Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 26

Previous discussions never led in the direction of eliminating dab for CJKV scripts:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mon (currency) (Discussed Sept. 4 thru 11)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/archive7#Creation of a CJK Taskforce to handle Chinese characters
  (Discussed Sept. 5 thru 13)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#What's the policy on non-Latin characters for article titles? (Discussed Nov. 18 thru 19)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/東北大學 (Ongoing discussion, since Nov. 23)

I believe the consensus so far is that we cannot ban or eliminate such dab pages. Hence we find it necessary for

At this point,

A discussion recently came up concerning this edit, and how it relates to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions which specifies that "there should be just one disambiguation page for all cases (upper- or lower-case) and variant punctuation". I thought the guideline was just talking about situations like mm/Mm/mM/MM, (milli/mega metre/mole or people's initials or other things listed at MM,) but not where the acronym is also a word, like SAP/sap or RAID/raid. My basic logic was that the do disambiguation page was already so long as to make it hard to find what you're looking for, and someone looking for the acronym would be more likely to type it in uppercase letters. But perhaps wiser minds than mine have already considered this idea and rejected it. Is that part of the guideline strictly followed? Is it a good idea?--Yannick (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In your quotation of the guideline, you left off the preceding "Usually". That leaves room for editors to use good judgment. So does

WP:IGNORE. Finding one case where the guideline does not seem to lead to the best solution does not invalidate the guideline. If what you are doing improves Wikipedia, go for it. Chris the speller (talk

) 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Borderline case. I'd be fine with having all acronyms on Do, or have a separate acronym page at DO. Chris said it all. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Please remember that not everyone who uses Wikipedia is going to be reading it on a monitor. How is someone using a speech reader, for example, supposed to distinguish between DO and Do? I would think that there needs to be an extremely compelling reason for having different content at these two titles; not just "the page would be too long otherwise." --Russ (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point, although I think a better solution to that would be to move

D.O., and do the same for all acronyms, regardless of whether they also disambiguate to words or not. (I'm guessing that a speech reader would spell out D.O., although I have no experience with those things.)--Yannick (talk

) 02:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples: From just a quick poke around: Most of the short ones don't split (

WASP); but many of the long ones do seem to split (ACE/Ace (disambiguation), ABS/Abs (surname), ABE/Abe, ART/Art (disambiguation), SET/Set (disambiguation) (and 1 that needs fixing: AWE/Awe)). The long Gap

doesn't.

I'm a mergist, so I agree with Russ that they should generally (always?) be on one page. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A problem I come across a lot of the time is people linking to articles that have names which have one similar word or maybe a similar root but really don't need to be disambiguated. Bohemia (disambiguation) does not need a link to Bohemian Rhapsody because no one calls Bohemian Rhapsody "Bohemia". I think the guideline should address this. Recury 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The intro of

MOS:DAB says Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term. It's clear: Bohemian Rhapsody has no place on Bohemia (disambiguation) and can thus be deleted then. :-) – sgeureka ^t

•c 19:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the guideline is especially clear about this issue at

WP:D#Lists: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here... Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title." --Paul Erik

19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was looking for I guess, but I didn't see that when I scanned it. I don't see how "Lists" as a heading make any sense there. How about "Links that only contain part of the title" or something catchier? Recury 19:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer leaving the header alone, if only for the reason that I have quite often (and at least once today) used that anchor to point other editors there (to WP:D#Lists). My descriptions and notes on user talk pages would lose their effectiveness. Chris the speller 02:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing ===<span id="Lists" />Links that only contain part of the title=== would solve the linking problem. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good info. Thanks. Chris the speller 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several pages with Alexander the Great in their title [1], and the disambiguation link at the top of the page only links to the 1956 film. Would there be any objections to creating Alexander the Great (disambiguation)? (of course this would change the example given in this article) --George100 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

My rule of thumb: if there is one other article besides the primary meaning, use

hatnotes. If there are two other articles associated with the primary meaning, a new disambiguation page can be created instead of using hatnotes. If there are three or more articles, a new disambiguation should definately be created. In this case, you have ATG (primary meaning), a film, a board game, and a song. – sgeureka ^t

•c 18:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved Alexander the Great (1956 film) to Alexander the Great (film). I would have created the dab too, but I wasn't sure if you (George100) would prefer to do it yourself. Yes, the dab is definitely warranted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've created the DAB page, and changed link at the top of Alexander the Great to {{otheruses}} --George100 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where to put this but there's a lot of links to

(It would also be nice if the links to pdf were also changed, seeing that "PDF" is an acronym) Jason McHuff (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And I forgot about Southwest (and probably articles on other directions) Jason McHuff (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like

Environmental Protection Agency should be moved to Environmental Protection Agency (disambiguation) and the redirect from the base name to the primary topic United States Environmental Protection Agency restored. I've commented on the Talk page, but the earlier note by Dekimasu seems to have gone nowhere. I'll see if anyone responds to the new comment, and then perhaps execute the moves. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 11:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

When a person with horror movies on their mind types in "giant monsters" in Wikipedia, would they be expecting to find the page of a television host? It may be amusing for a moment, but would not help someone who was looking for the name of a specific giant monster. It turns out that Giant Monsters is actually the title of a television show, and the article for the television show was already voted to be merged with the page of the television host of that show. What is the general consensus here (and I am looking for more than 1 persons opinion) on trying to apply disambiguation to the page? Overall, is it better to ignore the general meaning large creatures (such as dinosaurs and movie monsters) in favor of the show title? Also, does a vote on articles for deletion override the need for disambiguation? What standards should apply here, and what should be appropriate? Userafw (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See [2] for what this user attempted to do as a "disambiguation" of

talk

) 04:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely why I am asking for some clarification from more than one person, especially experienced users, and preferably some admins, on this policy. Is it automatically considered "inappropriate" to attempt to disambiguate a page after the AfD discussion has finished? I do recall (from viewing the discussion page after one of the attempts to branch the page out rather than use only an automatic redirect) some discussion on dinosaurs during the AfD and perhaps even some question on why dinosaurs were in the article(?) but I also recall general consensus was that the article as it had been in its original state (which I never did see) was primarily on the topic of the television show. I find it also interesting that a redirect (which I wouldn't have known about if I hadn't been browbeaten about using this convention that I didn't even know about at the time) is used to point to monsters rather than giant monsters in the post above. This suggests to me that there could be some disambiguation distinguishing giant monsters when it is intended to mean gigantic monsters, from giant monsters when it is intended to mean the television show, or even giant monsters when it is used to refer to dinosaurs. If the policy of AfD automatically overrides the policy of WP:D, then I will gladly refrain from attempting further edits to similar pages that appear to be disambiguous. Otherwise, it is one point of view vs. another on whether a given subject should be branched based on possible user conclusions, or redirected to one page (that may result in some possible confusion) since wikipedia is not a directory. Userafw (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs were mentioned in the article because that is what the special was about...as is noted at

talk

) 08:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The renamed link is exactly what I was referring to. The new pointer to the specific show is useful though. Here's a little skit I thought up(animal planet can use this if they see this and give wikipedia all the credit) that I think illustrates my point about disambiguation being necessary in this case.

