Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 25

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

→

Featured disambiguation proposal

is at Village_pump_(proposals)#Featured_disambiguation. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion board

Is there a discussion board for disambig placements (ie: determining if a primary topic exists, or if a disambig should be at the primary article)? Does this WikiProject represent as close to a discussion forum for this as is available on Wikipedia? I just tagged a discussion with a {{move}} tag, but that's not really the full intent, so wondering if there was a better place where I should have listed the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Instantaneous

The article Instantaneous has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Instantaneous is an adjective that can be applied to any number of quantities, but none of them are referred to as just "instantaneous". None of the articles listed are very likely to be searched for by that term, and this is therefore not a useful disambiguation page. Furthermore, four of the entries are redlinks, two are redirects to articles not specifically about "instantaneous" (ship stability and power (physics)) and one is a redirect (instantaneous frequency) to the one remaining article, instantaneous phase. At best, this should be a redirect to the one valid dab article, but I think deletion would be better without prejudice to a future creation of a proper article at this title. SpinningSpark 20:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SpinningSpark 20:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this proposed deletion. Absent a noun use (for example, a band named "Instantaneous"), we should not have disambig pages for adjectives as a general rule. bd2412 T 20:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Navbox in dab page

An editor is adding the {{Letter-NumberCombination}} Navbox to all 2-letter articles, most of which are dab pages. It doesn't seem useful, and certainly isn't included in WP:MOSDAB. Should they be removed? PamD (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed that too. I don't feel very strongly about it, but it seems like a needless gimmick that won't be any use to anyone, so I'd be for removing it.--Kotniski (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PamD -- a person coming to a page looking for say AA is unlikely to be looking for AB or BA or other such articles given easy access by the navbox. In a couple of instances I have moved the navbox to a See also section as it is at most only tangentially relevant for disambiguation. I would support removing the boxes altogether, but if they are to be kept, I strongly suggest they should be in a See also section and not placed as the topmost template on the page. older ≠ wiser 12:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. It takes up minimal real estate on the page, and may be of interest to someone whose purpose in visiting a two letter combo page is to see what two letter combos there are. We've had these on letter/number pages for a long time without complaint. bd2412 T 15:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Death by a thousand cuts. I refer to this as the "ASCII table" rule. Adding an ASCII table to all the two-letter disambiguation pages, maybe just a tiny graphic that would make it clear you could click on it to get a full blown table with representations in octal and hex, would take up minimal real estate, and may be of interest to someone whose purpose in visiting a two letter combo page is, well, who knows what their purpose is, but my guess would be is they're there to look at what that specific two letter combo is. But you know, maybe they'd like to see an ASCII table as long as they're there.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never gone to a two letter dab page with an interest in travelling to the "adjacent" two letter page. I believe that the small number of people who may be so inclined can type the two letters into the search box. If it turns out there's a latent demand for this, maybe we could create a "List of letters followed by exactly one more letter."--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just found Wikipedia:List of two-letter combinations which should satisfy the needs of any enthusiast for 2-letter combos! PamD (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That page was what I was using to fill in remaining redlinks. See below. Jokestress (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: prolific disambiguator User:Nono64 added the navbox to the letter-number combos in 2008 and they have stood since then. [1] I'll see what he has to say. Jokestress (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also comment that various kinds of things are denoted in series designated by progressive two-letter combinations, and it can't hurt to be able to work up that chain. bd2412 T 19:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, my belief is that "can't hurt" is insufficient reason.

Clutter works against the functionality of disambiguation pages. Every time we find something more to add because it might theoretically help the occasional reader, we impede the page's usefulness for every other reader. Unless it can be demonstrated that this would be of use to a significant percentage of readers, I would recommend against it.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree - this seems minimally (if at all) useful, and just adds clutter. Rwessel (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Navigation box and creating a "perfect two-letter page" template per MoS

Per the thread above, I have been filling in all remaining two-character combinations as disambiguations. There was a precedent at the A1 series for a navigation box, so I decided to be bold after conferring with BD2142 as a run-up to trying to standardize all the wildly varying formats and styles on the letter-letter disambiguations pages. Perhaps we can move it to the bottom, but I was just following the format established previously by other editors. The navbox allows readers and editors to spin quickly through the series. Anyone doing so will notice that the quality and formatting on these disambiguations has a wide range, especially on more common ones. I think we should all agree on an ideally formatted page of this sort that would have a style guide for:

hidden comment at top (if any)
shortpages comment at bottom (if any)
table of contents standard location (if any)
level of heading for sections (if any)
navigation box (if any)
order of headings (people, places, transportation, math/science, technology, etc.)
what variants should be listed at top (some have one, others have 7)
what alts should be included: AA, Aa, A.A., A. A., A-A, A/A, A&A, etc.
what cats should be included
should entries be alphabetized within headings
should people known by those initials be on a separate page if over a certain number
should disambiguations lead with a definition when the combo goes to a main page (see UN or NY)
should disambiguations lead with a definition when the combo forms an English word
should disambiguations lead with a definition when the combo forms an foreign word, e.g. Latin
What pages should be listed at See also?
a template at the bottom with all combinations (if any)

