Navibot again

Hi—I'm working on a bot to add entries to disambiguation pages (see previous discussion on this page). After lots of development and testing, I'm ready to ask for a bot flag at WP:RFBOT, but first I wouldn't mind some feedback on the edits the bot has already made, under my supervision. If anyone wants to look at its contribs and comment on its talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! —johndburger 02:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting Google searches

This is sort of related to the above discussion, but I don't agree with the addition of the suggestion of using Google as a possible tool to help determine the primary topic (first addition, as it currently stands). I'm afraid that if we mention those in the guidelines, it will open a whole can of worms of people using Google search results to push primary topics that should not be primary (due to prominence of the issue on the internet), thus increasing Misplaced Pages's systemic bias. I know that people may use the search statistics to do so, but I'm not in favor of suggesting them in the guidelines. -- Natalya 11:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be just as happy without them as well. I did like the addition of the Misplaced Pages stats link though, since it is not as widely known. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current version, as it now emphasizes that these are only tools which may help. I do think that they are all useful in determining primary usage, so I would like to keep them in.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving help

Hi, we just moved New York to New York State as a result of discussion. Problem is, there are now a couple thousand broken links now. Is there a bot that can take care of this?--Loodog (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've been told the bots do this automatically.--Loodog (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You were told wrong! --Russ (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. It would be next to impossible for a bot to decide which links were supposed to be pointing to New York State and which were supposed to be pointing somewhere else. Guess we'll have to do 'em all by hand. *sigh* --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This was a major move undertaken with no formal proposal, with the support of only a handful of editors, and significant opposition from others. I strongly suspect that the move will be undone. My suggestion is that no one invest time in changing links unless and until it is clear that the move will stay. JamesMLane t c 20:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose change in guidelines for primary usage

I've been in a number of move discussions where guideline ambiguity has made decisions more difficult:

1. Would it be out of line to claim that a simple majority of hits/google returns/incoming links is insufficient to determine primary usage? That an overwhelming majority is really needed?
2. Would it be wrong to write that lack of a primary usage supercedes all other naming guidelines? That an article is only located at a word or phrase with no qualifier if the article in question is the primary topic for the word or phrase?

If we could include these points in the primary usage guideline, this would shorten a lot of discussions for the better.--Loodog (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What has the consensus been in the other discussions you've had/seen? I know that the most recent discussion, which involved a 2/3 majority of Google hits, still resulted in a consensus of "no primary usage". (Disclaimer:both Loodog and I were part of that discussion.) As I argued there, I think that one title having a 2/3 majority of Ghits is enough to determine primary usage. However, I'm not sure what the appropriate cutoff would be. Certainly, if it was a 51-49 majority, I would say that there was no primary usage.

As for your second point, could you explain in more detail how this guideline would override the other naming guidelines? Thanks,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the discussions I've been in have resulted in following the two points above. Notable exception: Worcester, which will address your second question.

There's been a great deal of discussion there, moving has been raised many many times, never with any agreement. Right now "Worcester" is the location of the city in England, while Worcester, Massachusetts actually gets more hits. The reasoning of the editors wishing to preserve how it is argue that Worcester, MA is where US city guidelines say it should be, and Worcester, UK can be at "Worcester" because then there are no conflicts. Essentially, not agreeing with #2 above. I realized if #2 is or isn't followed, we should establish consistency on it, and so I've invited the Worcester editors over here to help establish a general principle.

My personal belief on #2, I've already said. I think it's more true to: "The names of Misplaced Pages articles should be optimized for readers over editors."--Loodog (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For No. 2, if "Worcester, MA" was the primary topic (regardless of whether it is or not), you could have "Worcester" redirect to "Worcester, MA", so that it is still the primary topic, but also follows the already created naming guidelines.

As for Google hit percentages, I've already expressed it above (and hope that other long-time disambiguators add their input too, because perhaps I am in the minority), but making any sort of firm decision about the ratio of Google hits to determine a primary topic makes me very uncomfortable. I think that people need to use common sense when determining a primary topic. If it comes down to using Google hits to decide which is the primary topic or not, then, to me, it seems pretty clear that it is so unclear what the primary topic is, that it's best left with no primary topic. This isn't even deciding that one thing is the primary topic over the other, it's a compromise.

As I mentioned above, I also think that relying on Google hits makes it far easier to increase Misplaced Pages's systemic bias towards both technology-related articles and articles about things and places from areas with more internet access. Just a simple example, but take the term "Apple". As makes common sense to everyone in the world, Apple, the primary topic, is about the fruit. However, if I do a Google search for the term "Apple", besides the one Misplaced Pages article, it is not until the 4th page of results that I even get a link about the fruit - the rest are about the well known company Apple Inc. (with one about Fiona Apple). I'm sure we can all see that this is an obvious case where the Google hits certainly give a skewed viewpoint on what should be the primary topic, but I worry about all the times when it is not that obvious.

I know that many people will be smart enough to use common sense even if consulting Google hits to determine a primary topic. However, there will also be people who do not do that, and making any sort of firm judgement about what proportion of Google hits determines a primary topic will only make it easier for primary topics to become biased. -- Natalya 16:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Natalya. Hits, links, and other measurements can suggest a possible primary topic, but they can never be determinative (even if the numerical majority is overwhelming) because of the potential of bias. --Russ (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I agree with that. I never meant suggest that google returns/page hits/number of links should be binding. With regard to #1, I'm just trying to get a clearer definition on "primary usage".--Loodog (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry if I was a bit to hasty responding to your query, then. As you can see, I definitly don't think that Google hits is enough to determine a primary topic.  :) As for actually determining the primary topic, my first response would be to use common sense. A lot of times it's just there or it's not. When it's not quite as clear (*hint* perhaps there is no primary topic!), I don't know if there's one thing that can decide a primary topic (I'm definitly interested to see what other people think of). Something important is to have neutral opinions, though, which can help a lot with the bias. For example, someone from the state (or city) of New York probably would have a skewed version of which "New York" should be the primary topic, whereas someone from neither of those places might have a better idea (although, everyone may have their own biases). We can at least do our best. A close to home example comes with Antagonist, which, until recently, was a disambiguation page. Sesshomaru asked me what I thought about moving Antagonist (literature) to make it the primary topic. I was sort of torn - the literary form definitly seemed prominent, but I personally was very familiar with the form Receptor antagonist, so I didn't think I could unbiasedly tell what the primary topic was. JHunterJ came along, and, assuminly taking a look at it with clearer eyes than mine, did the move to make the literary form of the term the primary topic. Which seems like the right thing. Not knowing if I was actually being unbiased though, it was good to get other points of view as well.