(you see a lady at computer(Jeff's wife?)- "Hey Jeff honey, did you know that when I looked up giant monsters on wikipedia a page with your name came up?" (Jeff as heard from the other room) "Just a minute, honey" You hear a door creak open. Then you see shocked look on her face. Camera cuts to Jeff the Animal Planet Giant Monsters host, who appears in giant monster (Godzilla or King Kong) costume, smiling mischievously, and says "Watch Giant Monsters Tuesday at 8/9 Central!" Stranger things (in terms of skits) have been done to promote television series. Besides, with the WGA strike, reruns are probably going to be inevitable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userafw (talk • contribs) 09:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Userafw (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see where both of you are coming from, but I'd go with a redirect to the person. Yes, Giant Monsters redirecting to a person is a little funny, but on the other hand, how likely is it that someone types in "giant monsters" into the search box and is not looking for the info in

redirect3|Giant Monsters|For the legendary creatures, see Monster}} renders into

"Giant Monsters" redirects here. For the legendary creatures, see Monster.

– sgeureka ^t

•c 10:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How does that work when the redirect goes to the section.

Taemyr (talk

) 10:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Where to put the hatnote is up to the editor at the moment I guess.

Mozilla Firefox ignores ancors and redirects you to the top of the new article. I use Firefox, so I always put hatnotes at the top of an article. – sgeureka ^t

•c 11:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to try to remember that format. A hatnote (if that is what those boxes are called) would definitely satisfy my concern in this area, while displaying more prominently information about connected/redirected pages. This can become an issue if a page (we'll call it page one) is redirected first to one page(lets say page one redirects to page two), then to another page (page three)that was in itself relevant to page two, but not to page one. Userafw (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I use Firefox as well, and it takes me to subsections automatically when they are specified in a redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange. I have been using FF for all of my wiki existence, always the newest version (now v.2.0 German), and ancors in redirects never worked for me. But I just checked FF v.1.5 German on another computer, and the ancors worked there. Must be some kind of checkmark in the options maybe. I'll see. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the suggestion, I put a hat note on the page. I put it in the section where the redirect goes, since IE and FF have always followed anchors for me :)

talk

) 15:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the link with Firefox 3 beta 1 - FF 3 first goes to the top of the page, then automatically goes to the section. Userafw (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines relating to an article having a section of disambiguation links? Should there be? Case in point: Criticism of Microsoft#Product criticism - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not a section of disambiguation links, it's an article directory. It's probably not very good style, but I don't think it falls under the disambiguation umbrella. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is not disambiguation material. My guess is that it might be best to have a summary paragraph of each subject and have these links be there via the {{main|Criticism of Microsoft Vista}} type template - or just have them listed in a "see also" section. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct in saying that external links (other than interwikis, of course) are forbidden on disambiguation pages? If this is not the policy, we should make it so and state it in the strongest terms. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

External links and citations are unneeded on disambiguation pages, yes.

WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries says so, although without the strongest terms: "External links should rarely, if ever, be given entries in disambiguation pages. Including them as comments or on a talk page is a way to mention URLs that might be helpful in the future." I would favor making that stronger too. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 18:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the wording is too weak. There is never a case for an external link. If anyone can come up with an external link that would make WP better, they can put it in a stub, at least. Chris the speller (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - I've cleaned up more than my share of DAB spam links that could never be articles, and would like to have a policy to point to that expressly forbids their inclusion. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's now "never". :-) -- JHunterJ 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good - now, could someone generate a list of dismbig pages that contain external links (excluding other wikimedia projects), so I can pick 'em off? Cheers! bd2412 T 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As previously mentioned above (at #CJKV disambiguation pages), we are in need of a guideline which covers Chinese characters. Here are my 2 proposals,

Option 1, "DAB of CJKV character names"

• Common
  WP:DAB
  apply.

...or...

Option 2, "DAB of foreign script names"

• Common foreign script names which do not pass the criteria of
  WP:DAB
  apply.

If there are no objections, I would like to add Option 1 (above) into the

With very few exceptions, creating wikilinks to dab pages is erroneous. Wikilinks are not supposed to take the user to a dab page. They're supposed to take the user to a relevant article. The purpose of a dab page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he's looking for. The exceptions to this are:

• Dab links in the top of an article — E.g.
  Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal which carries a dab link at the top to Watergate (disambiguation)
  for other uses.
• Redirects from misspellings — E.g. Britian redirects to Britain (a dab page).
• Links from one dab page to another for further disambiguation — E.g.
  Britten (a dab page) has a link to Britain
  for further disambiguation.
• Certain pages that contain lists of words — E.g. List of Greek place names contains the linked word Britain as a translation of the Greek word "Βρεττανία."

There is currently a major project underway to repair links to disambiguation pages. You can find out about it here. Creating links to disambiguation pages only results in the page on which they're created showing up on a list of pages that are in need of repair, bringing an editor to the page to repair it.

Please don't deliberately create links to disambiguation pages.

I've mentioned this at the projects talk page and have received only favorable comments, although not many. Your comments, please?

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Any article that links to a disambiguation page intentionally should use the (disambiguation) page or redirect title (the editor may need to create the redirect if the disambiguation page is at the base name). I just updated

Britten, BTW) turned out to be a list of surname holders instead of a dab page; I moved it. A different set you could use is Mali (disambiguation), Molly, and Mallee. I think it's a worthy topic for inclusion here, though -- thanks for drafting it. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 12:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks, I drafted it in a fit of irritation. I actually drafted the text months ago when

Britten was a dab page. Also, you didn't pipe the link in List of Greek place names to the redirect, you piped it to Great Britain, an article about the island, not the country. This seems wrong to me since the link refers to the word Britain, not the island or the country. However, I consider this so rare as to be probably not worth mentioning. I've disambiguated thousands of links and only encountered this once. Your thoughts?--Steven J. Anderson (talk

) 10:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I did what I said, but another editor did what you said. I undid it. I'm often reverted when I use a link to a (disambiguation) redirect instead of a direct link by editors who are under the mistaken impression that the only good redirect is a Search Box redirect, so I still think the note would be useful. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the discussed edit (some time ago now - forgot to post here when I did it). Other editors please have a look. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Better, I think, if it's watchlisted by a bunch of editors who are active in the project (I'll add it to mine now). Many eyes will keep it from being assaulted. bd2412 T 09:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Should they ever exist? The article doesn't currently say anything about the usage of "(disambiguation)" in titles.

There are even cases where both "X" and "X (disambiguation)" are disambiguation pages with the same (manual!) content. -Lwc4life (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should exist. See

wP:D#Links to disambiguation pages. There is no need for both "X" and "X (disambiguation) with the same content. The (disambiguation) page should be made into a redirect in that case. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's really short term thinking. What if a year later you'd have a primary topic? Why have the need to do moves and redirects and manual changing of possibly endless links when you can prevent it? -Lwc4life (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not short-term thinking, it's expeditious thinking. Page moves will continue to be needed in the disambiguation space and in the main article space in general, with all that that entails. If the manual changing of "possibly endless" links is a problem, note that it will not be avoided by placing the disambiguation page at (disambiguation) -- people will still link to the base name, which will be wrong if there's no primary topic, and possibly wrong if one of the other articles later becomes the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A user keeps being very adamant about inserting a disambiguation page for

There was an

At present, I still don't think that this is a disambiguation page, and I think it would best fit if merged into the 'see also' section of the main

I deleted the redirects. (disambiguation) pages should not redirect to pages that aren't disambiguation pages, agreed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure that some sort of disambiguation page should be created to make more clear the following entities: Spencer's (a defunct retailer) and Spencer Gifts (an existing retailer that many customers call "Spencer's"). It seems a bit odd that "David Spencer Limited" went out of business in 1948 but commands the direct article link for Spencer's. I'll be happy to help execute a disambiguation, but I thought it would be best to ask first. - Where I chillax (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is usually asked at the talkpage of the relevant article, in this case