I propose we leave them in place while we work on standardizing the pages, as it makes it much easier to spin through and add a standard item like a top comment to each one. Any thoughts on the above are welcome. Jokestress (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that we need to aim at standardisation of two-letter dab pages at all, beyond applying the guidelines which apply to all dab pages. Readers are unlikely to be scanning the set of two-letter combinations and being upset by inconsistency. They will be looking for the town of Au, Guinea or the company HP, or perhaps HP sauce, or whatever. In some cases one solution is more helpful to more readers, in other cases another solution. There is no particular need to standardise the order of the sections within this particular category of dab pages, they are no different from all the other dab pages in the system. (Now it could, perhaps, be argued that there should be a standard set of subcategories to be used in a standard sequence, for all dab pages ... but that's another discussion, and a very low-priority one as far as I can see). PamD (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Standardizing capitalization on two-letter combination pages

I have just made a table of all instances where our articles on capitalized two-letter combinations are not the disambiguation pages. I believe these should be more standardized as a first step in bringing all of them into a standard format.

Proposal 1 (withdrawn)

~~Where "XX" redirects to "Xx", make "XX" the disambiguation (~60 instances).~~ (withdrawn by nominator)

Example: AU redirects to Au, but the disambiguation should be at AU.

Support As nominator. Jokestress (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: The guidelines at WP:MOSDAB are quite clear: "A word is preferred to an abbreviation, for example". Such a sweeping change would need discussion at WT:DAB. PamD (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The table linked above is an interesting read, and shows the existing situation to be the result of a lot of careful thought and a certain amount of randomness! I'd have no objection to seeing the dab page from from CF to Cf, as it isn't a word, and similar cases. The rd from FU seemed so inappropriate that I have WP:BOLDly changed it to redirect to the dab page at Fu. PamD (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment and I've tagged P.M. for cleanup and set in motion a page move to PM. PamD (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Have now done some cleanup on P.M. but it could use another pair of eyes if anyone wants to have a go at it! PamD (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's now at PM. PamD (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd support this proposal - in most cases these combinations are going to have many more uses as abbreviations than as words, even if they theoretically can be words.--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per PamD. Each case should be assessed on it merits. E.g. Go should remain, TO should be moved to To, Cf should be moved to CF. MOS:CONSISTENCY states "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." Tassedethe (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (will start at WT:DAB once confirmed)

Where "XX" forms a word, disambiguation should be at Xx or Xx (disambiguation)

Example: AD (disambiguation) should move to Ad (disambiguation)

Based on comments above I started a list of two-letter words. There are also many proper nouns to add. According to User:PamD and User:Tassedethe, we actually need to move many more pages, so anything that forms a word is Uppercase-lowercase. Before I open up a discussion on WT:DAB, am I correctly representing your statements? Jokestress (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Living Room

Hi, I just started The Living Room (commune) and I think a page directing to the different uses of the phrase in needed. Haley 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there are a large number of pages to be disambiguated here. Since Living room has a pretty clear primary meaning, the title to do this at would be Living room (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412 T 04:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

But since all of the topic that could be ambiguously titled are titled works, it would be Living Room (disambiguation). Which I've fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm disagreeing with that result, but do we have a policy that says that? I had always assumed that we use lowercase if there are any non-title uses. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that's what WP:DABNAME says. "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself [possibly with (disambiguation)]". The ambiguous term itself is "Living Room" in this case; "living room" is unambiguous. When the disambiguation lists for two or more ambiguous terms are combined in one disambiguation page, I also tend to use the majority (common case or Title Case). We have an exception for acronyms that are also common words (favoring the common case, IIRC), but that's it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should tweak the wording to make it clear that this is the case, then. I have seen pages going both directions. bd2412 T 15:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Literati dab page eaten by article - revert or split?

Pretty much what it says on the label: the disambiguation page Literati has had a bunch of non-dab content added to it recently. My first thought was to revert and let the contributor know they should start a new article, but it occurred to me that that putative new article would then most appropriately be named Literati.

So, another option would be to leave the new content at Literati, move the disambiguating material into Literati (disambiguation) (which already exists as a redir) and let the new content live or die on its own (it does need work). Thoughts?--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CONCEPTDAB, it would seem that there is a primary meaning as a broad concept that sweeps in many of the meanings currently presented as ambiguous. I say, make it an article and move the other stuff to the "Foo (disambiguation)" title. Obviously it will need a lot of work from where it stands to becomes encyclopedic, but difficulty of making it right should never stand in the way of making it right. bd2412 T 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

