Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

M3

I would make this edit myself but don't yet know how.

I think the first item under "M3" should be Economics, because M3 is the broad measure of the amount of dollars in circulation. It is very important in understanding the U.S. economy, world economy, and dollar devaluation. On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ceased publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. This means that the government would no longer make public the number of dollars in circulation. It also means the public cannot know how much money the Federal Reserve is printing.

Slkleman (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up, moved econ to the first section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Li (surname) - should it be a dab page?

Further information: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy § Li (surname) - should it be a dab page?

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help to resolve a style disagreement at Talk:Real life

See Talk:Real life. cheers, –xenocidic (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Death

I am trying to improve the Disamb on Cause of Death. I have put the ideas into the Talk on that Disamb page.IceDragon64 (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New to this, wondering if some of you could give me tips

I've decided to join your group, as I hate seeing badly organized pages myself. I primarily do work on video game articles, like the Dance Dance Revolution series, and common terms brings me to make additions to a random selection of disambiguation pages. I've looked at pages that have been reported as cleaned up and the guidelines article on disambiguations but I'd like to see how I'm doing so far. Can seasoned editors give me some pointers or tell me how good a job you think I'm doing? Here's the ones I've worked on since joining:

--AeronPrometheus (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool! I looked through the pages; they look really rather good. There are a few things I might change, but just minor things (That dictionary definition at Woo hoo is sort of dubious - could add it to Wiktionary, though there already is the page whoo). In general, a couple suggestion (that are actually good for everyone to always consider): make sure that entries on a page really are referred to by the term being disambiguted, and don't just contain it (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches). That also applies to making sure that on acronym pages, the term legitimately is referred to by that acronym, and not just happens to be able to be abbreviated by it. And usually there aren't supposed to be indented bullets... but I'm sure the usefulness of them could be debated. Other than that, the pages look great! We're glad to have you working on them. -- Natalya 11:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I took my own pass at Extreme, mostly putting some entries into a "See also" section if they didn't appear to be known as just "extreme". I also combined the spelling differences; readers reaching the page may not know which way the article they seek is spelled. I also removed the wiktionarypar link to x-treme, since there was no wiktionary entry there. But those are minor things, like Natalya said. The major things were good. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew Extreme needed more work. What I want to know is what in-line categories are considered the best to use when sorting the pages (entertainment, science, etc...), I don't know what are considered too vague or too precise.
Thanks for the advice Natalya, I'll remember that next time. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
From my own experience, the categorization used often depends on what links are on the page; good sectioning [attempts] to split the page up so that it's easier to navigate, but the categories used can vary as you see what links you have to work with. If you want to see a disambiguation page that has a huge number of links, and thus a lot of splitting, for some ideas, you can take a look at Aurora. It can really depend, though. If you have a page that has a few geographical links, you might put those all in one section labeled places (or something), but if you have a page that is mostly geographical places, you might instead split those up by area. -- Natalya 03:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

List of acronyms and initialisms

The List of acronyms and initialisms (and its several subpages) seem to be very out of date and their content could be better handled by separate disambig pages (most of which already exist). Therefore, I proposed to archive those lists, moving any content that might be there and not yet in the dab pages, to these. What do you think? Please comment on Talk:List of acronyms and initialisms#A bold proposal. Waldir talk 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong interwiki links in many disambiguation pages

Many interwiki links in disambiguation pages are bogus. Here is the problem:

  • Let's say that word W1 has meanings m1, m2 and m3 in language L1.
    • Then we create a disambiguation page [[L1:W1]], with links to articles [[L1:W1 (m1)]], [[L1:W1 (m2)]], and [[L1:W1 (m3)]].
  • Let's say that word W2 has meanings m1, m4 and m5 in language L2.
    • Then we create a disambiguation page [[L2:W2]], with links to articles [[L2:W2 (m1)]], [[L2:W2 (m4)]], and [[L2:W2 (m5)]]..
  • Let's say that word W3 has meanings m2 and m6 in language L3.
    • Then we create a disambiguation page [[L3:W3]], with links to articles [[L3:W3 (m2)]], and [[L3:W3 (m6)]].

Clearly, [[L2:W2]] has nothing in common with [[L3:W3]] (not the same word, not the same meanings). So, there should be no interwiki links between [[L2:W2]] and [[L3:W3]]. The problem is that it happens. Why?
It happens because somebody linked [[L1:W1]] to [[L2:W2]] because of the shared m1 meaning, then somebody else linked [[L3:W3]] to [[L1:W1]] because of the shared m2 meaning. Then robots linked everything together.

