Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 38

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 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

There's discussion about a dab page Sarah Obama which has two links, both of which go to the same article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Obama (2nd nomination). More opinions welcome.
I can see no guidance about multiple links to the same article in MOSDAB or elsewhere, but this could be made explicit whether desirable or not. My understanding is the current emphasis of dab pages generally is for readers to find different "articles" (so implicitly listing an article once per dab would/may be optimal for conciseness). DABMENTION wording uses "topics", so multiple different topics may be at the same article leading to multiple entries in the same dab. To me, the latter can be disambiguated better in the article (section hatnotes). Widefox; talk 12:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO:

• if there are redirects for multiple topics, and at least one of them is an {{R with possibilities}}, link to the (different topics') redirects regardless of whether their targets are the same.
• if the dab is needed otherwise (i.e., there are multiple articles, but one of the articles happens to cover two or more of the ambiguous topics), the dab page should include the multiple topics covered by the article. That could be on two (or more) entries, each with a link to the same article, or one entry that mentions both (or more).
• if the dab isn't needed (all ambiguous topics are covered by a single article), you only need one redirect to that article: in the example case, Sarah Obama could redirect to Family of Barack Obama (and the other redirects should be deleted).

-- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sounds reasonable. I propose adding something like this to MOSDAB:

"If all entries in a dab page link to the same article, and there are no redirects tagged {{R with possibilities}}, a dab page is not necessary."

and something like:

"It is preferable to combine multiple terms that link to the same article in one entry when convenient." Widefox; talk 21:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The first suggestion is not too bad, but I don't agree with the second unless it is predicated on the first as a condition. older ≠ wiser 03:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any other situation like this in Wikipedia? bd2412 T 04:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In a case like this where the entries in the dab page lead to different sections of the same article I think the dab page is useful and valid. It makes clear to the reader that there are two distinct meanings for their chosen term, both with WP content in slightly different places. If both/all the entries were redirects with exactly the same target I would agree the dab page was unnecesary. PamD 06:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I agree only if we have a {{R with possibilities}}. As it currently stands without, disambiguation in the article is better and removes the extra click. We shouldn't have a dab page when we know the reader only wants one article, as a dab page is not an index but a way to find the article. Widefox; talk 09:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The disambiguation page, IIPM, was mentioned on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence. Would uninvolved, disinterested editors with some experience with and understanding of disambiguation policy and practice please consider commenting at: Talk:IIPM#Redirecting_IIPM_to_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management?. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I commented, and fixed up the dab per usual. The talk page has a request for creating a primary topic. I suggest a requested move. Widefox; talk 09:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate more opinions on this, if anyone's interested. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone could check out Colorado Springs (disambiguation), it would be much appreciated. It seems that any article that contains "Colorado Springs" in its name is included on this disambiguation page. This seems like a broad use of a dab page. Or, is this ok? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks even worse than the last time I edited it. At a quick glance, I don't think there is a single valid entry besides the city, which is already the primary topic. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it's fixed now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Template talk:Distinguish#Under what circumstances should this template be used without linking to an article? concerning the possibility that a hatnote might contain no links at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Should high schools be included in disambiguation pages? Out my way, most high schools have two-letter acronyms because two towns combine at the high school level, for efficiency. So you have have LS (Lincoln-Shrewsbury High) and AG (Amesbury-Glouchester High) and so on and so on. On top of that you have some high schools named for persons, e.g. HM (Horace Mann High) and whatnot, such that most high schools are known to some degree by an acronym.

And these acronyms are in use to some extent, albeit on a purely local level: "GL thumps DR in Lacrosse" the local paper will trumpet.

On the other hand, there are an awful lot of high schools -- tens of thousands in the United States, I guess. And they're not very notable, and their acronyms are of purely local use. Putting them in is going to kind of swamp a lot of two-letter-acronym disambig pages.