new disambiguation page

I have created a new disambiguation page that this WikiProject might be interested in at Mother (disambiguation) (disambiguation). I hope I did it correctly. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I returned it to User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Mother (disambiguation) (disambiguation), although it can be safely deleted. Disambiguation pages disambiguate ambiguous Wikipedia articles. There are no lists of disambiguation pages, nor pages to disambiguate disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DDAB there are. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also it is better than having this cluttering at the top of the Mother article. Therefore it should be a seperate disambiguation page, where it is not distracting, because there it is expected. It makes no sense to have this at the top of Mother. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "(disambiguation) (disambiguation)" is better than the cluttered hatnote. If needed, the dabs for "Mom", "Moms", and "Mommy" could be combined to reduce the hatnote clutter. But if any other dab project member things "(disambiguation) (disambiguation)" is the way to go, I'll return it to the mainspace. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A page title with "(disambiguation) (disambiguation)" would be a totally artificial creation. Such a page is not warranted by WP:DDAB, which is about the occasional (exceptional) need to link from one disambiguation page to another. older ≠ wiser 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What about using something like "(disambiguation#2)" instead? On the other hand, this would require new rules and guidelines, and creating those for this single case of use would be nonsense. Maybe it really should be left the way it is, although it looks awful. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think all you really need is a "See also" section pointing to the other DAB pages. TJRC (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How far things have come

Hi everyone,

For probably the most of you who don't recognize me, I used to do a lot of disambiguation work a few years back. My time on Wikipedia has lessened greatly, but yesterday I stuck a cleanup tag on a disambiguation page that sorely needed to be organized. I came back today and was amazed to see that someone had already taken care of it... and proceeded to be further amazed that Category:Disambiguation_pages_in_need_of_cleanup has a mere one page listed, and that ten pages is considered a backlog. Back when I remember it, we probably had at least 200 pages in that category on any given day, if not more. For whoever is/has been involved, it's really impressive at how that has been taken care of and maintained. Way to be awesome. -- Natalya 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, whatever page are you referring to?

TJRC (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done - you beat me to it! -- Natalya 21:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Zosimos

Hey, folks. I noticed an issue with our dab page over at Zosimos. It is my understanding that the name "Zosimus" is also used as an alternate spelling and a separate name, but we have a separate article on Zosimus which defeats the purpose of the dab! Should Zosimus redirect to Zosimos and should we move Zosimus to Zosimus (historian)? I would appreciate if someone would look into this. I'm only raising this issue because I was doing some research on Zosimos of Panopolis and found that it was alternately spelled Zosimus. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

~~I've added the hatnote to Zosimus which should have been there all along. PamD (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)~~

Noted that Zozimus is included on the dab page - added a hatnote at his page and expanded the intro to the dab page, may as well include this alternate spelling. PamD (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts he's better as a "See also", as he was originally on the dab page till someone moved him into the main sequence. PamD (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the main point above, after a slight distraction... I think it's OK for there to be an article which is the Primary Use at Zosimus, while linking to the dab page for any alternative uses or this as an alternative spelling; the current setup implies that there is no similar Primary Use for "Zosimos", hence the dab page at the base name. I don't think it "defeats the purpose of the dab": everyone can get to the article they want. PamD (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, any ambiguous title might have a primary topic, and if one of the topics is primary, the ambiguous title should lead to it. We can do that by placing the primary topic at the base name, or by having the base name redirect to the primary topic (if it is better titled something else). Once all the primary topics are in place, we place hatnotes to get from them to the disambiguation pages for the ambiguous title(s) that lead to those primary topics. This is the purpose of the dab, which has been met, not defeated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another try

I created a new disambiguation page at Wieferich. This may be a better idea than my last one. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And one at 2305. Please tell me if these make sense. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The 2305 one had a lot of numbers that included the digits 2-3-0-5 in that order, but that aren't ambiguous with it. I've removed them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Is there a page where I can read exactly what is considered ambigous and what is not? To me it seems this has more to do with psychological analysis of a reader than with Wikipedia policy. Just want to learn how and when to create disambiguation pages and how to create them correctly. I think I should familiarize myself with WP:DAB, WP:DDD and MOS:DAB. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's commonly referred to as "title" by itself, then it's ambiguous with "title". No one refers to 2305843009213693951 or 23054 Thomaslynch as "2305", so they aren't ambiguous with "2305", for instance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Two letters again - should H. G. Wells be included in dab at Hg?

The question has arisen at PM, but the first example I could think of to check was H. G. Wells: should people who don't use their forenames be included in a dab page at the initials of their forenames? My inclination is "no", but I thought I'd check before deleting another editor's efforts. PamD (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of precedent. See, as examples: AJ BJ CJ DJ. This is yet another reason I think it's time to set some agreed-upon standards for Two-letter disambiguation pages. Shall we start at WT:DAB or here? Jokestress (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, disambiguation pages should not index people by given name, unless there are strong indications the person is commonly known by the given name only. I'd think the same applies to initials. older ≠ wiser 10:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. But there are so many disambiguation pages (or what are effective dismbiguation sections of larger articles) that do exactly that, e.g., Alex, Alma, Anya, Coco, Dwayne, Keith (given name), Lisa (this may be an aberration in a mostly-compliant page), Louise (given name) and Luke, for example.