The root of the problem is that interwiki between disambiguation pages should not be based on meanings (actually one meaning among several in one language), but on the word itself. A disambiguation page is about a word.

The disambiguation page [[L1:W1]] should only have interwiki links to [[Ln:W1]] disambiguation pages in other languages (they are disambiguation pages for the W1 word). The disambiguation page [[L2:W2]] should only have interwiki links to [[Ln:W2]] disambiguation pages in other languages (they are disambiguation pages for the W2 word)... Marc Mongenet (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You might find some wisdom about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Interlanguage Links. They have bots that analyze these links and may be more able to help. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings (film)

Does anyone besides me think that this should be merged to The Lord of the Rings (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We could make it a redirect to The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(disambiguation)#Film_and_exhibition (unless someone sees a reason to keep it where it is). We recently had a discussion about a similar issue somewhere... here! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#John_Campbell_and_John_Campbell_.28footballer.29. -- Natalya 11:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommend The Lord of the Rings film trilogy as its redirect target, and make the hatnote there point to the "real" dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with J. SlackerMom (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The hatnote at The Lord of the Rings film trilogy currently points to The Lord of the Rings (film), since there are other (albeit, much less famous) Lord of the Rings films. If we were to make The Lord of the Rings (film) a redirect to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, we should still have a useful hatnote at the top of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, in case people are looking for the other films. -- Natalya 14:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What have we agreed on? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if there has been an agreement yet. -- Natalya 11:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I also don't see any discussion on Talk:The Lord of the Rings (film). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Yes. You could also have asked User:Uthanc (or me), or WikiProject Middle-earth, or WikiProject Film. I'm sure they would all have opinions outside of the perspective of disambiguation. Note that we do have Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, though that deals with stuff other than films, but any redirect should point at the film section of that overview article. Also stop and think whether it is serving its role as a disambiguation page. At the moment, it is linked from four articles: The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (in order to make the hatnote there manageable); Edmund Cusick (that link needs disambiguating); and Sarah Michelle Gellar (similarly needs disambiguating); and Roland Hemmo (not sure which film that link should be referring to). It seem people are linking to The Lord of the Rings (film) while not being sure which film they should be linking to, so I would say keep the dab page. It is almost like an extended hatnote, though. I think The Lord of the Rings (film) (disambiguation) might be a step too far! As it is, the current dab page is informative, and any readers arriving there will quickly realise where they want to go. BTW, if this discussion is making some of the more strict dabbers turn pale, see The Return of the King (film), The Fellowship of the Ring (disambiguation), The Two Towers (disambiguation), and The Return of the King (disambiguation)... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
*Explodes* No, just kidding. :) If we can manage some solution here, perhaps that can help to make some of those other Lord of the Rings semi-disambiguation pages more useful too. I see the rational to having The Lord of the Rings (film) redirect to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, but since there are other Lord of the Rings films (even though they are much less prominent), I'd be more comfortable with having it as a redirect to The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(disambiguation)#Film_and_exhibition, because it covers all the possibilities of a Lord of the Rings film reference. I don't think it will be a huge crisis whichever way it goes, but those are, perhaps, a clarification of my thoughts. -- Natalya 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"People link to it" is no reason to keep the dab page; that'd be a reason to redirect it to an article, since you shouldn't link to dab pages. The other dab pages appear fine; the The Return of the King (film) should also point to a single film article (with a hatnote) or become a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If we shouldn't link to dab pages, I also think Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings#Film is the best bet for The Lord of the Rings (film) as all those films are mentioned in the first paragraph of that section. Also, if The Lord of the Rings film trilogy claims the redirect, it might smack of bias towards Peter Jackson/New Line - though I guess this is just me being egalitarian as most people would probably think of the above (first) if one talks about a "Lord of the Rings film". (For the record, I'm a bit biased against the above "dominating" the LOTR-field...) Uthanc (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ai (Japanese name)

Is the page title correct? Why not Ai (name)? Inclusively, the page could use a repair or two. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The page is under Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. I changed {{disambig}} to {{given name}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Single link on disambiguation page

Is it right to have the page Magnocavalli as a disambiguation as there is only one article this relates to? Wouldn't it make sense just to link straight to that article? She'sGotSpies (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would make more sense to change this to a redirect to the article about the only notable Magnocavalli. --Russ (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to a redirect. -- Natalya 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A question