What say you? Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is? If a school is truly non-notable, its article can be AfD'd, with nothing left to record on the disambiguation page. If a school is notable, and its acronym is in use (even if only locally), by all means include it into on the appropriate disambig page. And if a particular disambig page gets swamped with high-school-related acronyms, make them into a separate section, so they are not in the way of everything else. Am I missing something here?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 22, 2015; 17:53 (UTC)

Let's try it from another angle. What would you say if we flooded disambiguation pages with acronyms for high schools in India, Australia, Germany, Finland and South Africa?  Stepho  talk  22:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there existing articles? Do the articles contain verifiable and well-sourced (i.e., not just local usage) information that they are commonly known by the initials? older ≠ wiser 00:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah... I mean either point is reasonable. As a matter of fact, AFAIK we don't have a lot of disambig pages swamped with high-school acronymns, it's just a potential issue... @Bkonrad, I think that for entities like high schools, local papers are the the best sources. Herostratus (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but not every detail that is verifiable needs to be included in a general purpose encyclopedia. older ≠ wiser 13:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

When you have a chance, would you please look at the following disambiguation pages:

• Cheyenne, Colorado - there's no such place as Cheyenne, Colorado. This is a page that lists articles that have "Cheyenne" in the name and pertain to a place or subject in Colorado
• Cheyenne Mountain (disambiguation) - there is only one Cheyenne Mountain. This is a list of articles with "Cheyenne Mountain" in the title. Today the tag was changed from disambiguation page to a set index article

Some other contributors and I have done a bit of clean-up to make it easier to read, but this may seem familiar, it was created by the same contributor that created the Colorado Springs (disambiguation) page.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have commented on the "Cheyenne, Colorado" page elsewhere. I agree that it cannot exist under this title, because it implies there is such a place as "Cheyenne, Colorado," which there isn't. I was wondering (and seek guidance here) whether a concept such as "place names in Colorado containing the word Cheyenne" is valid for disambiguation - maybe under another name such as "Cheyenne (Colorado)"? Or is this whole concept not appropriate for a DAB page? --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I would merge "Cheyenne, Colorado" into Cheyenne (disambiguation), perhaps as a subheader under ==Places==. I would merge Cheyenne Mountain as proposed, since the places generally relate to the actual mountain and can be described in terms of their relationship to it. bd2412 T 04:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless the places are known as "Cheyenne", they would not belong on the Cheyenne disambiguation page. There are some other list articles along similar lines. For example List of places named for George Washington, or List of places named Vlaie, List of places named after Armenia, List of places named for the phoenix, or List of places named Sokil. older ≠ wiser 12:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Good input! Is the net result, based on the input, that:

• The Cheyenne (disambiguation) should be moved to List of places named Cheyenne.
• The Cheyenne, Colorado items be merged into List of places named Cheyenne

And, IMO, minor items like a red link to a street name should be removed.

How does that approach sound?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be List of places named for the Cheyenne, else it would still exclude partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 19:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, cool!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Do not move Cheyenne (disambiguation), but rather, merge all information about partial title matches into their most-related article (such as the city the partial title match is located), then remove those entires from the disambiguation page. Cheyenne (disambiguation) currently has several entries that stand alone related to the term "Cheyenne", such as Cheyenne (film) and others. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Do not move Cheyenne (disambiguation) and make appropriate edits, based on Steel1943's comments. I'm not sure whether or not there should be a List of places named for the Cheyenne, but am very happy to go along with consensus and make the changes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I took a stab at reorganizing the page so that the true disambig items are at the topic and there's a grouping of namesakes. It would be good if someone could make sure I didn't miss anything, while we figure out consensus / approach for the namesakes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I've moved the items that were in Cheyenne, Colorado to Places named after the Cheyenne - and moved places from Cheyenne (disambiguation) to Places named after the Cheyenne.
    • The Cheyenne, Colorado (no place is named Cheyenne, Colorado) has been tagged with {{db-dab}}.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on your input, it sound like we don't need the Cheyenne Mountain (disambiguation) page. Does it warrant a page List of places named Cheyenne Mountain.

