Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Mighty Bomber (disambiguation)

What should we do about Mighty Bomber (disambiguation)? Technically it looks like a G14, as it disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page. However, it also includes a hint of an article about a Kenny Cooper who doesn't seem to have a DABMENTION at present. Certes (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

St Giles' Fair (disambiguation) is a similar case. Certes (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

...as is Franco Prosperi (disambiguation), our only significant coverage of Franco E. Prosperi. Certes (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Other sort-of-dabs I'm struggling with for different reasons and would appreciate help with include Western Pomerania (disambiguation) and Stone ball (disambiguation) (discussion). Certes (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• On Mighty Bomber (disambiguation) (which isn't currently linked from Mighty Bomber, making it useless!), I have added a sourced sentence to Mighty Bomber which might do the trick. There's a good reliable source, but a single one, though there are a couple of other sources mentioning that he existed as a Calypso singer, probably not enough to construct a whole article - see here and the footnote here. Does it work? PamD 14:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, Pam. That should be sufficient replacement for the dab. I'm never sure about adding such notes, as the article's topic is Clifton Ryan, but it is titled "Mighty Bomber" and anyone looking for Cooper by that title is most likely to end up there. Certes (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• On Franco Prosperi ... Italian Wiki has them at Franco (born 1928, worked with Jacopetti) and Francesco (aka Franco) (1926-2004). (We have an article on Franco Prosperi, redirecting from Francesco Prosperi, with dates (1926-2004).) It ought to be possible to disentangle the pair of them and create a stub for the missing one. PamD 14:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wild Turkey#Requested move 28 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wild Turkey#Requested move 28 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:On Down the Line (album)#Requested move 29 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:On Down the Line (album)#Requested move 29 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:MDY#Requested move 27 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MDY#Requested move 27 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Crater lake merge suggestion

I have just put in a merge proposal for Crater lake and Crater Lake (disambiguation). I don't know what the rules say about capitalisation, but I think that most people search in lower case and it's pot luck which page they hit with this one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aaron Campbell (disambiguation)#Requested move 25 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aaron Campbell (disambiguation)#Requested move 25 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Theodor Schmidt

There is only one but there is a disambiguation about it : Theodor Schmidt. ReyHahn (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Estopedist1 created the unnecessary disambiguation page 2 minutes before they created Theodor Schmidt (Estonian politician), in March 2021. I wonder why? Did they intend to create an article for the German politician (born 1896) or the Dutch artist (born 1855), both of whom are in WikiData ? But unless there is any reason not to, this page for the Estonian politician should be moved to the base name, with perhaps a hatnote pointing to the fictional character with the not-quite-identical name. PamD 14:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  @PamD@ReyHahn act as you like. My disambiguating was done due to de:Theodor Schmidt, but enwiki has only one Theodor Schmidt Estopedist1 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Until other articles appear, I recommend a merge for the moment.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I've added some more people, so it is no longer a single entry dab. MB 16:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  @MB: That's an impressive dab page now! Well done. PamD 20:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Estopedist1 As I understand it we do not make disambiguation pages on the basis of what exists in other Wikipedias, or in Wikidata, but only on the basis of information available to the reader in English Wikipedia. It is now a valid dab page after MB's work, but when you created it you should instead have created the article on the Estonian politician at the base name: there was no need for disambiguation, and a hatnote pointing to the fictional Theodore would have been enough. PamD 08:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Central subway

There are 4 incoming links to Central subway that should be redirected to Central Subway (San Francisco). The links are in the infobox, though 'Central subway' isn't actually listed in the infobox text. I thought a change in the Wikidata entries might fix the problem, but only one of the Wikidata entries mentions 'Central subway'. Can anyone tell me how to fix this? Leschnei (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed in Module:Adjacent stations/MUNI. Certes (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't find the module! Thank you, Leschnei (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:Disambiguation pages with links/Guide#Station link is almost relevant, though it only mentions fixing station names rather than line names. Certes (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read that page in a while. Thanks for reminding me. Leschnei (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area § RfC: make this page a guideline

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area § RfC: make this page a guideline. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

AFL has an RFC

AFL has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. echidnaLives - talk - edits 11:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Title (Disambiguation) redirects to dabs

We have 295 redirects of the form Title (Disambiguation) – note the capital D – with no incoming links. A recent RfD decided to delete similar cases. Should we get rid of them, and if so how? Do we think they qualify for a speedy G6, should we PROD them (unusual for redirects) or does it need another RfD? I'll be back later with some less clear-cut cases. Certes (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I would speedy them in conformance with the RfD already held on the topic. Give me a wikified list and I will. BD2412 T 17:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, BD2412. I've listed the titles in this sandbox. If you'd like to do a final sanity check on a sample then I think they can go. I've removed three entries which have significant history, and O (Disambiguation) which redirects to the valid article Ø (Disambiguation). Fifteen redirect to articles rather than dabs, but that's not a problem: we have an even stronger RfD decision on the same day to get rid of those too. Certes (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: Done. BD2412 T 20:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @BD2412:, that was quick! Sorry to mess you around but I'm wondering if I've been slightly high with my "significant history" threshold. Please could you have a look at a few entries in the short list here and see if any of those merit restoration with an {{R with history}} tag? Certes (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I've produced another list with various modifications of (disambiguation), mainly the lack of a preceding space and various misspellings. Should these disappear too? Certes (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I've extended that last list here. Some talk pages exist but there seems to be nothing in their histories worth keeping. I've excluded Don de Die u(disambiguation) (note lack of spacing) which has a current PROD. I think that's the last set of offenders I can find. Certes (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. I did find one in the list for which the correct spelling was missing as a redirect, and repurposed that one. I also noted that a number of the redirect targets were not disambiguation pages at all, nor even indexes or lists. BD2412 T 13:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. Yes, 6 out of 53 redirected to non-dabs, but there was an even stronger case for deleting those, in the same way that we'd think twice about deleting "Donald Trump (prezedent)" but definitely get rid of "Donald Trump (physysist)". Certes (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This list has the remaining variants on "Title (disambiguation)" that I can find. Most of them have history, incoming links or a second qualifier. Some are current or old experiments where we count click-throughs from dabs to article by providing a special redirect. Most probably don't need attention, but if anyone feels they do... Certes (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Paris meetings, agreements and declarations: a strange dab

This dab Paris meetings, agreements and declarations sounds strange to me. I opened Talk:Paris meetings, agreements and declarations. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Brian Coxes (plural)

This article is surely worth a mention; but should it be on either or both of the relevant Brian Cox pages, or on the Brian Cox (disambiguation) page? Or is there an article somewhere about the perils of disambiguation? The hotel apparently reported that it couldn't handle 2 Brian Coxes. Philh-591 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's worth adding. It's more about the (non-notable) hotel than (either) Brian Cox; it presumably has the same problem every time two John Smiths check in. Certes (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Predicate

Could I have some attention to Predicate please, where my major revision in response to a clean-up tag was wholesale reverted by another user. My edit may not have been perfect but it left the page better than it is now, in my opinion. Thank you all, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Magic word (disambiguation)

Could I have some attention to Magic word (disambiguation) please, where my major revision in response to a clean-up tag was wholesale reverted by another user. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Israr Ahmed (disambiguation)

A user is reverting to their preferred version the disambiguation page claiming their changes are compliant with manual of style but looks to be the exact opposite of what MOS:DAB advises. Other opinions would be welcome at the discussion here: Talk:Israr Ahmed (disambiguation)#Adherence to manual of style -- Whpq (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hometowns#Requested move 9 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hometowns#Requested move 9 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with only one item

Stumbled across one of these today, got curious, and discovered there seem to be a few hundred disambiguation pages with only one listed page on them - for an example, see Democracy watch or Aadt. I think usually what's happened here is that other linked items have since been deleted and any residual redlinks then tidied away. A list is at this petscan report.

I'm not sure of the best way to fix these - in principle I guess most of them could simply be retargeted as redirects to the desired page? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a very useful report, and counting links is a clever solution. WP:G14 applies (though there's no way anyone would guess to type that). If a disambiguation page links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), it should be changed to a redirect, unless it is more appropriate to move the linked page to the title currently used for the disambiguation page. However, it may be worth looking for other meanings first. For example, Lýðræðisvaktin, which we translate as Iceland Democratic Party, literally means "Democracy Watch". Certes (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, They're all slightly different. Some are misplaced (Democracy watch should be at (and now is at) Democracy Watch). Some need expanding; some need deleting (WP:G14 or WP:PROD). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Others could be redirected to Wiktionary - like Strongside/Wiktionary:Strongside. Leschnei (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Itaipu#Requested move 16 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Itaipu#Requested move 16 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

General Motors platforms

We have some interesting dab-BCA hybrids at General Motors A platform, General Motors C platform, General Motors G platform, General Motors H platform and General Motors T platform. Does anyone here know the topic well enough to sort them out? Certes (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Poles apart

Talk:Poles#Requested move 2 February 2023 is about to close, so we may soon have 8,284 (including 1,623 direct) incoming links to the new redirect-to-dab Poles. I don't see that as a valid reason to oppose the move, but we may need to prepare to deal with its fallout. Certes (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• So far, I have been surprised to discover several links to a town in the Scottish Highlands named Poles, which was not on the disambiguation page. Other than that, I expect to have the links fixed within a few hours. A substantial majority have fall into easy buckets like "[[Poles|Polish]]", "[[Poles|ethnic Poles]]", or (rather disturbingly) "massacre of [[Poles]]". BD2412 T 20:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking on this daunting task. Certes (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, it was fun. BD2412 T 23:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Circumcision has an RFC

Circumcision has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Leonardo

Some questions about Leonardo and Leonardo (disambiguation) in Talk:Leonardo (disambiguation) MrKeefeJohn (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ministry of Religious Affairs#Requested move 16 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ministry of Religious Affairs#Requested move 16 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

How do you solve a problem like Murilo?