That may have been sort of longwinded, but I hope (at least some small part of it!) was helpful. -- Natalya 19:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I think that we are not going to be able to build a consensus on a numeric threshold of any sort for determining exactly how much constitutes primary usage. I also sympathize with Natalya and R'n'B (Russ) in that the use of primary thresholds should always take a backseat to what can be established from a clear quantitative assessment of the issue. Maybe the wording can be strengthened to require there to be a "significant" likelyhood of one topic being primary. However, this does not help us determine what to do about situations like Worcester where it is very clear that there is no consensus to determine whether Worcester, MA or Worchester, England is more notable, although there seems to be a consensus that they are approximantly equivalent in notability. I would argue that that is exactly the situation described in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

If there is extended legitimate discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

Therefore I would agree with Loodog that the situation there is very similar to the recently resolution at New York, which created a disambiguation page because there was no consensus on New York City or New York State being primary.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to the resolution nor is the matter resolved; rather a unilateral application of guideline which ... by current consensus ... is being called to be reversed. See Talk:New York State#This move needs to be undone. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus to undo the New York move had not been established. And regardless of what happens at New York, we do need a consistent principle regarding #2. Until we do, we'll keep getting these fleeting moves and lengthy discussions. Maybe a strawpoll is in order.--Loodog (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with #2 -- if the primary topic for "X" is better named "Y", "X" should be a redirect to "Y", and not become home to the second-best topic for "X". As for #1, not even an overwhelming majority of GHits or other metrics is enough; there needs to be consensus that one article is the primary topic. There might not be consensus with 99% of GHits going one way, and there might be consensus if 55% of the GHits go one way. There might even be consensus for the topic that gets a minority of the GHits for a phrase. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone else is raising this point. We really need to make a strong stand on primary topic in lieu of a dab page. I think the guideline needs to make it clear that if there is no primary topic then the dab page must be located at the main name. It is really that simple and the policy needs to make this clear.

Issues with something being the primary topic can be addressed on that policy page but I will point out that oldest or largest or most Ghits or anything else that does not establish an article as the primary topic don't matter. Not having a primary topic is not a bad thing. Also, conflicting naming conventions do not grant an article rights to the name space. These conventions simply allow that article to exist there at the begining. If there are other candidates for the name space, then the primary use gets the name space or if there is none or there is no consensus for a primary use, then the dab page goes there.

As to the first point. Any measure of searches or hits or accesses is flawed as tool to determine primary use. They all have some kind of built in bias. While they may help illustrate a point, they should not be relied on as the basis for a decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Side note: discussion here would likely have consequences for Washington, Worcester, New York, possibly Birmingham, Wakefield, possibly Brighton, Limerick, possibly Chihuahua, to name a few.--Loodog (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  Worcester and New York have current discussions on consensus for the page positions, so wouldn't be affected by the outcome of discussions here, even if they result in changes to the guidelines, unless consensus on those pages changes. I didn't look at the discussions for the others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  Au contraire, any consensus those pages have is based on the current wording of guidelines. Change/clarify the guidelines, and you've got a whole new discussion to make.--Loodog (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  Yes and no, Loodog. The guidelines are meant to serve as a guide to what the current consensus is, and therefore will influence ongoing discussions, but if the consensus changes, then the guidelines should change, too. If the ultimate decisions at New York and Worcester should be contrary to this guideline, then it will be the guideline which changes.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  Only if the consensus is that pages in general should follow the pattern set by New York and Worcester. Otherwise consensus at those pages can certainly ignore this guideline in its current or new form without dictating a change in the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  Please note my careful use of the word "likely".--Loodog (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  If you think the current discussion for New York represents consensus we are not looking at the same page. This discussion seems to be mostly ignoring the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE policy. It is in my view more about the most important or the largest or the some form of state is more important then city. Maybe that discussion is another example of why this policy should clearly state 'no primary usage and you go with a dab page'. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. If no one has any objections I'm going to include in the guidelines, "If a word or phrase has no primary usage, it must direct to a dab page, regardless of other naming guidelines."--Loodog (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of other naming guidelines? It is quite possibly just me missing this, but what part of this previous discussion does that refer to? I agree with the need to direct to a disambiguation page if there is no primary topic (that seems to be pretty clear), but is there a specific example of that not happening, or the disambiguation page trying to be named something else? I thought most of the discussion here was if there was a primary topic that followed different naming conventions. Thanks for the help in clarifying, -- Natalya 03:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Worcester and New York. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't use "must" here too much, unless we're talking about the limitations of Misplaced Pages (each article must have a different title) or practical issues (there must be a way to navigate the encyclopedia). "If a word or phrase has no primary topic, the page at that word or phrase should be a disambiguation page or a redirect to a disambiguation page." I understand the problem with New York and Worcester, but I do not think that "regardless of other naming guidelines" will be useful here. It sets up a little hierarchy of guidelines which we can't enforce. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Must" or "should", either way. But regardless of other naming guidlines is already implied in WP:PRIMARYUSAGE anyway, and #2 above, which we seem in agreement on, is stating this.--Loodog (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For an interesting discussion take a look at Talk:Nice#Requested move for some interesting logic. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on "Nice" linked above shows that we need to define primary topic more exactly. Does it mean something different from "primary usage"? We have the wording "When there is a well known primary topic for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)", but that doesn't make it clear whether it's the primary usage outside in the world, or the primary topic as a word or phrase likely to be looked for in WP. In this case the most common usage of the four letter word NICE is an adjective, and unlikely to be looked for in WP (it's not a dictionary). So is that the "Primary topic" or not? If not, then it probably leaves the city as the primary topic, by far the most commonly searched in WP. I suggest that we need to clarify the wording, as I genuinely don't know what's intended at present. PamD (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors have expressed this at the discussion about Nice, and I agree - Nice is the primary topic; even though the word "Nice" is more well known that the city, we all know that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Since there is no article about the adjective "Nice", there's no need to disambiguate a non-existant article. If we want to clarify the guidelines further, we could say something like "the primary usage among all Misplaced Pages articles by the same name". -- Natalya 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Formal proposal

An article is only located at a word or phrase with no qualifier (main name space) if the article in question is the primary topic for the word or phrase. This guideline should be used to resolve conflicts between other guidelines for articles being at the main name space. Failure to establish a consensus for primary usage establishes the disambiguation page as the article at the main name space.

I think this is about where the consensus is. It probably needs some word smithing so lets try to modify this to clean it up and then see if we have a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear how you just wrote it.--Loodog (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure it reflects consensus. I would wait until the debate at New York#Requested move is resolved before adding this into the guideline. If New York doesn't end up as a disambig page, then I think it will be clear that what you want to add doesn't have consensus.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The New York request is likely to end up as no consensus. I don't see how there is any consensus there. This is not a fair discussion to base a decision on here. There are what, 5 different surveys, in there and something like 4 or 5 renames. That debate is a complete disaster. If you look at discussions that have reached consensus, this guideline proposal is supported by the majority of those. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but adding this to the guideline implies that there is a general consensus in favor of it. You can't only look at the discussions that reached consensus. The fact that they didn't is a significant sign that there isn't a general consensus. Another significant sign is that even in the ones which did achieve consensus, the results haven't been universal. The guideline is supposed to reflect general practice, not impose it. The general practice and consensus hasn't yet gotten to the point of agreement with this proposal, no matter the worth of the proposal.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the idea. Across the board, there have been inconsistencies in this standard, with each case being treated piecemeal, without the realization that a unifying principle could create better consistency with less discussion. Suppose that at every city we had the discussion of how to name it instead of choosing guidelines and only arguing the exceptions. Anyway, the editors at New York are welcome to offer opinions here, but beyond that there's no reason for one specific case to inform a standard far more general and abstract. We wouldn't forego the city, state convention just because New York is an exception.--Loodog (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that there are inconsistencies, and that things would be easier with a unifying priniciple, but I think that the inconsistencies are a reflection of the lack of consensus on this issue, and therefore a unifying principle hasn't been agreed upon yet. Cheers,Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this proposal may be excessive. We like simple names, and parenthetical disambiguation is a cost. If we can disambiguate without parentheses, so much the better. (I don't particularly care how New York comes out; but any one of New York, New York City, and New York, New York is preferable to New York (city), which some will read Vegaswikian's proposal as requiring.)