Another option is to add the "Near Cheyenne Mountain" items into the Cheyenne Mountain article, and then all the links will be in that article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say that it Cheyenne Mountain (disambiguation) should be merged into Cheyenne Mountain as much as possible, then Cheyenne Mountain (disambiguation) should probably be deleted since except for the primary topic, everything else on there is a partial title match and thus, in theory, should be immediately eligible for deletion via a {{Db-dab}} tag. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done The Cheyenne Mountain article includes all the "namesakes" that were listed on the disambiguation page. And, finished the rest of the changes and tagging of the disambiguation page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

'Oua' links to an islet. Wouldn't it be better to go to OUA, a disambiguation page, or does capitalization matter? Thx...--Smarkflea (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:DIFFCAPS. The pertinent question is whether readers are likely to type "oua" when searching for "OUA", which is not outside the realm of possibility. bd2412 T 04:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was doing, and I couldn't find what I was looking for...Smarkflea (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If you try again now you should find it easier as I've added a hatnote pointing to the dab page. (And expanded the hatnotes distinguishing the two islands). The question remaining is whether the island in Tuvalu is, or is not, the primary topic for "Oua". If you think it is not, then initiate a WP:RM discussion at Talk:Oua to propose moving the island to Oua, Tuvalu or similar so that the base name Oua can redirect to the dab page at OUA. PamD 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I combined the upper and lowercase items and the hatnote. Widefox; talk 10:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. PamD 13:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you said Pam, as it had crossed my mind that you left them separate on purpose (I can understand it both ways, especially as the dab is at the uppercase). Regards Widefox; talk 13:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

More opinions are sought on the inclusion of items at Talk:PC. A secondary issue is the use of piping on dab pages. Widefox; talk 11:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just checked the dispute. There seems to be a great deal of WP:IDHT, WP:GAME and beating the dead horse from Widefox. In case of the latter, there was an entry that Widefox says is against MOS:DAB, but it is removed, yet Widefox somehow keeps beating the dead horse. Fleet Command (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon the dab and couldn't believe PC hardware/platform etc was not mentioned at all. Personalising it doesn't help.

My wider point is...for cases when we don't have a primary topic e.g. PC, but we do have a broad concept Personal computer, to what extent do we include examples of the broad concept in the dab? WP:RELATED is a grey area on this - where we can include a hatnote at Personal computer to the PC platform (arguably, as the PC platform is definitively known as a "PC"), so by that logic it's probably a grey area on the dab - something I consider handled well with the cascading items as previously there. Widefox; talk 13:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The recently created, awfully verbose (for a DAB page) Root extraction (disambiguation) (to which Root extraction redirects) requires some attention. None of the links actually have the title "Root extraction", but rather it lists all the fields or scenarios when the term "root extraction" may be used. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:MALPLACED. I attempted editing down as there may be a couple of valid entries per WP:DABMENTION. 1. Dental extraction, 2. quadratic equations. May be easier to delete and start again at Root extraction. Seems there's a possibility of it being a WP:DABCONCEPT for the mathematics items, so I will leave for you to decide which direction. In either case, it's malplaced. I've requested the move to Root extraction. Widefox; talk 10:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The entire list appears to be cases where dictionary definitions of "root" (math, tooth, tree, hair, chord, etc.) and "extraction" (removal, isolation, etc.) are combined. There is no specialized meaning of the term "root extraction" except for the very marginal cases that you site (dental, quadratic equations). While I respect the original author's deep knowledge in this area, no one seeking "stump removal" would ever search on the term "root extraction". I propose root extraction redirect to Root (disambiguation). Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It is problematic to have this as a disambiguation page because it undermines the idea that there is a single concept broadly understood as a "scientific study". The page as it stands contains links to the method used in scientific studies, and to two kinds of studies. bd2412 T 20:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello there

I was going to recreate Jones Lang LaSalle as JLL since it doesn't trade under the first name any more and has adopted "JLL" as its name. There is detail about the name change on the talk page.

