Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 34

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

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

English wikipedia needs a separate page for civil courage. This is a special kind of courage that involves protecting the rights of vulnerable people while taking a personal risk. There is a good German page on Zivilcourage which could be used as a model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.46.136.3 (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not just adjectives that are problematic in the disambiguation clean up effort. It's attributive verbs and noun adjuncts too. What happens is they get linked as single words in terms or phrases in many ways other than what is covered in a primary topic. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think as a general practice, such terms should redirect to their basic noun form as the primary topic. bd2412 T 19:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think many of the primary topics for the basic noun forms are thorough enough to cover the various usages. But I'm open to the idea that they may eventually be thorough enough. For now, I think the disambiguation cleanup effort should be sensitive to the fact that the primary topics just aren't thorough enough to substitute for a more thorough disambiguation page. The voids created by the cleanup effort could turn off a lot of wikipedia editors and users in the time it takes to fill the voids. It's better to make the primary topics more thorough before stripping the disambiguation pages of the alternate meanings, especially if the associated disambiguation pages have less than a dozen links. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We have little control over what people link to. Many novice editors (and more than a couple of experienced editors) tend to WP:OVERLINK. In cleaning up such links, valid options are also to remove the link altogether if it is superfluous, or to link to wiktionary. That's one reason why disambiguation pages usually include a link to wiktionary and in cases where a term is used in combination as a modifier, it is appropriate to include {{look from}} and {{in title}} templates in see also to prevent the disambiguation page from being an arbitrary list of unambiguous articles that happen to include the term in the title. older ≠ wiser 21:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Unambiguous articles?" I thought disambiguation pages were for ambiguous terms, not ambiguous articles. I thought disambiguation pages were to help the user/editors find the most relevant articles to link to. Are you saying that only links to ambiguous articles belong on DAB pages?

Regardless of whether or not editors tend to overlink, at least the excessive links should point to the most relevant articles. If lazy novice editors don't bother to read the articles they link to or search for more relevant articles, that's not going to be fixed by the disambiguation page cleaning effort on pages with less than a dozen links, especially if there's a primary topic that draws links away from the more relevant articles. However, if the lazy links point to disambiguation pages, and the most common and most relevant articles are on that page, it's more likely that the more relevant articles will be linked even by novice and lazy editors that overlink. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not being precise, I meant topics rather than articles. But yes, disambiguation pages are to help users/editors find topics when there are multiple ambiguous topics. I remain unconvinced that including unambiguous partial title matches on disambiguation pages is a net benefit. older ≠ wiser 01:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to suggest adding an entry to UHF_(disambiguation). I’m not simply adding it myself for COI reasons (described below).

I am an employee of the United Hospital Fund (UHF), and I recently created this user account to help correct several inaccuracies on an article about this organization. Disclosure of my association and details about the changes are on the article’s talk page and on my own user page. In keeping with my understanding of COI policy, WP:BFAQ, and other related guidelines, I’m not making direct edits about UHF.

My suggestion would be to add the following to the UHF disambiguation list:

• United Hospital Fund, a nonprofit health policy research organization in New York