David Spencer Limited, and then turning the resulting redirect at new Spencer's into a normal disambiguation page. I have heard of neither Spencer's, so I cannot tell you if there is a primary meaning etc. – sgeureka ^t

•c 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't ignore the fact that a dab page already exists at

David Spencer Limited as well as to Spencer for further disambiguation. SlackerMom (talk

) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone was bold, but sadly kind of messed this up, moving the department store article to the grammatically-odd

David's Spencer Limited (and redirecting Spencer's to Spencer). I'm not going to presume which retailer is the primary use, if there even is one, so I created a DAB page at Spencer's (helpful to those typing "Spencer's" as a search term, despite the existence of Spencer), and moved the dept store article to Spencer's (department store) (I'm not from BC, but I know enough from history that no one called it David Spencer Limited). It seems that all the articles that link to Spencer's are intended for the department store, so I will fix those links. Skeezix1000 (talk

) 20:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact that the title being used as a placeholder is an actual page bother anyone? --DocumentN (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it does. Surely we should be able to come up with an example that will stay red. SlackerMom (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Taemyr (talk

) 11:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Implemented. Thanks for pointing out like this one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing disambiguation work for a while, but have just started thinking if there were a better way. Has there been discussion somewhere (maybe in the Wikimedia community) to 1) improve the search mechanism to something like googles, where there is some importance to the order returned and 2) a way of extracting a summary line from the found articles? Done correctly, this would be a much more useful/efficient mechanism to accomplish what we do. We may then have to choose the primary article - but beyond that, I'm not sure what use the dab pages would be. I know 1 is non-trivial both technically and perhaps intellectual property wise.

Or maybe I missing something the dab pages do?

(John User:Jwy talk) 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Dab pages are disambiguating between separate meanings of the same word. It is a mistake of seeing it as a search mechanism, rather it is a method for getting a direct access to articles when the search term entered can have several meanings. Specific problems would be that it would be difficult for search functionality to pick up on synonymous words. Eg.

Taemyr (talk

) 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they are not search pages, but an intelligent search with extracted summaries might be combined (perhaps with a page with some configuration data to cover some indirect meanings) might serve the purpose of a dab page. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be very intelligent if it is to pick up synonyms.

Taemyr (talk

) 15:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is probably better done at a Wikimedia page or discussion group (anyone know where?). Synonyms could be provided by editors in the configuration data. And I think it through a little more and have a better description of the idea (or give up if I can't generate one). In any even, disambiguation must be a problem with most Wikimedia applications and there must be some technical assistance the underlying infrastructure could provide. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we include names of schools that can be abbreviated in the disambiguation page for acronyms? I saw in MHS that there were several high schools listed there with such an abbreviation. I've split them into MHS (high schools) but I'm wondering whether or not they should be listed at all. RightGot (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no. Reason: Basically no-one would type "MHS" into the search box or write "Bill Clinton attended MHS" in an article. That would make disambiguation of schools useless. (There are obviously exceptions for very prestigious schools, usually colleges). – sgeureka ^t•c 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'd leave some wiggle room on well-known colleges and universities, but no way do we need all the high schools in the English-speaking world dabbed by their abbreviations. SlackerMom (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well regardless of whether or not we have high schools dabbed by their abbreviations, they shouldn't be cluttering up the main disambiguation page for the abbreviation. I have created many separate dab pages for those e.g. SHS (high schools). RightGot (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there should not be separate dab pages for types of entries on a dab page. We've discussed this for things like (song) or (film) before too. If it's referred to as SHS, it should be on the SHS dab page. If it's a long "cluttering" list, they can be grouped after the main part of the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many more high schools that share the same acronym than there are songs or films that share the same title though. RightGot (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:JHunterJ - having seen the SHS page, where the move had been made with no edit summary, I replaced the schools on the main dab page but in a separate section, before realising there was this discussion and systematic series of moves. I don't see any point in a separate SHS (high schools) page, nor any harm in these schools being on the main SHS page as a clearly separate section. PamD (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone considered that there will be thousands of schools for most 3 letter acronyms? Does a dab page really make sense in this case? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It'll only be the schools which have WP articles. If there are a vast number, they could be split by country? PamD (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is already split by country on some of the dab pages. By the way, I'm actually for remvoing all the high schools from the dab pages to start with. After all, very few people are likely to type in PHS expecting that they'll get to the local high school. We should just remove them, and add a note at the top of the dab pages not to add high schools. 4.235.111.106 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if all high schools are going to be considered notable, then it is the entire universe. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't added or subtracted any high schools from their acronym pages, but if an editor adds them there, I really can't see any justification for removing them -- an article to be disambiguated is an article to be disambiguated. If you feel the schools are unworthy, work on getting the school articles deleted. Acronym dabs tend towards lengthiness with or without schools. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is however, that no one is going to type in SHS expecting to get to the article on a specific high school. As there are thousands of potential notable high schools, several of them will share the same acronym. RightGot (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken about what people will type in and expect. Or, the

Secondhand Smoke is going to search for SHS, etc. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 04:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JHunterJ that we should not make too many assumptions about what people will type into the search box and expect to get. The fact is that schools are (at least in the U.S.) often referred to by their initials. It is not such a stretch to think that someone might come across such a reference and try to look it up in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I'm not keen on cramming the ?HS and ??HS pages with long lists of high schools. I think shifting them off to sub-pages is a reasonable approach. older ≠ wiser 11:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GHS (high schools) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RightGot. andy (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have requested comment from

Taemyr (talk

) 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I am for scrubbing the dab pages of ALL high school acronyms, separate or otherwise. However, if the consensus is that they HAVE to be here, I prefer them to be on separate dab pages rather than cluttering up the TCA pages. -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• IMHO schools need disambiguating as much as anything else. If they have an article (therefore notable) and are known by the TCA then there is a need for a dab pag. If schools overwhelm the other items then separate them out; common sense should apply.
  Abtract (talk
  ) 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• We aren't talking about listing all schools which are known by acronyms, only those which are in Wikipedia. And yes, I can imagine someone referring to "SHS" in a biography, interview etc, and a reader wanting to know what school it was and whether it's in Wikipedia. I see no harm in TLAs for schools being included in dab pages: if there are more than a handful (likely for the various xHS pages), then split them into a separate section (but not a separate page). If that section becomes large, split it helpfully by country (that would pose a problem when the school name itself has a dab page, as with Sutton High School, linked from SHS, but I'm sure Wikipedians can find an answer!). Splitting the school acronyms into a separate page just means that users have an extra click to do, for no good reason. PamD (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Your point about school names with existing dab pages can be handled like this
    Abtract (talk
    ) 00:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Taemyr (talk

) 13:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd welcome other editors' input at SHS, where I believe that the non-school entries should come first, and another editor disagrees! PamD (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I applied the usual dab cleanups there, including deleting the entries whose articles didn't indicate they were known as SHS. I hope this goes more smoothly than MS did... -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Should

I would have thought that a reader inputting Saints is more likely to be looking for an article like

Abtract (talk

) 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to codify every last bit of this - they are just guidelines. But I see a lot of useful work being done in the names area and I think we need to coordinate that effort with the disambiguation efforts. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by the criteria at

WP:MOSDAB

are not rigidly enforced on such pages listing people with the same name.