Murilo clearly isn't a primary topic (views) and should move to somewhere like Murilo, Chuuk. What do we put at the base name? We have Murilo (given name), but the name itself (as distinct from the people listed) isn't a primary topic either (name views). Creating a two-entry dab for the name and the municipality feels silly. Reformatting the name list as a dab to add the municipality would lose (a little) information about the name. Do we make the name the primary topic anyway, with a hatnote to the municipality, or let sleeping dogs lie, or is there a better suggestion? I'm working through a list of possible missing dabs and am likely to find other similar cases. Certes (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'd just reformat the name "article" into a dab and move it to the base title. The single sentence of info about the origin of the name comes with no sources, and so should just be dropped. If someone in the future decides to add sourced content, it will be perfectly acceptable on the dab page itself (there's nothing wrong for a dab section listing people to have a line of text about the name). – Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

there are 4 footballers called Murilo (footballer), I would create a dab MrKeefeJohn (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I added four mononyms, and the page lists three others with the given name. I plan to leave them on the general name list or dab, bypassing any double redirect I might create at Murilo (footballer). Do we think they need a separate dab instead? Certes (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer a separate dab for all these Murilos ;-) MrKeefeJohn (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:PLACEDAB was updated in 2021; Murilo, Federated States of Micronesia is the preferred disambiguation. See discussion here. 162 etc. (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I've moved it again. I just looked at Category:Municipalities of Chuuk State, saw they were mostly Foo, Chuuk and assumed others had got it right. Certes (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've discovered that moving all the incorrect Cityname, Statename articles to Cityname, Country is a *lot* of gnoming. 162 etc. (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Multiple DABs re departments of environment, conservation, etc.

I've just noticed a few of these - see Department of Conservation (disambiguation) and all of the See alsos there, Department of Environment and Local Government (disambiguation), Environment and Forests Department (disambiguation), and multiple variants of Department of the Environment - the latter a list rather than a DAB, but no redirect from Department of the Environment (disambiguation). I don't know how best to resolve this but at the moment it seems as if there are not enough cross-referrals. Perhaps adding the list page to all possible related DAB pages is a start? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nine Regional#Requested move 2 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nine Regional#Requested move 2 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. From Bassie f (his talk page) 08:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Dera /DERA

These two pages (Dera and DERA) seem a little weird to me. Significant overlap, primary topic of the DAB is the sentence-case form... I don't know which rules apply here and I don't know how best to resolve it, but putting it here for the experts to have a look at and opine. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dera. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Useful template: {{srt}} or {{Self-reference tool}}

Today I spotted an edit to Intelligence (disambiguation) which is on my watchlist, and learned about a splendid useful little template: {{srt}} will add the "Lookfrom" and "Intitle" links to the "See also" section of a dab page, in just a few keystrokes. Brilliant little shortcut. Perhaps most of you know about it already but I doubt that I'm the only dab page creator/editor who hasn't seen it. Thank you Shhhnotsoloud for introducing me to it. PamD 18:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nitrate reductase

If there is a biochemist in the room, please can you look at my query at WT:MCB#Nitrate reductase? Thanks, Certes (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll settle for anyone who can spell "biology" or knows what a molecule is. Certes (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of most notable person individually on disambig page rather than only a link to everyone with that surname

Please see discussion at Talk:Waterhouse#Most notable person with name not linked? regarding this reversion by Gerda_Arendt and her statement that people go in the surname list and John William Waterhouse should not be mentioned as one of the most common if not the most common meanings of Waterhouse should a user search for that. I gave the Washington disambiguation page as counter-evidence, where not only is George Washington linked at the very top, but there are several individuals mentioned explicitly along with the link to Washington (name) in the "People" section.

I think we should limit discussion either to that talk page or to this section (if which happens I will insert a reference on that talk page that discussion has been moved here). —DIYeditor (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion has ensued on that talk page, let's keep it there unless there is some wider principle that bears discussion here. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion has ensued there before I even got the ping to here (which I don't watch). I believe it's a general question to be discussed here: in which cases do we need a separate surname list, and if we have one, should any people be repeated on the general list. Feel free to copy my comment if you think it helps. My belief is that no people should get extra treatment (like the famous painter), and if any person should be repeated, it could rather be the famous bassoonist who played in the premiere of Britten's War Requiem, as the other will be found anyway. In the Waterhouse case, I think we don't even need a surname list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Washington sets the tone and handles it right.

1. Overwhelmingly most common meaning of term goes right at top of disambig page (usually refers to George Washington) (gets extra treatment)
2. Other commonly searched people with that name listed individually in People section (get somewhat extra treatment)
3. Link to Washington (name) with exhaustive list of all articles on people with that name, which would be too long to list (direct user here for a exhaustive list of people with that name)

I don't think a user searching for "Waterhouse" which a google search will reveal refers almost entirely to John William Waterhouse the painter should have to dig through a list of names to find what the term most often refers to, whether that list is on another page, or right on the disambiguation page. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

A relevant guideline is WP:NAMELIST: To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it. We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is listed only at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article.—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a question of editorial consensus what is "reasonably well known by it". We've had a fair few RMs about anthroponymy lists and primary topics related to mononymous use of given names and surnames. There seems to be a fair bit of disagreement and confusion among editors about what constitutes good navigation WRT human name lists. Maybe we should try some technical helper methods instead. Maybe a template to show like an [expand] button next to those, or a [name search] box that let's readers easily go from e.g. "Julia" to "Julia Roberts" or in this case from "Waterhouse" to "John William Waterhouse". Some editors seem to balk at the very notion of showing a list, they want all ambiguity somehow short-circuited, and it's possible that such behavior extends to readers as well. --Joy (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a related issue as to whether it's sensible for a surname list to include links to disambiguation pages. As I see it, someone going to a surname page to look for a "Stephenson", knowing they were a major railway engineer, should be able to scan down (or even search) a list of people with descriptors, but shouldn't have to branch out into umpteen disambiguation pages to check first the Benjamins, then the Georges before they find their engineer. On the other hand,maintaining two parallel lists of names is a recipe for problems. There was a suggestion at one point for a clever bit of template which could include the contents of Benjamin Stephenson (disambiguation) etc into the display the reader sees at Stephenson, which would have been brilliant and would help the reader, which is what this should all be about. PamD 12:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

{{transclude list}} works quite well in that situation. However, that one still does it expanded, there's no visual retraction mechanism so you can't e.g. transclude the entire name list back into the disambiguation page with a nice expand mechanism. --Joy (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The template is used on 28 pages but never hit the big time. We could easily add an optional |collapsible= parameter, but beware of violating MOS:DONTHIDE. Certes (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, there would be a conflict between the guideline and the manual of style. At the same time, it could be said that the guideline recommending these moves of generally valid content out of sight is kind of already causing a conflict. It's very hard to say which of these methods of dealing with ambiguity is the best because we're woefully underequipped - for example WikiNav has barely entered the general conciousness of the editors yet it has already been unmaintained for over a year. --Joy (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I maintain a list of about 100 surname articles where the primary topic is clearly one prominent individual rather than the surname itself. (For example, 99% of references to Pevsner intend Nikolaus Pevsner.) I'd support putting the obvious meaning at the top of those lists. That list only covers articles; there will be many dabs in a similar situation. Certes (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bhandara (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bhandara (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Dullness

Currently, Dullness redirects to Shifting dullness, a rather obscure medical term, to which I have just added a hatnote to Blade#Dulling, which describes dullness of blades. I tend to doubt that there is a primary topic of the term, given the other common noun meaning of idiocy (or just being unexciting). My gut feeling is that something needs to change here, but I'm on the fence about the best direction. BD2412 T 02:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It was originally created as a redirect to Dulness, probably as a plausible spelling error. Seems like a dictionary term. It doesn't have any incoming wikilinks and averages fewer than 1 hit per day, so I would probably just delete it. Station1 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"Dullness" has many meanings. Some, such as stupidity, are encyclopaedic topics, but most aren't. A {{Wiktionary redirect}} is a possibility, or we could delete and let search do its job. Certes (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Certes: The search function returns this sort of garbage, which is unquestionably going to take the reader farther away from whatever they might be searching for when looking up "Dullness". It is meaningless to let search do its job when search doesn't do its job. BD2412 T 12:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The search algorithm knows better than us and just searches for "Dull", prioritising results such as McDull the cartoon pig. Putting "Dullness" in quotes helps a little, revealing relevant articles such as Brightness, Tamas (philosophy), Thīna and dab Dull. The latter mentions [shifting] dullness, and is a plausible target for the redirect if we keep it. Certes (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Even with the quotes, the search results don't seem very helpful. Brightness, for example, only shows up because of a single dangling unsourced mention of the term, which can easily be removed from the article, and when that happens the page will disappear from the search results. Also, in the context of visual perception, "dullness" can mean not just absence of brightness, but low saturation as well, and the relevant article here isn't accessible from the search. – Uanfala (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree the search results aren't great, and it seems like there's more than enough to fill a dab page separate from Dull, so I've turned it into one. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 20:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Converting surname to DAB

Montefiore is a set index page for the surname, but is in effect a DAB, so needs splitting. I can do this, but just thought I'd better seek an opinion on whether the current page should remain with this name, or have the suffix (surname) or (name) after it. I'm thinking probably not, being the primary topic? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I do agree. Move the people to Montefiore (surname) and link this new page from Montefiore. That's enough to solve it. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Done - although it turned out to be a marathon rather than a sprint because of all of the incoming links (some incorrect), which needed fixing. Here's hoping I got all of the various pages correct. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Fate of Stromboli link

There is a split proposal ongoing at Talk:Stromboli#Split proposal to split Mount Stromboli off from the article about the island which is currently at Stromboli. The split proposal doesn't clearly say what will remain at that location, whether it will be Stromboli (disambiguation), Stromboli (island), or possibly Stromboli (food). Input would be appreciated in that split proposal and especially the subsection Talk:Stromboli#Discussion on fate of Stromboli link. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Loop line

Please can anyone find a good link target for the new entry in Loop line? I don't see anything relevant in Pipeline transport or elsewhere. Certes (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Colonial Pipeline gives a brief definition of loopline at Colonial Pipeline#1971. Leschnei (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That text seems to be in the wrong article, but it's the correct answer to my question. Thanks. Another editor has removed the unlinked entry but I'll bear that in mind if it returns again. Certes (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Lott

The recent closure closure and deletion of this heavily contested AfD appears to effect an end-run around the broader community decision-making processes. The existence of disambiguation pages premised on WP:DABMENTION links has been discussed extensively here, and there has never been a consensus to remove these. I am inclined to seek a deletion review in this instance. BD2412 T 19:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have restored Charles Lott, having created entries for several of the topics, but the following lines have been removed by editors asserting that they fail WP:DABMENTION:

• Charles Lott, Sr., fictional character in Between (TV series)
• Charles "Chuck" Lott, Jr, fictional character in Between (TV series)
• Charles Lott (actor) (fl. 2020s), in The Way Back and V/H/S/99
• Charles Lott, manager of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods
• Charles Lott (basketball) in James Madison Dukes men's basketball statistical leaders
• Charles Lott (military officer), see New Zealand Supply Contingent Somalia

Which of these are in fact appropriate to include? BD2412 T 21:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi all. Here is the history for context. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Lott, the article was deleted by Arbitrarily0 following the AFD, and then restored after this conversation with BD2412 at User talk:Arbitrarily0#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Lott. Per the AFD closure, several items were removed by me and then reverted by Bd2412 (see here). These were then removed a second time the administrator Arbitrarily0 (see here). After this, Bd2412 made some very minor changes to the articles and restored these entries to the dab page. In my opinion, the inclusion of the military officer, basketball player, manager, and actor are not appropriate even after the recent tweaks to the target article per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:DABMENTION. The military officer is quoted, but there isn't actually any information about him as a person. Likewise, the others are passing mentions without any substance on them as people. I think the fictional Charles "Chuck" Lott, Jr would be ok given the recent changes to that article, but Charles "Chuck" Lott, Sr dies in the first episode and disappears after the second and is a very minor character in that TV series in terms of screen time. It seems like WP:FANCRUFT to include a minor character on a dab page.4meter4 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Update, I just removed both the military officer and Charles Lott, Sr. from the page; per the reasoning given above.4meter4 (talk)

Off-topic

You appear to be misreading the history of the article. Arbitrarily0 never removed the line on the military officer, so I never restored that from Arbitrarily0 deleting it. Also, why are you referring to him as "administrator Arbitrarily0" but not referring to me as "administrator BD2412"? I have been an admin on this topic for well over fifteen years, I am surely due equal respect, no? BD2412 T 01:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC) I wasn't aware that you were an admin. However, in this case you weren't performing an admin's function, and I was only pointing out that Arbitrarily0 was acting as the closing admin of an AFD which is pertinent to this conversation. My mistake on the military officer front. I thought that had been removed earlier.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Is that an apology, then, for accusing me of restoring a line asserted to have been removed Arbitrarily0? Since you seem to be on a run of accusing me of things, I would like some sense that you understand that your conduct has not been entirely constructive here. BD2412 T 04:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Yes it was an apology... although you seemed to have brought this back up again after I apologized in another forum. I’m going to assume good faith and assume that you didn’t see this apology when you made that other comment. I think we are both frustrated. Let’s just remember that both of us want what’s best for the encyclopedia and try and interact civilly with each other. We may have differences of opinion but we can work together productively. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC) I've collapsed the above exchange as largely off-topic: this is not WP:ANI, so editors here won't be interested in minor disagreements over behaviour. – Uanfala (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412 The military officer certainly seems worth including ... though there is the slight problem that his quotation in the target article is unsourced! I've tagged there, and reinstated him to the dab page. My feeling in general is that if a redirect from a name to an article would be justified (if they were the only name-holder), then an entry on a dab page is equally justified. And the bar for creating a redirect is pretty low: if it might help any reader, then go for it. But a couple of the other Charles Lotts are at the extreme of marginality here; in fact the whole article James Madison Dukes men's basketball statistical leaders looks pretty un-notable (but then I live on the other side of the pond from all this college sport stuff). The businessman: well, I can't read the NYT source which mentions him: it could be that someone researching a Charles Lott might find that link and that source to be just what they need - neutral on that one. PamD 07:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Using redirects on a DAB page

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Montana Sky (disambiguation)#Using redirects on dab pages about whether or not to use redirects on that DAB page. This version of the page uses redirects for the Jonas Brothers song and the basketball team, and this version links directly to the associated articles. Interested editors are encouraged to comment there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

merging Hygieia (disambiguation) and Hygiea

Status quo

There exist two disambiguation pages with similar (and etymologically related) names, Hygieia (disambiguation) and Hygiea. The next two subsections summarize each's content. Articles linked to from both pages are in italics.

Hygieia (disambiguation)

As of the time of writing, the disambiguation page Hygieia (disambiguation) links to the following articles:

• Hygieia, Greek goddess of health, etc., whose name is variously spelled:
  • Ancient Greek: Ὑγιεία, romanized: HUgieía,
  • Ancient Greek: Ὑγεία, romanized: HUgeía,
  • Latin: Hygēa,
  • Latin: Hygīa,
  • English: Hygieia,
  • English: Hygiea,
  • English: Hygeia;
• 10 Hygiea, an asteroid; named after the goddess;
• Hygeia (city) planned (and abandoned?) utopian city on the site of present-day Ludlow, Kentucky; (apparently) not named after the goddess, but rather of the word:
  • Ancient Greek: ὑγίεια, romanized: hugíeia, lit. 'health' (notice the difference to the goddess' name in addition to capitalization);
• Bowl of Hygieia, a sign for pharmacy and pharmacology; related to, associated with, and named after the goddess;
• Mount Hygeia, a historic farm in Foster, Rhode Island, named after the goddess; and
• A nymph named Hygieia, who is one of the Hesperides, whose name may or may not bear a relation to that of the goddess, but certain would bear a relation to the word ὑγίεια, hugíeia, 'health'.

Hygiea

Whereas the disambiguation page Hygiea links to the following articles:

• Hygieia, Greek goddess of health, etc.; and
• 10 Hygiea, an asteroid; named after the goddess.

"See also"

Both disambiguation pages also link to, in their "See also" sections:

• Hygia, a genus of bugs, named by Philip Reese Uhler in 1861, for a reason unknown to me;
• hygiene, the concept, derived from the Ancient Greek word; and
• each other.

Problem

These two pages contain duplicate content and their co-existence causes confusion.

Possible solutions

To me, the most sensible courses of action seem to be:

• redirect Hygiea to Hygieia (disambiguation), leaving the latter as the consolidated disambiguation page; or
• redirect Hygiea to 10 Hygiea, given that the asteroid seems to be the only Wikipedia article to adopt that exact English spelling (and for good reason).

Some other, to me less sensible, but still possible, courses of action:

• redirect Hygiea to Hygieia;
• move the contents of Hygieia (disambiguation) to Hygiea, and redirect the former to the latter, leaving the latter as the consolidated disambiguation page; or
• move Hygieia to Hygieia (goddess), move Hygieia (disambiguation) to Hygieia, and redirect Hygiea to the new Hygieia.

A disambiguation hatnote should be added to 10 Hygiea regardless of which course of action is taken.

Discussion

Comments, etc, welcome! Mifield 21:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support merging to Hygieia (disambiguation) (the nom's first course of action ). 10 Hygiea doesn't need a hatnote: nothing ambiguous redirects there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, preferring the first proposal. The goddess seems to be marginally a primary topic, which would recommend the first proposal over the second, but either is better than doing nothing. Certes (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Dabs considered interesting

...according to today's xkcd. https://xkcd.com/2782 Certes (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The Explain xkcd article is also pretty hilarious. https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2782:_Wikipedia_Article_Titles —ShelfSkewed Talk 18:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposition on the "Explain" page that the title "Meryl Streep Seagull incident", would "probably not conform[] to Wikipedia's requirements for sufficiently descriptive article titles"; if this was the common name of the incident in sources, this is what we would use. I further note that if this were an incident in connection with a production of The Seagull, the title capitalization would differ from that of an incident with a seagull, which would be at "Meryl Streep seagull incident". We aren't German Wikipedia. BD2412 T 18:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

How many "<person> <animal> incident" pages do we have? There's Jimmy Carter rabbit incident and Mitt Romney dog incident at least. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

UK railway stations

Disambiguation enthusiasts might like to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)#Disambiguation clarification again. PamD 14:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Central Prison

Central Prison is about an institution in Raleigh, NC. With several other similarly named places, such as Central Prison, Bangalore, we need a dab – and with no clear primary topic, that dab should probably take the base name. I have an unfinished draft of a dab sandboxed but what do we include? Are most of the entries there ineligible, like the Louisville Zoo example at WP:PTM, or do we take the qualifier "Central" to be our equivalent of "Louisville" and admit them as legitimate meanings of an ambiguous term? Certes (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Talk" parameter for {{Broad-concept article}}?

Similar to, for example, {{More citations needed}}, it would be useful for this template to include an option to link to the relevant thread on the talk page. I wanted to throw the idea out here to reach a consensus before implementing. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Huge clusterf regarding cardinal direction + railway/railroad dab pages

Just would like to point out that:

• Issue: Northern Railway and Northern Railroad are two separate dab pages.
• Issue: Western Railway and Western Railroad are two separate dab pages.
• Southern Railway and Southern Railroad (redirect) are not separate dab pages, they are one and the same. There’s no problems with this one.
• Eastern Railroad is in the main namespace, with a hatnote to Eastern Railway as the dab page. There’s no problems with this one.
• Issue: North–South line’s name is inconsistent with East West Line’s name.

If someone could please wrap their head around this and fix them, I owe you many thanks. Much appreciated, Fork99 (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

And there’s potential for unnecessary overlap with the railway vs railroad dab pages. Fork99 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

And Northern Railways redirects to the Indian Northern Railway zone ... though at least there is a hatnote there to point to Northern Railway (disambiguation)! And Great Northern Railway is a dab page which includes Great Northern Railroad.

Perhaps we need the sort of comprehensive dab page which churches have, where "St/St./Saint X's Church" and "Church of St/St./Saint X", as well as "Saint X the whatsit Church", are all listed on a page such as St. Mary's Church, helpfully arranged by country (and sometimes subdivided eg by UK county).

Would we put "North" in with "Northern", as well as putting "Railroad", "Railway", "Railways"?, "Rail"? together?

And of course the same for the other compass points. And what about the intermediate points? I note that Northeastern Railroad and North Eastern Railway don't link to each other as "See also", and there are also Northeast Line (dab page) and North East railway line. Oh what fun.