However there's a disambiguation page with the same name, stopping me from creating the new page. Please can someone help/advise on how I should proceed?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by EphraimL (talk • contribs) 11:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@EphraimL:: It's not a matter of "recreating" the page, but "moving" it to a new name. I've moved it to JLL (company) (which automatically creates a "redirect" from the old name), and updated the entry on the disambiguation page. If you want to propose that the article should be at "JLL" and the disambiguation page at "JLL (disambiguation)", because you believe that readers searching on JLL are more likely to want this company than all other uses put together (WP:PRIMARY TOPIC), you would need to propose this multiple-page move using the Request Move process. Please remember to sign any comments you make on talk pages. Thanks. PamD 14:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@PamD:: Thanks for doing this - an elegant solution! EphraimL (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Should the Caren (disambiguation) page be re-created and CAREN be moved to Caren (system)? The article used to be a page for an anime character (which was deleted for notability) and there are a few people on wikipedia named Caren? -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Caren was a disambiguation page for years, then it was 'hijacked' by an novice editor for the current topic. A WP:HISTSPLIT for the current topic to CAREN seems a more logical approach to me. LittleWink (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a split is in order then. I'll take the current article and copy it over to CAREN (system) and then restore to the disambiguation page. I don't see any talk page history to preserve. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I created Model 67 - is this redundant with the M67 page? Should the two be merged? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to merge them. Messier 67 would never be referred to as Model 67, and IBM System/360 Model 67 would never be referred to as M67. That path would lead to unnecessary confusion. But adding a 'See also' from each to the other would be helpful. Chris the speller ^yack 16:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do that from here on out. Thanks! Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page entitled "神", which is part of WikiProject Disambiguation. The page needs an English name that can be searched for and pronounced by English-speakers. Presumably, that name should be the Pinyin romanization of the Mandarin name for the Chinese character in question (unless that character has a different traditional name in English). Any other pages using Chinese (or other non-English) characters as a title should be similarly renamed. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't. The ambiguity arises because the same character is used in Chinese and Japanese. Transliterating to Chinese would remove the need for a dab page. As a navigational aid the dab page is working just fine. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• I completely agree. 神 is ambiguous, and requires a disambiguation page at that title. Either the Chinese or Japanese transliteration is unambiguous, and therefore a separate article. bd2412 T 16:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I just started a new article about Robert Duggan (CEO), but discovered there is already an article about Robert Duggan. What should I do? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In such cases, it's better to use Template:For rather than Template:See also. I've already replaced it in Robert Duggan. Otherwise, it looks fine. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the maintenance page "Templates with disambiguation links" still being maintained or do we have the unique situation that for days there are no templates with links to disambiguation pages? The Banner talk 11:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There are over 2000 links from the template namespace to articles in the main namespace with titles ending "(disambiguation)". This isn't precisely the same criteria used by the maintenance page, but does suggest that it's misbehaving. Picking a random example from the 2000 above, {{A roads}} links to A30 (disambiguation). - TB (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Intentional disambiguation links are not supposed to get picked up, though, since there's nothing that needs fixing. bd2412 T 12:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Was there a new tool created for Dablinks? The current link on the main WikiProject Disambiguation page: [1], says:

We've moved! We're sorry, but the user-supported tool you have attempted to reach did not leave a forwarding URL where we could automatically redirect you.

I searched the index for 'disambiguation' but couldn't find anything that looks like the old Dablinks tool. Is there anything? Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a report generated anywhere to alert people to possible disambiguation pages that may need creating? I'm asking because I recently created Ross Harrison (after moving the previous article and fixing the links). I'm looking at the links given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#Finding disambiguation pages, but I don't think that is quite what I am looking for. I'm trying to look for examples where no disambiguation page exists, but where there should be one. Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you are looking for. There can only be one article at each title, so "get me all articles with _title_" would not work. For biographical articles, something like "get me all articles with a title _firstname_ _anything_ _lastname_" would work, but its likely there would already be a dab page for those. If you were to create such a report "by hand," how would you select articles? That could help understand what you are looking for. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I've just remembered how it is possible to do this! Well, for BLPs at least. I also remember back in 2008, someone ran a report and created lists that people worked with, but I think they got deleted? Maybe I can still find the discussion back then? Ah, here we are:

• Wikipedia:Suggestions for disambiguation repair
• Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation/Batch 3

Unfortunately, User:Eugene van der Pijll hasn't edited since 2013. I will ping User:Quadell as well, as he may be able to help. But Quadell and others shouldn't create any reports unless others will be working on them, as I may get busy again and not have the time...