I would include entries on these pages, only if there's some indication that the individual is known by that name alone; for example Louise Redknapp, who performs as "Louise" is appropriate to list on Louise, and Katrina Leskanich, the "Katrina" in "Katrina and the Waves" is appropriate to list on Katrina (given name) (or better, Katrina, which would be the case if the list at Katrina (given name) were manageably small, as it should be).

I am not certain that there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus on this, however. TJRC (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Since disambiguation pages includes lists of people by their given name (unless a separate anthroponymy article is available), I don't see the use of "given initials" as any different, if they are commonly known by those initials + surname. Now, if I had my druthers, the given name holders wouldn't be listed on dabs either, but consensus isn't with me. Like given-name-holders, though, given-initials-holders should be listed last, after all actually ambiguous entries (so even after an "other uses" section, for instance), but before "See also". I'd rather list him at "Hg" than at "H". -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I could have sworn WP:MOSDAB at one time had stronger language about only including people with given names when they are commonly known by only the name. When did that change? (Or am I misremembering?) older ≠ wiser 03:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, back in 2006 and earlier. As I was cleaning them out, several deletion discussions and an AN/I took place, and the consensus was with names (and the anthroponymy project was launched). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

template:Letter-NumberCombination

{{Letter-NumberCombination}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

in need of help and advice!

Under what conditions and the following statement be removed from centrifugal compressor? "Cleanup|date=June 2008" centrifugal compressor is currently in a semi-complete state. It has not been proofread and has not been verified to standard that I would like to apply. I would like to ask for everyone's help to please review the article and make comments on the discussion page. I really will attempt to incorporate all of your improvements in a rigorous and consistent fashion. it is important that you are happy the way your issues are addressed. It is currently missing a section on "design methodology" that I would like to research and discuss before I complete. There are significantly different points of view that I would like to try to unify. the section on design methodology is not original work and will be properly referenced. All turbomachinery is unified by fundamental physics in the applied mathematics use in their design and analysis. That is why the term turbomachinery can be used as an umbrella topic. Dozens of academic textbooks attest to the above statement. Other than one other turbomachinery entry I have not been happy with the technical and scientific accuracy of any other encyclopedic entries. Most of these entries have been negatively impact by end-user and application colloquialisms. I will slowly, starting with centrifugal pumps and centrifugal fans try to correct various errors in statements. Unless I am asked I will not make any significant changes to the outlines of these encyclopedic articles. thank you for everyone's help martin koronowski, Mkoronowski (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint

Please see Latter Day Saint (disambiguation). At least it needs to be cleaned; it also seems to be a list of churches, not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Smarties

Something that could use some good ideas/organization: Smarties is currently about the chocolate candy, Smarties (candy) is about the sugary candy (first problem - need better disambiguation terms there), and Smarties, instead of linking to a DAB page, just has a long DAB link for four related links, including to the other candy. I can see the reasonability that if one of the candies is deemed the primary topic, you could link to it separately in addition to linking to the DAB page, since they are both pretty common with different geographic bases, but a) a DAB page is needed, b) the alternative candy needs a better disambiguator, and c) I'm surprised there hasn't been an argument about the primary topic before (at least, not that I could find), so treading lightly might be useful. It looks like the disambiguation status has changed around a bit (see [[2]]. I don't have the brain power to dig into this currently, but wanted to make sure others knew about it. Thanks, -- Natalya 01:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that Nestle's Smarties are, arguably, the primary topic. If there's not a Smarties (disambiguation), you're right, we do need that. The Smarties (candy) page should probably be retitled, but that's an issue for that article's talk page. I'll jump in and create the dab page and re-hatnote the Nestle candy's article, but I won't go any further at this point. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The particulars should probably be discussed on one of the article talk pages. But FWIW, I've never heard of the chocolate candy. Smarties candy is the sugary confection as far as I'm concerned. older ≠ wiser 03:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd never heard of the non-chocolate sort. DuncanHill (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem has come up previously. See Talk:Smarties/Archive 1. The solution at one point was to have Smarties (Nestlé) and Smarties (Ce De Candy). That seems a much clearer solution than having two ambiguously titled articles. older ≠ wiser 03:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I know at least for my that my thoughts on the primary topic come in part from my geographic bias - as I understand it, Nestle Smarties are a present in various countries around the world (UK, Ireland, Germany, South Africa, and Canada are all mentioned in the article, and I'm sure they are other places as well), while Ce De Smarties (the non-chocolate ones) are mainly in the US and somewhat in Canada. I could see the logic behind having Smarties (Nestlé) and Smarties (Ce De Candy), but that may be my US-biased opinion topic; it may be reasonable for the Nestle version to be the primary topic. If the primary topic-status were to change, it seems like it would be a good idea to talk with the folks that work on each article. That discussion from the archives in 2005 was relatively easy, but as recent as Feb. 2011 someone tried to move Smarties to Smarties (chocolate) and it was moved back without much discussion. -- Natalya 04:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The dab page is malformed at present, for a dab page where an article exists at the primary topic (but no point fixing it while this discussion rolls). I'm with DuncanHill above, never heard of the Ce De variety, but it's clearly a UK/US split: in the UK Smarties are one of the most iconic brands of sweets. I don't think "(candy)" is a useful disambiguator: if I saw the title "Smarties (candy)" I would assume it was about the UK, chocolate, sweets, just disambiguated by an American who uses the word "candy"! So perhaps we'll have to go for (Nestlé) (with accent, but with redirect from non-accented version) and (Ce De Candy). PamD (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm an American whose family purchased fruit-flavored Smarties every Halloween (and at various other times) throughout my childhood, but it seems clear to me that the other kind is the primary meaning of the term.

