Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44

Help at PawPaw

Need a third (or fourth) opinion at Talk:Paw Paw#Use of redirects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines for dab page section headings

This page doesn't seem to have any guidelines for sections, which are quite common in dabs. IE, John Lewis, which has numerous sections. One of these was titled 'Sports people', and I thought, that's clearly wrong, so I changed it. But then I come here to see what guidelines have to say about it, and I find no mention of how sections should be used, at all. (Let alone, any guidance on their titles.) Surely there should be some discussion of that herein?? Eaglizard (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Why "surely"? Ambiguous titles have wildly varying lists of potential topics, and section headings that makes sense on one with 10 such entries won't make sense on another with 1 or 2. What's clearly wrong with a grouping of "sports people" if the title's list includes a number of sports people? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Why surely? B/c that's what I thought. I didn't say I was correct. In fact, I said I came to see if there were guidelines for it. Your argument that guidelines are not needed for sections in dabs seems incorrect to me, given that many, many things covered in all the guidelines will make sense in one article, but not in another. I believe this is one of the reasons they remain guidelines, and not rules. Also, what's wrong with 'sports people', imo, is that it simply isn't good English. Imo. Nor encyclopedic; 'sports figures' or 'sports persons' seem better to me. Which is the reason I say there should be guidelines: all guidelines benefit from discussions and consensus, which is why (most) guideline pages remain unprotected, so you and I and the community can discuss and clarify the WP stance on issues just like this one. Eaglizard (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
We have guidelines for many things, but not everything. I don't see the bad English in "sports people"; it appears to me synonymous with "sports persons". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Like you, I'd like to see some guidelines at least for anthroponymy articles. I've seen "Athletes" (which has a different meaning in American and British usage), "Sportsmen" (which is pretty safe for people named John), "Sports figures" or "Sports people". My preference is just for "Sports" or "in Sports". Does anybody know if there has been any discussion in the past of a standard set of section headings for anthroponymy disambiguation pages? Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Possibly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I see that I am somewhat wrong, there is some guidance on this issue, under the heading
    WP:Section for syntax guidance. I'll try to make it easier to find for someone like me, who only thought to look for the word 'section'. In fact, I have boldly done so here [1] and then corrected myself here [2]. Also turns out I've copyedited several sections, all in separate edits for easier arguing. :) Eaglizard (talk
    ) 01:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Poker face

Ongoing discussion at Talk:Poker face about the primary topic for Poker face and the best way to arrange the page. All opinions welcome.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Acronym primary topics

For the case of a DAB page where the primary topic is an acronym and a redirect to the expanded title: MOSDAB seems to be contradictory:

  • A) use the expanded title "However, when the disambiguated term is an acronym, initialism or alphabetism, links should not use redirects to conceal the expanded version of that initialism. " (yes, sounds sensible)
  • B) use the redirect "When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article:"

and then gives readers the run-around for clarity with:

  • "For situations where the primary topic is a redirect, see Linking to a primary topic above."

Any support for putting an example in, as there's different styles out there, so which do you favour (and which example page)? (my suggestion in brackets):

  1. (correct, optional) Expanded Title (ET), ...
  2. (incorrect) Expanded Title (ET) ...
  3. (correct, optional) Expanded Title ...
  4. (incorrect) ET is an acronym for Expanded Title, ...
  5. (incorrect) ET is an acronym for Expanded Title, ...
  6. (incorrect) ET is an acronym for Expanded Title, ...
  7. (incorrect) ET is Expanded Title, ...
  8. (incorrect) ET is Expanded Title, ...
  9. (correct) ET is Expanded Title, ...
  10. (correct)
    VPN
     is a virtual private network in computing.

Saying that, my preference above does mean the DAB page title is less obvious. That would favour 4. 9.