However, apart from whether that page is formatted according to

requesting a move. older ≠ wiser

19:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Along the same lines, sometimes I wonder if we could avoid a lot of problems by strongly stating that if there are differences of opinion, the default should be to use the dab page at the primary name. I know the guideline hints at this but it does not defer to using the dab page by default. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Making a dab page a default puts a lot of extra work on

WP:DPWL, so it should only happen when a primary meaning is not clear. All of this is a case by case decision and can only be solved by discussion. – sgeureka ^t

•c 10:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But that is the point. In just about every case, there is no primary use that is clear. In the case of place names, it would also remove a semantic bias towards the place names from certain countries resulting from their naming convention. Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to favor the largest or oldest as the primary use even when that is not the case? Are you also suggesting that pointing to the wrong article for a significant number of users is acceptable? That is a point ignored in the rename discussions in favor of using the link count to say that the current page is primary based on the number of links. Which is meaningless in fact since this is the result of editors disambiguating the existing links. This is happening today. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not participate in any RM discussions recently, and I usually find what I am looking for at a primary meaning page (i.e. not a dab page). Therefore, I am biased to say that I don't agree with "In just about every case, there is no primary use that is clear." Primary use for me is about 80% per common use, not specialized use (e.g. Firefly should always be the insect, not a dab page, and certainly not the short-run TV show as that association is declining). Also, good use of hatnotes usually works quite well for me. Maybe someone else will comment here. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Vegaswikian that the default should be weighted towards disambiguation and that there should be a relatively high bar set for primary topic. Was there actually discussion about moving Firefly? I think that is a pretty clear case of a primary topic. But I *think* Vegaswikian is referring to more marginal cases (of which there are legion). older ≠ wiser 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Without examples, it's hard to comment. Surely, there are dab pages that I think should/could be replaced by a primary meaning, and there are also not-so-clear cases (usually when popular fiction is involved) where hatnotes work for me because I know that noone want to go the go the TV show in 2 years. That's also why I named Firefly: it's the only article where my specialized primary use is not directed at the insect, although generalized primary use probably is. I guess it all comes down to preference and the required "extra-click". Don't let me speak for anyone else. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any active place name discussions, so I can't point to one. However, this discussion is kind of interesting. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a current discussion that seems to be favoring not using a dab page when there is no primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is one that attempts to justify one place in lieu of the dab page since everything derives (allegedly) from the first. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been disagreement at

Keep it at AfD. MfD is for pages outside of the article mainspace. Putting them at RfD might be an option, on the grounds that what is being considered is the deletion of a set of soft redirects. Dab AfD's should be rare enough that this should not be a great problem.

Taemyr (talk

) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This should be addressed in the Disambiguation article. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Preparation; Use the What links here list for the moved page to update all of the pages that link to that page (more likely than not, a link in Wikipedia will point to your new disambiguation page unnecessarily, and this should be resolved on a case-by-case basis).

Sadly people are not good at cleaning up after themselves. It's possible that

Taemyr (talk

) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot only gives you a week to comply with its demands. By the time the disambiguation project gets there, it's too late; the image is gone. The author of BetacommandBot claims it's the responsibility of the creator of the the disambiguation page to fix the problem, writing "When a DaB page is created, the person who changes the redirect needs to clean up afer themselfs, changing all incoming links to their proper targets and taking care of the images too.". See

Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk#BetaCommandBot screwup: Image:Silverbranchcover.jpg. You'll have to take it up with him. --John Nagle (talk

) 16:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that the dab guideline currently does call for people to clean up after themselves. There is not much more that can be done at this end. Deleting admin also have a duty to review the situation, and if an image is deleted because it's fair use rationale talks about a page that have been turned into a dab, and said dab links to the correct page then the deleting admin should have been able to spot this. If he has not he should undelete if the problem is brought to his attention.

Taemyr (talk

) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Nate Newton (disambiguation). Nothing links to it (except for a user page and the standard Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages). I've just inserted a hatnote on Nate Newton that—since there is only one alternate use—goes directly to Nate Newton (musician). Does Nate Newton (disambiguation) need to exist?

My inclination is to put it up for deletion, but before I do that I just wanted to see what everyone else thought. Neonumbers (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just redirect it so that it's there if needed later?

Abtract (talk

) 11:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I usually {{

db-disambig}} should work, but I've found that other admins often don't recognize the issue then. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 13:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is the wording of {{

Taemyr (talk

) 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages don't really cost much so they don't do any harm if left. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, when they are around then people feel the need that they should be hatnoted from the primary article.

Taemyr (talk

) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even as an enthusiast for hatnotes I'll agree with that one, no point in hatnoting a 2-name dab page. This can be handled better by a hatnote on each article. Until someone finds another notable Nate Newton, of course! PamD (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The dab page Andrew Scott is laid out as a table, rather than the usual bulleted list. I was going to convert it to a list, per the convention, but then I thought that it might be useful to discuss the idea here.

The table doesn't show up as well as a list when using

On balance, I think that the table is a bad idea — more appropriate for set indexes than disambiguation pages — but I'd welcome other thoughts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say get rid of the table unless we are going to convert all dab pages to such a format, and I'm not sure that's useful. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As per John. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The topic has also been raised on

I knew it sounded familiar:

WT:MOSDAB#Tables within dab pages to be precise. (John User:Jwy talk

) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct—a dab page contains many different concepts. Perhaps you are mixing up the term heterogeneous with homogeneous? --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well bugger me if you aren't right ... how stupid can a person be. Thanks.

Abtract (talk

) 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen much worse. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked JHunterJ a question here but he was not sure of the answer. Does someone know if a category can go to a same name dab page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "go to"? If you mean, can the category page have a "see also" line of text referring to the dab page, I would say yes, and if there's any chance of confusion it is most likely a good idea. The existing Category:Naruto already has {{catmore1|Naruto}} at the top, and Naruto has "For other uses, see Naruto (disambiguation)", so in that case the only issue is whether a confused reader needs to follow two links, or just one, to find what they want. If it isn't going to clutter the category page too much, I'd support adding another hatnote, since it's "cheap" and may help save users some time. --Russ (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it seemed like such a good idea that I went ahead and added it! --Russ (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not quite proposing a hatnote or an addition to "See also" sections, but not entirely against that either. Let me reiterate: can a disambiguation page be categorized under a same or similar name? Example, here's what I did to Dragon Ball? Should this be in practice? If yes, the guideline should reference this. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Should Zelda have the Category:The Legend of Zelda series? Should Stargate (disambiguation) have the Category:Stargate? Should Harry Potter (disambiguation) have the Category:Harry Potter? The answer is IMO no, because (usually) other entries appear on the dab pages that have nothing to do with the primary meaning of the franchise. DragonBall is one dab page where, by chance, only franchise articles appear, but still allows franchise-independent entries. I have, however, no opinion if a dab page's talkpage is also marked with another wikiproject. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally the category should not be at the same name as the dab page. When there are multiple uses, the categories generally use some form of disambiguation. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea except on a case-by-case basis, for the reasons outlined by sgeureka. In practice, a large amount of the content on a given disambiguation page won't be relevant to the corresponding category: disambiguation pages group articles based on a lexical relationship, whereas categories group articles based on subject area. For example, most of the entries in Wind (disambiguation) are unrelated to Category:Winds, which is intended to contain articles relating only to the flow of air. If all of a disambiguation page's entries are related to the category's subject, then it may be worthwhile and appropriate to add the page to the corresponding category. Aside from that case however, and bearing in mind that disambiguation pages are intended to be navigational aids rather than articles per se, the hatnote solution suggested by Russ seems a better option to me. --Muchness (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. I'll undo the edit to Dragon Ball, and any others I see, just so it doesn't set a bad precedent. Beforehand, it would be a good idea if the guideline mentioned this. Who will do the addition? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Categories. But your question was valid nonetheless. – sgeureka ^t

•c 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the section. I, however, would like for the guideline to make clear of same name categories. Could you do that or should it be me since this was my question in the first place? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording already answers your question (this thread confirmed general consensus), but if you feel this should be specifically mentioned, I wouldn't be opposed. Just keep it short. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what I should say? Examples? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Last call for opinions. I plan to update the guideline tomorrow. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what change are you proposing? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? I'll keep it short, nonetheless. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't obvious to me ... and from what I have read above, I am against a change (without seeing what is proposed!) because each page is going to be different and therefore a case by case decision will need to be made by responsible editors. For example dragon ball seems eminiently sensible to have the category since all bar one line are suitable, but clearly many are not so suitable as mentioned above. Yet others will be debatable and consensus will be reached as to suitablity.