Apologies if this is not the right place or format to add this request. If I should be flagging this in a different way, please let me know. Thanks for your help. Miles at UHF (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for being upfront about your COI. SchreiberBike talk 19:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Do articles on populated places (or former ones, in this case) such as Buffalo City, North Carolina not include hatnotes to dab pages? (Buffalo City)? I read WP:HAT, and maybe I missed something, but I don't see an answer to my question. Thanks. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally no, there should not be a hatnote. The basic idea is that it's unlikely that someone would get to the article Buffalo City, North Carolina when they are searching for some other Buffalo City, because this article says "North Carolina" in the title. See WP:NAMB. SchreiberBike talk 05:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The usage of Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Georgia (country) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I find my edits to the page being contested by a number of other editors who don't see to have a very firm grasp of disambiguation guidelines. older ≠ wiser 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Could we get an opinion about the validity of the way the above-named dab is set up? There is a lot of relevant debate on the inteligent design article which is actually the article where people searching for "intelligent design" are currently directed to. Clearly there is debate about the way that one meaning has been selected, but apart from that I think both the dab and the main term article could do with advice from editors experienced in disambiguation discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The setup is valid. It might be improved, and Talk:Intelligent design (disambiguation) should be used to discuss changes (or changes might be boldly made if they aren't obviously controversial). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The titles of the SummerSlam articles are under discussion here. Any constructive input you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote on the Cooley Disambiguation talk page: Does the idea of disambiguation really apply to a surname? I think not since the name "Cooley" or any other surname by itself is not ambiguous [(1) Open to two or more interpretations; or of uncertain nature or significance; or (often) intended to mislead (2) Having more than one possible meaning]. Yes, "SummerSlam" is ambiguous because that term could be applied to many different events in different years. "Intelligent design" is certainly ambiguous. But the surname "Smith" in and of itself is in no way ambiguous...unless you've expanded the meaning of ambiguity to mean there is a John Smith and an Arnold Smith and a Mary Smith (and millions of others). Dangnad (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Smith can be a surname, a band, several films, a TV series, several places, an occupation, or many other things, so yes, surnames can be ambiguous. –anemoneprojectors– 21:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

While, for argument's sake, surnames may not be ambiguous in the dictionary sense you cite, the way Wikipedia editors use surnames is sometimes ambiguous for the purposes of this project. That is, an editor may add text such as "[[Smith]] was highly concerned about the problems of poverty", instead of the intended "[[Adam Smith|Smith]] was highly concerned about the problems of poverty." In that case, the internal link will go to not to Adam Smith but to the disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages, by the way, are not intended as articles; they are navigation aids to help readers or editors find the content that is of interest to them when such errors occur.