Before putting too much thought and effort into this it would be wise to talk to the folk at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains who will have strong, if not necessarily unanimous, views on the matter! PamD 15:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed North railway (Austria) where there is nothing at North Railway or North railway! I can't find any rule by which that unnecessary disambiguation might have been made, though (IAR) it seems useful to disambiguate such a generic name (as long as a redirect from the base name is provided, unlike here). There's a section on naming at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice#Articles about rail transport companies (railroads) style guide but it neither discusses disambiguation nor requires unnecessary disambiguation like that one. PamD 15:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: oh wow yay! How fun, totally... Yeah, ok I second bringing in people from WikiProject Trains, which I’ll do now (link from there). But we should continue the conversation here, rather than starting a new one. Fork99 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the Northern Railways mentioned above:

• Western Railways also redirects to the respective Indian article.
• Same for Eastern Railways.

But, NOT Southern Railways which does redirect to the Southern Railway (disambiguation) page. When/if these are redirected to their disambiguation pages, I’d be willing to use AutoWikiBrowser/AWB to fix the broken links.

I’ve added a ‘see also’ links for the relevant North Eastern whatever pages.

Regarding North–South line’s name, I would propose moving it to North South Line for clarity and consistency.

Would we put "North" in with "Northern", as well as putting "Railroad", "Railway", "Railways"?, "Rail"? together? – I second this, in addition to the lowercase forms of “railway”, “railways”, “rail”, “railroad” (plus “Railroads” and “railroads”) if necessary as redirects. And of course, the same for the other compass points. Fork99 (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus, the plural forms of all of these too as redirects, i.e. “railways”, “Railways”, etc. Fork99 (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Our usual convention suggests keeping North–South line, with an en dash, as in North–South MRT line, North–South Rail Link, etc. A space might imply the northernmost of several South lines (and we generally don't use "-" here). If any title is wrong, it's that East–West line needs an en dash too, to match East–West MRT line (but not most of its other entries). As for North v. Northern or Railway v. Railroad, there are pros and cons to merging. A single page will allow someone unsure of the title to find the right entry in one (long) list, but will slow down someone who already knows they're looking for a Northern Railroad rather than a North Railway, etc. Certes (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve moved East West Line to East–West line.

Regarding all discussion above, I would argue for merging all of them. Some folks might not know that the other term (railway vs railroad) isn’t used outside their respective home country. Some folks might erroneously call a “Northern Railway” a “North Railway”, etc. In fact, there’s inconsistencies within my own country Australia, as an example, we can’t decide whether it’s the Main Northern railway line or the Main North railway line. Another example from Australia is the company that is officially called “Southern Shorthaul Railroad”, but as “railroad” isn’t commonly used here, some folks erroneously call it “Southern Shorthaul Railway”.

While having yet another look, I found more unnecessary dab page overlaps:

• Northern Line (disambiguation), North Line
• Eastern Line, East Line
• Southern Line, South Line
• Western Line, West Line

Literally no idea what to do with these. Fork99 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe don’t merge the “Line” ones as there’s links to articles other than railway lines, and they all have “see also” links to the other respective dab pages. Fork99 (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

A few observations. While Railroad and Railway aren't necessarily interchangeable when it comes to the proper nouns in a company name, I think it's fine to treat them as such for a dab page (as is already done with the Southern Railroad/Southern Railway). North railway (Austria) is disambiguated like that probably because it's that way on the German Wikipedia; the dab page is at Nordbahn (lit. 'northern railway' or 'northern railway line'). Note that we also have Südbahn, which again follows the example of the German Wikipedia of treating de:Southern Railway and de:Südbahn as distinct proper names, though they arguably mean the same thing. Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This topic is way too complex for a retired fellow like me to get involved with. I'd just like to note, for those who may not be aware of it, that in the United States from the 19th century onwards it was common practice when a railroad was reorganized or bought or sold or whatever, to keep the name just as it was, merely changing Railroad to Railway - or vice versa. The terms were, in fact, interchangeable. A glance at the corporate history of most American roads will quickly confirm this. Textorus (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Karasu - two words

There are two words - Turkic and Japanese. The introduction describes the Turkic one, later several Japanese places and persons are mentioned. Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Shalini (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Shalini (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Shalini (disambiguation) to Shalini. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Avinash (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Avinash (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Avinash (disambiguation) to Avinash. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yuvraj (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Yuvraj (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Yuvraj (disambiguation) to Yuvraj. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Question re disambig when the only difference is a comma?

Morgan the Pirate

There is an article about an obscure film named Morgan, the Pirate. I am going to write an article about an obscure song called Morgan the Pirate (which is currently a redirect to the film). Both are about equally obscure. Only title diff is the comma.

How do I handle this? Name them "Morgan, the Pirate (film)" and "Morgan the Pirate (song)", and create "Morgan the Pirate (disambiguation)" containing links to both (and also a link to Henry Morgan, the actual pirate)? Or what? Thx Herostratus (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Two articles, hatnote at the top of both. See e.g. Parcel of Rogues (album) and A Parcel of Rogues (album). No need for a dab. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with that advice 100%, except in this particular case I can't find any source that uses the comma in the name of the film. It looks like both the film and song are titled "Morgan the Pirate". So I would move the film to Morgan the Pirate (film) and make Morgan the Pirate a dab page, after the song article is created. Station1 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Well boy howdy you're right. Huh. And now that I think of it, I bet the majority of people searching on "morgan the pirate" or "morgan pirate" are looking for Henry Morgan. That's the two things people know about him, mostly -- his last name is Morgan, and he's a pirate. In fact Henry Morgan is probably the primary topic for "morgan [the] pirate". I mean the film and song are vanishingly obscure, and Morgan is pretty famous. Maybe I should do that, and give Henry a hatnote "Morgan the Pirate redirects here, for other uses..."? Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Captain Morgan in popular culture lists the film but not the song, though it does mention a different song by the same name. However, we should provide a more direct route to both. I suggest moving the dab to the base name because of the capital P which indicates an artistic work rather than the generic "Morgan the pirate" epithet. Certes (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah OK, altho "Morgan the Pirate" could be considered an alternative proper name for the entity Henry Morgan, if you squint hard enough. Right, there are two other songs with that name, by Lee Morgan and by the Mighty Diamonds, but they are never going to have articles.

But I mean Henry Morgan is, what, 1,000 to 1 what people are looking for when they search on some combination of "morgan" and "pirate" with whatever case. 100 to 1 at least. I guess. Either in the google or here. So why make those 1,000 people or 100 people have to make an extra click? I believe that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says to land the reader on the primary topic right off. I would bet that most people searching on "Morgan the Pirate" with that capitalization are still looking for Henry Morgan. 20 to 1, 10 to 1 at least. Perhaps in the belief that it's a proper nickname, or that's how they write, I don't know. Both the song and the film don't even meet the WP:GNG really, so they're pretty darn obscure.

But nevermind, you guys are the disambig mavens, so whatever you say. I'm just not super clear on what exactly needs to be done, could you clarify (or do, if that's quicker), please? Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree it'd be better to redirect to the actual pirate and leave the more obscure references to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 02:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Nondualism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nondualism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nondualism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Skyerise (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Added pointer to this project at WP:Suggestions for disambiguation repair

I came across the inactive historical page WP:Suggestions for disambiguation repair because it was linked to in the edit summary of an old disambiguation repair edit. I felt like contributing, but it wasn't immediately obvious how. This project is linked in the {{dabnav}} box and on the talk page, but you need to know to go looking in one of those places to find it. So I added a pointer to the project in an info notice underneath the historicity notice, much like at WP:Requests for deletion. Feel free to improve the text of the notice or to remove it if you think it's inappropriate. Joriki (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Question about speculative regnal names on disambiguation pages and WP:CRYSTALBALL/WP:POINT

Dear members of WikiProject Disambiguation,

Hello, I am AndrewPeterT, and I primarily edit on WikiProject Tropical cyclones and WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. I apologize if this is the wrong venue to bring this concern up. However, I am having a WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:POINT (and WP:CONSISTENT)-related dispute on some disambiguation pages related to royalty.

To provide some context, about a month ago, I noticed that the version of the Queen Victoria (disambiguation) page at the time mentioned that Queen Victoria would be a possible regnal name for heiress apparent Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden if/when she inherits her kingdom's throne. Seeing this as an innocent detail, in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT, I made a similar note on the Queen Elizabeth disambiguation page. This was because Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant is the heiress apparent to the throne of Kingdom of Belgium.

However, only a day later, my edit regarding Princess Elisabeth was reverted on the basis of her already being mentioned on the Princess Elisabeth disambiguation page and (as I then suddenly suspected after making the aforementioned edit about Elisabeth) my edit being a bit too WP:CRYSTALBALL. Taking this rationale into consideration, I went back to the Queen Victoria disambiguation page and removed any mention of Crown Princess Victoria's speculative regnal name.

Additionally, earlier this month, when I stumbled upon the George VII disambiguation page by chance, I noticed that an editor had added that George VII would be a potential regnal name for Prince George of Wales, the eldest child of the heir apparent to the throne of the United Kingdom, William, Prince of Wales. Again, in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT and citing I been told on the Princess Elisabeth disambiguation page, even going as far as linking that reversion in my George VII edit summary, I reverted that edit.

Immediately afterwards, knowing that there is speculation that Prince William may be called William V if/when he becomes king of the United Kingdom, I went to the William V disambiguation page to see if that speculation had bled into Wikipedia. And sure enough, I found that there were speculative statements on that page on not only the Prince of Wales, but also Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Treating these statements as violations of WP:CRYSTALBALL, I removed them from the page.

However, soon after making the edits on the George VII and William V disambiguation pages, I discovered that both of them had been reverted. One of the edit summaries said that my removal was ...the very definition of WP:POINT. The other edit summary stated that ...in any case, there should be a talk page consensus first, hence why I am starting this discussion.

At this point, in all honesty, I feel very confused. On one hand, I have been told that including possible regnal names on disambiguation pages is a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. On the other hand, when I have tried to "rectify" these violations, I am being told that I am violating WP:POINT. Evidently, one of these conventions is against Wikipedia guidelines, but which one? Furthermore, after doing some research on my own some disambiguation pages related to royalty, which I detail in the Appendix post below, I have noticed that the issue of speculative regnal names is inconsistently handled, which is where my own secondary concerns on WP:CONSISTENT arise. That is, speculative regnal names for some heirs are not mentioned at all on some pertinent disambiguation pages, indeed mentioned in some other disambiguation pages, or exist as redirects to articles on the hereditary princes in question.