For BLPs, because they are all in the same category, you can click around in Category:Living people, e.g. like this, and scan down the lists and see where batches of articles with the same surname exist (providing things have been sorted by the correct key). And then see if a disambiguation page exists. A database report would be quicker, though. Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I created John Aiken (disambiguation). But only one of those Aikens is listed at Aiken (surname). There are also three people named William Aiken listed there. Does that need a hndis (human name disambiguation) page, or are the hatnotes enough for that trio of articles? Carcharoth (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to discuss what I think is an inaccuracy on the dab page Walloon; but when I click the "Talk" tab on that page, I get redirected to the talk page for Walon, which doesn't contain the matter I want to discuss. Why is that? Can I create a talk page for Walloon? If so, how, without screwing something up? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What seems to have happened is that at 00:13, 17 October 2010 Nothing149 (talk · contribs) moved Walloon to Walon (disambiguation), including the associated move Talk:Walloon to Talk:Walon (disambiguation) and at 13:13, 17 January 2011 Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) moved Walon (disambiguation) to Wallon but left the talk page alone. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. For reasons no-one has been able to explain to me, Talk pages often get left behind when a page is moved. It looks like Talk:Wallon should be moved to Talk:Walloon. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Won't that make it worse? Shouldn't the pairing be restored - i.e. why not move Talk:Walon (disambiguation) to Talk:Wallon? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Can't we just delete the redirection from Talk:Walloon? Won't it then function as a normal talk page? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just add ?redirect=no to the URL for a redirect, like this, then you can edit the redirection away. Alternatively, when you get redirected there's a link back to the redirect just under the title - it says "Redirected from <wherever>". Hairy Dude (talk)

I have deleted the redirection, as Hairy Dude suggested. Thanks. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A search for "Process Communication Model" is currently redirected straight to Concurrent computing. That phrase more accurately describes the work of Taibi Kahler (which page also needs expanding). I intend to expand the Taibi Kahler entry and make a full entry for his Process Communication Model, but (as a new user) I'm unsure how to proceed with disambiguating this. aeon-lakes 08:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeon-lakes (talk • contribs)

It looks to me like that particular title should just redirect to Taibi Kahler until the article gets written. A quick google suggests the full phrase isn't used for computer science applications. You can always put a {{redirect}} hatnote at the top in case that's not what the reader was looking for. Then when you replace the redirect with an article, likewise replace the {{redirect}} with {{about}} or the like on the new page. Hairy Dude (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've done as you suggested (I think). aeon-lakes 10:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeon-lakes (talk • contribs)

I disagree that "Process Communication Model" should redirect to a specific person rather than the broader idea of concurrent computing. If searchers want to read about the idea of PCM, they want information about related concepts (concurrent computing) rather than a specific person. A link to Kahler in concurrent computing is sufficient. Sundayclose (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello disambiguators! Please take a look at this draft and see if it should be an article, or if it's not needed. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is very much needed. I have formatted the page a bit. The existing page at this title will need to be moved, as it is clearly not the primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 21:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• I'm going to go ahead and BOLDly move the page to Border Wars (disambiguation). Any further discussion or determinations of a primary topic can happen afterwards. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have fixed all the incoming links. It should be smooth sailing from here. bd2412 T 19:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

See Category talk:Surnames#So how is this category supposed to used? and comment there if you wish. Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of overlap with Ram and Rams, wouldn't it be better to just have one disambiguation article, rather than have a separate one for the plural of the other? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

There is some overlap, but there are also a lot of RAMS acronyms. Combining the pages would make a very long page, compared to the typical disambiguation page. I'm not necessarily against it, but we have to think through the pros and cons. bd2412 T 23:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Some clean up between the two is needed anyway, due to duplications. The Banner talk 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Although there is no requirement for dab pages to avoid duplications. Not all redundancy is bad redundancy, and there are situations where a reader looking for a topic might use with "blah" or "blahs", and if it is beneficial to keep the dabs separate, the topics that could have either ambiguous title should be listed on both. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Model 1 and Model 2 are now both disambiguation pages, and they both need a lot of work. Looking for a more experienced editor's input here, please. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion of interest to project members at Talk:HRC#Hillary Rodham Clinton. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And could really use some additional input there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that when a reader comes to a reference to an article with a title such as Fred Aandahl or Zdzisław Żygulski or John Smith, somewhere in between, then that reader may naturally think that such an article would be about a single person called "Fred Aandahl", "Zdzisław Żygulski" or "John Smith".

Quite ironically, the navigation (aka "disambiguation") page John Smith is not disambiguated from all any of the great many Wikipedia articles that are also entitled "John Smith". The page is erroneously titled as the content of the page (inclusive of ~180 separate subjects) clearly related to a large number of "[[John Smith]]s".