In addition to the chocolate Smarties' geographic predominance, it should be noted that the American product is not a top-tier brand (in terms of popularity). It maintains a fair degree of recognition as an inexpensive candy bought in bulk for handouts, but it's far from the "iconic brand" that I know the chocolates to be. To my knowledge, it doesn't show up at checkout lines, in vending machines or in advertisements of any sort.

The American product's article recently was moved from Smarties (Ce De Candy), the title to which I just moved it back. For obvious reasons, Smarties (candy) is inappropriate. —David Levy 08:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree now that the chocolate variety is likely more well-known world-wide. But Ce De Candy is not a very well-known brand name. Perhaps Smarties (sugar candy) might be a clearer disambiguator? older ≠ wiser 12:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It certainly seems clearer that way. The only problem might be that technically, the chocolate candy also contains sugar... I totally know what you mean by describing the Ce De Candy as a sugar candy, as that's probably how I would describe it as well. We could disambiguate it geographically, but that doesn't seem like a particularly good idea and wouldn't be all that accurate. (non-chocolate candy) sounds sort of silly, but might at least be accurate... hmm... -- Natalya 19:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts regarding the "sugar candy" description's imperfect nature.

Smarties (U.S. candy) is accurate in the respect that the product is marketed under that name strictly in the United States, but it's inaccurate in the respect that it also is sold under the name "Rockets" in Canada. Similarly, Smarties (North American candy) is inaccurate because Nestlé Smarties are available in Canada.

Rockets (candy) (currently a redirect) is an option, but I'm under the impression that the product isn't nearly as well known under that name.

Revisiting the attempt to come up with a suitable physical description that sets it apart from the chocolate Smarties, I suggest Smarties (tablet candy). While not an everyday term, "tablet candy" is easy to understand and generates a fair number of Google hits. —David Levy 20:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Chocolate Smarties look like tablets. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night. Trevj (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Request for help

A series of moves has taken place surrounding the fact that the British series Prime Suspect is now going to have a US version. One of the result of this is that the talk page for the dismbiguation page Talk:Prime Suspect (disambiguation) is labeled as "Talk:Prime Suspect (UK TV series)". I am not sure how to fix this though it is probably something simple. I am also not sure that naming conventions have been followed as I thought we stopped using the "(disambiguation)" as part of the page title some time ago. Any help that you can provide will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, the talk page was simply redirecting to the old one. In terms of (disambiguation) in the title, I'm not sure what you are quite referring to. The proper practice is for disambiguation pages to contain "(disambiguation)" if there is already a primary topic at that title. For example if "Foo" is the primary topic, the disambiguation page for all other items would be at "Foo (diambiguation)". This page looks to be in the right place as Prime suspect is the primary. -France3470 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and the update. I am glad that I was confused over the naming situation. I think that I have seen a couple of pages that aren't using "(disambiguation)" in the title but I can't remember them at the moment. If I come across them again I may come back here to get some clarification. On another note I have noticed that some diambig pages have a message come up over the editing field that shows the guidelines for editing said pages. I am wondering what we add to those pages for this to show up. I think that it is a great help for editors both experienced and new to have those. Is this something that a bot could add? Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 16:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it is perfectly okay for disambiguation not to contain "(disambiguation)". This happens if the disambiguation page is the primary topic for instance at "High Gear" or "Moonchild" see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the disambiguation page for more information. In terms of the editing tips message, I'm afraid I know nothing about the logistics of it, although I agree it is useful. Perhaps someone here might be able to shed more light on this.France3470 (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Fish Dabs

I have just edited three dab pages, Dory (fish), Yellowtail (fish) and Roach (fish), all formerly on the Incomplete disambiguations list under "Fish". All three I changed to set indices, under the basis that all were fish species (related items) which shared the same common name just as the case with . In the case of Dory (fish) I moved all other terms to Dory (disambiguation). I am now wondering whether this change was the right decision. Perhaps this has been discussed before, if not, perhaps we should come to a consensus on how to deal with these situations. Should all of these types of articles (I noticed that there are a large number of dab pages in Category:Fish common names) stay as disambiguation pages or should they be converted to set index titles. Any comments would be welcome. France3470 (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is ambiguity and a disambiguation page exists, the ambiguous entries should be added there, even if they are also listed on a set index. The set index IMO should be titled something like "List of fishes call Dory" rather than "Dory (fish)". Only if all of the ambiguous entries are part of the same set should the set index take the place of the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Dory though, it seems very difficult to determine which items to include on the dab even if a set index exists. Perhaps one might include John Dory but beyond that it gets increasingly more difficult as there becomes issues with partial matches. I do not have an issue with it being changed to a list, although there is no guideline which shows a preference to "list of" over any other title.France3470 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:LISTNAME specifies "List of". -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, the cat also contains pages which are tagged as neither a dab page or set index, such as Horse Mackerel or Toadfish. France3470 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Starhawk dab page