It may be simpler to put in the rule of thumb that primary usage should be 80% or 90% of all English usage. (It's somewhere; was it once here?) This will accomplish much of the good, without producing a mandate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Everytime I ask to put a number to define "primary", people get very anxious, worrying a percentage would override common sense. Maybe if we wrote it as a non-binding suggestion, something like:

"If there is a topic associated with that phrase much more used than other topics (80-90% of usage as a rough rule-of-thumb), that topic is the primary use. If there is no primary meaning, the phrase should be disambiguated unless there is consensus to do otherwise."

--Loodog (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely nowhere here or anywhere else did anyone propose anything that would result in moving New York City to New York (city). Read the proposal again. If anything, this proposal would have consequences for "New York". I don't think you'll ever get a WP consensus to agree that "New York City" could ever be thought to be ambiguous.

Also, don't think that discussion here overwrites discussion anywhere else. The purpose of this proposal is to streamline ambiguous situations when no other guidelines apply. This very proposal can, of course, be ignored in specific cases where consensus is to do so.--Loodog (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So this discussion pretty much dead. I'm going to go ahead and stick it in unless anyone objects.--Loodog (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion over Nice shows that the definition of primary topic needs to be clarified. It says "much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings),",and we need to clarify that this may not be the most common usage of the word in every day life, but is the most common sense in which it would be sought in an encyclopedia. (ie adjectives and verbs will tend to carry less weight). The decision there was that the city Nice was the primary topic, even though the adjective "nice" is the more common usage in general vocabulary. PamD (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about: "If there is a topic associated with that phrase which is searched for significantly more than other topics in an encyclopedia (80-90% of usage as a rough rule-of-thumb), that topic is the primary use. If there is no primary meaning, the phrase should be disambiguated barring compelling reasons to do otherwise."

--Loodog (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this proposal. There is clearly very little consensus, so we should leave things alone until there is consensus. We've only scratched the tip of the iceberg as far as discontent goes. For example, there's the issue of NPOV not merely from a current world view but from a historical world view; Worcester, Worcs. is historically massively significant being the site of a decisive Royalist vs. Republican battle in the English Civil War; Worcester, Mass. played only a passing role in the American War of Independence. Then there's visitor numbers to consider rather than just population; Worcester, Mass. is hardly top of anyone's must-see list, whereas Worcester, Worcs. is one of the main cathedral cities of Europe. If you consider the primary reason behind any article - notability - then Worcester, Worcs. wins hands down over Worcester, Mass. Yet this proposal would force the less notable city into the more notable article name. The consensus just isn't there, so this proposal should be dropped until there is consensus. Doing nothing is the best option in this situation. Let the articles argue it out on a case by case basis, on their own talk pages. If this proposal goes ahead it will bring nothing but trouble. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dab pages with hatnotes

In the course of discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote, Eugène van der Pijll has produced a list of 244 dab pages which include a templated hatnote. They make for interesting reading. Two themes show up: complicated relationships between Foo, Foo (disambiguation), Foo (surname), Foo (given name), and between Foo and FOO, as well as a lot of more individual nonstandard dab page! Should a dab page ever have a hatnote? Scope for some sort of a clear-up project? PamD (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I could see {{distinguish}} as a hatnote on a base-name dab, if the dab for the term being distinguished isn't merged into the "this" dab. But otherwise things in a hatnote would be better off in the dab list or in a see also section (or on the base name article if the dab is not at the base name). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

{{selfref}} would also be acceptable on a base-name dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) All these pages should probably be reviewed. However, two dab pages that I cleaned up but that don't appear in Eugène's list are Ill and III (see the difference? ;-)). I can't imagine how not to solve this via hatnotes. Still, hatnotes should be discouraged on dab pages and only be reserved for very special cases. – sgeureka 11:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, special cases. Like JHunterJ said, most of the information in those hatnotes should belong in a see also section. There have been a few cases I've run across where a hatnote to reduce confusion is a good idea (such as Sgeureka's example above, wow!), but otherwise, they don't need to be there.

Now that we have this lovely list of pages that need changes... if we go about and fix the hatnotes, will it mess up the discussion? -- Natalya 11:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. I just fixed ABE/Abe. I'll wait before cleaning up others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

About the list: feel free to move it, for example to some subpage of a disambiguation cleanup project. Also, I'm not really planning on doing anything with it, so if you want to remove the pages that you've cleaned up, that's fine with me. I am willing to make a more comprehensive list in the future, if that would be helpful. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Disambiguation pages with hatnotes‎. Thanks for creating the list, Eugene. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I echo JHunterJ's thanks - it will certainly help us to clean up some confusion. -- Natalya 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up now that we're actually looking to clean these pages up - a number of the hatnotes (or, at least some of the first ones) refer to alternative capitalization disambiguation pages. Per Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Page_naming_conventions, all capitalizations should be on the same disambiguation page. Is this our opportunity to correct any that have been separated? It should be pretty straightfoward; I ask only because I think there was some hullabaloo about Ada and ADA in the past. Combining those would make a long disambiguation page, but per the guidelines, they really should be together. -- Natalya 23:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the cleanup effort following the guideline as causing a problem. Consistency in the encyclopedic is important. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Should surname and/or given name pages have "(disambiguation)" in the title?