By the way, "Smith" may be a poor example for your argument, since Smith (surname) is not a disambiguation page (though it is, in turn, listed at Smith (disambiguation)). Cnilep (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You use as an example the five-letter grouping s-m-i-t-h, not the surname. Yes, for example, Smith was a Vietnam-era, one-hit wonder band (What was their one hit?). Please re-read my original posting above. I even supplied a definition of ambiguity. I repeat: the surname SMITH is unambiguous. The surname COOLEY is unambiguous. There should be no disambiguation page for that name. There is a Cooley Peninsula in Ireland. Surely no one would confuse the surname with a place name. You could possibly have a list page for Wikipedia articles that use c-o-o-l-e-y e.g. Cooley High School, Detroit MI. Please read the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation to see the controversy surrounding this project. Dangnad (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Cooley (surname) and Smith (surname) are not disambiguation pages. Are you saying that these pages should not be listed on the respective disambiguation pages or are you suggesting that these anthroponymy pages should not exist? If the latter, you are at the wrong wikiproject as those pages are within the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. If the former, on what basis can you justify excluding those pages? older ≠ wiser 21:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused as well. So confused I don't know what to say. I really don't understand what User:Dangnad is asking or wanting. –anemoneprojectors– 22:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Who muddied the waters? No wonder you are confused AnemoneProjectors! Someone changed the Cooley_(surname) page to a "set index article" listing a bunch of well-known Cooleys. That's completely wrong. I will now quote from the first few lines of the Cooley Genealogy by Mortimer Cooley (1941): "That the Cooley family name is one of great antiquity is unquestionable. The name, in one orthographic form or another, is said to have existed in England long before the Danish and Norman conquests, even before the Anglian, Saxon, or Roman conquests...". I don't know what you disambiguists are doing but you sure are on the wrong track vis-á-vis surnames. Dangnad (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Cooley (surname) has always and only ever been a set index article. If you have additional verifiable information from reliable sources about the surname, please feel free to add that to the surname article. But I still have no idea why you're bothering the disambiguation project. older ≠ wiser 23:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Me neither, this isn't a disambiguation issue, is it? –anemoneprojectors– 21:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:DABCONCEPT is that the dab page lists only additional entries that aren't covered by the DABCONCEPT primary topic. The example Particle (disambiguation) also included lots of entries covered in the DABCONCEPT. I removed assuming normal buildup over time, added a comment, but wanted to check other's opinions as this is our example. Widefox; talk 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with listing subtopics of "Particle" that include the word, "particle" at Particle (disambiguation), so long as they are properly indented. bd2412 T 13:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarify: WP:DABCONCEPT "Where there are additional meanings that are not instances or examples of a "Foo" primary concept or type, those should be included on a "Foo (disambiguation)" page." (emphasis my own) and again "Other meanings, such as Particle (band), are presented at Particle (disambiguation).". This seems to logically infer they should be excluded from the DAB. Shouldn't we either change the wording to say they may be included (they've already come from the concept page, so is that desirable?), or remove instances or examples of the primary concept (like I did [1] ) Widefox; talk 14:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote that section. What I intended was to exclude things like Particle (band) and Particle (film) from being listed on the DABCONCEPT page, Particle. The basic idea of the rule is to unambiguous abstract topics from being presented as disambiguation pages; it is not intended to have any bearing on the contents of the actual disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 14:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, good, thanks for explaining. Bear with me a bit more...looking at this from another angle: we talk {{Dabconcept}} about converting a DAB to a dabconcept, but if I've understood correctly the DAB should be unchanged - apart from the primary topic. Seems we're not being consistent - shouldn't we just move the dab (to create the primary topic) and not talk about converting it, writing a separate dabconcept at the primary topic. I've been party to converting at least one already and the DAB was deleted. "so that no information is lost from what would have been presented in the disambiguation page format." - again this may allude to having items in the dabconcept (possibly - but from you're saying not meant to be - as it won't be in the DAB). Is it worth tweaking the wording to remove this interpretation? In particular, {{Dabconcept}} - why convert a DAB if we actually want it unchanged? Widefox; talk 16:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, if a page is "dabconcept", it means that it is actually a primary topic that is incorrectly being presented as a collection of ambiguous links. With Particle, for example, most meanings of the term that were on the page were variations of a "small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties". Similarly, Rice cake was merely a list of cake-like dishes made from rice, Rocket launcher was merely a collection of devices that launch rockets, and Color code was merely a list of schemes by which color is used to code things. The fact that there may hypothetically be a band named "Color Code" or a film titled "Rocket Launcher" doesn't change the fact that the primary topic is the meaning covering a subset of the collection of links that are not really ambiguous. When a dabconcept page is converted to an article, all of the links that are aspects of that article should continue to be discussed there - for example, all of the links listed at Rocket launcher that were really about devices that launch rockets continue to exist in the article, which explains why all of these are kinds of rocket launchers. Thus, no information is lost. There is also an actual Rocket launcher (disambiguation) page for other meanings of the term that are actually ambiguous. bd2412 T 16:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, there's no issue about the dabconcept (incl. reason to create or wording at WP:DABCONCEPT) - that is fine. Just about the DAB. What we do with entries linked from the dabconcept overlapping with the DAB entries once the dabconcept is there. e.g. Subatomic particle (and indented). Readers will come from the primary topic, where it's already listed. Just checked...particle was moved rather than converted. From what you're saying, the creation of a dabconcept shouldn't change the DAB too much, so the template should be about moving the DAB and creating a new article at that location based on the DAB, rather than expanding and losing the current DAB "Pages needing to be expanded to describe the concept may be tagged with {{dabconcept}}." "This disambiguation page should be converted into a broad-concept article, describing the primary meaning of the term. Additional meanings linked to this term should be moved to a separate page with "(disambiguation)" in the title." Why expand/convert, when we want to keep the DAB anyhow? Sure it will be at that location, but we want to move and create anew based on some entries, and retain the DAB not expand. Widefox; talk 18:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We have 112 pages currently tagged as disambiguation pages, and title "Foo (crater"; for example, Arrhenius (crater); Barnard (crater), Boethius (crater). Do we want to do anything with these (other than the obvious merging into existing disambiguation pages)? bd2412 T 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they should be merged per WP:INCDAB. In fact I already did the Barnard one. –anemoneprojectors– 21:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay then, let's do it! bd2412 T 21:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There's discussion about the interpretation of WP:DABMENTION and inclusion of EXT and refs in dabs at Talk:Buckethead (disambiguation), in particular did MOSDAB encourage adding them in the past? Widefox; talk 21:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, MOSDAB never encouraged adding them in the past. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What the... heck? bd2412 T 21:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That was funny. SchreiberBike talk 22:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What to do? Delete? Widefox; talk 00:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