In effect the content that we are presenting fails the third of the article title WP:CRITERIA "Precision" which requires that: "– The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects."

Options for resolving this potential situation include the use of moves such as:

• Fred Aandahl → Fred Aandahl (navigation)
• Fred Aandahl → Fred Aandahl (disambiguation)

Note: this arguably describes the List of Wikipedia disambiguations for people called Fred Aandahl

• Fred Aandahl → Fred Aandahl (disambiguations)

mainly suggested to, I hope constructively, make the point.

any of these may be preferable to an, arguably, extremely long format as presented by the example:

• John Smith → List of people and other subjects with the name John Smith

Just to get all this into a context please consider a visit to top 5000 listing of most accessed Wikipedia articles presented at: User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages. In many cases I think that people would see links that used personal names and expect that these links would connect to articles on individual people. At the time that I visited the Popular pages listing, it contained the contents:
5 Manny Pacquiao
10 Bruce Jenner
...
(4161 Cosmic energy (disambiguation) )
...
4973 Andrea Pirlo
4975 David Guetta
4979 Barry Hawkins
4984 Amanda Knox
4989 Bridget Moynahan
4991 George O'Malley
4995 Bobby Cannavale
4995 Remy LaCroix
4998 Boris Kodjoe

On a previous occasion when I looked through this list I remember finding one page entitled with a personal name that turned out to be a navigation/disambiguation page. All these page titles are formed in the singular.

I propose that we set a convention so that, over time, we move such as those describing the two Fred Aandahls and the two Zdzisław Żygulskis to titles that are themselves "disambiguated" from the names that these pages serve. Arguably pages from George Abbey (disambiguation) to David Zuckerman (disambiguation) could also be changed. Given a choice of a "Personal Name (navigation page)" destination, if given the tools, I would be happy to make the changes. GregKaye 10:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Why should person names be treated differently from other disambiguation pages where there is no primary topic? older ≠ wiser 11:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I cant see why anything has to change, I cant see anything broken and it would still leave redirects behind so would add no value. MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Rentier has a longish discussion of the word. It seems to me to go beyond the usual DAB practice of a short definition, but I'm semi-retired from Wikipedianing, so I'll just note it here. Cnilep (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither the sections nor the items in each section are alphabetically arranged. I just don't understand what system it is organized by. Rmhermen (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Importance. bd2412 T 18:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Hay Lake necessary? Everything there is spelled differently. 117Avenue (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• There appear to be two things spelled "Hay Lake", though. bd2412 T 18:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Hay Lake 209 though? Hay Lake, Minnesota would be the primary topic. 117Avenue (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is started at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages#If disambiguation pages are lists of "Foogles" wouldn't less ambiguous titles be Foogle (disambiguation) or List of F/foogles?

Contributions would be welcome. GregKaye 13:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I hereby nominate Gestalt for de-disambiguation. The term appears to have a well-defined general meaning described in the lede, and otherwise has characteristics more appropriate to a concept article than to a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 16:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom. bd2412 T 16:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment To me Gestalt seems to be a good example of a broad concept and I see no reason why the proposed change cannot be very effectively made. GregKaye 15:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I and User:JHunterJ don't agree on how ships should be listed in the page.

It looked like this a few days ago:

• List of ships named HMS Victory
  • HMS Victory, a 100-gun first-rate ship of the line launched in 1765
  • HMS Victory (1620), a 42-gun great ship launched at Deptford
  • HMS Victory (1695), a 100-gun first-rate ship of the line
  • HMS Victory (1737), a 100-gun first-rate ship of the line

Note that two redlinked Royal Navy ships weren't listed here.

I changed it to:

• List of ships named HMS Victory

JHunterJ made it thus:

• HMS Victory, a 100-gun first-rate ship of the line launched in 1765
• HMS Victory (1620), a 42-gun great ship launched at Deptford
• HMS Victory (1695), a 100-gun first-rate ship of the line
• HMS Victory (1737), a 100-gun first-rate ship of the line

and stuck List of ships named HMS Victory in the See also section (along with USS Victory, both of whose entries are already listed in prior sections).