It seems well-accepted that pages that only list persons with the same given name, or the same surname, are not disambiguation pages. However, I have found a fair number of these that contain the parenthetical "(disambiguation)" in their titles; for example, Codazzi (disambiguation) (a surname), Lemar (disambiguation) (a given name). Should pages like this be moved to Codazzi (surname), Lemar (given name), or, for pages that include both, Whatever (name)? --Russ (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so. I believe those pages fall more under the umbrella of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anthroponymy. And it would certainly make sense (as long, of course, that the pages don't contain any non-name links). We might want to double check with the Anthroponymy folks on the naming conventions, but it seems like the qualifiers used are just what you said, Russ - either (given name), (surname), or simply (name). -- Natalya 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a page that is only a name-holder list (given name, surname, or both), and not a list of articles that might have had the single name, should never be titled with (disambiguation). If it's not the primary topic, it should be moved to one of the options you listed and the newly created (disambiguation) redirect should be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is from the hip, but I believe that if a dab page lists only persons, then we use the {{hndis}} tag, and if there are entries besides persons, we use the {{disambig}} and add a name category. Also, specific to this question, Codazzi as a primary topic is actually a city, which sadly, is not currently listed on the dab page. In this case, the (disambiguation) clarifier needs to stay, and the primary topic needs to be added. SlackerMom (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... that is a good point. Looking over some of the name articles from Wikiproject Anthroponymy, they seem to either use {{surname}} or {{given name}} (or both! :o ) on the name articles. You make a good point about {{hndis}}. Are we having some unnecessary overlap? Or are the surname and given name tags only used on name articles that actually have encyclopedic content, not just a list of names? -- Natalya 16:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out the instructions at Template:Hndis. I think that's what I've been using as a basis for my template usage. SlackerMom (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Codazzi, we should move Codazzi (disambiguation) to Codazzi (surname) and replace the hatnote with {{for|people with the surname|Codazzi (surname)}}. Whether the surname list article needs to mention the city would be up to the anthroponymy guidelines. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. I'll do it later if nobody beats me to it. SlackerMom (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if anyone's inclined to dive into this mess, there's a list at User:RussBot/Name disambig report that may be useful. This should list all the pages with "(disambiguation)" in their titles and either {{surname}} or {{given name}} in their text (excluding any pages that also contain a legitimate disambiguation template). It's generated from the latest XML dump, which is about five days old at this point, so some of the pages may have been edited since then. --Russ (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that list, Russ. I've been mulling over the whole topic for a bit this afternoon, because I thought I was missing something, and I figured it out. Everyone else may have already had this, but oh well. :) {{hndis}} should be used on actual disambiguation pages that only list people, for example, Michael Jackson (disambiguation). All those people can legitimately be confused with the name "Michael Jackson". {{surname}} and {{given name}} should be used on pages that are lists of people with the same given name or surname (not disambiguation pages). Those pages that aren't actually disambiguation pages, and are just lists of people with the same surname or given name, shouldn't be located at "Name (disambiguation)", but rather "Name (given name)" or "Name (surname)"

Yes? Hopefully? -- Natalya 20:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, that's a lovely summary. I get so confused sometimes! Thank you Natalya! SlackerMom (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I'd add is that sometimes, for short name lists, the name list is included on the disambiguation page instead of splitting it out to a given name or surname article. In some of those cases, the {{surname}} or {{given name}} also appears -- I used to add it just under the section heading, but I've since stopped, because some editors indicated it made the page seem cluttered. See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Background reading if you want more. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point to add. I think I've removed a few of those additional tags in the past, with the reason of clutter (and also possibly redundancy to the disambiguation tag), but I guess it technically is valid. Do we want to have any sort of standardized thing for including them/not including them, or just leave it as it goes?

I'm glad it makes sense to you too, SlackerMom! It definitly confused me for a while, and writing it down seemed to help. -- Natalya 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New example needed at Misplaced Pages:D#Disambiguation_links

The example of use of a hatnote is no longer valid, as Alexander the Great now has a link to a dab page! Can someone provide a good current example? PamD (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I used Atlas Shrugged. Afghanistan, Aegean Sea, Amateur, and iSight are among those also available if we don't like Atlas Shrugged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wildwood High School

I thought I'd consult the experts again. We have Wildwood High School, Wild Wood High School, and Wildwood School. Two of them, Wild Wood High School and Wildwood School, are both located in Los Angeles. I was thinking of doing the following:
move Wildwood High School -> Wildwood High School (New Jersey) without hatnote
move Wild Wood High School -> Wild Wood High School (Los Angeles, California) with hatnote to other LA school
move Wildwood School -> Wildwood School (Los Angeles, California) with hatnote to other LA school
All three original names lead to Wildwood School, a disambig.
Does this make any sense? Many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with having all three original names redirect to a disambiguation page. I'm not sure if they each need locational qualifiers, since they technically have different names, but I do see the reasoning behind it. If you want to have similar qualifiers, why not have the two in Los Angeles just be qualified with "(California)"? It makes the titles a bit shorter, and is in line with the first be qualified by a state. -- Natalya 01:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Kahuna

We have lots of people putting kahuna trivia that is useful to have somewhere but not on the kahuna page, so created a kahuna (disambiguation) page. Is this okay? Thanks. Makana Chai (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good choice. The disambiguation page definitly needs a lot of cleanup (to be in line with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)), but a disambiguation page like the one you made is a place for all articles (or potential articles) by the same name of another article. -- Natalya 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, while some of these entries are good disambiguation tagets, fisambiguation pages are no more a place for triva than the main article space. Taemyr (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but it seems like most/all of the entries on Kahuna (disambiguation) aren't so much trivia as about things named "Kahuna". Granted, I imagine a large number of them will be removed upon cleanup, but other things named "Kahuna" do belong there. -- Natalya 02:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entries that I felt positive was bad. The page still needs cleanup.Taemyr (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've actually just been having a bit more look at it too. There don't appear to be any actual articles for any of the terms (using the special pages link to all articles with prefix "Kahuna"), so next will be to check if any of the entries are listed in the other blue linked articles related to them. If not, it may turn out that there's nothing worthwile to be on the disambiguation page. :) -- Natalya 02:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the film and the SOCOM character. Also Jon Miller and Windows Live Mail, although in the latter two cases the target does not mention the term so it tastes a bit of OR. Taemyr (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's true most of these uses do not have pages, but it just seems that there has to be a place for people to go who hear the word kahuna and then go to the kahuna page and find it is something completely different. Otherwise, I feel we will be policing the kahuna article forever with people adding these things. Also, though I appreciate the clean up I'm not clear about some of your decisions. E.g., removing all references to genitalia - this use is very common. And including the name of a surf store in Ontario seems a bit of a stretch. But I will live with whatever you want to do. I just want to keep it out of the kahuna article. Thank you. Makana Chai (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages should only have links to terms that could legitimately be articles sometime in the future - not just an indescriminate list of information. If there was an article Kahuna (genitalia), then there would be no problem listing it. If the term referencing genetalia was even mentioned in another article, we could probably get away with listing it on the disambiguation page. Until there is actual encyclopedic information on that (or any of the other topics), however, they don't really belong on disambiguation pages. Otherwise, disambiguation pages would get huge, and it would be very difficult to navigate them! Disambiguation pages are all about helping a person find the article they are intending to find. -- Natalya 11:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect interwiki links from non-dab pages

At Dark Light, a bot has just added 8 interwiki links that lead to non-dab pages (all lead to their respective articles on Dark Light (HIM album), in this case). Is there a recommended method for fixing this, in general? Thanks. -- Quiddity 05:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That particular problem seems to have arisen because the article at Dark Light was moved to Dark Light (HIM album). When the article was recreated as a disambig, the bot re-added the interwikis. It seems like the correct interwikis were already on the moved page. If it had happened and the interwikis were not on the correct page, you could just move them to the correct page. If the bot keeps re-adding them, then I would notify the bot's creator to try to fix the problem. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User disambiguation

Should we put users in some disambiguations? For example, I accidently searched Bob instead of User:Bob. Should we pue User:Bob in the disambiguation page? -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 08:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Disambiguation pages are about helping readers find the article they are looking for. Sometimes we have self-referential links to Misplaced Pages policies (for example, A-class), but they're only supposed to be there when readers of the encyclopedia might be interested to see how the encyclopedia works. -- Natalya 11:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How about disambiguation pages inclusively for users? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of a good idea but who would have the same name? -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 22:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the list of editors. Maybe a bot can help us write in the names (save us humans the work!). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea but how are we going to find one? -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 04:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You can make a request at WP:BOTREQ. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I still can't quite see the point of this. I've never heard of a case of someone searching for one user and coming up with another. In fact, I almost never use search to find users, since I'm always linking to them through their talk page signatures or from page histories. Is there really a huge unreported problem of finding the wrong userpages, or is this a solution in search of a problem?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank god for that ... I was beginning to think maybe the emperor did have new clothes afterall. :) Abtract (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hijacking of dab pages