Do the dab guidelines encourage "Crap or craps may refer to:" over "Crap(s) may refer to:"? Just want to make sure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the guidelines express no preference. In the example given, Talk:Crap would be the forum to see which is preferred. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
That's all I wanted to know. Guess I'll adhere to the example on WP:PIPING. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as you don't, without discussion, revert other editors' edits that don't adhere to that example, since it isn't dictating that usage. An example of avoiding piping is not a limitation on introductory lines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
J, why must you talk to me in that manner? I'm trying to aim for consistency and yet you treat me as if I'm a fool. It's like you confuse me with User:Abtract. What is your problem with me? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
S, when, for the sake of consistency, you follow up one editors dab cleaning with trivial edits like changing "other uses" to "other usages" or tweaking the introductory line, you're not helping the project -- consistency isn't the highest priority, and it creates ill-will, such as you've created with Abtract and Abtract has created with you. You've asked dozens of questions on my talk page and here or WT:MOSDAB or WT:D that should have first been asked on the Talk page of the dab in question or the other editor's talk page to build consensus in a friendly way. I do not have you confused with Abtract; you and Abtract both have questionable edit histories for things that could be considered stalking or assuming bad faith or personal attacks (like the implication Abtract = fool above). Abtract and I got off on the wrong foot as well, but it's possible to work things out with editors with different approaches without edit warring, RfCs, or AN/Is. One bit that I like from the Economist.com's style guide is something like "not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily stupid or insane". After the initial bumps, Abtract and I realized that we're both trying to help the 'pedia. I know you are too. One thing I'd like to see is for you and Abtract to realize that about each other. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Schaefer, Schaffer (disambiguation), Schaefer (disambiguation), and Shafer (disambiguation)

This setup seems less than optimal. At the moment I'm at a loss for how best to improve them. older ≠ wiser 04:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge the three dabs into Schaefer (disambiguation) (and leave the surname page as is)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's reasonable. Especially as there are a few terms using some of the other alternate spellings which could also be included. But would it make more sense to divide the disambiguation by spelling or by type (e.g., place, company, etc.) and mingle the various spellings. I ask because these are commonly mispelled and even one of the dab pages had a red link for a misspelling of a place name that existed under a different title.older ≠ wiser 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd mingle the spellings and group semantically. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That seems fair - people may or may not know how something they're looking for is spelled, but they're more likely to know what it is (and thus, be able to find it under a sectioned category than under a section by spelling). -- Natalya 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There aren't so many links on these pages as to discourage a combined page. It seems far more useful to have all of them together, with the different spellings mingled in the groupings. SlackerMom (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a grand idea but hardly likely to apply to a dab page ... on the other hand, why not? Abtract (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, I've been meaning to get a redirect I created nominated for Good Redirect, namely Alien sideboob. –xeno (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
We should get a disambiguation page featured. :) The nomination for deletion isn't a bad idea, for when there are controversial disambiguation pages that go up for AfD. -- Natalya 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dablinks to other people with the same surname

User:Rosenknospe has recently added dablinks of the form:

For other persons named Faulkner, see Faulkner (surname).

to numerous articles about people with a surname of "Faulkner" or "Falkner" (e.g. Walt Faulkner). Is this standard/recommended practice? (I thought I would ask here before questioning Rosenknospe about it). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not standard. I've never heard of it before, so I have never seen it accepted (or rejected) by consensus either, although I'd certainly side with rejecting it unless the surname redirected to the person (e.g., no problem and probably a good idea on Faulkner's target William Faulkner, but not on Walt Faulkner). -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This should not be done, except in the case when the last name redirects to a specific person. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

What to do with links like Ten (album) (disambiguation) and Freeze (song) (disambiguation)? I know there has been discussion on this before but I just want to make sure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They should just be left alone; they are redirecting to the most logical page, after all, which is the disambiguation page that they are looking for. Gary King (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess you could add {{R to disambig}} if you were so moved, but they seem to be doing a perfectly good job where they are. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ten (album) should be merged into Ten (disambiguation) and tagged as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Ten (album) (disambiguation) and Freeze (song) (disambiguation) should be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I agree with J's logic the most. I'm willing to take care of the merging, and marking these redirects for deletion. The only problem is how do I get User:Jerzy, who fails to heed my thoughts, to stop doing this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued from Talk:Antagonist