I just worked on PSN (disambiguation) (vs previous [3]) for example. Widefox; talk 11:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the guidance is really contradictory -- perhaps a bit inconsistent -- but the sentences you quote come from different sections of the guideline with different scope of application. The first bullet applies to the list of terms and the second bullet applies only to the introductory line in a special case where there is a primary topic for the term being disambiguated AND that term is a redirect to a different title. This guidance, which is qualified as "normally" applicable, is followed immediately by an exception where using a direct link may be preferable. The third bullet is part of the same section as the first bullet and I think the intent was to alert editors that the guidance for the use of redirects in the introductory line has consideration that depart from the guidance for the use of redirects in the list of terms.
Within the specific area of acronyms as suggested by the section heading, I don't have a strong preference for any of the options. I think the general guidance is reasonable -- in most cases, use the redirect, (which I think corresponds most closely to #6, though I don't think it usually necessary to proclaim that something is an acronym) and in cases where using the direct link makes more sense, use that (which could take a variety of forms -- 1, 3 or 4 could all be acceptable without the self-evident proclamation of being an acronym). older ≠ wiser 12:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The option I use is not one of the ones you list:
  1. ET is Expanded Title, which is a description of this topic.
See, for example, HP (disambiguation), EA (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree the use of "acronym" is superfluous in DABs, and that last style is the most clear - added your example above as 9., and changed PSN (disambiguation) to 9. . So going by your reasoning, 9. is for most cases (per cosmonaut example) and 1., 3. optional. (per Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart example). Considering this the opposite of when it is not the primary topic (ie A applies), and not currently clear to me in the examples that B) also applies to acronyms (due to wisdom of A), I suggest I clarify by adding say the HP example to cosmonaut example, and (what to add to the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart example?) - which should all then be clear! (if anyone can understand the above that is?!) I do think this needs an example, due to the inversion of A) for the primary topic. Widefox; talk 14:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
If the redirect is a partial name (such as in the case of Mozart or Obama) as opposed to an acronym, I think bypassing the redirect and linking (with bolding) to the full name is correct; it would not result in the confusion that could come from the acronym. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah,
MOS:DAB
is often as clear as mud as your post clearly illustrates. It seems to me to have been written by editors who know what they wanted to say but what they wrote doesn't quite get there. I understand that problem. I can't really proofread my own writing: I know what I wanted to say. Therefore, what I wanted to say is what I read, even if that isn't what I really wrote.
When I clicked on your PSN (disambiguation) example link, what I saw was unexpected. I clicked on a link called PSN. When I got to the dab page the title matched my expectation but the next line didn't lead me from the link and the title to the first definition. Instead a whole new term is introduced and emphasized with bold font:
PlayStation Network (PSN) is an online ...
PSN may also refer to:
It was better the way it was. It is important, always and forever, for editors to support readers' expectations. If I click on a link that says PSN, the page title and the first bold text should be PSN just like every other article on Wikipedia. Spelling out PlayStation Network in bold font right at the first of the first line of text after the title doesn't match my experience with and expectation of Wikipedia.
Were I editing that page, I would move the PlayStation item into §Other uses or perhaps §Computing (I see no reason why PlayStation Network should have pride of place) and change the first line to read:
PSN is an acronym that may refer to:
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I already changed that DAB per rethink and reasoning above. Note that readers shouldn't (unless from another DAB page) click on DABs with primary topics, but obviously here that exactly how we're accessing them! I do agree with Bkonrad about "acronym", and JHunterJ about default style (9.) - it only gets in the way of navigation - I normally remove them, along with (ET) type acronym items in individual entries. Widefox; talk 14:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
In order to move the PlayStation Network into the list, it would first have to cease being the primary topic for "PSN". Calling the primary topic "pride of place" is one of the misconceptions of primary topic. It is not a victory or honor, it is a recognition of usage and reader expectation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I just fixed VPN (disambiguation) - and realised the trivial issue of article capitalisation is a minor issue here, worthy of mention on this talk page while we're at it.

Add this example?

It seems we have consensus on the style. We have acronym examples, but not for the primary topic. Due to the number of such pages and the issue above, do we have consensus for adding the style 9. without discouraging 1-8, by simply adding this?:
When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article:

A
cosmonaut
 or astronaut is a person trained by a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft.

and in a similar way for an acronym, initialism or alphabetism:

HP is Hewlett-Packard, a technology corporation.