Is there a guideline or policy I can quote to dissuade an editor from hijacking well-established dab pages by moving Foo (a dab page) to Foo (disambiguation) and then redirecting Foo to his chosen usage of the word, adding a {{redirect}} hatnote to that page? Unpicking the mess involves using a WP:RM because the edit history has been made complicated. The two examples are Adel (was redirected to German nobility) and IAA (was redirected to Frankfurt Motor Show). PamD (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably (hopefully?) describing what a primary topic is and explaining that there is not always one would help. If the editor disagrees on the choice/non-choice of a primary topic, telling her that she can bring it up for discussion (rather than moving first) is also good. -- Natalya 23:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

We have:

• Where the term to be disambiguated is a small number of letters (up to say four), the page name should follow the usual capitalization policy if it forms a word (for example Arc) but should be all capitals if no word could reasonably be formed by the letters (for example (BBD).

• There should be just one disambiguation page for all cases (upper- or lower-case), variant punctuation and diacritic marks.

• For example, "Term abc", "Term Abc", "Term Ábç", "Term A-B-C", and "Term A.B.C." should all redirect to one page.

I can't follow this (particularly the first paragraph; I assume it's supposed to relate to the case described in the second, but it still doesn't quite make sense). I propose instead:

• Where different terms use the same letters, differing only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks, a single disambiguation page should be created. For example, "Term abc", "Term Abc", "Term Ábç", "Term A-B-C", and "Term A.B.C." should all redirect to one page. Words are preferred over abbreviations for the name of the page; for example the shared disambiguation page for the terms "Arc" and "ARC" is named Arc.

Comments?--Kotniski (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph is telling how to capitalise the title (normal rules if it is a word Arc; all caps if no word is possible BBD); the second paragraph advises only one page for all minor variants in spelling and punctuation etc. These points are unrelated and your change destroys the first para "Words are preferred over abbreviations for the name of the page; for example the shared disambiguation page for the terms "Arc" and "ARC" is named Arc" doesn't quite do it imho. I have reverted your changes until there is consensus for a new wording. Abtract (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But surely if there is only one variant, then that's the variant we use for the title? The rule about capitalization must only apply if there are variants of the type described in the second paragraph, right? We wouldn't call a dab page Arc rather than ARC if it included only links to ARC (...) and none to Arc (...), would we? But that's what the first paragraph seems to say at the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment on strategy

A suggestion, if you're going to do a major rewrite of what is a relatively stable guideline, you'd might have better luck if you made your edits to a separate sub-page and then present it for consideration. Some of what you're proposing makes sense, but it is a lot to take in and difficult to process in lots of piecemeal changes. older ≠ wiser 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If I were proposing a major rewrite, that's doubtless what I would have done. But all my edits have just been basically cosmetic, though I consider some of them important for making this valuable guideline readable. However, I'm not going to touch the page any more for a time, so people can now consider the proposed changes at leisure.--Kotniski (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

I unreverted since the controversial change being discussed above was not included in my most recent edits. The changes I just (re)introduced seem essential to making this page understandable. Having the primary topic question hidden halfway down the page was making everything that came before it quite incomprehensible - read the page again imagining you don't know what it says, and I think you will see what I mean. Still needs a lot of work as it is, though (assuming we do want people to be able to understand it).--Kotniski (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Next problem

Look at the Generic topic section. It's just repeating what's gone before, but using obscure phrasing and weird argumentation. The only thing it adds that's new (and it's only new because I deleted the previous instance of this statement) is that you can make "Xx (disambiguation)" a redirect to Xx when Xx is a dab page. It then gives an example to "illustrate" this, which appears to be out of date, since there's no link to Table (dis..) on the page cited, and if there was it would be in contravention of the earlier rule about not linking specific topics back to the dab page. Basically I want to delete this whole section as simply confusing, and replace it with a nice simple statement about these redirects, with a real example. Any objections to doing this? And anyone got a good example?--Kotniski (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Next next problem

And again, "Specific topic" is in entirely the wrong place on the page. It should be a separate level 2 header, after the whole section on Disambiguation pages (obviously, because it is not about disambiguation pages). I would move it but people seem to keep reverting anything I do without explanation of why they object to it, so this time I'll stop being bold and ask for objections first.--Kotniski (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And while we're about it, I've just found this under Duplicate topics: Disambiguation should not be confused with the merging of duplicate articles (articles with different titles, but regarding the very same topic, for example "gas turbine" and "combustion turbine", or "restroom" and "washroom"). These are handled with Misplaced Pages:Redirects. Like, true, but what is this trying to say? What behaviour is it supposed to encourage or discourage? If it means anything concrete, then let's say it explicitly; if not then leave it out. Otherwise people are going to misinterpret it in all sorts of ways. --Kotniski (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have some good points here, and I am all in favour of getting this right but ... slow down tiger. If you continue to flood us with the error or our ways, I feel you may antagonise some of us (not me obviously cos I am beyond all that). Take it easy, one point at a time and do it on the talk page (as you now are) rather than the main page. Good luck. You might like to look at this to see what I am attempting. :) Abtract (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm not wishing to offend anyone - nor do I want to change the substantial meaning of anything in the guideline, but there seem to be a lot of problems with the wording and especially with the ordering of ideas on this page, so that someone coming to the page for guidance is unlikely to find much. Although my edits might look excessively bold (moving whole sections creates that impression), they're actually quite minor in practical effect, so I hope they will go ahead once people have had a chance to look at them. (And good luck with the work over at MOSDAB; I haven't even got there yet...)--Kotniski (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead with the changes?

In the light of the lack of response to my various suggestions above, can I assume that there is no objection to them and I can make the pertinent edits? Or do people still want time to consider them?--Kotniski (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO you haven't yet put proposals to us in a way that encourages debate. Tell us point by point (don't flood us with many points) what is wrong with current guidelines and what specific new wording you propose. I for one promise to respond. Abtract (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's concentrate on one at a time. How about the concrete suggestion under #Proposed rewording above? --Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already commented but if my thoughts were not clear: I do not agree with your proposed new wording which is, in part, no better than the current wording and, in part, worse. Sorry. :) Abtract (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't respond to my response. I think it's quite clear why the present wording is unacceptable. Of course my solution isn't the only possible one - maybe someone has a better suggestion.--Kotniski (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they do, but I do not agree with your wording ... indeed you haven't convinced me there is a problem. Abtract (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look and a think about #Proposed rewording. I think the problem with both the existing and the proposed text is that it blurs two issues: (a) how many dab pages are needed and (b) how to choose a title for a dab page. Logically, we need to answer (a) first, so I wonder whether we need a first section under "Disambiguation pages" which says something like:

Unified disambiguation page (needs a better title!)

There should be just one disambiguation page for all cases (upper- or lower-case), variant punctuation and diacritic marks.