Could use a few unrelated opinions on this. I moved Starhawk to Starhawk (author) and redirected Starhawk to Starhawk (disambiguation), because I felt that it was clear that most people searching for "Starhawk" were looking for the game, which had just been announced. This was over a week ago, so there is considerably more content on the internet now than there was at the time. Editors watching that page feel this is recentism, and that the author should always be the primary topic. Someone started a discussion to put the page back to where it was before I moved it, but then someone just moved it back. Then people were confused and kept commenting at the discussion, so it was moved back again. That being said, the conversation is a bit of a mess, but some fresh opinions would be appreciated. Please see the discussion at Talk:Starhawk (author)#Requested move. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How to do dab pages for groups

Given that a restriction on dab pages is that there be only one blue link per entry, what is the right way to do a dab page for something like Bruise Brothers? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Use the first link, if there is no better way to determine the "best" link. Since the linked article will describe the topic, it will presumably link to the others as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Will it necessarily? Taking the first example on the list, there is no mention of the Bruise Brothers in the Spurs' article. It seems reasonable, in cases like this—and especially the Ledin and Kaberg entry on that page—to have multiple blue links as an exception to the rule. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if there are two or three individuals collectively known by an ambiguous name, we should link to each of those individuals. On the other hand, perhaps we could have a short article on Bruise Brothers (San Antonio Spurs) describing the basis for the assignment of that nickname to the group as a whole. bd2412 T 03:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it will necessarily, since any article that doesn't describe the topic shouldn't be linked in the first place. If they do, the dab should be cleaned so that only appropriate links are used, and then the first one of the appropriate links can be used. I don't see anything to be gained by linking to multiple articles that mention a single topic; it might appear to be "fairer" to the articles or their editors, but it won't matter to the reader. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in linking to the three or four members of a discrete group. bd2412 T 12:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It could encourage/be used as justification by others to add links to dab descriptions. More to the point, I don't see any benefit in ignoring the guidelines for this case. One appropriate link will assist the reader in navigating to an article covering the sought topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone linking to Bruise Brothers might be doing so in the context of a particular one of them. Consider that each individual in the group so designated is a "Bruise Brother", the disambig page might be written to say that Bruise Brother may refer to, inter alia:

Dave Corzine, one a group of six big men who played for the San Antonio Spurs in the early 1980s
Reggie Johnson (basketball), one a group of six big men who played for the San Antonio Spurs in the early 1980s
Paul Griffin, one a group of six big men who played for the San Antonio Spurs in the early 1980s
Mark Olberding, one a group of six big men who played for the San Antonio Spurs in the early 1980s
Kevin Restani, one a group of six big men who played for the San Antonio Spurs in the early 1980s
George T. Johnson (basketball), one a group of six big men who played for the San Antonio Spurs in the early 1980s

On the other hand, we could avoid the duplication and just have one line including all six names. bd2412 T 16:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't use multiple entries for one topic. We can avoid the duplication simply:

Bruise Brothers, a group of men of the early 1980s San Antonio Spurs: Paul Griffin, Dave Corzine, Reggie Johnson, Mark Olberding, Kevin Restani, and George T. Johnson

The reader's navigational need has been met. You might as well ask the parallel question "Why can't we make Bruise Brothers (Spurs) redirect to six articles?" -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If this particular usage is notable enough to include in an encyclopedia at all, we should just have an article at Bruise Brothers (San Antonio Spurs) along the lines of Steel Curtain. bd2412 T 17:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That works, and would solve the problem too. The other approach was for while that article doesn't exist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well now it does. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles

A discussion has been initiated regarding the treatment of disambiguation pages on the "Lists of mathematics articles" pages. Please indicate your preference in the straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder, this poll is scheduled to close at 02 June at 06:30 (UTC), which is about ten hours from this post; if you would like to weigh in, now is the time to do so. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This straw poll was closed with a consensus to move the lists of mathematics articles to project space. bd2412 T 20:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

dab page for neologism of multiple sports teams

There is an Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan (3rd nomination) that deals with a neologism for a group of college sports teams. If the consensus is that a standalone article for the term is not notable per WP:NEO, the question has been raised if it would be appropriate to have a disambiguation page that instead directs readers to the individual teams' articles instead. Is this an appropriate use of a disambiguation page?