PROD'ed, should take care of itself. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a move request to place Lorca at Lorca, Spain to avoid ambiguity of the title with Federico García Lorca. Diego (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

   And would Lorca become a Dab or a Rdr?
--Jerzy•t 01:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

   The presumed main contributor to Kundalini (energy) insists that that topic is primary for "Kunadalini" because (in Sanskrit, i infer ) Kundalini is a noun meaning only an energy or energy center (i'm not an expert) within the human body. I haven't even done the Google test, but i have very high confidence that "Kundalini" will turn up as overwhelmingly used as a shorthand for Kundalini yoga, a style of yoga (exercise) reasonably well known in the US, at least among yoga practitioners and new age/alternative medicine/etc. enthusiasts. Thus Kundalini should IMO be a Rdr to Kundalini yoga, and that article should have a hatNote pointing to Kundalini (disambiguation), whose content in turn should be

Kundalini is Kundalini yoga.

as heading, plus

Kundalini (energy)

and

a link to the article on a book whose title is Kundalini:" followed by some subtitle]".

(I've had some thot about the peculiarities of the needed Google test, and will try to make some suggestions for formulating it in time to save someone else effort.)
--Jerzy•t 01:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

   I was overconfident about the obviousness of what i've described above, and made the required move(s) without using Requested Move. User:Freelion is livid both as to primary topic and as to my resistance to undoing the moves in order to start from scratch, since i expect discussing the merits of the completed Dab cleanup would be far more efficient. I offered to personally do the move back in the (unlikely) event that the yoga as primary failed to find consensus, but Freelion got another admin to start an RM to restore the esoteric topic as primary.
   I'm obsessive-compulsive, and even if i can manage to oversimplify a complex situation, it takes me too long to be heard in an arguement. I don't intend to remain actively involved in this needed Dab cleanup, and perhaps others here will participate.
--Jerzy•t 01:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

   I am well enuf informed in related areas to have come up with yoga (exercise) as my second try to linking to that topic, without doing any searching. I had earlier, in an effort to gain a little credibility with Freelion as not totally ignorant about one of his favorite subject areas, made mention of knowing that karma yoga is not a case of (however i worded it at that point) yoga (exercise). Altho that topic now disappoints me by not being the primary topic of Yoga, perhaps there's something to be learned about the arguing the Kundalini dispute by examining the history of the Yoga case.
--Jerzy•t 01:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia, there's a line for this project, but there's no description there. Please consider the text below as a potential addition to that page.

Improve disambiguation pages and fix accidental links to disambiguation pages. There's even a friendly competition to see who can fix the most links each month.

Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 05:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I'll add the description. SchreiberBike talk 23:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this articles for creation request. I declined the request but comments have been made since I declined it that have given me reason to reconsider. Please help out if you can. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a current discussion going on about WP:PRECISION here: Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)#Incremental improvements

Past discussions related to the problem:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 15#Using qualifiers when no ambiguity exists
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 15#Somebody is moving our pages
• Talk:Durham–UNH station#WP:PRECISION
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#WP:PRECISION
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Parentheticals again
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Station naming convention
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Station names being messed up again
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Station naming (again)
• Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 36#Term for what's inside the Parentheses?
• Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 36#Unnecessary disambiguation
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 2#But what about WP:COMMONNAME?
• Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 38#Examples for wrong incoming links
• Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 42#Parenthesis in title

If other editors from the broader consensus would like to participate. If anyone else has had similar conversations on individual article Talk pages, I'd appreciate pointers to them as well. Eventually either this guideline or the project or station naming conventions should be updated to help avoid more churn. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