Widefox; talk 11:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No discussion on this, so I take it no opposition, I will be bold... Widefox; talk 11:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done Widefox; talk 01:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

linking other disambiguation pages in See also sections

We talked about this at

WP:PIPING is to avoid people going to places they don't expect; it shouldn't be used as a stick to prevent useful piping. For example, at Brod
, we currently have (organically AFAICT):

(I'd personally lose even that first visible marker, but anyway.) If we proscribe all piping, we'll have:

Is that better style? I don't think so - we've repeated the same word four times for no real purpose. The reader of a disambiguation page who clicks on that piped link can't be particularly confused by seeing another disambiguation page - at least not any more confused than they already are from seeing the original disambiguation page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The "(disambiguation)" indicates the link is to a disambiguation page rather than an article. I don't see any benefit to the piping in this case. If I came across the former while editing a page, I would likely unpipe the links. older ≠ wiser 19:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Right. We've repeated the (disambiguation) four times for the purpose of communicating to the reader that the destination is a disambiguation page. In the first list, they look like links to articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Why does the reader have to care that the link is to a disambiguation page up front? In case of Blob (visual system) and Blob (video game), there's a purpose to unpiping the links -- they need to be aware of the difference. In the case of Broda and Brode, they will be more likely to see the difference if there's less repetitive cruft around. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The "(disambiguation)" at the end is no more cruft than the "B" at the beginning of each entry. The reader doesn't have to care, but the reader may. Since there's no reason to obscure it, we display it for them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Your reductio ad absurdum doesn't make any sense, because the "B" is integral to the meaning of the terms, while the internal disambiguation marker is not (particularly with INTDAB redirects). I just told you the reason to obscure. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Your categorization of the (disambiguation) part of the redirect title doesn't make sense either. If it's cruft, delete it. Since they should not be deleted, they aren't cruft. No reductio ad absurdum needed; the claim fails by simple definition of "cruft". -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
In the case of it being used just for
WP:INTDAB (to clean up WhatLinksHere output), it's cruft for most readers, but not for editors. (In case of it being used in the destination disambiguation page title, it makes sense to use it, so my proposal doesn't change that.) Again you're trying to reduce the issue only to some extremes, rather than think about it in a nuanced, sensible manner. --Joy [shallot] (talk
) 22:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why you don't think it helpful to give readers a cue as to whether a page is a disambiguation page or an article. older ≠ wiser 22:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The first one, fine, let it be explicit, just in case they somehow get confused upon clicking (although I find that scenario somewhat dubious[1]). But all four? An even clearer example is Braude#See also. There is no value in repeating "(disambiguation)" over and over again in that same line, it just enlarges the space between the words and makes it that much harder for the reader to observe the pattern in the variants.
[1] the "(disambiguation)" markers are a tool for intentional disambiguation links, not page titles, so if the page is titled "Broda", and that's exactly the page we want the reader to go to, leaving the visible part of links to it named "Broda" seems obviously valid. We don't generally tag links to other articles with their type, so why would we do this? --Joy [shallot] (talk)
Braude is a surname page, so if there is any MOS guidance applicable for such pages, that would apply rather than MOSDAB. If it were a dab page, I'd expect the see also to be a bulletted listing. And although MOSDAB doesn't say anything about descriptions for see also entries, I usually put something in. As a surname page, it might say:
* Braude, a surname
Whereas with "(disambiguation)" included in the link, the description is built-in. older ≠ wiser 23:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I see little need to warn people clicking a see-also link from a disambiguation that they will end up at a disambiguation page in the link. The destination page will tell them that anyway, and if you actually want to describe what they will end up with, do that - use the normal text following the link to tell them something meaningful about where they'll end up after clicking and why they might want to do that. "Thing (disambiguation)" doesn't actually provide much of a description of "Thing". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Thing (disambiguation)" doesn't actually provide much of a description of "Thing". -- Well, actually it does give a pretty spot on indication that the page at "Thing" is a disambiguation page. But as you've said a few time now, you don't see any value to giving readers any such indication. I disagree. older ≠ wiser 13:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I still don't see why is this indication relevant, esp. in case of INTDAB? We don't link toasters as toaster (article), so where is the value? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course we don't link articles as toaster (article). But we often add a description if the topic is not self-evident from the link. Using "(disambiguation)" in the link makes it self-evident. older ≠ wiser 14:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how the fact that the linked page is a disambiguation page is more important than the fact that the toaster article is not; why explicate the page type in one link text but not the other? The description of 'Brode' in the see-also section of 'Brod' should have a purpose - for example, to explain which criterion of