After one reversion each, here we are. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The existence of list articles (including set indexes) does not change whether a topic is ambiguous for a title. The navigation pages (including disambiguation pages) are there for reader convenience, not for editor efficiency. So there is no reason to have a reader land at one page (say, Victory), find that it does not have the topic sought, go to a second page Victory (disambiguation), find that is also does not have the topic sought, go to a third page List of ships named HMS Victory, and finally to the fourth page, the page sought: HMS Victory (1620). Any entry that lists an ambiguous topic can be included in the disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I have several objections to your course of action. Firstly, you make a distinction between redlinked and bluelinked ships, contrary to SOP for dab pages and highly misleading to readers, who would naturally assume the four listed are the only HMS Victory ships. Secondly, you also add the list in the See also section, which makes no sense to me. It is a legitimate dab entry, not some related topic, and is at least 67% redundant. It's 100% redundant for USS Victory. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, the dab page is quite a long one, so why make it longer? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

When disambiguating topics on Wikipedia, I do make a distinction between topics ambiguous on Wikipedia and topics not ambiguous on Wikipedia. The set index itself is not ambiguous with the single word "Victory" -- no one refers to a list of ships named Victory as "Victory": "Say, that's a nice list you've made there, Alice. Can you slide Victory over here so Bob can see it?" Also, pray, what limit shall we set on the length of disambiguation pages, once we determine that we favor brevity over navigational aid? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

List of ships named HMS Victory is no different than HMS Eagle, for example. Guess what's on Eagle (disambiguation)? Just because it's got a non-standard title is irrelevant. There are six ships (and various shore installations) named Victory. Why would you list only four? Also, dab pages link to other dab pages all the time to keep the size manageable and to avoid duplication. In addition to the aforementioned Eagle, there's Smith (Smith Island (disambiguation), Smith River (disambiguation), even List of people with surname Smith). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarityfiend has removed from the disambiguation page for the title "Victory" entries that would link readers to topics ambiguous with the title "Victory" (and along with the simple reversion, undone some other unrelated improvements to the dab page). I'm done; someone else may want to look at it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Surely there can be no limit to contents that may go into a disambiguation page. HMS Eagle should be moved to List of ships named HMS Eagle. Without looking at diffs I am unsure what much of the rest of the dispute is about. GregKaye 15:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: "Surely there can be no limit to contents that may go into a disambiguation page." Surely, that is not what you meant to say. Would you agree, for example, that the statement "The square root of 2 is approximately equal to 1.41421" is content that may not appropriately go into the disambiguation page Victory (disambiguation)? If so, then there must be some limit. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A long-existing dab Transracial needs cleanup, and now has been marked for AfD. More opinions welcome (talk page has discussion of validity of entries). Widefox; talk 21:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The AfD was closed due to disruption. More opinions are sought at Talk:Transracial. Widefox; talk 02:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd welcome some input from you at Talk:Thomas_Moore#Disambiguation. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am a bit rusty about disambiguation pages. Thomas Billington has only three entries and one is a red link. It is linked from the disambiguation page Billington and I would have thought that the entries could just be listed there with all the other people with Billington as a surname. Could I just do a merge here as an admin, or do I have to propose this somewhere? --Bduke (Discussion) 03:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No reason you can't WP:be bold. In fact, I just today did the same sort of thing with Smitty Smith, and I'm no admin. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are sought on the question of a primary topic at Talk:Traffic policing. Widefox; talk 10:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#RfC on disamibiguation for clarification on whether WP:DAB should cover use of disambiguation (often WP:NATURAL) for clarifying inherently ambiguous names as well as when disambiguation is used for preventing article title collisions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to clarify if train stations and buildings count for belonging in Category:Place name disambiguation pages. This clarification should be at the top of the category page and also in Template:Disambiguation/doc. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The article List of peaks named Signal Mountain has been nominated for deletion. This is the canonical example of a mountain set index article highlighted in WP:SIA. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of peaks named Signal Mountain. --doncram 21:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89 and I have a disagreement about the scope of including links and details irrelevant for disambiguation on a dab page. For background, see this discussion on my talk page. Briefly, is it acceptable to include a link to James Monroe on a page such as Monroe County? And is it even relevant to include factual assertions on the dab page that all of the counties were named for the president? In my opinion such extra links and detail are irrelevant for helping readers navigate to the article for a specific county. PPP has a different opinion and points to the existence of other stuff on similar dab pages as evidence of a consensus for such practices. older ≠ wiser 15:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• The key to remember is that a disambiguation page is basically an index. It is purely a navigational tool to move readers on to the article that they are actually seeking. With the example of Monroe County, one would reasonably expect that every "Monroe County" that is named for James Monroe would mention that bit of information in the article. It is certainly mentioned in James Monroe#Legacy and memory, if anyone is specifically interested in knowing which ones meet this description. bd2412 T 15:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• I think it's reasonable for the page Monroe County (and Clay, or Hancock, or Washington, or any other county list of counties predominately named for the same person) to note the shared nomenclature of James Monroe, and to link to James Monroe.