For example, "Term abc", "Term Abc", "Term Ábç", "Term A-B-C", and "Term A.B.C." should all redirect to one page.

Note that there may exist separate WP articles at differently punctuated versions of the title. This is permissible, but they must all include a hatnote linking them to the unified disambiguation page.

Similarly, a single disambiguation page may be used for two or more variations of a term (eg Fred Xyz and Frederick Xyz) where it is thought that readers will find this useful.

Then we move on to the existing text about how to choose the name for your dab page in terms of (a) it needn't be Foo (disambiguation) unless there's a Foo page, and (b) capitalisation and punctuation.

I suggest that the wording It is acceptable, on the other hand, to create a page at "Term ABC (disambiguation)" that redirects to the disambiguation page at "Term ABC". This type of redirect can be used to indicate deliberate links to the disambiguation page. is unnecessary in the first section of " Page naming conventions", as it appears further down where it is less confusing. If we must leave it, then reword it to "It sometimes useful to create a redirect from "Term ABC (disambiguation)" to the disambiguation page at "Term ABC". This type of redirect can be used to indicate deliberate links to the disambiguation page, eg in dablinks in articles and in "See also" sections of related disambiguation pages."

PamD (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the sort of thing we need. Though let's stick to the one issue (that of what you neatly call unified dab pages) for now, as requested by Abtract. We probably need to say still more about this issue: for example, singulars and plurals are often unified, variant spellings are often unified, etc. I don't know if the rules are set out anywhere, but I don't see them on this page. I also don't like the "Term abc" examples - we should use real examples if possible. We also need to decide what to say about choosing the name for unified pages. So far we seem to know that we prefer words (like Arc) over abbreviations (like ARC). Any more rules like that (for example, undotted abbreviations over dotted ones, like SA over S.A.)? Or are the other cases simply to be left to editors' common sense (as presumably they are now, since they are not addressed in the guideline)?--Kotniski (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've spent too long on WP today and must get on with some real life, but another element to consider in unifying dab pages is "The xyz" versus "Xyz". And the main, golden, rule, is to use just masses of redirects and all reasonable hatnotes, to ensure that people typing a term, or following a badly-written link, will get to the dab page appropriate to their search! Good luck. PamD (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New proposed wording on unified/combined dabs

What about this version then (based on Pam's proposal above)? Right after the Disambiguation pages level 2 section heading, we insert:

(level 3 section heading): Combining terms on disambiguation pages

A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms. Sets of terms which are commonly so combined include:

• Terms which differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks. For example, the terms Oe, Ōe, OE and O.E. are disambiguated on a single page (Oe).
• Corresponding singular, plural and possessive forms. For example, the terms Eagle Nest, Eagle's Nest and Eagle Nests all appear at Eagle's Nest.
• Variant spellings. For example, Honor and Honour both appear at Honor (disambiguation).
• Variant forms of names. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith.
• Terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article. For example, Cure also contains instances of The Cure.

Editorial judgement should be used in deciding whether to combine terms in the ways described above. If a combined disambiguation page would be inconveniently long, it may be better to split the different spellings into separate pages.

When a combined disambiguation page is used, redirects to it (or hatnotes, as appropriate) should be set up from all the terms involved.

This still covers only the principle; the naming of such pages is then to be discussed under Page naming a bit lower down.--Kotniski (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that by using the word "may" at the beginning and "editorial judgement" near the end, we have a long section that says nothing. I am not suggesting using the word "must" instead because we already have quite enough minor little edits made on the basis of these guidelines without creating a situation that encourages even more. The current wording actually works quite well and, until something better comes along I see no reason to change it. Abtract (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The current wording covers only the first of the five points listed above, and gives a very opaque example. Don't you see that someone coming to this page for information and guidance (which is what it's here for) is getting only a partial picture, and a confusingly presented one? Why should only one of these points be mentioned? What's wrong with explaining this issue more clearly and completely? As to whether we say "must", "may" or (as now) "should", I think "may" is most accurate, since none of these combining rules is applied everywhere it could be - common sense is widely applied. That's not to say the whole section says nothing - omitting it might lead some to think that this type of combining is not permitted at all (as the current wording implies that combining of singular and plural, for example, is not permitted). Try to forget all you know about disambiguation and imagine what someone reading the page for the first time is going to understand from it. This page isn't for you regulars - you know it all anyway - it's for relative newcomers.--Kotniski (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact it's not the "may" in my proposed version that determines the strength; it's the "commonly" in the next sentence. This might be replaced by something stronger like "most commonly", "usually", "generally", but to me "commonly" gets it about right.--Kotniski (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I like that the revision makes it clear that in some cases it is better to combine terms. I think I"m OK with the proposed wording. Until it is challenged with specific cases by editors capable only of binary thinking, I don't see any obvious problems. older ≠ wiser 12:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of outstanding objections, then, I"m going to put this in as well.--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is it allowed to have on a page which is called for example PBS a link to a disambiguation page called PBS (disambiguation) which already contains more than 20 other meanings of PBS? I thought the links on a page of an article should directly point to the pages with the other meanings in case there are only two or three other meanings. But if there are 20 other meanings wouldn't it be better to start directly with the disambiguation page right at the beginning, in our example at PBS and not at PBS (disambiguation)?
What do you think? Thank you for your input. --Tom David (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If the topic of the PBS page is much more significant than all the other PBS meanings, then the present situation seems fine, regardless of the total number of meanings involved.--Kotniski (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I would like to ask who decides what seems to be fine? The critical mass?--Tom David (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus decides whether there is a primary topic ... if, in this case, there is no primary meaning then PBS should be moved to, say, PBS (broadcasting) and the dab page moved to PBS. Abtract (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) It's not the number of other meanings which matters, but whether or not the topic is the Primary Topic of "PBS". In this case, the question is whether (a) PBS should redirect to Public Broadcasting Service as it does at present, with a hatnote pointing to the dab page, or (b) the dab page, currently at PBS (disambiguation), should be moved to PBS. Primary topics are discussed at WP:Primarytopic, but I've never found that section very clear! If you think this one is contentious, have a look at Talk:New_York/Archive_3 (but only if you've got a lot of time to spare). PamD (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear PamD, thank you very much for your answer. Personally I would tend to have no Primary Topics at all in cases of disambiguation, and I would enjoy taking a look at WP:Primarytopic or Talk:New_York/Archive_3. But you are right, I don't have that much of spare time. Indeed, I will wait for a new world with clear justice in the near future. Cheers! --Tom David (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also to Abtract and Kotniski of course. Have a good time! --Tom David (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"No primary topics"? That's a bold idea, but goes against longstanding WikiPedia tradition: you'd really not expect Copper or London or Oscar Wilde to go to the most likely topic, but prefer to send all seekers via a disambiguation page? I think it's a minority viewpoint! Enough for now. PamD (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to reorder sections

OK, I think it's time to consider another of the issues I raised before. The problem is this: under "Disambiguation pages" (level 2 heading)\"Page naming conventions" (level 3), we have two level 4 sections which logically shouldn't be there, called "Primary topic" and "Specific topic". The "Primary topic" section is about deciding whether and what should be the primary topic for a term. This is a fundamental question, relating not only to cases where dab pages are used, and needs to go (in my view) at the beginning of the article, as a level 2 section, right after "Deciding to disambiguate". (It could also use a bit of rewording, but we'll leave that for now.)