MOS:DAB#"See also" section it satisfies (confusion, spelling, alternate, index). The one-word note that 'Brode' is a disambiguation page is trivially informative, but it doesn't serve an obvious purpose and it introduces a style of linking that differs from all other kinds of links on Wikipedia - creating an inconsistency that the Manual of Style is supposed to be designed to eliminate. --Joy [shallot] (talk
) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but if anything, the style you suggest in the first example above introduces far more inconsistency in how pages are linked than the second. I don't see any benefit to piping the link in see also or why a link to a disambiguation page in a see also section should be treated any differently from other entries elsewhere on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
But it is already being treated differently from other entries elsewhere on a disambiguation page - by virtue of being
WP:INTDABLINK. --Joy [shallot] (talk
) 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
That "inconsistency" is a declared exception, which in itself should be consistent. Adding another exception to pipe such links doesn't magically make things more consistent. older ≠ wiser 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The (disambiguation) portion should be visible, in every instance where the link appears in a see also section. bd2412 T 04:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
We don't have to add another exception, we just have to allow piping like
WP:SEEALSO implicitly allows it, meaning these See also sections become consistent with the same thing on the rest of Wikipedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk
) 08:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It just struck me how amusingly similar this is to the recent debates about birds and insects. The manual of style has two separate descriptions of "See also" sections, one 'global' and one 'local', and I'm advocating normalizing the two, while you're advocating making the 'local' one more closely match (a side-effect of) another 'local' style issue. Ultimately, however, because this 'local' area is largely intrinsic to Wikipedia (the implementation at least), we don't have the benefit of external sources, and can only answer the question of which style is better for the readers through editor consensus.
(I wonder if it would be considered canvassing if I were to unleash^Wcall in SMcCandlish :D) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing where
WP:SEEALSO says to pipe links or how piping disambiguation links would not be an additional exception. older ≠ wiser
10:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It is similar in that a vocal minority is trying to pretend the consensus isn't consensus. There is nothing in the local consensus here that contradicts the broader descriptions of See also sections; you have manufactured a disagreement by pretending that the absence of a note about piping in
WP:SEEALSO somehow contradicts the absence of permission for "See also" piping here. -- JHunterJ (talk
) 11:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to clarify that the absence of permission for "See also" piping here doesn't mean a restriction - the text says Links to other disambiguation pages should use the "(disambiguation)" link per WP:INTDABLINK. (emphasis mine). Apparently that is not the consensus. And once again I don't appreciate your style - I did not manufacture anything, my statements reflect what I actually believe. Kindly lose the attitude. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, no high road card left to play after your smarmy "unleash^Wcall" note. If you're finding attitude growing where you've sown it, you may want to make a better start next time. I'll clarify also:
  • Intentional links to disambiguation pages should use the "(disambiguation)" link per
    WP:INTDABLINK
    .
  • Any links on disambiguation pages should not be piped per
    WP:MOSDAB
    .
  • Therefore, any intentional links to disambiguation pages from disambiguation pages should use the "(disambiguation)" link and not be piped.
No broader consensus are contradicted. Kindly lose the attitude. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Smarmy? Say again? TWAJS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Just in case anyone has any doubts, I already said I recognize the fact that this is decided by consensus, and it should be obvious to anyone reading that others who responded think differently from myself; at no point have I intended to act or acted in a way that would go against this discussion that explicates the consensus; I sort-of-reverted once in this edit, because JHunterJ's edit had not merely reverted my previous edit but reinterpreted it; as soon as it was clear that he was reverting it, I did not engage in further edits there. JHunterJ's implication that I was acting in bad faith is ridiculous and appears rather malicious given that I've just expended a fair bit of effort in trying to patiently elaborate my position. If you disagree with me, that's just fine, but that doesn't mean you can freely accuse me of wrongdoing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
In addition to finding attitude where you've sown it, you're now also finding implications of bad faith and accusations of wrongdoing where there are none. It sounds like, now that the positions have all been patiently elaborated, this thread is done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
WTF? a vocal minority is trying to pretend? you have manufactured a disagreement by pretending? In your mind, people pretend and manufacture disagreements in good faith?! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe you had good intentions when you did so. But the (incorrect) hyperbole about this being like the birds/insects debacle was not as amusing as you might have found it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Section link