It isn't obvious to me ... I see no need to change, so much better to leave it "case by case" as suggested above. Your Sesshomau's example of

Abtract (talk

) 17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball would not count because Freescale DragonBall is included there. However, though dabs like Astro Boy (disambiguation) and InuYasha (disambiguation) would pass, I can't speak the same for Hellsing (disambiguation) (look at "See also" section there). Because of these details, Abtract, you have any idea on how the edits should be placed in the guideline? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand the question.

Abtract (talk

) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't be any more clearer. How about I'll do the change to the guideline and then you see if it needs specification? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How about you state here in the talk page precisely which section you seek to change, what that section says now and what you would like it to say?

Abtract (talk

) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This will have to be rephrased and shortened, but to what? And what about Hellsing (disambiguation)? Does the "See also" section there really suggest that the same name category should not be put there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO no change is needed as "no other" means "no other". Your astro boy example seems to me a good example of a

Abtract (talk

) 07:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles are all called "Astro Boy", so "Astro Boy (disambiguation)" is valid -- it disambiguates articles that would otherwise occupy the same article slot. A list of such things could also be made, like List of Astro Boy media could also be made, which wouldn't need to follow the dab format. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But you guys understand what I'm saying right? Then the category from Dragon Ball should be taken off? This is why I proposed the edit in the first place, for clarity. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation links — at the top of an article, a note that links the reader to articles with similar titles or concepts that the reader may have been seeking instead of the article in which the links appear.

The above appears in the guideline, but "concepts" are vague and could be interpreted as external links. There are disambiguation pages with external links. Should this be clarified as to whether links are allowed or not? -

I added a couple of "Wikipedia"s to narrow the possible interpretation, but that sentence applies to disambiguating hatnotes on articles, not to disambiguation pages. External links are not allowed in the guidelines for either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Harshing My Mellow's edit history, as well as Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation) (sic), Talk:Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation), and (if you really want to see 'em) the various "harshing my/your/his/her/their/one's mellow" redirects created by User:Evrik. Little help? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your various moves/analyses: the dab page should go away, "Harshing My Mellow" should redir to "Bob Bert", and the hatnote and wikilinks to Harshing My Mellow should be cleaned out of the Bob Bert article.

There used to be a {{

db-disambig}} tag, but it appears to have gone away -- maybe a generic speedy for the dab page would still be appropriate.--NapoliRoma (talk

) 05:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

rally}} going? I was going to create a soft redirect to wiktionary, see pimp slap as an example, but there are two albums with similar names - as well as at least one television show. There were more things that used the term, but someone has delinked them and I'm too busy to go add the links back in. The DAB is fine as it is, and there is no real reason to make it go away. --evrik ^(talk

) 01:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care (much) if the dab goes away, as long as it doesn't get in the way. Since there's only one Wikipedia article target suitable for "Harshing My Mellow" (the Bert album) and only one suitable for "Harshing Your Mellow" (the Akimbo album), I'll be satisfied if those redirects continue to point to the appropriate articles and not to the speed bump dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Go to Category:Disambiguation, pick a random spot in the alphabet, and then choose a random dab page. My experience suggests that odds are better than even that it will need fixing in one way or another. If not, just go on to the next one. --ShelfSkewed Talk 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying that since I virtually cleared the list {just leaving

Abtract (talk

) 16:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd even consider going in the other direction and saying that 'statistical data about article usage should not be used to determine primary usage. If there is any question about what the primary use is, then it is better to use a disambiguation page at the name space.' Another common argument is that the first use or the oldest is be definition the primary use. I'm not sure this is a valid case either. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, such solipsistic data is for the most part useless for determining primary topic. At most, such data might provide indications that there is not a primary topic (i.e., that the disambiguation page should be at the unmodified name). But without any external data or other arguments, such data does only provides the weakest of indications that one topic should be the primary topic over others. older ≠ wiser 09:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Following is a proposed rewrite of the section, for comments. I was thinking of including examples of "good" and "bad" primary topic choices, but that might be controversial so I have left that part out for now. --Russ (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks reasonable. One other thing, which can be a pain, is that sometimes there are a small number of major topics, and then dozens of minor ones. eg I've just reformatted induction, putting the very major topics at the top of the page. (According to the tool they were getting 10-100 times more hits than the other articles.) I think what I did is helpful, but I couldn't find any guidelines about it. Sam Staton (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Need to think about this one a bit. To me, the goal is to reduce the average number of clicks it takes to get to the target article. My math skills are dull at the moment. When I have coffee I'll work on that one. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, caffeinated. If the goal is to minimize the average number of clicks for someone entering X to reach their article (and my logic is correct), there should be a primary target only if it is the desired target at least as many times as all the other dab targets combined. If you have a primary target, the primary target has 0 additional clicks and all others have two (click to dab page, click to article). If you have no primary target, all targets require a single additional click from the dab page. If Xp is the number of searches looking for the primary target and Xo is the number of searches for other targets, then when there is a primary target, the average clicks is (Xp*0 + Xo*2)/(Xp+Xo). When there is no primary target, the average clicks is 1. Xo*2/(Xp+Xo) is only less than 1 when Xp > Xo. Too much caffeine?

This doesn't solve the problem completely. First, do we agree on the goal of minimizing clicks? Second, how do we get a good guess/estimate Xp and Xo? And we might want to work in X~, the searches using the term X where we don't have a hit at all. But its changed my attitude to some extent on when to use primary topics. I will lean more towards NOT having them when there are several popular target articles. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Minimizing clicks is IMO a bit of an oversimplification. It is certainly an important part of disambiguation, but so far as there are not really good ways to produce reliable metrics, I'm very leery of reducing it to a formula. The page view tool doesn't actually indicate how many clicks are needed as many (perhaps even most) of the views may be through unambiguous links. Another consideration is the increased difficulty in identifying mistaken links to a primary topic. And of course, the page view tool is solipsistic in the extreme and can serve to reinforce systemic bias if not balanced with other rationales for selecting one topic as THE primary topic. older ≠ wiser 21:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is that "primary use" indicates an advocation of the topic as (in some sense) the most important. The discussion at

Madonna (entertainer)

was deemed "primary use" on the basis of efficiency.