OPCON currently disambiguates two terms, both of them military. However, the first, Operational control redirects to Internal audit, an accounting term that is unrelated to the military and has an unrelated meaning. The words "operational control" appear nowhere in the audit article. I can't figure this one out at all. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I added wiktionary link and OpCon to the dab and retargeted Operational control. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Gary could use additional help dealing with a disruptive editor. Their talk page has also been engaged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Should "Marching Through Georgia" and 'Georgia Bulldogs' be included on Georgia dab page? 183.89.118.75 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether these things are sometimes referred to as "Georgia"; if so, then the citations for such use should appear on the respective article pages. bd2412 T 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful that Marching through Georgia is ever known as simply "Georgia". However, it is commonplace to refer to school athletic teams by shortened forms. older ≠ wiser 20:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if "Marching through Georgia", as I've never head of the song, but perhaps it is. The school athletic team is certainly known simply as "Georgia" in many contexts, and the DAB page might be the first place a reader goes to if searching for info on the team. The same might be true of the song. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on the current content of Marching Through Georgia, I see no reason why this would belong on the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the above discussion, I removed Marching Through Georgia from the dab page Georgia. --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Another editor has altered Event in a way that, I believe, does not reflect the purpose or style of a disambiguation page. I am going to refrain from editing that page, though, since s/he singled me out in an edit summary as someone who may not "respect this context". Other editors may want to review the changes. (See also my earlier edit.) Cnilep (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I would propose that there is a lot of WP:DABCONCEPT-y stuff going on there, and that there is probably a primary topic for the term that encompasses the idea of any of the things on the page that could be characterized as a discrete occurrence. bd2412 T 03:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the newly reorganised Zimmermann (disambiguation), (Zimmermann and SIA Zimmermann (surname) which should be combined) needs fixing by an admin. See Talk:Zimmermann (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 11:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The article KET (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The content of this page is already included in Ket, another disambiguation page whose title differs only by capitalisation

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ryokuhi (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night#RfC: Disambiguating presbytery link seems to be relevant to this project. StAnselm (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Public law is an article treating a class of laws; Public Law (note the capital letter) is a disambiguation page. Public Law (disambiguation) redirects to the DAB page. Likewise, private law treats a class of laws, while Private Law is a DAB page and Private Law (disambiguation) is a redirect. It seems to me that the DAB pages should be at Public law (disambiguation) and Private law (disambiguation), though given how the search function works currently, I guess the lower-case letter is not vital.

NB: I just removed 27 items from Public Law that were either partial-name matches (e.g. Public Law 280) or were piped to appear as partial-name matches (e.g. [[Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009|Public Law 111-2]]). Cnilep (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added a "look from" See Also, to help people find numbered Public Laws - and fixed the one case where there was a redirect from Public law 84-140 rather than the version with upper case "L". PamD 07:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I need to be more explicit. What I am suggesting is that the DAB pages should be identified with a parenthetical (disambiguation), not with capital versus lower-case letters. Would there be any objection to moving Public Law to Public law (disambiguation) and Private Law to Private law (disambiguation)? Cnilep (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Public law has already been moved by BD2412. Cnilep (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. I hope there are no objections. Cnilep (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Input from members of this project is invited at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Modified proposal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Contributors to this project may be interested in discussion at Talk:Tree diagram#Requested move. I believe that "tree diagram", by definition, implies "tree structure", and would like to see Tree diagram moved to Tree diagram (disambiguation) so that the name can redirect to Tree structure. User:Steel1943 disagrees that "tree structure" is the primary topic suggested by the name "tree diagram" (but please see his/her comments, in case I have inadvertently misrepresented them). Other opinions are, I think, necessary. Cnilep (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Cnilep, I would recommend also posting this information on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems as well. (I would have done this myself, but my time is limited right now.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Cnilep (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Another editor is edit warring for a cut-n-paste move of NDE (disambiguation) to NDE (or for a malplaced dab). Assistance is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war...now who would the other party be? Tommy Pinball (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's right: you and I were edit warring. I pointed out the multiple guidelines and policies you were violating. You refused to discuss, which is why I brought it to the appropriate project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're here now...lets discuss. Tommy Pinball (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You are violating multiple guidelines and policies and disrupting Wikipedia. Please revert your own cut-n-paste move of NDE (disambiguation) to NDE, then use WP:RM to form a consensus to move the disambiguation page to the base name if Near-death experience is to no longer be the primary topic. But I repeat myself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Violating guidelines?...which policies? Tommy Pinball (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