1. We're having additional information, what's so wrong about that? Bkonrad's argument (or at least his argument yesterday on his talk page) is primarily based on the belief that people don't go to county pages looking for who the counties en masse are named for. I believe that to be false. Having that information answers all the questions of nomenclature in a single place.
2. There's no policy against having a link in the lead of a disambiguation page.
3. I'm not even sure these are disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are for completely separate topics that happen to have similar names. Monroe County is a list of counties named for James Monroe. I think it would better be called a set index article, in which case there is practically an obligation to note the similarity. pbp 15:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• There are articles like List of things named after Barack Obama. However, Monroe County is a very specific name; all the counties that have this name are differentiated only by the state where they can be found. A reader might have a genuine interest in one specific Monroe County, or an article may have a link intending one specific Monroe County, and Wikipedia should be set up to take the reader or the creator of that link to the place they intended to go, without delay. bd2412 T 15:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• @BD2412:, I'm not entirely sure where you're going on this vis-a-vis the question at hand. pbp 01:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Note that if these are treated as set index pages, then with the current setup these would not be included on the disambiguation pages with links reports and mistaken links would be less likely to be noticed and resolved. I can't imagine a case where the index page is the intended target for incoming links (i.e. all links to the page should be disambiguated). That suggests to me that these are better off link as disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 16:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Dab pages should be kept simple. Sources aren't included in dab pages - so no information which would need to be sourced should be added. The statement that all these 17 counties are named after a particular person is irrelevant for disambiguation. Assuming it's true of all 17, then each of the 17 articles should include this information. If we start adding this sort of information to the dab page, there's potential for it to become misinformation. There might be another "Monroe County" in some other country which uses similar terminology, but not named for the US President. In many or most cases of a "Surname Geographical-feature" dab page there will be a group of entities scattered around the continents of the world and named after different people - eg Wilson Island. Just keep the dab page to the basic minimum. PamD 17:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Most of the above holds true:

• The introduction of a dab page could say that all links are US counties, as that is an easy to establish fact which doesn't require proof, and prevents you from having to repeat it for every entry
• Stating that all entries are named after a particular person, is one step too far though, as that does require proof (references), which you are not allowed to add on a dab page
• Linking James Monroe is out out the question altogether, as that article is not what people are looking for on the dab page
• A way out of it would be to turn the dab page into a set index article, which gives you greaters degrees of freedom, but as Bkonrad already pointed out, then the links to that article are much less likely to be disambiguated--Midas02 (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Currently, pages in Category:Letter-number combination disambiguation pages all have letters that do not form words longer than three letters. For example, France 1 is not in the category. However, there are more than 20 articles of the form "Fox nn", ranging from Fox 2 to Fox 47, in the category. It would be helpful if the description at the top of the category page clarified if names like Fox 2 and France 1 should be in the category or not. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

All the little foxes are gone. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well done. Still questionable: 2chan, 2face, 2gether. Aren't these more word-number combinations? bd2412 T 23:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest a clarification of principles before further removing pages from the category. For what it's worth, the little foxes are not so different from similar pages involving ABC, CBS, and NBC. Somewhat similar page names in the category include 5ive (disambiguation), 66ers, Adam7, KISS 98.5, La 1ère, Mach 1, Mach3, Motiv8, Se7en, Senate Bill 5, Sk8er, Th1rt3en, Zero1. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I took Senate Bill 5 out of of this category, awaiting further discussion on what this category is supposed to be. —Anomalocaris (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)