Antagonist should be moved to Antagonist (disambiguation) and Antagonist would be the page title for Antagonist (literature). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked the edit history and saw that your proposed arrangement was how it stood until May. I reverted them to those names. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks J. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 36759 articles are assigned to this project, of which 220, or 0.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Painting/failed article "Painter"

Can somebody tell me what the heck is going on here? I'm not even sure how to fix it. SlackerMom (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I prodded it, for want of anything better.--Kotniski (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought that was probably needed, but the revision history made me wonder. SlackerMom (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to dab page in a cite template

In cleaning up links to one of my "adopted" dab pages, I've come across one that hides in a cite template:

{{cite ... |Anonymous| ... }}

In the references section this comes out as a wikilink, and I need to redirect/pipe it to Anonymity instead (while still letting it read as "Anonymous" on the article page). I've tried everything I can think of within the cite template, but haven't figured it out yet. I'd settle for it not being a wikilink any more, but I don't understand what makes it a link in the first place. :) Very frustrating. Can anybody give me the secret here? --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 20:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

{{cite gutenberg}} isn't a very robust template. Since it doesn't use named parameters, how about replacing Anonymous with Anon? Anon's a redirect to Anonymity, and won't look bad in the citation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that templates had degrees of quality. I thought they would either work or not work. Thanks for the suggestion—this was driving me nuts. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 21:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, any old editor who can create an article can create a template. But, better news: {{!}} produces a pipe character within a parameter, so that could be used like this: {{cite ... |Anonymity{{!}}Anonymous| ... }}. But but, I scaled up the gutenberg template so that it takes author and authorlink parameters now, just like cite book. I fixed Hekla to use those. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity, Sorority, and the whole deal I

Fraternity is currently a disambiguation page. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, it has the fifth highest number of disambiguaiton links to it (over 1500!). I was trying to figure out if there was a primary topic we could get to have Fraternity redirect to. I was initially thinking perhaps Fraternal and service organizations. However, then I saw that Sorority was also a redirect to Fraternity. There has to be a better way for us to deal with these pages (and thus, decrease the number of very incorrect links all going to the disambiguation page Fraternity)! I'm going to keep mulling over it, but many brains are better than one. Thoughts? -- Natalya 05:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My initial thought is that we might have an article (or maybe set index) called Fraternity which would concern itself with the "brotherhood organisations" aspect - there could be quite a lot to say apart from just listing them (history of such organisations, how they developed, links between them, differences by nationality, religion etc). This article could then be the primary meaning for Fraternity (disambiguation) which would also include the other entries (like the band etc) not covered by the primary meaning. Abtract (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Another possible course:
  1. Rework Fraternities and sororities in North America to be non-North-America-centric
  2. Move Fraternities and sororities in North America back to Fraternities and sororities
  3. Redirect Fraternity and Sorority to Fraternities and sororities.
  4. Update hatnotes all around.
but that first step will take some work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It definitly would take some work, but it also seems like a good way to go about it. I've posted over at Wikiproject Fraternities and Sororities to hopefully get some input from those who would likely know more about modifying the article. -- Natalya 18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The only difference between the ideas is the combination of fraternites and sororities centring on an existing article. For two reasons I think this is sub-optimal. First, there is sufficient difference between them to make two articles. Second, the university fraternity/sorority system is mainly an American phenomenon and Fraternities and sororities in North America is, of course, very US-centric - to change this would be difficult. My way creates a brand new article for all aspects of Fraternity not just the US uni aspect ... have a look here to see the way I am trying to develop the idea and by all means interject or comment. Abtract (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Abtract - sorry it's taken so long, but I've just taken a look at your new proprosal for the page Fraternity at User:Abtract/sandbox-2, and I think you have something really good going there. There's no way not to have the page "Fraternity" direct to lots more specific articles, but I think your creation there makes it more useful than just a disambiguation page. I'd be all for implementing this, with possibly one modification - currently, Sorority also redirects to Fraternity. We could either a) incorportate "sorority" into the page (since there are already links about fraternities and sororities), or b) create a new page "Sorority" along those same lines. Although option (b) would possibly be clearer, I don't know if there is enough information for a while separate article. Other than that, it looks awesome - thanks for putting it together! -- Natalya 19:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I just went and made the American college fraternity article MORE American centered, because having the basic article modified by having haphazard redirects scattered through the article, (and all the qualifying phrases in the text), seemed entirely unworkable. American college fraternities and European college fraternities "occupy the same space" in their respective societies, but operate on entirely different terms. I think what would be ideal is seperate articles 'College fraternities in North America', 'College fraternities in Germany (Studentenverbindungen)', 'College fraternities in the Netherlands (Studentenverenigingen)' etc. That would solve the college fraternity issue, but doesn't address that college fraternities are a subset of all fraternities, which includes general fraternities, (Freemasons and Oddfellows), labor organizations, (Knights of Labor), political organizations (Ku Klux Klan), benefit & mutual assessment societies, and the ethnic fraternities, (Polish Falcons, Hibernians, Sons of Italy). The word Fraternity applies to all of this, and should have directs to all of that. All of this also fades off in the direction of 'secret societies', both college and adult, (and all of the screaming and yelling about that).P22575R15 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, as far as the academic fraternities go individual articles for each national system are seperated into articles with parallel titles, Student organizations in --name of country--, (local name). Some pedant suggested that the commas need to go. And the disambiguation page has been altered to reflect all the various nations. I did not change the name of the general European student organizations article, Corporations (university). It's not much of a name, and I'd rather have something equally parallel, but perhaps the North American 'fraternity' pages can interlink with the 'corporation' pages and at least there will be that much less confusion. P22575R15 (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, someone arrived at my talk page and said they hated all of it and would change all of it back. I responded as follows : "I did suggest that there were long discourses that went nowhere by people dissatisfied with things as they were. I made a change. It might be better, it might not. This is wikipedia. Rather than changing everything back, why not think of an improvement? And when you think of an improvement, and put into effect, no one will be happier than I." P22575R15 (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dab page at AfD