If you want to make a formula about it, perhaps the problem in this example is that both topics get relatively high hit rates; neither are niche topics; and so neither use is primary for the whole population. Wikipedia is not a democracy: if a topic is primary for most people, this doesn't mean it should be primary in wikipedia. (on the other hand, if one article gets a very low hit rate, say 200 compared to 4000, it is probably a niche topic and you might expect everyone to agree on this.) Sam Staton (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Use outside Wikipedia is not important. The only reason for having a primary usage is to decide if an article gets to use the name itself and make all the others use some other name. The only reason for doing that is if one article gets more hits than any of the others. In other words it is only the hit count that matters, although it should be supported by link count for verification. However a guideline needs to be established. What is the criteria for establishing primary usage? If there are a dozen articles about the subject foo, what ratio between most used and second most viewed establishes primary usage? Is it 10% more, 20% more, 2:1, 3:1, 5:1, 10:1, 50:1, or 100:1? Is there a number of articles about foo that influences whether one of them should be a primary article? For example does it matter if there are 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 other articles named foo? Does it matter if there is a non-encyclopedia use of the name foo? For example does it matter if foo is used in other contexts than ways that it would appear in the encyclopedia? My answer is that if foo is viewed 10% more than any other article that could be logically named foo, then it could be used as primary usage, if more than twice as many as the next most viewed it should possibly be used, if more than three times as many it should probably be used. In cases where there are many articles that get close to the highest number of views, such that no one article gets more than 25% of the total number of views, no article should be used as the primary. In cases where there is a historical name of great significance it should be given precedence over more recent uses. An example is Radio Flyer, commonly known as the wagon. While the movie of the same name gets more views, Radio Flyer is allowed to keep it's name for historical purposes. You also have to include a Yuck factor to allow editors to bail out if they wish. No one wants to use Madonna for the singer (ok very few), yet by all forms of logic it is the logical primary use (doesn't conflict with any other article, gets far more views). Uses other than in Wikipedia are not a factor at all. By the way the ultimate form of treachery is to attempt to change the rules to make the contest come out in your favor. Don't do it. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a rather idiosyncratic description of what a primary topic is. While it may be somewhat understandable how you reach such a faulty conclusion, it is nonetheless unsupported by guidelines, consensus or current practice. older ≠ wiser 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To each their own. Read the guidelines, and ask yourself why they exist. It isn't a faulty conclusion, it is a question. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we have a strict formula to figure this out - I just wanted to explore the math a bit to see how it worked out so we could work that into the conversation. I still think that minimizing clicks should be a key part of dab pages - its primarily for navigation. It was a revelation to me that it didn't matter whether one item had 10% hits over another or not - it was each single entry against all the rest that matters. If you have 10 entries and one gets 50% more than each of the others (9 get 20 and one gets 30), you still would want to have no primary target using this criteria.

Again, if the goal is minimizing clicks and we have good stats on expected hit rates on the various pages (that's the hardest part!), you would only create a primary target if one article had at least as many "hits" as the rest of the pages combined. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See the problem with adding up all the others is that the way exponentials work is you can have a thousand itty bitty uses that together add up to 50% of the total, yet all should be rejected from your calculation unless there is no dominant usage, in other words if no one article gets more than 25% of the total, not 50% which is far too high a bar, and not important. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is if you assume that there will always be an exponential spread of hits what you are looking for is a gap or step between the dominant primary use and all the rest. You don't care about the total. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Phaw. 50% + 1 against the total of all the others is far too low of a bar for primary topic. In the past consensus typically solidifies around a primary topic when there is pretty good evidence that it is overwhelmingly more well-known than other uses. And of course the question of using any such metrics in the first place is complicated by the low quality of such metrics. And it is further complicated by the inherent reinforcement of systemic bias promoted by looking at Wikipedia usage to determine relative importance. older ≠ wiser 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Some examples would be helpful. The metrics we now have are pretty accurate. Links take a bit to count, but are exact, the new stats are pretty accurate. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the stats just became available recently and are not well known it is almost easier to find examples where the wrong page is used for primary usage. An example is prohibition. Means Alcohol prohibition, right? Nope. 4:1 today it means drug prohibition. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Accurate"?!?! by what standard of accuracy? There are at least a few known anomolies for the stat tool, and given its newness, can anyone say with certainty there are not others. Even the creator of the tool says I wouldn't base any important decisions on these stats. [3] At best, the stat tool is merely one more data point to be considered. It should never be used as the sole criterion for determining primary topic. older ≠ wiser 22:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How, pray tell, did you determine the 4:1 ratio of

Prohibition (drugs) over Prohibition? older ≠ wiser

22:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the notion that a primary topic exists for the purpose of minimizing clicks and I don't agree with any quantitative approach to finding the primary topic. That is why my proposed rewrite of the section avoids any mention at all of the number of links to a topic and emphasizes instead the "clear preponderance in usage." This is intended as a guideline for humans who are writing an encyclopedia for use by humans, not an algorithm for machines. The purpose of disambig pages is to help readers find relevant articles, not to minimize clicks, so if a primary topic is going to make it harder for some significant groups of readers, it shouldn't be there. --Russ (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the difference between making it easier to find articles and minimizing clicks, although I would not use that as a metric. Prohibition (drugs) = 17,925 Prohibition of alcohol = 3,744 17925/3744 = 4.79 I did not see that Prohibition redirects to Prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition was moved to Prohibition of alcohol on 8 August 2007 and most of the links were not changed, so most people are going to Prohibition, which since it is not listed on the disambiguation page was not one of the pages that I looked at. Live and learn. It did not need to be moved, as the ratio is (93,810+3,744)/17,925 = 5.44 over the second most viewed article, which more than qualifies it to be the primary usage, and now the redirect page is the most viewed page. Whatever for? Links may tell a different story. Let's see 2,000 plus for alcohol, about 500 for drugs. Same result. The number of known anomalies is very low. So far I know of less than a dozen out of 2 million articles. They are pretty easy to identify when you cross check them against link count, and look at all four months of hit data. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way mushy guidelines like "clear preponderance of usage" are not helpful. We need a metric of how clear the preponderance needs to be. Is 10% more a clear preponderance of usage? Is 20% more? is 2:1, 3:1, 5:1, 10:1, 20:1, 50:1, or 100:1 a clear preponderance of usage? Also do you mean clear preponderance over any other usage or clear preponderance over all other usages. I'll look for some examples, but I can already tell you that "over all others" is not important, but "over any other" is important. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "clear preponderance" is mushy. I understand it means that "X is the primary topic for title Y if, when you ask anyone what Y means (in the context of an encyclopedia), they think of X first". This is different from "if, when someone searches for title Y they are usually looking for X". e.g. if you ask someone what Sting means, in the context of an encyclopedia, they would probably say "it could mean a number of things". But if someone searches for "Sting", this is the internet, so they are probably looking for Gordon Sumner. I think wikipedia has to be an encyclopedia, and not just a reference for popular culture. Sam Staton (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be kind of nice to create a Wikipop project and move all the pop out of Wikipedia - leave them with an entry that said "see wikipop". I'm thinking of that graphic that shows what percentage of Wikipedia is Stephen Colbert... 199.125.109.104 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And if it is "mushy" it is because, as I specifically stated above, I don't believe that these decisions should be made by algorithmic, quantitative processes. A qualitative guideline may not be helpful to Mr. or Ms. 199.125.109.104, but it is designed to allow for the fact that this encyclopedia is intended to be used by a world-wide audience with a wide variety of interests and backgrounds. --Russ (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in, I absolutely do not think we need a simple-minded metric for determining primary topic. Especially not one based on a poorly understood, beta-version of an tool that gazes deeply into Wikipedia's own navel. older ≠ wiser 12:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the intent of the "clear preponderance in usage" standard? If it is not to reduce clicks, what is it? (John User:Jwy talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It just ensures that, if the only other articles with that title are "niche" articles, then the article can go under that title. (Otherwise, if there are two non-niche articles with the same title, there should be a disambig page at that title.) Sam Staton (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are 51,000 disambiguation pages, and 51,000 reasons for using them. It isn't just for cases where there are two equal articles. See White for example. The primary usage is the color, but the most searched for is the derivative, White person. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(Just wanted to highlight: I wrote "other articles with that title". The article on white people would never have the title "White". Sam Staton (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