With this context in mind, I would like to have a discussion that answers the following questions:

1. Is including speculative regnal names on disambiguation pages a violation of WP:CRYSTAL?
2. If not, is removing speculative regnal names on disambiguation pages a violation of WP:POINT?
3. If it is inappropriate to include speculative regnal names on disambiguation pages, are redirects to the pertinent heir's articles acceptable instead?
4. If neither disambiguation pages nor redirects are acceptable, what other unified standard can be used to acknowledge speculative regnal names?

@Rosbif73: Since you reverted my edit regarding the Duchess of Brabant, would you please be able to further explain how this violated WP:CRYSTAL? Furthermore, would you please be able to justify to StAnselm, me, and others on how removing speculative names is not a violation of WP:POINT?

@StAnselm: Since you reverted my edits regarding Prince George of Wales, the Prince of Wales, and the Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg, would you please be able to further explain how this and this violated WP:POINT? Furthermore, would you please be able to justify to Rosbif73, me, and others on how including speculative names is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL?

@Barnards.tar.gz: I noticed that you have edited the George VII disambiguation page so that a speculative regnal name on the current King of the United Kingdom also appears. Would you please be able to elaborate on how the cited policy in your corresponding edit summary justifies such an addition? Moreover, would you please be able to express any opinion on WP:POINT or WP:CRYSTAL contradicting such an addition?

Any input from members of WikiProject Disambiguation would be greatly appreciated as well. Finally, I will inform members of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility of this discussion so that their input can likewise be considered. Thank you to all for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Appendix: To provide some additional evidence for the participants of this discussion, here are how speculative regnal names are currently handled, disambiguation pages or otherwise, as of the timestamp of this post's signature, for the heirs to European thrones and the Kingdom of Jordan (whose monarchs, such as the current Abdullah II, have followed European regnal name/number conventions). Princes are listed in alphabetical order of the realm they are expected to inherit, and children of heirs are listed under their parent's name. Evidently, there is quite some inconsistency:

1. Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant: Speculative regnal name mentioned neither at Queen Elizabeth (due to my reversion) nor at Elizabeth I (disambiguation)
2. Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark: Potential regnal name not mentioned at King Frederick, and speculative regnal name of Frederick X instead redirects to Frederick X, Count of Hohenzollern
3. Prince Christian of Denmark: Christian XI redirects to his article
4. Hussein, Crown Prince of Jordan: Hussein II redirects to his article
5. Alois, Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein: No redirect or disambiguation page acknowledging potential regnal name of Alois III or Aloys III (considering the common English spelling of Liechtensteiner sovereign princes)
6. Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein: No redirect or disambiguation page acknowledging potential regnal name of Joseph Wenzel II
7. Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg: Speculative regnal name mentioned at William V
8. Prince Charles of Luxembourg (born 2020): Potential regnal name not mentioned at Charles VI
9. Jacques, Hereditary Prince of Monaco: Speculative regnal name mentioned at Jacques II
10. Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange: No redirect or disambiguation page acknowledging potential regnal name of Queen Catharina, Queen Catharina-Amalia or Catharina-Amalia I, speculative regnal name not mentioned at Queen Catherine (the English translation of her name), and possible regnal name of Queen Amalia instead redirects to Amalia of Oldenburg, Queen of Greece
11. Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway: No redirect or disambiguation page acknowledging potential regnal name of Haakon VIII
12. Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway: No redirect or disambiguation page acknowledging potential regnal name of Queen Ingrid Alexandra or Ingrid Alexandra I, speculative regnal name of Queen Ingrid instead redirects to Ingrid of Sweden, Queen of Denmark, and possible regnal name of Queen Alexandra redirects to Alexandra of Denmark, Queen of the United Kingdom
13. Leonor, Princess of Asturias: No redirect or disambiguation page acknowledging potential regnal name of Queen Leonor, Queen Eleanor (the English translation of her name) redirect list does not acknowledge speculative regnal name
14. Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden: Speculative regnal name not mentioned at Queen Victoria (disambiguation) (due to my reversion), other potential regnal name of Victoria I instead redirects to Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom
15. Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland: No redirect or disambiguation page acknowledging potential regnal name of Queen Estelle or Estelle I
16. William, Prince of Wales: Speculative regnal name mentioned at William V
17. Prince George of Wales: Speculative regnal name mentioned at George VII

Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: I have notified WikiProject Royalty and Nobility of this discussion here. Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

All of these names are speculative to a certain degree. The heir concerned might never even reign, for any number of reasons, or might choose a regnal name other than their given name. For me, that is a textbook case of WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, most of them are unsourced and thus, one assumes, have been deduced by editors based on the sequence of names, i.e. WP:OR, as specifically warned against by CRYSTAL. However, in a few cases we do have sources for the speculative name, though whether these sources are good enough for the criterion set out in CRYSTAL (reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field) is debatable.

I would also point out that in your edit summary for your addition of Elizabeth of Brabant, you specifically said My edit can be reverted if it is determined to violate WP:CRYSTALBALL, which leads me to believe you had your doubts and was a contributing factor in my decision to revert. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENT only concerns article titles. It is not relevant to disambiguations or redirects. Your concerns about consistency are misplaced. Wikipedia does not allow original research and only records what reliable sources say about a notable topic. If reliable sources are not consistent, then Wikipedia is not going to be consistent. If most reliable sources are biased towards certain viewpoints, the same goes for Wikipedia. It is really not complicated. Also, as WP:POINT says, when one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently is highly disruptive.

As for the speculative disambiguation and redirect, the only thing that matters is whether or not reliable sources have used them. StellarHalo (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

My reading of WP:CRYSTAL is that it primarily warns against editors speculating. It doesn’t constrain us including notable speculation where that speculation has been reported in reliable sources. That’s why I added a link to Charles III to George VII. I initially added it with citations, but style is apparently not to provide citations on disambiguation pages. The citations are present on the target page, where “George VII” is mentioned - and that mention is why I may have cited WP:DABMENTION.

Generally speaking, IMHO, it comes down to who is doing the speculating. If it’s just you and I as editors anticipating a future regnal name, that’s CRYSTAL and inappropriate. If a reliable source has discussed the speculation - and thus established a verifiable relationship between dab page and target page, then it may be appropriate. With generous ellipses, we can see this stated in the current wording of CRYSTAL: It is appropriate to report discussion … about … whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The article Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant has nothing to say about potential regnal names. The article Charles III, by contrast, mentions (with citation) the possibility that he might take the name George VII. To me, this is a significant difference. As a general rule I think speculation on dab pages is inappropriate, but when it is a specific reference to something in the target article, that's a different kettle of fish. --JBL (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

University City and related disambiguations

There seems to be multiple dab pages for University City, City University and Ciudad Universitaria which all seem to be confusingly written. I think they need a cleanup and/or merging. Fork99 (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

City University seems mostly OK as is. This term generally refers to an educational institution. But Ciudad Universitaria certainly needs to be cleaned up. There may be some scope for moving some entries from there to University City or vice versa. older ≠ wiser 02:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Although I do question how many of the partial title matches under Other city universities: are ever referred to as simply "City University". older ≠ wiser 02:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Model

I would welcome a third opinion on what to include in Model (disambiguation), following discussion at User talk:Certes#Models and Models. Certes (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Venus

Editors who watch this page may be interested in Talk:Venus#Requested move 24 August 2023. Certes (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Bastard / The Bastard

I'd forgotten about my merge suggestion made a few months ago here, but as someone has recently responded, I wonder if any of you experts would like to opine on the matter? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote for Stormy Daniels at Storm Daniel

Editors may wish to participate in the discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel/Archive 1#"not to be confused with stormy daniels" --woodensuperman 12:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14#Stormy Daniel. --woodensuperman 13:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Extravasation: is it a disambiguation page, is it an article?

This page is struggling with what it wants to be. Should Extravasation of irrigation fluid be made into an article (currently redirect), have the content from the Extravasation of irrigation fluid section moved into the newly created article, and have Extravasation converted into a disambiguation page? Photos of Japan (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it is a disambiguation page. IMHO, the unsourced parts should be removed. The Banner talk 12:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: split the section and make a dab. Extravasation is just jargon for leakage, which is a dab. The lead summarises the articles, as it should for an article but not a dab, and can safely be removed. We could add an entry for metastasis, which is also referred to as extravasation in at least one source. I'm not sure what to do with Extravasation of infusates; there doesn't seem enough there for a stand-alone article. As for being unreferenced, there are plenty of refs but, as they're not inline, it's hard to tell exactly which statements they support. Certes (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree. These are not ambiguous terms, but mostly partial-title matches for variations of a single concept. BD2412 T 18:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  A broad-concept article, then? Certes (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I would think so. All the topics are occurrences in human anatomy. BD2412 T 14:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Consistency with similar page names

I noticed that when I look at pages like built like "A Line" the disambiguation pages have different formats for their names. Is it worth standardizing? -Eóin (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• A Line -> A-line
• B Line -> B Line
• C Line -> Line C
• D Line -> D Line
• E Line -> E-line
• F Line -> F Line
• H Line -> H line

Eóin (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:DABNAME recommends removing the hyphen from "A-line" and "E-line":

The simplest form of the term is preferred to those containing punctuation, diacritics and articles

Then it says the title should reflect the the entries on the page:

The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives.