In case anyone is interested in commenting: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Know What Boys Like. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Keep" has been well and thoroughly supported by commentary provided so far. It is very unlikely that this will be deleted given the support provided. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

David Martin page

It seems that the David Martin disambiguation page is growing into an article about one individual. An info box was even added! Is this the proper place for this information? — CZmarlin (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't! I moved it to a new page. Tassedethe (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! This now makes everything fine in Wikipedia-land!  :) CZmarlin (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Usagi

Need some opinions on the layout of this dab. I and another editor can't seem to agree on something. Discussion is on Talk:Usagi. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bots and Tools

I was going to write a tool to limit the keystokes, a little searching found User:RussBot, can anyone use that bot, or is the source available, or is there an official disambiguation project policy on this?Drunken Pirate (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User disambiguation

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

Discussion has been initiated here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

James Cary

Is it just me or does anyone else see problems with this page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Vizard

What should become of this redirect? It currently targets Visoreds, but would it be best if we moved Vizard (surname) to this title eliminating the use of a redirect? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me ... but do we need a redirect page with ony two entries? Abtract (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a Wiktionary entry as well. We could just combine the four to make up a disambiguation page. What do you say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorize dab pages?

Please see the discussion at Talk:Sand boa#Categorization. Am I totally off base? --Tkynerd (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as the policy goes, no, you're not. The category tags can be moved to the specific articles/redirects instead of the dab pages. But one thing gives me pause, which is that these aren't exactly the typical dab page. What if they were considered set index articles? Sand boa could be renamed List of sand boas, and could then be categorised appropriately? --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to confess that I've never totally wrapped my head around the concept of a set index article, although I followed the link you provided and I think it makes a little more sense to me now. I tend to agree with your analysis, but User:Abtract provided another good, workable solution which has been adopted. Thanks for your comment, it is much appreciated and will help me remember to consider whether I'm looking at a potential set index article in the future in this kind of situation. Best regards, Tkynerd (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all. That page just didn't strike me as a true dab page, and then I found something at WP:MOSDAB about a dab page containing a heterogeneous set of topics. Anyway, Abtract's idea seemed to work well, so I'm glad it's resolved. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hootenanny and Hootenanny (disambiguation)

I think there is some history merging and/or cleanup to be made. Someone reverted Hootenanny back to Feb. 2008 and created a messy dab page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tidied the dab page a tad. Abtract (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity, Sorority, and the whole deal II

There is NOW "Fraternity" a shorter article with background applicable to all fraternities, and "Fraternity (disambiguation)" which is solely a list of redirect links. So that is complete. That is conformable to wikipedia policy, I think.