A similar example would be the Fab Five article, which lists numerous "Fab Fives" and the five members of each group. It is tagged as an set index article. However, the guideline says such index article should be for "set of items of a specific type" and gives examples as "Dodge Charger describes a set of cars, List of peaks named Signal Mountain describes a set of mountain peaks, and USS Enterprise describes a set of ships." Is it appropriate to take a neologism for a group of people, organizations, items, etc. that are not of a "specific type" per se, create a page that provides links to the multiple articles described by the neologism? —Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO, yes (to the first question), if there's ambiguity, and for any reason we can't address it with an article (set index or stub or other), we need a disambiguation page. It's okay if all of the items are of the same set; we just follow the dab guidelines rather than the set index or other article guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

For the second, if there are problems with keeping it as a set index and it needs to be a dab instead, it should become a dab and be formatted as one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There would seem to be an inconsistency in WP if on the one hand WP:NEO suggests an article on the usage of the term is not notable, but on the other hand a set index or dab is allowed which legitimaizes the term WP:NEO was trying to disallow. Note that WP:NEO recommends adding to Wiktionary instead. —Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A set index would be an article, and subject to WP:NEO. Mentions on other articles would, I suppose, also be subject to WP:NEO. If the mentions on articles pass "neo-muster", and result in any ambiguity, a disambiguation page would become necessary unless search results or hatnotes can efficiently direct readers to where they want to go. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a dab page is appropriate for listing the members of a group or collection. The name of the group refers to the group, not to the individual members. We wouldn't have a disambiguation page saying "European Union refers to France, Germany, Italy ..." or "United States of America refers to Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, ...". A disambiguation page identifies different topics that can be referred to by the same name. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, right. I agree with this. The disambig page would disambiguate ambiguous mentions, but wouldn't be for listing members (which is why Fab Five would need some real cleaning if it were to stop pretending to be a set index. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone ahead and tagged Fab Five as {{disambig-cleanup}} instead of {{SIA}} —Bagumba (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a page requiring two solutions. There probably should be a disambiguation page at "Fab Five" and a separate index page at List of groups of athletes nicknamed Fab Five. The former would only contain ambiguous links, the latter would have links to all the names. bd2412 T 19:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Per reasoning of R'n'B and JHunterJ above, disambiguation pages or indexes shouldnt be listing members of groups, so List of groups of athletes nicknamed Fab Five would not be justified. There could be a Fab Five (sports) dab, but only if each entry was a single standalone article and not links to the respective five members. —Bagumba (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A seperate index page at List of groups of athletes nicknamed Fab Five. Not a disambig. bd2412 T 20:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Set indexes can list whatever they like (and are subject to WP:NEO), because they're articles, not disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages could list members in an entry, with one blue link per entry. There could be a "Sports" section on a dab, but not a Fab Five (sports) dab, because the latter would be an incomplete disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

But if WP:NEO wasnt an issue, then each "Fab Five" would have its own article and just be listed under the main dab. And if WP:NEO was an issue and prevented stand-alone articles for the variuos "Fab Fives", then List of groups of athletes nicknamed Fab Five, being an article, would also be shot down due to WP:NEO. —Bagumba (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

All of which lines up with my first response. Articles (including lists, including set indexes) may run afoul of WP:NEO. Of those that don't, if ambiguity remains, the reader will require navigation assistance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

Do we have a statistic about the number of disambiguations left to do? Something like the list on the Dutch Wikipedia? They went down from 130,735 links to 13,807 links with a growing number of dp's. I will like so see some progress in numbers here too. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do: See The Daily Disambig. --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Are "List of X" pages really disambiguation pages?

Isn't a list a stand alone article and should be categorized as such? See all of the lists categorized as disambig pages (about 125 or so). I would think such a page should be either re-titled without the "list of" moniker, or be re-categorized as something other than a disambig page. What is the proper way to address this? --64.85.214.168 (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say in most cases yes. There's a chance that some might need to be renamed or merged. And there are some that might genuinely disambiguate other list articles with ambiguous titles, such as List of aliens -- though with only two entries, that could be a redirect with a hatnote on the one considered as primary topic. older ≠ wiser 03:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles led me to believe otherwise. --64.85.214.168 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What specifically did that page lead you to believe? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As for addressing them, most of them can probably be moved (if they're really dab pages) or have the disambig template removed (if they're really lists). Some might need an admin to move, or a move discussion if contentious. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

edit check

I made this edit (ignore my edit summary!). I also made some additions to Mixed Blessings (disambiguation) & some changes Mixed Blessings. Are all three correct? I'm new to editing disambiguation pages. --Siddhant (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor tweak applied all around. The new hatnote on the ep list was going to the primary topic, not to the disambiguation page it mentioned. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks User:JHunterJ and User:Bkonrad. Actually referring Golden Moments to Passion's Promise was correct as per this official bibliography at Steel's website which says "PASSION'S PROMISE (also known as GOLDEN MOMENTS)". Also I don't understand the hatnote editing. Was JhunterJ wrong in the preceding edit? --Siddhant (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. They do appear as if they might be alternate titles for the same work -- but neither the Passion's Promise article nor the Danielle Steel article make mention of this and so appeared to be incorrect at first glance. As for the hatnote, it is mostly a matter of preference -- I found it a little confusing to parse the line that combined two redirects, and the point of such disambiguating hatnotes is to help readers get to the desired target without having to pause and reparse. What would be very cool (I think) for pages with such multiple diverse hatnotes would be a show/hide option such that the visible text would initially display something like "Multiple terms redirect here. Show additional options." older ≠ wiser 18:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Niederhof