—Bagumba (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Reconcil

From what I understand: {{disambiguation|number}} categorizes in both Category:Disambiguation pages and Category:Lists of ambiguous numbers, {{number disambiguation}} only in the latter. They also display slightly differently ("...associated with the title 343." vs. "associated with the same number."). Would it make sense, instead, to merge {{number disambiguation}} and other similar templates into {{disambiguation|number}} and other similar templates? Iterresise (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

{{Number disambiguation}} is for pages which disambiguate a number, such as 343 (disambiguation) and 11. {{Disambiguation|number}} is for dabs which combine numbers with other meanings. It's unusual for a number to appear on a dab other than a number dab, but the rare examples include Ten and Triple zero. I don't think Lists of ambiguous numbers is particularly well named: its pages are ambiguous numbers, not lists. {{Number disambiguation}} adds its pages to All article disambiguation pages and All disambiguation pages, which are subcategories of Disambiguation pages (despite the fact that Disambiguation pages is a subset of All disambiguation pages). Certes (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The context is WP:Help desk#Number disambiguation (permalink, since that'll be archived soon). Since having {{disambiguation|number}} brought to my attention, I'm somewhat worried we might have misstepped there. —Cryptic 22:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you misstepped: I am actually still confused why these pages are being overlappingly categorized. For example: compare 10 and 11. Iterresise (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused too. The template isn't documented in much detail but, judging from the categories, I think the logic is that numberdis is for where the title is numeric(ish). disambiguation|number is for non-numeric titles where the entries include number(s), and we may want to add other types of entry. For example Ten might be expanded to disambiguation|number|geo|surname due to Mount Ten, Jeremy Ten, etc. That's less likely with numeric titles (177 (ship) notwithstanding). Certes (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

So I guess there are advantages to both. But these are more for editors for maintenance rather than for readers. Adding so many parameters makes sense, but it becomes unwieldy. And then if we were to use the numberdis and related, we would be stacking all the templates all on top of one another. So what's the solution. Maybe to delete both? Iterresise (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if the templates don't help readers directly, they help editors to help readers. Deleting {{Disambiguation}} would have devastating consequences reaching far beyond number pages, so that's very unlikely to happen. We could deprecate its |number parameter, but I don't see what that would achieve. {{Number disambiguation}}, on the other hand, is not parallel to similar templates and is perhaps illogical. ({{School disambiguation}} disambiguates between similarly named schools, {{Station disambiguation}} disambiguates between similarly named stations, but {{Number disambiguation}} disambiguates between different uses of one number.) We might be able to live without it; we'd have to investigate the consequences of removing it and find an actual reason why its existence is currently causing harm. Certes (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

What about other parameters such as "appliances"? And on the topic of numbers, we have some pages such as .357 which is a page only for firearms. There doesn't seem to be a limit nor will there be a limit of parameters. Iterresise (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Template:Disambiguation/doc#Variant templates lists the single-topic templates such as {{number disambiguation}}, and Template:Disambiguation/doc#Parameters lists markers such as |number which can be added singly or in multiple to {{disambiguation}}. They're based on a couple of decades of practice, but feel free to propose changes to those lists from your own experience of using them. Certes (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Geoff/Geoffrey/Jeff/etc. McDonald/Macdonald

Hi all. We have two DABs, at Geoff McDonald and Jeff MacDonald, and there is a Geoff Macdonald (with a redirect from Geoffrey Macdonald) who looks rather insignificant to me. I'd probably opt for a single Geoffrey McDonald, give the article name a qualifier, and make the rest redirects, but as there are quite a few Jeffs thought I'd better canvass the experts. Opinions anyone? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Tricky situation, and I've made a couple of bold edits to try to sort it out. Jeffrey (name) and Geoffrey (name) are distinct, so I would not recommend combining dabpages for the two. However, my instinct would be to perhaps delete the disambiguation pages altogether; only Jeffrey R. MacDonald, Geoff Macdonald, and Jeff McDonald have articles (and I'd argue that the latter should be merged to Redd Kross per WP:BANDMEMBER.) 162 etc. (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you - it is tricky. I've never met a Jeffrey, and have always thought it was a North American form of Geoffrey. But I think that users who have heard and not read the name could be helped by landing on a DAB page with all the variants, surely (including the Mc/Mac variation, which are combined on the relevant surname pages)? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  In this case, with only three articles involved, I'd stick with my earlier recommendation of hatnotes, rather than a dabpage. 162 etc. (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Getting started helping disambiguation

Hi, I got here because I found a page that needed a disambiguation page (noted below) and then thought maybe I could create it. I have edited sporadically for years but never created a page but feel moderately confident that I could. But got daunted / ran out of available time. So, my first request is whether (as someone how edits roughly 2 hr / month) it is worth learning.

Second, having given up on creating a page, I wanted at least to notify wikipedia that it was needed. I found my way here. This page says "Please join the discussions on our project's talk page. Suggested changes and additions to the WikiProject are always welcome there."

But I am not seeing other suggestions for new disambiguation pages here so I figure I am not in the right place to post a suggested disamb.. page.

Since I've written this much, I will post the request here, as well as on the two pages talk pages, but am curious what I should do the next time I am in this situation (and, perhaps, the help pages could be edited to make that clearer to others).

Anna Gomez could use disambiguation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_M._Gomez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Gomez

Thanks Jreiss17 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, Jreiss17. We always welcome more help with disambiguation, whether it's creating new pages or sorting out the incoming wikilinks which should lead to one of the listed articles instead. In this case, because there's only one other person with the name, we can get away with a hatnote, so I've added one to Anna Gomez. If we think that she's not the primary topic for the term, or that we also need a link to Anna Nieto-Gómez, then we can adjust further, but if not then that should be enough for now. Thank you for pointing this problem out. I hope you'll enjoy continuing to improve Wikipedia, and you're very welcome to ask here again if we can help with anything else. Certes (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Certes: Thanks a lot for that. I think Anna M. Gomez is usually referred to simply as Anna Gomez so disambiguation may be better but hatnote is definitely a big help.

Is there anywhere else to post requests of disambiguation/hatnotes? Jreiss17 (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Tommy/Tom/Thomas

Tom and Thomas are combined on Thomas Rogers, but there is a separate DAB for Tommy Rogers. Shouldn't Tommy be a redirect to the Thomas page? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. 162 etc. (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Teenager - two primary topics?

I'm not sure about this change on the Teenager DAB - whether or how to change it. Hoping someone here knows. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink No, it wasn't good. I've moved the new page from Teenager (neologism) to Teenager (word) and rejigged the dab page, possibly not ideal but clearer. Someone else may have a better idea. PamD 06:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

How about making Teenager (word) the primary topic and moving it to Teenager (which is currently a redirect to Adolescence, a closely related but different concept)? Rosbif73 (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Bleh, that is a little more than an elaborated dictionary definition. I doubt it is the primary topic people would expect when looking for "teenager". older ≠ wiser 10:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Groom (disambiguation)

Groom (disambiguation) is currently broken into two sections - Groom (disambiguation) and Groom_(disambiguation)#Grooming, which didn't seem right to me - should they be combined into one disambiguation page or two or?? After reading all the disambiguation guidelines and and MOS pages I could find, I determined, based on WP:BROAD, that we need a broad-based article to over the subject. "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page." So, I started one [[1]], following the guideline "scope of the term, and the history of how the concept has developed." One other user objects, saying "Wikipedia isn't a dictionary" - so I'm looking for additional feedback from experienced editors on how to improve these pages. I also think "Groom (wedding)" makes more sense then "Bridegroom". Does anyone actually use... 'Bridegroom'? Maybe it's used that way outside the USA? Users agree Groomer as a slur should exist, but is it best as a sub article of OK Boomer? What about localised grooming - should it be it's own article, and if so what name should it be under? Denaar (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

RfD: redirects from incomplete disambiguation

Readers may be interested in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14#INTDABLINK of redirects from incomplete disambiguation, in which about 350 redirects of the form "Title (partial qualifier) (disambiguation)", such as 138th Street (New York City Subway station) (disambiguation), are nominated for possible deletion. Certes (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Detagging redirects

Should all the pages in Category:Redirects tagged as disambiguation pages have {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} removed from them? They are all redirects so can't be disambiguation pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If they are redirects to a disambiguation page, I'd leave them be. If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts uses the project tags to determine what to include. If these are redirects to disambiguation, seems a discussion about the redirect might be of interest. older ≠ wiser 15:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay you've just given me a coding challenge there. I will see if I can detect which ones target a dab page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

D J Dean

Perhaps this should go straight to RfD, but what do we do with D.J. Dean, D. J. Dean and D J Dean? They currently target Donald John Dean, but might attract traffic for D. J. Dean (soccer) (who has a hatnote on Donald) or DJ Dean (who doesn't). Certes (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Templates with disambiguation links and modules making a mess of it

I was alerted to the fact that the Templates with disambiguation links tool was showing a bunch of templates for tennis players. We recently built a module that inputs a list of names and outputs navboxes. One of the things we do is use Module:Disambiguation to check if the page is a dab, and if so attempt to modify it to get to the right location. As such, the output of the module is a list of non-dab links, but apparently the tool is still counting these as "links to dab pages". Is this an issue with the toolforge check itself, or is there a way to "avoid" these dab links in the module somehow? Thanks! I have no idea if this is the right location to post this to, but I'm going to cross-post to a half-dozen other possible locations so hopefully this can get sorted out. No need to ping me on replies, I'll be subscribed to this thread. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: If I understand correctly, the module is calling getContent() on a dab, which (I think) causes a link to be registered in the pagelinks table, from the page where the module is called to the dab. The logic is that if the page gets updated, for example if the tennis player is deemed a PT and moved to the base name, the page using the module needs to be rendered again to pick up the change. It's a similar situation to #ifexist:. Per mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual: getContent(): Returns the (unparsed) content of the page, or nil if there is no page. The page will be recorded as a transclusion. I'm not sure what we do about this. Could be bot be tweaked to exclude transclusions? Please feel free to move this paragraph to your preferred forum for replies. Certes (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The bot could be tweaked to exclude transclusions, but I think that would be overkill. It would mean we would miss all links to disambiguation pages appearing on templates, not just the ones resulting from this particular module. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Ironically, I think "transclusions" is ambiguous here. I meant the links which show up in WhatLinksHere as transclusions, many of which come from using the {{:Some other page}} syntax but which can also be generated by getContent() within a module. I didn't mean the normal wikilinks within templates where the template is transcluded by the page; those show up in WhatlinksHere and elsewhere as normal links rather than transclusions. Certes (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There has been a related issue for some years now regarding articles using {{cite xxx}} templates - these articles show in WhatLinksHere as transcluding themselves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The fundamental problem may be that pagelinks is used in two ways. Within MediaWiki, it lists the pages which must be purged when a link target is edited. Externally, it informs WhatLinksHere and other tools of what wikilinks exist. The two lists are similar but not identical, because certain templates and modules can record pairings – I'm not sure whether to count them as "links" – which are invisible to the reader. Certes (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Any solution in sight? The Banner talk 20:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The TDL report is empty today. I hope this means the problem has been fixed. Certes (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The report has been empty for three days now. Either we've suddenly become dramatically better at getting the links right first time or something is wrong with the report. Certes (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd put my money on the latter, although I don't yet know what ishave a sneaking suspicion I may have found what's wrong with it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that worked – the report is back, complete with tennis players. Certes (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