The "Specific topic" section, on the other hand, needs to be moved down, so that it is no longer under "Disambiguation pages". Presumably someone put it in its present position because it relates to the level 3 topic of "Page naming conventions", but didn't notice that this was under level 2 "Disambiguation pages". The Specific Topic section does relate to page naming conventions, but not to conventions for the naming of dab pages, and so is clearly misplaced at present.

Any objections to either of these moves? (I know more may need to be done with the wording, but I've been asked to consider one change at a time, so let's just discuss the reordering first.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of objections and because it seems to me to be uncontroversial anyway, I'm going to get working on this. I will doubtless make some minor wording changes to reflect the new ordering - please (revert and) discuss if anything seems wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Next section requiring work

Now the ordering of ideas has been tidied up a bit, I think we can get to work on the wording of the "Page naming conventions" section under "Disambiguation pages". I've already reworded it a bit and deleted some of the repeated and false/misleading information I referred to in above discussions. It now consists of just the following paragraph:

• The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Jupiter (disambiguation). It is also acceptable to create a page at "Term ABC (disambiguation)" that redirects to a disambiguation page at "Term ABC". This type of redirect can be used to indicate deliberate links to the disambiguation page.

Improvements to this wording are welcome, of course, but we have to add something about the issue of what to call a dab page that combines more than one term or spelling. We know from what we had before that we prefer words (like Arc) over abbreviations (like ARC). I suggest also that we prefer singulars over plurals, undotted abbreviations over dotted ones, and forms without articles over those with articles. And where there are alternative spellings, use the "most common" (but without edit warring about it). Do people agree with these principles, or want to add anything to them, so we can try to formulate a second paragraph for this section correctly?--Kotniski (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Or more specifically, then, how about the following wording?

• If a disambiguation page combines several terms, then one of them must be selected as the title for the page (with the "(disambiguation)" tag added if there is a primary topic for that term). The choice is made in line with the following principles:

• Words are preferred over abbreviations; for example, the disambiguation page for the terms Arc and ARC is titled Arc.
• Singulars are preferred over plurals.
• Forms which exclude punctuation and articles are preferred (e.g. SA rather than S.A., Cure rather than The Cure).
• Where there are alternative spellings of a term or forms of a name, the most common one (or a reasonably common one, if it is not clear which is the most common) is chosen.

Comments?--Kotniski (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I like your new wording but not all your proposal that follows it. I suggest the following alternative:

• When there are two or more very similar terms that require disambiguating, these terms should be combined on one disambiguation page unless the number of items is large enough to make this confusing to the reader; under these circumstances separate pages for each may be created, with a link between them. When a disambiguation page combines several very similar terms, one of them must be selected as the title for the page; the choice should be made in line with the following principles:

• Where no word could reasonably be formed of the letters, all caps is preferred but, where a word can be formed, this is preferred to the abbreviation. For example, DDB is preferred to Ddb and Arc is preferred to ARC.
• English spelling is preferred
• Singulars are preferred to plurals.
• The simplest form of the term is preferred to those containing punctuation, diacritics and articles; for example SA is preferred to S.A., and Shadow (disambiguation) is preferred to The Shadow (disambiguation)).
• The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives. Abtract (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, though the first long sentence is unnecessary, since it repeats information that is now already stated (in more detail) in the "Combining terms on dab pages" section. A couple of questions though: 1) What do you have in mind with "English spelling is preferred"; can you give an example? 2) The point in the first case is not whether a word could reasonably be formed, but whether it is formed (i.e. whether any of the terms listed on the page do use the word). This therefore still seems to require slight rewording.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course you are right about the opening, strike everything except the last sentence (beginning "When a disambiguation page ... "). It's no big deal but I don't agree about reasonably - imho it is better to have a word rather than caps to cover for the future eg I would prefer Kyt to KYT even if there were no items using Kyt per se. Abtract (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we are in disagreement about that then - I would go for KYT in such a case. What do other people think?--Kotniski (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a crystal ball to divine what might possibly be a word -- I'd go with actual usage -- and with a caveat as well. If most terms on a page are for an initialism and only a small number use the term as a word, I'd place the term at the initialism -- I think this could be an extension of the general principle of preferring the more common form for a title. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess this isn't a big deal for any of us but perhaps it illustrates a bigger point ... the danger of making these guidelines too prescriptive or too proscriptive - it causes disagreement over nothing. I believe even the rules we have are in some cases being interpreted too rigidly for the sake of "consistency", for example changing "Other use" to "Other uses" (or is it "Other usage" I never can remember?). When an editor has spent time creating a page or cleaning it, the last thing they want to see is a piddling little change to it, but that's just my opinion. Abtract (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's do this then; I'm adding what is basically your wording with minor adjustments for the above discussion and for clarity. I would still like an example for the "English spelling" point though, if possible.--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

More changes

I've been making a few minor undiscussed changes again. It would take for ever to discuss each individual one here; I don't think they're controversial, but of course if anyone objects to anything then just revert and discuss.--Kotniski (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of Disambiguation Links section

I'm working on rewriting the "Disambiguation links" section to make it more systematic and to fit in with the logic of the page as a whole (of course a lot of the information is at WP:Hatnotes and the template documentation pages). Please see User:Kotniski/Sandbox and let me know what you think (all feel free to edit that page as well).--Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And two sections I would delete

I suggest we delete the following two sections from the page:

1. WP:D#Disambiguation of CJKV character names - all this section says is that the normal rules are followed for these names, so there seems to be no reason for it to be here.
2. WP:D#Duplicate topics - unclear what it is supposed to mean or how it is relevent to "What not to include" on disambiguation pages (if someone knows what it means, then perhaps they could reword or expand it?)

--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

And my last proposal, I promise (at least for today). To merge Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation and abbreviations into this page. In fact I think there's very little meaningful information there that isn't on this page already.--Kotniski (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How to verify disambiguation terms?