There are, unfortunately a lot of continuing problems. In wikipedia, now, as it is written, "Fraternity" is about all fraternities of any kind, and "Fraternities" is about American college fraternities. So, as far as it is presented here, Sigma Chi is a 'fraternities' because it is an American college fraternity, and it cannot be a fraternity, because that is something else. Changing to different article titles is apparently forbidden by consensus, or at least the consensus we have.

Worse, subpages have their own titles, like "List of social fraternities" and "History of North American college fraternities and sororities‎", which are wholly inconsistent.

Also, this creates a situation where the American term is normative, and all other countries get a qualifier.

Further, this doesn't address the topic of sorority either.

I have no solutions to offer. I tried that once already. People couldn't handle it and freaked. P22575R15 (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Why not: College Fraternity for things like Sigma Chi? Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the half-dozen people who stalk the pages will not accept changing anything. A handful of people, who I assume are interested parties, want to have the bare term "fraternities" mean their kind of organization, regardless of the fact that an American college fraternity is one small segment of all fraternities. The fact that that makes wikipedia parochial, rather than neutral and comprehensive, does not bother them. I have other things to do than argue with them. P22575R15 (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Abtract (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Woodstock

A discussion about the state of the current dab page is in the preliminary stage. Project representatives are needed to weigh in over at Talk:Woodstock#Reboot as to whether the argument(s) for primary topic disambiguation have merit. Thank you for your time. Viriditas (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with disambiguation of footballers

I have previously raised this at WP:FOOTBALL, but have not had a response as yet. The accepted standard for disambiguating footballers is to add (footballer) to the article title if only one person with the same name is a footballer and to add (footballer born 2008) to the article title if more than one person with the same name is a footballer.

Two men named Henry "Harry" Davis played for Sheffield Wednesday around the turn of the century; Harry Davis (footballer), born 1879, and another player who does not yet have an article, who was born circa 1873. Since the latter won an FA Cup with the club it is about time that he had an article, which would obviously involve disambiguating the two articles. Since his date of birth is not known precisely (I have looked everywhere and can't find anything more specific than "cs 1873/1874") is it still OK to use this as the disambiguator, i.e.:

or should a different method be used? Playing position is not really useful in this case since back in those days most players played in a variety of positions and both players played regularly as forwards. Any other suggestions? — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Daedalus

Daedalus (disambiguation) and List of things named Daedalus are confusing me this morning. Probably should be merged, unless there is a different convention at work that I can't think of? -- Quiddity 18:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe we should rename the list page List of things named after Daedalus and just let it be a list. If you look at the other lists here that seems to be in line with those pages. SlackerMom (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tree Frogs

So what do tree frogs eat? What kinds of tree's do they like? What temperature should their habitat be kept at? How can you tell if they're male or female; or for a tree frog does it matter? What is their normal life span in "captivity" ie an aquairium?

Thanks

Rona Smoke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.40.213 (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dabredlink TfD

I have nominated Template:Dabredlink, a template designed for disambiguation pages, for deletion. swaq 17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia

Comments welcome regarding the clear two primary topics and ensuring both are prominently shown on the dabpage (rather than the normal, ad nauseum, one or other argument) are welcome at Talk:Georgia#The two primary topics and their prominence. Oh, add in WP:FLAGS too... Thanks/wangi (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