See your talk page history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tommy_Pinball&diff=581181925&oldid=581181756 -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want me to read that you need to rephrase it without the rudeness. (See below) I'm told you know the guidelines better than most...why then are you choosing to ignore them when it suits you? Tommy Pinball (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no rudeness there. You seem to view any note about your mistakes here as rudeness, but that doesn't make it so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ad hominem? Tommy Pinball (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

How about this? Tommy Pinball (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

or this? Tommy Pinball (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

When there is an edit war, the status quo is to revert back to the version before the dispute, which I've tried to do. Tommy, please start a discussion at Talk:NDE (disambiguation) about whether this can be a primary redirect or not. There have been multiple discussions on these sorts of topics, but it all comes down to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I assure you JHunterJ knows the guidelines better than most. His suggestion of holding an RM is the correct move here. Copy/paste moves, in any case, are *always* a bad idea, as they lose history.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The History is not lost...if you want to find it Tommy Pinball (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it works. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Tommy Pinball: The guidance is crystal clear on this and you are on the wrong side of it. 1) Wholesale cut and paste moves are NEVER appropriate. 2) If there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page is to be located at the ambiguous term, without "(disambiguation)" appended. 3) Repeated reverting on you part even after these points have been explained you is disruptive and is likely to end with you being blocked for violation of [[WP:3RR]. older ≠ wiser 15:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page is to be located at the ambiguous term, without "(disambiguation)" appended. This is exactly what I am trying to achieve. Tommy Pinball (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Tommy Pinball: Sorry, that's confusion on my part. There is currently a primary topic, and you should not perform a cut and paste move to change this. older ≠ wiser 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that there is currently a primary Topic...How is this decided? Tommy Pinball (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

1) Don't do a cut-and-paste move; 2) Initiate a discussion, following the instructions at WP:RM; and 3) don't edit war, especially when you have been reverted by multiple other editors who are trying to explain how your edits are incorrect. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I started the discussion, User:Obiwankenobi is the only editor here who has not edit warred. Tommy Pinball (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks like you offering an opinion, not supported by any reasons and without any notification of a page move discussion. And again, a copy and paste move is NEVER appropriate in such as situation. older ≠ wiser 15:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tommy. Yes, you started a discussion, but once you've been reverted multiple times, you need to wait for a consensus IN the discussion to continue along the path, and while that discussion happens, you need to keep the pages at the state they were in before the edit war started. Again, the people you are disputing with have tens of thousands of edits, I would suggest you trust that they know what they're doing a bit more than you. Copy/paste moves is never acceptable here - if you really think NDE should be a disambiguation page, then you need to start a proper WP:RM discussion, to determine whether NDE is a primary topic or not. We know your opinion, but when people have resisted, it means you need to convince them as well. I (and others) may even end up agreeing with you, but I don't agree with the edit-warring to get your way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Tommy has been reported for edit warring here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tommy_Pinball_reported_by_User:Obiwankenobi_.28Result:_.29. Feel free to comment there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added User:JHunterJ User:Bkonrad, the notification was not even-handed, hopefully the decision will be. Tommy Pinball (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, you escaped by the skin of your teeth; that was a very generous admin decision. If you want this to happen, your next step is to start an RM at Talk:NDE (disambiguation) - to move NDE (disambiguation) to NDE and make NDE (disambiguation) a redirect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have judged the surname to the primary topic of Fairbairn, and have split the other entries to Fairbairn (disambiguation). Unfortunately, at Talk:Fairbairn I am prevented from removing the disambiguation WikiProject tag by a member of this project, even though said article is no longer a disambiguation page. Since I am utterly inferior to members of this WikiProject, I would very much appreciate if someone could look at the articles and see if the tag is relevant. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right, this project doesn't say that we are interested in that page, and I've removed the tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