So I have a dumb question: there are ~80 templates that call this module; why are only a dozen showing up in the report? The module checks the dab status for every page that exists, so wouldn't that mean that every template shows up? Primefac (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Never mind, figured that out; it's only if the page actually is a dab. Primefac (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

So if we can't fix the tool (which is my preference because I cannot believe this module is the only one to trigger the tool) what is the best solution? The Banner wants to simply remove the module entirely, which is a bit of overkill since this is an external tool of minimal consequence. My thought for modifying the module involves checking all ...(tennis) appended links before doing a dab search, but that seems like brute forcing the issue and still doesn't actually solve the underlying issue with the tool itself, never mind the fact that the whole point of the dab check is to allow for exceptions to be populated as necessary, but not forced for every player with a (tennis) disambiguator. Primefac (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The logic for Template:Top male singles tennis players by country, as coded in Module:ATP rankings (function formatName), seems to be:

1. Grab a name from Module:ATP rankings/data/singles.json, e.g. "Racquet, Ivor"
2. Check whether Ivor Racquet is a dab
3. If so then link to Ivor Racquet (tennis); if not then link to Ivor Racquet

Could we replace this by

1. Grab a name from Module:ATP rankings/data/singles.json, e.g. "Racquet, Ivor"
2. Check whether Ivor Racquet (tennis) exists
3. If so then link to Ivor Racquet (tennis); otherwise link to Ivor Racquet.

I'm not sure how that deals with Ivor Racquet (Ruritanian tennis player, born 1987) but it seems no worse than the existing logic and will avoid calling getContent() on the dab. It also works better when the tennis player shares a name with a more famous namesake who is the primary topic. Certes (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Having re-read the comment I replied to more carefully: I don't think checking for (tennis) would constitute brute force. It's no more expensive than checking for a dab. I don't think there's a problem with the tool itself: it's correctly reporting links as recorded in the database. Why would we not want to force a link to every player with a (tennis) disambiguator named in the json file? The base name must hold either a non-tennis primary topic or a dab, and we wouldn't want to link to either. The only minor problem I see is if Ivor Racquet (tennis) is a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} to Ivor Racquet, when the proposed change would produce a tortuous link via the redirect, but it would still reach the right page, and we can check for and ignore redirects if felt worthwhile. Certes (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, this seems to have dropped off my notifications for some reason. I'll see about swapping the order of the checks. Just as a note for the "Ruritanian tennis player" example, we do have an "override" file that the module checks first, so someone like that would be in that file and never get checked anyway. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

A few links currently lead to non-tennis players. A couple of examples:

• politician Alejandro Mendoza in {{Top Bolivian male singles tennis players}} should change to Alejandro Mendoza (tennis)
• entrepreneur Andrew Paulson in {{Top Czech male singles tennis players}} should change to Andrew Paulson (tennis)

These should be fixed by the new algorithm, though it won't help where the tennis player has no article. Certes (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean... if the tennis player has no article, then it won't link to them anyway, so it's not a huge loss. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Done, checked the new redirects that popped up and only Laslo Djere (tennis), Novak Djokovic (tennis), J.J. Wolf (tennis), and Andy Murray (tennis) fell into the "unnecessary redirect" category. Not sure if it's worth putting them on the exception list, or spending the time coding in some sort of isRedirect check. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Tidying up would be nice to prevent self-links within the template in that player's article, but I'd leave them. They lead to the right article and, if a different Laslo Djere grabs the primary topic by becoming the next president of Ruritania, they will still go to the right place. Certes (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

True. I'm thinking of people like Attila Boros from {{Top Hungarian male singles tennis players}} and Daniel Salazar from {{Top Colombian male singles tennis players}}, where we have no article on the tennis player but do have an article on a different person with a similar name. Certes (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Fuller list of linked non-players:

• Attila Boros from {{Top Hungarian male singles tennis players}}
• Ben Weintraub from {{Top Israeli male singles tennis players}} (RfD in progress)
• Daniel Salazar from {{Top Colombian male singles tennis players}}
• Karan Singh from {{Top Indian male singles tennis players}}
• Petar Jovanović from {{Top Montenegrin male singles tennis players}}
• Samuel Sánchez from {{Top Mexican male singles tennis players}}
• Sandro Kopp from {{Top Austrian male singles tennis players}}

There may be other redirects which go astray, but I think that's all the direct links. Certes (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The templates have left the daily report. Thanks, everyone. Certes (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The tennis templates have now been replaced following a TfD. Certes (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aita (disambiguation)#undefined

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aita (disambiguation)#undefined that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/〇 (disambiguation) pertaining to Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (384). Folly Mox (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Surname transclusions

Piotrowski had an "incoming links" tag, despite being a surname list rather than a dab. It was transcluding individual name dabs with syntax such as {{:Oskar Piotrowski}}. This, of course, transcludes the whole name dab (unless it uses onlyinclude correctly: see replies) including templates such as {{hndis}}, thus marking Piotrowski itself as a dab. I've edited Piotrowski to use the experimental {{Transclude list|Oskar Piotrowski}} instead of direct transclusion, which seems to work. There are 37 other cases needing attention, though these aren't tagged because they don't have many incoming links. Should we apply similar changes to those, and keep a lookout for new cases appearing, or can the team find a better solution? Certes (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I always thought transclusion was too unstable for use. In this case, the issue was caused by an edit to Tadeusz Piotrowski that removed the onlyinclude markup -- and this is what cause the problem with the transclusion. older ≠ wiser 11:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Certes I think the ability to include both the "Tom Piotrowski"s in the main flow of the Piotrowski list is a huge benefit to readers. The reader looking for a "Piotrowski", referred to somewhere offwiki, who is an American basketball player or an Australian economist should be able to run their eye down the list of Piotrowskis to find their man, and not be expected to click on umpteen "several people" disambiguation links. So I thoroughly support any work which can make it possible, and easy, to transclude those lists from disambiguation pages into surname pages. I suppose we need to talk to the Anthroponymy Wikiproject, as surname lists are their territory, but if we keep remembering that the encyclopedia is here for the benefit of readers it should be obvious that transcluding these lists is a benefit. Keep up the good work, and thanks. PamD 11:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is beneficial for readers be able to easily scan a complete list. I'm not familiar with the Transclude list template, but if it works more reliably than basic tranclusion, then that's great. My concern with basic tranclusion is that edits to the source page can go undetected and have strange effects where it is transcluded. older ≠ wiser 11:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

There's not much to the template though, of necessity, it does resemble line noise or perhaps Perl golf. Certes (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to make progress, or should we simply drop this? I pinged WikiProject Anthroponymy a week ago but didn't get a response. That project aside, there are also 41 dabs which transclude other pages. onlyinclude can make this work properly, but sometimes there is stray text or a second {{Dmbox}}, e.g. John Work within Work. Certes (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Scottish mystery

Can anyone hazard a guess as to why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Military+of+Scotland&namespace=10 shows that {{Scotland topics}} links to Military of Scotland? I've scoured the template source multiple times and cannot find anything that could generate such a link. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe this edit added [[Military history of Scotland|Military history]]. On the dab page this edit tidied it up. I could not work out why Disambiguation pages with links is still showing 206 links at Disambig fix list for Military of Scotland so I went through today doing null edits - whether this will solve the issue I don't know.— Rod ^talk 20:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What links here shows it is still linked from the template, although I can't see where. I suspect it might be transcluded somewhere and that that is what is triggering the problem, but I can't see where. older ≠ wiser 10:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's generated by the #ifexist: on line 98 of Template:Country topics, which {{Scotland topics}} transcludes. Setting the |military_link= parameter to something else like Armed forces in Scotland should avoid it. Certes (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That did the trick! R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Question

I posted a question on Talk:Gang war that people here may be qualified to answer - about the possibility of a primary topic for this one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Cameronia

Hi there! I'm hoping someone in this project can help me figure out what to do about Cameronia. Right now, it redirects to a set index list of ships. However, it's also a lichen genus. Our article is at Cameronia (lichen). If a reader just types in the genus name, it takes them to the list of ships. Do I add a hat note there? Create a disambiguation page instead? I note there are also several "Cameronian" articles, which could also be on a disambiguation page... MeegsC (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It depends which (if either) is the primary topic. Neither has many incoming links. The ships have more pageviews but that's still only one a day and may be because no one can find the lichen article. The ships also dominate search results. However, I'm not sure it's fair to nominate a list of articles as primary over a single topic. I would be minded to overwrite the redirect Cameronia with a dab, with a See also section listing Cameronian and Cameronians (disambiguation). Certes (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I also think it would be best to change Cameronia to a disambiguation page. Nick Number (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Elixia

And another one. This has a stub article (completely unattributed) created in 2012 about a chain of Nordic fitness centres and not updated since (other than by various wikignomes fixing categories, etc.). There's also an article called Elixia (lichen). Do I just add that as a hat note to the current Elixia article? Or should these two plus Elixiaceae be on a disambiguation page? MeegsC (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, Elixia (the fitness chain) seems to exist at least in France and Germany as well as Nordic countries. So its stub could probably be expanded. The fitness chain gets many more page views[2] but is that enough to make it the primary topic? Rosbif73 (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I'll just add a hatnote to the existing Elixia article then. Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see whether the lichen's views go up once readers can actually find it via the hatnote. Certes (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect much. Lichens are a pretty niche interest! ;) MeegsC (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ephebe

Sorry – found another one! Ephebe is a redirect to Ephebos, an article about an Ancient Greek social class. It's also the name of a lichen genus. Do I add a hat note to Ephebos? (And if so, how do I do so, given there's already an "about" template that links to an Ephebos disambiguation page?) Or do I create a disambiguation page for Ephebe? MeegsC (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The guideline is at WP:DPT. You can use this tool to compare pageviews. For potentially controversial moves, see WP:RM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ephebos gets far more page views, but it's hard to know how many of those are via the Ephebe redirect. I'd be tempted to overwrite that redirect with a dab page, listing the lichen genus, the lichen species and Ephebe (Discworld), as well as the alternative name of Ephebos. As to the hatnote on Ephebos, there are various templates for multiple hatnotes, such as {{For-multi}} and {{About-distinguish}}. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ephebe was a disambiguation page from 2010 until March 2023. Plantdrew (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

So it was! In which case, just revert that bold, undiscussed change. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I've queried the editor who made that change to ask that the disambiguation page be reinstated. We'll see what happens next! MeegsC (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The dab's main entries are repeated on Ephebos (disambiguation), which is linked from Ephebe's target, though it's not obvious from the hatnote that one should look there for other meanings of Ephebe such as the lichen. The big question, as usual, is whether there's a primary topic. Certes (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

XX and female

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Talk:XX#Inclusion of Female. This began several months ago, went quiet, and recently resumed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Sathish#Requested_move_23_November_2023 about whether or not to move Sathish to Sathish Muthukrishnan. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

want to convert page

wnat to edit this as noramal page of wikipwdia , this page can more usefully as it going to provide information of clan like member, their occupation and their history.