That's an important distinction. In my statistics I am trying to leave out terms that appear on the disambig page but would not ever be used. I included white person because someone could logically search for "white" when they were looking for the article on white person, but I eliminated White House, also on that page, because no one would in my opinion type in "white" to find the White House. So I was a bit more relaxed in what I included. For example the "primary topic" for Fall is Autumn. Autumn would never be named "Fall", but it could be searched for under fall. In cases where there is a primary usage, it is helpful to have two tophats if there is one other that gets more or almost as many views, one to the other primary and the other to the disambig page. A good example is E, which defaults to the letter of the alphabet, but has two tophats, one to e the constant, the other to all the other uses. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that it is "clear" that "clear preponderance of usage" is not exactly what you are looking for. "preponderance" simply means "more" and "clear" simply means "statistically discernible", so a clear preponderance of usage could mean 0.001% more usage. What I am finding is that editors in the past just had to wet their finger and hold it up to guess which article was more preponderant, and gave weight to primary in the sense of "it came first" - for example, no one would even think to use e the math constant as the default, yet it gets 47% more views, Young's modulus 67% more, and Energy, not even linked to but alluded to, gets 3.8 times as many views as the letter E. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a dab term like 'HP'. In the top line, the most common usage (Hewlett-Packard) is listed at the top. A user recently asked why it also isn't sited under the organizations section, suggesting that the term isn't as noticeable at the top. I am tempted to think this is lazy, but in retrospect, I thought I would come here for some input. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think there is rarely, if ever, any good reason to link to the same article twice on the same dab page. HP is pretty clear as it is; anyone who actually reads the page is unlikely to miss the link to Hewlett-Packard. --Russ (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually this has just come up on

Talk:HP (disambiguation) -- while ordinarily I'd agree that there is little reason to repeat links -- some consideration of how this is addressed on disambiguation page like that may be worthwhile. I've commented a bit more on the talk page there, but briefly, HP (disambiguation) is the disambiguation page for two different "primary topic" page. HP redirects to Hewlett-Packard and hp redirects to horsepower. That is probably a pretty reasonable state of affairs. But it may lead to faulty assumptions about how a reader gets to a page and how they read a page to locate the desired target. older ≠ wiser

18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And this underlying conflict of intent is what inspired my post here. Maybe there's some tweaking to dab guidelines called for, so as to delineate this issue if (and likely when) it occurs again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Redundant entries on dab pages aren't forbidden (I've advocated for them on

Talk:HP (disambiguation), because of the different targetting of HP and hp, would mean that a redundant entry (or perhaps two if the intro were expanded to cover both) would be useful. Does it need to be addressed in the guidelines directly? -- JHunterJ (talk)

14:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As per my post immediately prior to yours, I am wondering this as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Should references be included on disambiguation pages? See Bryophyta. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally, no. The disambiguating phrase for that one entry should be slimmed down to just enough to make it clear how that article is different from the other. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In very rare cases it is possible to add inline external links like this[4] to items that are on the disambig page that have no article to make it easier to create that article, but if there is an article, there is never any reason to include a reference. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, those inline external links should also be left off of disambiguation pages, since they either have no Wikipedia article to disambiguate or have one and don't need an external ref. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The manual of style for disambiguation pages shows that these should be put on talk pages or as <!-- comments -->. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The manual of style for disambig pages says that, pretty much, each entry should only have one link. However, in actually looking through disambig pages I find that at least 25% of them have at least one entry with multiple linked words, and sometimes all entries do. Am I correct in assuming that all of these should likely be fixed, and that this is because inexperienced editors are inappropriately attempting to be helpful by linking words all over the place when they actually shouldn't be? It would appear to me that 10,000+ of these disambig pages need to be fixed in this regard. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right and we are working on it :)

Abtract (talk

) 22:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this being done in any organized fashion, or just "pick a part of the list and start clicking on articles"? I fixed (to some extent) a bunch of the disambig pages starting with Pa. I probably oughta read through the manual of style page on this more thorougly so I can fix whatever else is wrong while I'm at it. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at

Abtract (talk

) 22:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The [5] category is unintentionally silly, in that the list of disambig pages which don't need cleanup is probably smaller than the actual full list of those which do. But I might go through and clean that out. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: It's one navigable link, or blue link, per entry. Entries with a red link on the dabbed term should also have a blue link to an article that discusses, or at least mentions, the disambiguated topic--although this guideline has been debated recently (see the discussion

here). --ShelfSkewed Talk

23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I was aware of that, I was just being lazy in my initial explanation. I'm going to read the manual of style on disambig links carefully, though, so I can try to fix everything wrong with the pages as I go along (and so I won't "fix" things the wrong way). --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I just was looking through

Perhaps most of the links should be deleted, but if you're asking should the page be turned into a redirect to

non-human animal sexuality and that might be it, just those five. --NapoliRoma (talk

) 09:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think

Taemyr (talk

) 10:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it like Taemyr, but I also think the current version is alright. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The

Of course, we might need to look at naming but I think it is largely OK and avoids messiness like "List of XX named XX". We also might need to look at whether we can add additional categories (as discussed in the section above) - I'd say that it would work fine but again it is an issue we probably need to decide on and make sure the guideline reflects this. (Emperor (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Set indexes are not (or should not be) children of disambigs. Set index articles are articles, disambiguation pages are not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure they shouldn't be. They are not articles in any conventional sense. They (at least ship index and mountain index) are more like specialized disambiguation pages than they are like articles. Currently {{

Mountainindex}} adds pages to Category:Disambiguation lists of mountains, which is likewise a subcategory of Category:Disambiguation. I don't see any problem with that arrangement. older ≠ wiser

19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, currently as it is stands, set index is discussed on the main page, it is an alternative to the standard disambiguation page (just with more flexible layout rules), the templates use a form of the disambiguation symbol and the specific indexes are children of disambiguation. If the consensus is it isn't then some work is needed to separate it firmly from disambiguation.

Just from a practical point of view it is certainly a useful extra weapon in our armoury for disambiguation - it just happens to be more tightly focused on a specific topic and allows people flexibility on layout (see the talk on the use of tables in disambiguation - it makes more sense that the pages that tables work on are really set indexes).

Clearly this issue was even in more need of clarification than I thought. (Emperor (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

This seems to have gone quiet despite there obviously being a need for clarification. Would it help if I mocked up a set index footer template? (Emperor (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I think it is a mistake for the ship and mountain index articles to be children of Category:Disambiguation. Ship index was set up first, I made the mountain index have parallel structure, but I don't think I did the right thing. There has been endless ink spilled in discussing the difference between a set index article and a disambiguation page: if we blur the distinction, then people get confused and the temptation is to get rid of the set index articles entirely. hike395 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The fix is to have a parent category like "Category:Set Index" and then the ships and mountains can then become children of it, without (you'd hope) much argument. The debate would then move on to what the parent of that Set Index category should be and I'd suggest make it parallel to disambiguation. However, having the parent means we can be flexible with the solution. Somewhere down the line you could put the mountain and ship set indices up for renaming and I you'd get my support, and if we have kicked around the issue enough here, it should get the support of a lot of people here. Such a move would also suggest the set index section should probably be split off to its won article.