Okay, I am sure this has come up before, and I think I understand the matter pretty clearly, but maybe not. Let's say an editor wants to provide a dab term to GTR, specifically, the musical notation of guitar usage to sheet music (which is actually true, and is the background for the name of the band of the same name). Someone says it isn't, noting a Google search of the term "GTR", which yields over 18.8 million results, and the first 100 of them do not refer in any way to its usage as a substitute for guitar.
However, if we add the word "guitar" to the search, we end up with 1.9 million hits, and some of them refer to GTR (albeit indirectly).
My question isn't really about GTR. My question is about whether the "pure" search of 'GTR' is better at determining disambiguation than the mixed terms. Can I get some 'big brane' input on this? :) - Arcayne () 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Try searching for "GTR abbreviation guitar"; that seems to provide several very pertinent links. The more detailed the search, the more persuasive the results, I would imagine.--Kotniski (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't that the same thing as defining a word using the word? To search thusly seems to weight the search in favor of the results one wishes to find, as opposed to the real, unflavored results. - Arcayne () 17:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Google searches are largely irrelevant. If there is an article in Misplaced Pages on the subject which indicates use of the abbreviation, then it is valid to include it in the dab page. If not (either there isn't a WP page about the subject, or there is but it makes no mention of the abbreviation), then it has no place in the dab page. Red links are a grey area (colourful!): perhaps here, if there are established redlinks in other articles, it might be valid to look at Google or other resources to verify whether the abbreviation is standard. Better to go away and write the article at the redlink! A dab page isn't a list of abbreviations (there are dictionaries of those), it's a list of WP articles which someone might be looking for by typing that abbreviation or other dab term. PamD (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My impression, though, is that these rules are not always followed to the letter (as has been mentioned in the past on this talk page). Often editors will include a common abbreviation or related term on a dab page without worrying too much whether it actually appears in the article linked to. We don't want to overindulge our readers, naturally, but once in a while we can afford to give them information they are likely to be looking for, even if we know that they should be actually looking for it somewhere else.--Kotniski (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What's your take on this then. The term is JTR and it has been linked for over two years (it was the original entry and then split to become the DAB for Jack the Ripper. thanks - its the usage under contention. 75.57.160.195 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution there with a recent edit. We'll see if it stands. To follow PamD, you might also take a look at the recent discussion here which involves the inclusion of common-sense initialisms which might not be included in their linked articles. SlackerMom (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like fine compromise. Thanks SlackerMom :)75.57.160.195 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really an inclusionist rather than a deletionist, and happy for dab pages to include a wide range of good stuff, but I think if the abbreviation is worth including in a dab page it ought to be mentioned somewhere in the article itself, so I'm a bit surprised that "JTR" isn't mentioned in the relevant page! PamD (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather my point, Pam. However, mentioning that only encourages a contributor to toss that in now, in an attempt to justify its disambiguation. Anyway, that wouldn't be reason to include it anyway. JTR, as a term for Jack the Ripper is used by a non-notable, small group of people; giving weight to such a small group of people's usage is a classic undue weight argument.

There is nothing citable or notable connecting JTR to Jack the Ripper, any more than there is connecting GTR to guitar. As editors (and, in a larger way, primary sources of information), our speculation as to what is common-sense is not encyclopedic. We cannot include unsupportable dab terms, especially those which constitute undue weight from tiny little groups. - Arcayne ()

Is the purpose of a disambiguation page to provide an encyclopedic list of things a term can mean, or is it to help readers find what they are looking for when they type a term into a search box? --Random832 (contribs) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, specifically those terms we can cite as being likely suggestions, as opposed to something like "Centaurs in Astrology"), used by a very small group of folk using CIA to do so. Common sense dictates that we ask if a normal user is going to type in JTR while looking for Jack the Ripper (when 'Jack' or 'Ripper' are more intuitive search terms); clearly, the average user won't. The term is used by an unduly-small group of folk, self-termed "ripperologists" (yeah, I know, the term makes me laugh, too).

We cannot add terms that we cannot prove are used commonly. - Arcayne () 18:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never edited the Jack the Ripper page and unlike you am not a hardcore fan and editor of the subject - but the DAB does reflect a wider use of the term.. Several link to museums, books, movie productions and comics when using the term. And that's just the first page...75.57.160.195 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is true, when one alters the search criteria from 'JTR' to 'JTR eastend' - apparently, you missed the opening discussion of the section. Your search skews the results in favor of a connection you are trying to prove. Example, I did the same thing, adding a term: 'kangaroo' and 'eastend, with results that connect the two. Similarly, a search of 'kangaroo' and 'JTR' returned some pretty interesting results, none of them related to Jack the Ripper, either. :) Your search protocol is fatally flawed, and inserts your own wishes and desires into the search itself. It is not surprising that the results are going to reflect that need for a connection that isn't inherently there.

We don't cock up the search to prove a point; its "disruptive and disputative". I use those exact words because this anon has been stalking my edits since April, and has been blocked for it repeatedly. He hasn't posted in JTR before because I haven't. Thought I would make that clear to the uninitiated. - Arcayne () 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It never takes long to take the subject off the rails does it? Would I be wrong for pointing out that you have already claimed on the JTR DAB page that DAB Misplaced Pages policy supports your edit? Or that your claim that DAB supports you came after you posted in two different DAB forums and had already been told "no." Would I be out of line to point out that five separate editors support some form of inclusion on the page? That you alone are for deletion and are seeking to overturn years of community consensus to include the term? Should mention be made that you have gone to two separate Administrators pages in an effort to sanction another editor (DreamGuy) for voicing his support on the very same page? That was just a factual, and cited, review of your edits on the subject of a JTR DAB. Multiple forums, numerous administrators and the rolling thunder of your edits and yet...not a single voice yet in support of your edit or interpretations. Perhaps if you widen it further or focus on more personalities that stand in your way.75.57.160.195 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Apparently, the anon is again interested in turning it into a discussion about how I am the antichrist or whatnot. I guess I will be ignoring him here, too. We aren't talking about DG, my unfriendly, stalkerish anon. We aren't talking about me, and we certainly aren't going to give you the sportlight. If I choose to head to the relevant forum to ask for advice (even when I am pretty sure I am correct), that is considered a smart move. Maybe you should seek an editing history outside of my contributions, as you are dangerously close to getting reported for stalking. You are not in my way; you are just an annoyance. Kindly go away. - Arcayne () 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the any acronym/abbreviation needs to be mentioned within the target article, in order to be considered "valid" for inclusion in a dab page. But I haven't read my scriptures styleguides lately, so might be out of date...? -- Quiddity 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol...scriptures. :) - Arcayne () 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hee, hee...Quid made a funny... Actually, the scriptures don't say anything about it, but it is common practice among dab editors. The question is whether some common sense inclusions can sometimes be allowed even if the article doesn't use the intialism. BTW, Arcayne, I don't really think Jack the Ripper is one of those common sense inclusions, I have merely tried to present a compromise that will avoid a big war over such a small prize. SlackerMom (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And no one has really reverted that in the article space after Arthur Rubin's compromise edit; its just been under lengthy discussion by folk of differing pov and myself, who agrees with you that it doesn't belong in there.

As for the reason why I have been somewhat resistant to including it, it makes me wonder if we give on this breach of the dab, what is next? Its a slippery slope, and its one we needn't even broach. OR and RS is pretty clear on this as it is. - Arcayne () 22:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, everyone agreed on including it in one form or another just a day or so ago.75.57.160.195 (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll also add that I never edited the main page or expressed any opinion about how it should be listed - I've only agreed with Arcayne and every other editor that it should be included in the DAB. 75.57.160.195 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it has been reverted in the article space, and contrary to your assertion. (I've only included your reverts as you are the only one to make the claim).75.57.160.195 (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And how many after Arthur's edit (after I asked for his insight)? That's right, zero. Should we point out how many times another single editor pointedly continued to revert any choice he didn't like? (hint: all of them). Should I point out how many articles you've stalked me to? (hint: it's more than a half-dozen). Maybe you can go away now Ignoring you now.- Arcayne () 23:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, your yelling at me for my response AFTER you changed the historical record and added qualifying language:. I have not followed you anywhere - hell my only position on the matter, inclusion, is in absolute agreement with yours.stop with the baiting attacks. Please.75.57.160.195 (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject Disambiguation pages