What should finally become of this link? There has been quite a bit of edit-warring over what the target may be, and it seems to be non-stop. Now if it were me, The Dark Knight (film) would be moved to this title and The Dark Knight (disambiguation) would serve as a dab. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The question to be answered (and I don't know the answer) is whether or not the film is the primary topic for the phrase "The Dark Knight". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
But of course. A Google search indicates so [1], [2], [3], [4], as well Google images [5], [6], [7]. I fail to see anything proving otherwise. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
That would seem to be fairly persuasive. Anyone care to make the opposing argument? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well it seems like there's no opposition. Should this go through, what becomes of Dark Knight? Could its history be merged with the proposed The Dark Knight (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Slow down, pardner! Just because there was no opposition here, that doesn't mean that there's no opposition. I've dropped notes at the talk pages of people who expressed an opinion one way or the other in the past month (mostly by moving the target of the redirect). Let's give them some time to reply, if they're interested. If there's no response in several days, then we can move ahead.
If it does go through, I suppose that the proper thing to do would be to merge the histories of Dark Knight and The Dark Knight into a new disambiguation page at The Dark Knight (disambiguation). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It's been a little more than a week, but I understand. Another week will do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Recently, TDK refers more to the movie. For a decade before, though., saying TDK to people who don't know much would come up with Batman, and those who know Batman, Frank Miller's story. there are also other uses. If anything, Dark Knight and The Dark Knight can redirect to a disambig, leaving TDK film where it is. ThuranX (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the above, it seems to me that using The Dark Knight as the page for the film would be recentist. — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 07:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur. While it may qualify eventually for use of The Dark Knight page, the film is less than a couple of months old. If there's a general feeling in a year or two that the majority of people would prefer the direct link to the film article, I'd reconsider my position, but for now I don't think there's any harm in keeping it as a disambiguation link. Some of those other uses are I imagine quite popular too. Steve T • C 07:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirect The Dark Knight to Dark Knight and render the latter as a disambiguation page. "The Dark Knight" is clearly first and foremost a moniker of Batman. Just because the new movie has been doing so well in the box office does not warrant the film superseding the original term. Considering that there's sufficient disagreement that the film article should be in the forefront, it is easier enough to just use disambiguation pages for the sake of immediately presenting all options to all readers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The only reason a Google search turns up the film more is because the film is the most recent use of the name (and heavily trafficed because of the popularity of the film). Unfortunately, the film is not the primary use of the name. The name was installed decades prior, and has been used to describe Batman himself, was the title of comic book lines, it has more associations than just the film. I don't see where it will ever need to be moved in the future either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Why should Dark Knight or The Dark Knight redirect to Batman? There's no reference of that as another name for the character. Also folks, keep WP:COMMONNAMES in mind. I'm sure the film is a more popular search now. For instance, you'll notice that Goku redirects to the Dragon Ball character and not Goku (disambiguation). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Who is suggesting that either should redirect to Batman? older ≠ wiser 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, you're right. The many implications above seem to suggest that Dark Knight would become the dab. Though what's wrong with The Dark Knight (disambiguation) or The Dark Knight? IIRC, there's no prohibition of using "The". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The Dark Knight (disambiguation) would be inappropriate unless there were consensus that there is a primary topic for the term. The Dark Knight could work, but there are some items that are simply "Dark Knight", and unless you want to treat those on a separate page, Dark Knight, as the simpler title, is preferred. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well regardless of WP:RECENTISM, the film does sound like the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I prefer guidelines over essays any day. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's far from clear cut that the film is the primary topic for the name. The film is all over the place in the media now, but we don't know what its lasting impact will be. How will it be considered in, say, five or ten years? Any pinning of the film article to The Dark Knight would be very premature considering the other, well-publicised uses of the phrase. Steve T • C 22:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

One factor that should be considered is the principle of least astonishment. Although it's true that "The Dark Knight" as a nickname for Batman predates the film, I think that most readers looking for information on Batman would type "Batman" into the search box, not "The Dark Knight". In the context of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "primary" doesn't mean "first" (chronologically), it means "chief" (in prominence). And I think that the phrase "The Dark Knight" is most prominent as the title of the film.

Does anyone doubt that most readers who type "The Dark Knight" into the search box will be looking for the film? Some of them might be looking for the Frank Miller graphic novel, but it seems likely to me that far more people will be looking for the film — considering that the film audience is far greater than the number of people who read graphic novels (even an influential graphic novel like Batman: The Dark Knight Returns). Anyone looking for the graphic novel will be well aware of the film, and will not be astonished if he or she reaches the film's page first and has to click through to a disambiguation page. But there is likely to be a sizable number of people who know about the film but are unaware of the graphic novel (or the other uses of the term). These readers might well be surprised if they type "The Dark Knight" in the search box and do not arrive at the article for the film.

A relevant comparison: the novel The Godfather came out before the film, but the film was more prominent, and so is located at The Godfather. The novel is at The Godfather (novel). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And in thirty-five years, we'll probably be able to make that determination for The Dark Knight one way or the other as well. Right now, it's much too early. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
When the film is #2 in the all time domestic box office, I'm not sure that we need to wait 35 years. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambig page at AfD

In case anyone is interested in commenting: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Byrd (disambiguation). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lists of ambiguous human names at CFD

Category:Lists of ambiguous human names is being discussed at CFD. Please join the discussion on renaming. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorization thoughts