I declined to speedy delete this as it clearly needs expansion. See http://wiki-de.genealogy.net/Niederhof . The trouble would be in sourcing reliably. Or, if the page is no longer wanted, let me know and I'll delete it. Dloh cierekim 14:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages don't need sourcing -- they just disambiguate ambiguity that exists in Wikipedia. I did expand this page to include the existing topics for the ambiguous title, and removed the one that has no ambiguity on English Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Heads up on Athletics dab page

Someone moved Athletics to Athletics (disambiguation) and redirected Athletics to Athletics (overview) without any consensus. Doesn't seem okay to me. Anyone else? --Tesscass (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this involved a cut-and-paste move, I have reverted it and left a note on the editor's Talk page about initiating a proper move discussion.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm guilty; but I'm trying to do the right thing. Athletics is used as a disambiguation page, and since there is one clear topic into which all the other pages fit, I believe Athletics should be renamed Athletics (disambiguation). I believe the "Athletics" page should redirect to Athletics (overview) since it is the clear topic. What has happened here is a contingent of British editors have mucked up these pages because they insist "Athletics" means the more narrow definition of track & field and footracing. Thus, the Athlete page forwards to Sportsperson, and all of these terms confuse many people, as evidenced by the extensive talk pages and crazy history of renaming and forwarding pages. Clearly, these are still ambiguous. Although I'm in the U.S., the Talk:Sportsperson page has a comment by a Brit who insists British understand "Athletics" to be the broad term and "Athlete" to be the sports competitor, not just someone who competes in track & field and footracing. I tried to make the change "being bold" and to the best of my ability, but I failed. Consensus does not seem like it is possible in this case; however, I make the point that major translations from Asia, and many places in Europe use "Athletics" and "Athlete" in general terms, and those are the terms most everyone understands.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I very much believe that the term is ambiguous and that a primary disambiguation is necessary. The usage of "athletics" in Europe is almost exclusively used to describe the sport of athletics (a sport governed by the IAAF containing track and field/road running/cross country etc). This is the primary idea connoted by "athletics" in Europe, not just in English, but in numerous other European languages. The sport of athletics is in itself an athletic sport (an idea which Americans refer to as "athletics"), but I don't think it is correct in thinking that this fact means the latter topic should be placed at the un-disambiguated Athletics site. Furthermore, anyone involved in fixing ambiguous links to this topic will know that the great majority of them mean to point to athletics (sport). SFB 13:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Earthlyreason posted this on the discussion page of Sportsperson:

As 'athlete' has a single major meaning, which this page aspires to describe, that should be the page name, with a separate disambiguation page for the other minor related terms, such as the band. 'Athlete' is much more common than the ugly and rare 'sportsperson' including in the UK (I speak as a Brit who defends British English against marginalisation.) As a start to improving this page, I've removed the inaccurate reference to AmE, and - in a first for this page - included a reference to back it up. Here it is in full (note that order of meanings implies importance):

Collins English Dictionary (Millennium Ed) - a British publication

athlete (1) a person trained to compete in sports or exercises involving physical strength, speed or endurance. (2) a person who has a natural aptitude for physical activities. (3) Chiefly Brit. a competitor in track and field events.

In following Boolean function: If "Athlete" is a general term used in Great Britain for a sports competitor and not solely the "track & field" competitor; and the Gaelic Athletic Association regards football and coaching; then doesn't it make sense that Athletics should regard the general topic and not merely just the narrowed topic ?TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact that while the British and American thoughts on the terms "Athletic" and "Athlete" are pretty much identical, that is not true for "Athletics". As peculiar as it may sound, the term "Athletic" is used liberally (from football clubs to sports centres) in Britain to refer to physical activities (as it is in the US), yet "Athletics" is rarely (if ever) used in reference to this concept. From what I understand, the same applies for other parts of the Commonwealth (Australia, South Africa, the Caribbean etc). To these people "Athletic" and "Athletics" have quite distinct meanings.

I'd support a move from sportsperson to athlete though. SFB 16:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And this discussion should be held (exclusively) at Talk:Athletics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but "Athletics" is ambiguous; it seems to me that Athletics does not follow the disambiguation guidelines; and I am still mostly having a conversation with myself on talk:athletics. Would anyone consider reading that Talk, and helping to nudge this along? TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If no one objects there to your proposed content edits, you can make them. Is it content edits, or page moves/merges? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to rename the Athletics dab to Athletics (disambiguation) (per the WP guidelines), and change Athletics (overview) to Athletics because it describes the general topic. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To change the current state (no primary topic) to a new state (Athletics (overview) as the primary topic), use WP:RM to move the dab page to the "(disambiguation)" name and the "(overview)" article to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't! Athletics is ambiguous. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please hold the move discussions at Talk:Athletics and Talk:Athletics (overview). There's nothing to be gained by trying to hash it out here. The current state meets the guidelines with no primary topic, and other arrangements would meet the guidelines with a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)