There are two films titled Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, but I had "(film)" redirected to the well-known Marilyn Monroe film because the other silent film is lost. Other examples are The Devil's Advocate (film) and Scream (film). Normally, an incomplete dab may refer to many works, but we have a list of works in WP:PDAB. I've already redirected Erotica (album) to the Madonna album. Thanks to the RFD on Thriller (album), I wonder if we can redirect some incomplete dabs to specific works, or leave them alone. --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Those are only incomplete disambiguation pages if they are disambiguation pages. If they are articles or redirects to articles, then they're "OK" per current disambiguation guidelines. Particular article content projects (such as the film project or music project) might prefer to send such titles to the disambiguation page, but I'd leave it to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Some attention may be warranted at Church. There has been no particularly problematic editing of the DAB page so far, but lots of talk on the discussion page about the meanings of the word and what the structure of the page should reflect. Cnilep (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I stand corrected. Most of that discussion is a year old. Only one edit on Talk and these changes to the article are recent. Cnilep (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firewoman. Since you had some involvement with the Firewoman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

is redirect to camera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.168.91 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

6D was redirecting to Canon EOS 6D (since August 2013; previously led to Sixpence). 6-D, 6-d and 6d were redirecting to Sixpence (a dab page). I think Sixpence is probably primary topic for "6d" but not for any of the others: have retargetted them all to the disambiguation page at 6D (disambiguation), and added appropriate hatnote to Sixpence which wasn't there before. We now have a misplaced dab page at 6D (disambiguation), but I'm not sure it's uncontroversial enough to request as an uncontroversial move, so will make a formal WP:RM. PamD 11:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed your hatnote on Sixpence to a "see also" section, because it seems odd to have a hatnote on a disambiguation page (I've never come across it before). Maybe 6d should redirect as 6D because it's essentially the same thing but without using the shift or caps lock key on a keyboard. –anemoneprojectors– 13:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I find myself having some difficulty explaining to the editors of this page that this is clearly not a disambiguation page. Some help would be appreciated. bd2412 T 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Resolved. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Is is some "style" thing to put Sebastopol, the place, at the top, outside the "Sebastopol as place" section? And does it make sense to say "see also (Sebastopol-disambiguation)" on the Sebastopol- disambiguation page?

If some more senior Wikipedia editor is confident that these are nonsenses, please revise the page. I'm tired of doing things and having them undone by the activists. I'm just a poor sod who has one idea of "common sense" that seems increasingly at odds with the "big players" at WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkbwik (talk • contribs) 13:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not. I've revised the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Back in 2010 I redirected Snow bunny to Snow Bunny (a ski area). It had been a DAB page pointing to the ski area and to skiing and snowboarding, on the rationale that women skiers and snowboarders are sometimes called snow bunnies. I redirected the page to the ski area. A couple of days ago another editor undid that change without linking to any ambiguously titled page. Seems wrong to me, but of course it would. Cnilep (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The clear primary topic for both snow bunny and beach bunny would be a description of each term in article on slang terms related to ski culture and beach culture, respectively. bd2412 T 15:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This might have been related to the recent recreation and subsequent deletion nomination of Beach bunny. I just created a redirect from Beach bunny (surf culture) to the definition of the slang term in the article Surf culture. In contrast, though, I can find no article mentioning "snow bunny" as a slang term. Cnilep (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There are different opinions on the opening section of the App dab page. See Talk:App#Preamble. More eyes welcome. (I wonder whether in fact the article at mobile app ought to be renamed "App" and become the primary topic, but that's perhaps a further debate!) PamD 17:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve the state of the Katie Bell and related disambiguation pages. I am aware of the following disambiguation pages:

• Katie Bell 3 articles (also has information on "Katy Bell" (2 non-article uses), and has 1 red link to a "Kathy Bell")
• Kate Bell (disambiguation) 2 articles
• Catherine Bell (disambiguation) 3 full articles and 1 red link
• Katherine Bell (disambiguation) 1 article and 1 red link

I'm torn on what to do. I'm thinking of combining them all into one article. Does anyone else think that's a good idea? If so, where should it live? My best guess is "Katie Bell", because I think that's the most likely spelling, (most likely shortening, as even "Catherine" would likely shorten to "Katie") and the articles seem to be prominent ones? But "Catherine Bell" has the most articles, and the "Kate", "Katy", and "Katie" names are probably short for "Catherine" (or "Katherine").

What do you think? McKay (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• By no means all "Kate"s are short forms of anything, and a "Catherine" is unlikely to be abbreviated into "Katie", etc. I think the current set of dab pages is probably OK (I've done a little bit of tidying on them). They all include the others as "See also". PamD 17:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

According to "What links here", there is a large number of incoming links to Greg Smith (musician), which redirects to the Greg Smith disambiguation page as there are multiple notable people named Greg Smith who are musicians. Strangely, the articles that are indicated do not appear to contain links to Greg Smith (musician). Template:Rainbow (rock band) used to link to Greg Smith (musician), but has been linking to Greg Smith (American musician) instead for a full week now. Is it possible that the "What links here" function is lagging that far behind? Neelix (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are done; some of them did contain real links, which are now fixed. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I started to do disambiguation on Polymorph and realised on the way that there is a big overlap with Polymorphism (not surprising really!). I think that probably these should be merged to Polymorphism but part of me thinks that there is a case for it becoming a broad concept article. Quoting the guidelines:

If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page.

I think that a broad article on the concept of polymorphism would be possible. However, I think that it fails this test because I was fairly easily able to assign all of the incoming links to an existing article. Comments anyone? --NHSavage (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that WP:DABCONCEPT is not just about whether it is easy to disambiguate the links, but whether there is in fact an article that can be written on the subject. If there is a single concept of polymorphism that can be described in an article, for which the links on the disambiguation page are merely examples of the concept, then we are missing an article explaining the concept as a whole. bd2412 T 02:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, how do we get there? What about this - first I merge the two disambiguation pages then start a discussion on the merged page about whether to create an article on the concept of polymorphism?--NHSavage (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging the dabs would be a great place to start. bd2412 T 14:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposed. Thanks for the advice. --NHSavage (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have drafted two new disambigutation pages here (putting back dimorphism on its own page): User:NHSavage/polymorphism_merger. Any comments would be welcome. I plan to wait a week or so before completing the merge.--NHSavage (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The UK parliament project has a naming convention contrary to WP:PRECISION. I've raised the issue with them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Local consensus on naming conventions contradicts the broader consensus on article titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

About Group A (disambiguation), Group B (disambiguation), Group C (disambiguation), Group D, Group E, Group F, Group G, Group H. All have 4 to 7 links to groups at the 1990 to 2014 FIFA World Cups. The FIFA World Cup is the most notable multi-stage tournament with letter-named groups, but intitle:"Group B" and so on shows dozens of others (fewer when you get to H) with their own article. "Group B" has hundreds or thousands where a Group B is part of an article. I think few people today would expect 1990 FIFA World Cup Group B to be listed under "Group B". I suggest replacing the many FIFA World Cup entries with a general entry saying something like:

• One of the groups in many multi-stage tournaments

During the 2014 FIFA World Cup we might consider temporary entries for the 8 groups, but not for decades ago. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• • I would propose writing a short article on the practice of grouping in tournaments, then redirect all links of this sort to that article, which is likely to be the most informative thing that anyone is going to get on the subject. bd2412 T 15:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The disambiguation pages also have a few entries which are not about tournament groups so I think redirects to an article about tournament groups would be problematic. Should it have a massive hatnote with links to lots of disambiguation pages for group names redirecting to it? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)