Please instruct me can i edit this page as further... Ashokkbhalse (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ashokkbhalse: To create an article, please follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. A key point is to create the article on a new page, rather than writing it over the top of an existing page with a different purpose which we still need to keep. (That would be termed an article hijack). Certes (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Jonson

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jonson (name) about moving the page to Jonson. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Holywell

An editor has requested that Holywell be moved to Holywell (disambiguation), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Double soft redirect

Template:Double soft redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it a dab, is it a SIA?

Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation), Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation), Julio Aparicio (disambiguation) and others have been labelled as WP:Set index articles and not disambiguation pages (hndis) by @NmWTfs85lXusaybq:. What do other editors think? PamD 09:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

These are disambiguation pages and should be tagged as such with {{disambiguation|hndis}}. 12:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC) older ≠ wiser 12:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

To be pedantic, they should be tagged as {{hndis|Ainsworth, Thomas}} and the like. BD2412 T 13:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are dabs, specifically {{human name disambiguation}} pages. They mainly list people without articles and I'm not sure I'd have created them, but they seem useful enough to survive AfD. Certes (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aquarius (beverage)#Requested move 21 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aquarius (beverage)#Requested move 21 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Alalch E. 00:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Species Redirects to DAB

Hi,

I noticed a few (~20) species redirects that I am slowly going through and turning into DAB pages. An example would be P. vernalis. I've found my list manually from part of a users contribution history. Does anyone know a better way of finding these dodgy/strange redirects? (Appologies if this would have been better posted on the redirects project)

Thanks Carver1889 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

If you go to Special:PrefixIndex and search on "P. a" you will get the start of a list which will include the redirects like this - is that what you are looking for? But there's probably no easy way to tell whether each one is correct or ought to be a dab page, without checking. PamD 21:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Many of the redirects of this type were created by a single person, editing as User:Nono64, User:NotWith and User:Caftaric. I haven't made any systematic effort to deal with their redirects but most of them are ambiguous for multiple species, with no primary topic. When I've come across redirects for an abbeviated genus name+species I've added {{Rsa}} which populates Category:Redirects from scientific abbreviations, so you can find some there (being in that category is not a guarantee that they aren't ambiguous).

In my opinion it would be better to just delete the redirects rather than expending editorial effort turning them into DABs when readers are unlikely to search for species abbreviations (by convention, species are always written out in full in a document before being abbreviated). Plantdrew (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Certes/Reports/Species redirects has a list of redirects which don't lead where we might expect. It includes a few amusing false positives such as A. director (genera include Art and Assistant) but most entries there might benefit from attention. Certes (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Certes@Carver1889 It might be more useful to add the terms to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, which provides links for searching for all the occurrences of the word, in all three genders if appropriate - so the entry for "aethiopicus", second in Certes' list, would offer links to:

• All pages with titles containing aethiopicus
• All pages with titles containing aethiopica and
• All pages with titles containing aethiopicus

And there could be redirects to that list entry, from Aethiopicus (well, there is one at present which links to just the one species) and Aethiopicum and a hatnote at Aethiopica (an ancient Greek novel).

PamD 20:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Help fixing dab after page move

A while back I moved Central League (baseball) to Central League (minor league) because the primary topic Central League is also a baseball league. First, I don't know if Central League (baseball) should now redirect to the dab page Central League (disambiguation) or to the primary topic Central League? Second, there are 215 pages that need to be redirected. Pardon the imposition, but I know there is a tool or trick that can be used. Can someone help with this? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

If the primary topic Central League is presumably the main baseball league, then Central League (baseball) should just be categorized with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and redirected to Central League. Any links to "Central League (baseball)" that instead intend to link the the minor league would then have to have their disambiguator updated from (baseball) to (minor league).—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

There are 209 links to the redirect Central League (baseball). It would be wise to check these before retargeting the redirect. Some of them may be for the Japanese Central League but they should be easy to identify despite the slight overlap in dates. Other Central Leagues exist. Certes (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Moldavian, Moldovan, Moldavians, Moldovans

Hello,

I would like to create a page for the Moldavian ethnic group (a people that is living mainly in Moldova and Romania). In order for me to do that, I need that the info under Moldavians to be moved to Moldavian (and the search for "Moldavian" to stop the redirection to the page Moldovan, because the 2 terms mean different things). In short: Moldavians are an East Romance speaking ethnic group that is formed on the former territory of Moldavia; after the country was split in 2, the Moldavian people lived in 2 distinct states: Moldavia (Moldavia#Fragmentation) and Russia; the Moldavian ethnics living today in Moldavia (Western Moldavia) are called Moldavians (RO: moldoveni) while the Moldavian ethnics living in Moldova (Moldova) are called Moldovans (MD: moldovani, moldovⁱeni).

Thanks! Klehus (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The adjectival forms are inherently ambiguous and should probably remain disambiguation pages. The split of Moldavian and Moldovan you can request with a WP:RM process at Talk:Moldavian. --Joy (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC affecting disambiguation pages, name lists, and set indices

Please see Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Request for comment. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Coachella#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Coachella#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Howard Creek (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Howard Creek (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Boyle (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Boyle (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lewisham North#Requested move 9 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lewisham North#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yogendra (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yogendra (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gamemaker#Requested move 9 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gamemaker#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rugby#Requested move 11 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rugby#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:EWS (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:EWS (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mici#Requested move 23 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mici#Requested move 23 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Joga#Requested move 13 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Joga#Requested move 13 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ralph Peña#Requested move 19 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ralph Peña#Requested move 19 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

2024-01 Operation Atlas

Resolved

Maybe Operation Atlas should become a disambiguation page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but let's wait until its AfD closes so we know which articles have a claim to that title. Certes (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The AfD was started after i created this section here. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The article about the 2008 drill has been deleted, the article about the WW2 operation was renamed/moved to Operation Atlas and the only 2 homonymic articles remaining are sufficiently linked together by hatnotes, so no need to create a disambiguation page anymore. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hatnotes for disambiguation

I could do with some assistance please at Talk:Fraternities and sororities#Hatnote. Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion covers whether, if R is a primary redirect to article A but R has alternative meanings covered in other articles, A needs a hatnote to those other meanings (or to a dab listing them). Do we have a guideline or even an essay about this, i.e. saying what the reader should see when they land at A or A#Section having typed in R and been redirected? Certes (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the text of the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT guideline says it as a matter of fact in all of its examples, and indeed this has been general practice since, well, practically forever. What sort of an essay do we need? --Joy (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The examples there have hatnotes, and WP:ONEOTHER (just below WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) states that the hatnote is sufficient, but I don't see anything spelling out explicitly that a hatnote is necessary. I believe that it is, but the discussion linked above is debating the matter. Certes (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:D2D: Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. older ≠ wiser 22:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll throw that into the discussion. Certes (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wilhelm of Prussia (disambiguation)#Requested move 30 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wilhelm of Prussia (disambiguation)#Requested move 30 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Disruptive editing of disambiguation pages

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Disruptive editing of disambiguation pages. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Lists of Indian films - a heads-up

An IP-hopper I remember from a couple of years ago seems to be back. Their speciality is removing all, or almost all, DABlinks, leaving a confounded mess. I've had three notifications this month about DAB pages on my watchlist. Before laboriously hand-repairing the links, check the edit history, and if it's them just revert the WP:DISRUPTIVE idiot. See e.g. List of Hindi films of 1970 and List of Hindi films of 1971. In my experience, they never stay at one address long enough to justify requesting a block or even posting a warning. Narky Blert (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. It's not just dabs: I've fixed a few "List of Hindi films of yyyy" recently with changes such as Paintal → Paintal (comedian), but I naively assumed that I was polishing constructive new material rather than reverting a LTA. Other common links intended for Indian actors include Krishna and Nassar. Certes (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted List of Hindi films of 1975, with apologies to the conscientious editors who fixed most of the errors. Is there consensus to do the same on the other year lists? Certes (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains § South Eastern Railway

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains § South Eastern Railway. This relates to Southeast (disambiguation)#Rail Transport Thryduulf (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Pabulum

Pabulum provides plenty of food for thought but no actual DABMENTIONs. What should we do with it? Certes (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Until there is something more substantial to chew on, this should probably be a soft redirect to Wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd redirect that to Pablum#Name which mentions the origin, and add a hatnote there to Wiktionary. Pabulum vitae probably ought to be an article, so maybe a redlink to it would help? Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:MRDA#Requested move 28 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MRDA#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Two requested move discussions

There is are two requested move discussions (here and here) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sahith (disambiguation)#Requested move 4 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sahith (disambiguation)#Requested move 4 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sahitya (disambiguation)#Requested move 4 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sahitya (disambiguation)#Requested move 4 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Blaze Island

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blaze Island.
There is an additional Blaze island near the US-Canada border, on Canada's side. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Parkhead railway station

Parkhead railway station is a hybrid page with some properties of a dab, a set index and a broad-concept article. Improvements would be welcome. I've fixed the only incoming link except hatnotes. Certes (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed the dab template. There are only two unambiguous partial title matches and several other completely unambiguous stations in the general area of Parkhead. older ≠ wiser 14:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hong Kong national security law

Hong Kong national security law is another new hybrid dab/BCA where it's unclear which format would be better. Certes (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)