Also note there is discussion on set indexes below that touches on this too, as {{

SIA}} automatically adds the Disambiguation category which seems a mistake. (Emperor (talk

) 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

One thing that keeps me wondering is why do we even have set index articles in the first place? Why not indeed get rid of them and amend the guidelines for the dab pages so they are flexible enough to deal with situations set index articles are aiming to resolve? The way I see it, we simply need to allow red links on dab pages and allow referencing of said red links (not necessarily in a separate section even; it could be done in comments or on talk), as well as to allow longer descriptions for cases when dab pages contain entities of the same type (ships, localities, hospitals, etc.). Surely that would alleviate a lot of confusion? Building rules around a completely separate concept of set index articles just seems awfully redundant, considering how much overlap between them and disambiguation pages exists...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is that the strictness of

WP:MOSDAB is what keeps the disambiguation pages functional and easy to use (people get in and get on again with the minimum of fuss) and making it more flexible might help with the handful of set indexes at the cost of the vast number of disambiguation pages. I would imagine attempts to amend it would be met with stiff resistance and I'd probably find myself sympathising with such suggestions. (Emperor (talk

) 19:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

I don't believe merging the dab and SIA concepts would affect MOSDAB's strictness all that much. As far as red links go, there have been complaints

already, and if extended descriptions are only allowed on topical dabs (list of places, ships, etc.), then we essentially achieve the same results but get rid of a redundant SIA concept at the same time. The bulk of the dab pages, however, is not going to be affected at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?

); 20:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation question at Talk:Northern_Ireland#NI_disambig about removing the hatnote. Any guidance would be nice. WLU (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

To summarize, the discussion is over the inclusion of the hatnote:

This article is about the constituent country. For the European constituency, see Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency).

I've since added the same hatnote to Denmark, the Czech Republic and adjusted the disambiguation pages for Cyprus, Germany, Luxembourg and probably some other stuff, so there's more than just one page affected. WLU (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

{{

SIA}}, for some reason unknown to me, classifies articles into Category:Disambiguation. However, Gorki looks a lot like a disambiguation page to me.... --Russ (talk)

16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it might be that ... I have no idea how to change it, do you? As to whether it is a dab page, I can only say it went through a lot of chat to arrive where it is ... see talk ... I think its ok but who knows? :)

Abtract (talk

) 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I was looking for clarification on this above. To answer some of the above point:

• The category is coming in via "includeonly" tags within the template.
• Gorki probably does count as a set index although the "see also" seems like a bit of a cludgy work around to have your cake and eat it. I think it should be possible to refine it -probably with "Gorki (disambiguation)" and move the other bits there.

As discussed above it might be worth either removing the includeonly or switching it to one that automatically includes it in a "Set Index" category. It wouldn't allow for much flexibility but note {{surname}} (which is similar in that it is a parallel effort to disambiguation) has a way to turn this off if there are subcategories like the ship and mountain indexes (indices?). This while a bit more complicated in the coding (although we can lift it from {{surname}}) would allow rapid and easy categorisation (and people could keep an eye on that and refine the categories where needed).

Having a "Site Index" parent category would also allow you to build the site index structure in parallel to the disambiguation areas which would help avoid confusion (I'd also suggest splitting of the site index section here to start a new article so we are clear about the distinction).

Quick changes but they should really help clarify the issue and make the efforts in this area more focused. (Emperor (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

I've also dropped some thoughts on changes to the template here:

Template talk:SIA and linked back here to keep things joined up. (Emperor (talk

) 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

J, the discussion at Talk:Baykal (disambiguation) had nothing to do with set index articles. No one ever attempted to classify that disambiguation page as a set index article; the (applicable portion of the) discussion was strictly over the inclusion of red links on disambiguation pages and over the practicality and usefulness of the most recent amendment to the MOSDAB's red links clause.

As for {{

Template talk:SIA. In my opinion, the suggestions made by Emperor make perfect sense. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?

); 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, there will be a disambiguation navigation page and a set index article with a similar name. For example, there is some topic "Like this one" that consists of "Concepts of this type" plus other meanings. In this case, the disambiguation navigation page should be named Like this one and the set index article List of Concepts of this type named Like this one. Alternatively, if the the "concepts of this type" are dominant, then the set index article should be named Like this one and the disambiguation page Like this one (disambiguation). Whether to use this alternative follows the guidelines for naming disambiguation articles.

I think the combination of the red links and "Like this one" make it very hard to follow... I would fix it myself except I am not quite certain I get what it meant. --Marcinjeske (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The red links is there for a reason. We are an evolving encyclopedia, so blue links tend to change. This could cause the meaning of the paragraph to change. In particular

Taemyr (talk

) 10:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a concrete example:

• Glass Mountain is a true dab page, involving more than concept type (mountains, albums, mythical locations).
• List of peaks named Glass is a set index article just about mountains

The thinking here is that the mountain meaning isn't clearly dominant, so that Glass Mountain becomes the main dab page, and List of peaks named Glass gets the longer, more awkward title.

Does this make sense? hike395 (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a small dispute on

Since there are two people named "Barack Obama", an additional hatnote could be added, such as {{For|the Kenyan economist|Barack Obama, Sr.}} before or after the current redirect hatnote. Churchill should (or could) also have such a hatnote. See also William Shakespeare. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I usually add dates to hatnotes like that: {{For|the Kenyan economist (1936-1982)|Barack Obama, Sr.}}. Not sure whether it's in line with the rules, but it seems helpful. PamD (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another option is to use the {{Distinguish}} template, though I have to admit I don't see this as being a terribly popular template. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. So should a separate disambiguation page exist for the other three Winston Churchills (I'd forgotten

Winston Churchill (grandson)) at Winston Churchill (disambiguation), in addition to the current dab page at Churchill (disambiguation)? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 03:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It could exist, or {{two other uses}} could be placed on Winston Churchill to handle it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for some outside opinions as to whether or not

The purpose of disambiguation pages is to allow pages with similar names to be easily found. The convention for this, as you seem to know, is to have the link to the disambiguation page at the top of the page. I understand the point that many of the things listed at

Nostradamus (arcade game), since their names are truly the same name as the article. Regardless of that, though, if there is a disambiguation page (which there is), it should be linked to at the top of Nostradamus. -- Natalya

20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The only justification for a disambiguation link would be if there were articles on other members of the Nostradamus family or other people called Nostradamus, which there aren't. --PL (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nostradamus" is ambiguous for dab purposes, because there is the person, an album and an arcade game of the same exact name. For everything else, I agree with Natalya. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"everybody knows who it refers to" is dangerous: do you think everyone interested in the album really knows/cares that it's named after the seer? There are multiple entities which have the title "Nostradamus", so there is a dab page, so there is a hatnote linking to the dab page from the article at the prime, non-disambiguated, meaning. Simple. An alternative would be to have "Nostradamus" link direct to a dab page, but I hazard a guess that most people would agree that the seer is the primary sense of the word, so the present situation is correct, and helpful. PamD (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nostradamus the man is definitly the main topic of all pages named "Nostradamus", but, as much as we would like, we can't assume that everyone who comes to Wikipedia will know who Nostradamus is. Hence the need for the link to the disambiguation page. -- Natalya 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we move this discussion over to

Currently there is a disagreement on whether it should be a