Just a thought, shouldnt their be a master list of DaB pages? adding them all to a single category would make tracking them much easier. Canis Lupus 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually know if this is true, but don't they all get added to Category:Disambiguation? -- Natalya 01:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Most do, but any that are also in a subcategory are not included. Canis Lupus 01:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't mean to be querulous, but what do you mean by "tracking them"? older ≠ wiser 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
if we can maintain a single large list of DaBs, filtering out DaBs from other lists of pages becomes very simple. its similar to other master list categories. Canis Lupus 02:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm still not sure what practical use this might provide. older ≠ wiser 02:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
btw, if one amends Natalya's statement to say "Category:Disambiguation and its sub-categories", then I think it's true. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Practical use? Saying how many disambiguation pages Wikipedia has would be a good start. Basic stats like that. Some people are interested in the ratios of article pages to dab pages to redirects. Not to mention number of image pages, number of templates, etc. Once you have hard facts, any number of interesting and potentially useful stats can be worked out. Also, once you have the list, you can then start working out things like how many redirects are pointing at dab pages, how many links overall are pointing at dab pages, how many links there are on dab pages overall (average number of links per dab page?), and so on. Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, those are potential uses. I'm not aware that anyone has been asking for such things or is actually committed to doing to work to prepare such analysis. I've never quite understood why the sub-categorization was necessary. I've always regarded Category:Disambiguation as about as purely an administrative category as one could be. AFAIC, the primary purpose of the category is so that dab pages would not show up as uncategorized pages. But along the way, there has been an increasing accretion of sub-categories, to the point now that the prospect of merging them all into supercategory raises some potentially interesting questions. Some of the subcategories, such as the various set indexes, were set off precisely because these were determined to not be subject to the strictures of WP:MOSDAB, although serving essentially the same function as disambiguation pages. Should these sub-types be subsumed into the super category? Are we talking about creating a new category or backfilling all the subcategories into the parent category? older ≠ wiser 16:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
In thinking about this thread, I went to look at what state the subcategories of Category:Disambiguation were in. Out of the many dubious entries, I came across a couple that seemed particularly useless and nominated these for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 1#Category:Ballet disambiguation and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 1#Category:Regional cuisine. At the time of nomination, the category contained only Ebony Concerto. After nomination, User:Fayenatic london created Romeo and Juliet (ballet) as an experiment to test the utility of the category. older ≠ wiser 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
the actual work in merging would not be that difficult. all we would have to do is add another category to the templates used on those pages. Canis Lupus 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Days of Infamy

Needs a dab page. Do you folks take requests? Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe not. Perhaps someone can deal with the tag request added by another user. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Done-ish. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Except it is not appropriate to put redlinks in hatnotes. A hatnote with only a redlink is almost completely useless. I created a redirect until there is interest to creating a stub for it. older ≠ wiser 20:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

History merge needed

Justin Russo was redirected to a new title, Justin Russo (singer). Any chance of a history merge and disambiguation page necessary here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This was simple cut and paste move, fortunately there was no history to be merged. As a two-person dab, hatnotes should be sufficient unless there is some question of whether the singer should have the undisambiguated name. older ≠ wiser 15:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Eugene

Is this appropriate? I thought it wasn't, but maybe this should be discussed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be. The instructions at Category:Ambiguous place names say Articles are manually added to this category as well as having the {{geodis}} template. Similarly, the instructions at {{Geodis}} are also pretty clear. The usage is for the most part analagous to Category:Surnames and {{Surname}} (although the documentation there is actually less clear). However, to be honest, I personally never bother unless the page is exclusively about place names. And for that matter, I don't always bother adding Category:Surnames to mixed dab pages either. older ≠ wiser 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem: the page is not exclusive only for locations. That's why I didn't add it to Category:Ambiguous place names. If we're gonna start doing this, might as well include everywhere else right? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I added it to the ambiguous place name category because there isn't a separate place names only page for Eugene, and I'm not sure that there needs to be a separate page. But if more people feel we should have a separate page instead of just adding the category, I'm cool with that. --Tesscass (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, if there is to be a separate page, what title would you have in mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a preference. --Tesscass (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
imho there is no need for a separate page. Abtract (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, there's absolutely no reason to have a separate page. My experience is that dab pages are not normally added to that category just because they happen to contain two or more place names, but I don't see any particular harm in doing so if you really want. --Kotniski (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok. From here on, I'll be adding Category:Ambiguous place names to every dab-related page that lists two or more places. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_11&oldid=1137386847"