Hi. Is it acceptable to use {{Section link}} in disambiguation pages for section linking? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen it used, and wouldn't think to use it (in disambiguation pages or in articles). Section links, when needed, are typically placed in the description and piped with a shorter identifying word or phrase. The section template style would seem to be more appropriate to "See also" area links, and could be used there on disambiguation pages, if the topic linked didn't belong in the main list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Math markup (and minor help - archive search box)

An entry in Cox used math markup which I gingerly replaced, info at Talk:Cox. Apart from it being arguably gratuitous, I removed it partly for page load performance reasons. As we're not meant to worry about that, are there other examples, and what do others think? Also, anyone want a search box on this talk page archive? Widefox; talk 13:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

May vs. Can

I have seen disambiguation pages written in two different ways: 1. Foo may refer to: and 2. Faah can refer to: Should "may" or "can" be used in that instance? Revolution1221 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS:DABINT only uses "may" and I find that it works well. Hope that helps. SchreiberBike (talk
) 21:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirect listings for cover versions

A discussion about listing on dab pages redirects for notable cover versions of songs (those that have their own dedicated sections within an article) is underway at

WP:DABREDIR they should be included on the dab page. Whatever consensus evolves from this discussion, the guidelines should be clarified on this issue.--ShelfSkewed Talk
14:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done I replied at Talk:Because of You and made my suggested edit Widefox; talk 19:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Brevity

Taking it to talk: a recent edit deleted an example of an entry:

"Dark Star" (song), a song by the Grateful Dead

...on the grounds that saying a song disambiguated by "song" is a song is redundant. Which it is.

Immediately below this, there is the guideline:

Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary.

Repeating the disambiguating word "song" in the entry does not help to find the correct link. Thus it is clutter, and works against the functionality of the page.

I concur that this example should be deleted, lest people be encouraged to follow it.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This example should be kept, in the hopes that people be encouraged to follow it. Keeping the format "Link to topic, a noun phrase identifying the topic" is good writing, and at least some editors prefer it to "Link to topic, prepositional phrase that somehow relates to the topic" or worse, "Link to topic, noun phrase that does not identify the topic" (as in the case of just a year or geographic location in the description. Repeating the word "song" serves to make the description (which is needed) an independent description. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
As a staunch believer that our guideline to "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum" means that we should keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, I concur with discouraging pointless repetition and deleting the example. It's not as bad as "ALBUMNAME (BANDNAME album), an album by BANDNAME" but it's still not good. Theoldsparkle (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"To a minimum", by this interpretation, would be
since the performing artist is not necessary for navigation, since there are no other songs. If you want to describe the song: "What's Dark Star?" "It's a song by the Grateful Dead", not "It's by the Grateful Dead". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
But you probably wouldn't say, in response to "What's Dark Star?", "Dark Star is a song, which is a song by the Grateful Dead" or "There's a song called Dark Star, which is a song by the Grateful Dead", which is more analogous to how I see the example entry. Or you might just say "It's a song." You won't see me arguing that we need to specify the band if there's only one song by that name, but I don't mind following that convention because I think it does add a bit of clarity, as opposed to repeating the disambiguator, which I don't think adds anything. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
With bands and songs I think the name of the performer is significant. While at a given point there might only be one article about a song or album with a particular name, it appears to be very common for names to be re-used. For instance, suppose another band released a song named "Dark Star" and someone linked to Dark Star intended that song, but didn't bother to check. Another editor comes along using some of the semi-automated tools available and seeing only one entry for a song could easily select the Grateful Dead song. At least if the band name is mentioned on the dab page, the context of the article might make it clear to the editor that the intended link doesn't yet have any article rather than blithely linking to the wrong article. older ≠ wiser 16:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In case there's any confusion about this: I include band names (and author names, etc.), and I never suggested omitting them. I support omitting repeated disambiguators, and I explained that I don't feel the same way about band names. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Theoldsparkle, right, I wouldn't say that. On a dab page, though, I would say (and will continue to say) "Dark Star (song), a song by the Grateful Dead", which adds clarity to me and other readers, even if it doesn't add clarity to you and yet other readers, since it hinders none. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we're not talking about dialogue (you were the one who brought up what would make sense in that context, not me); we're talking about a dab page, which is words on a screen, that are read, in order, which means that the reader will read the word "song" and then, two words later, will read the word "song" again. I'm not interested in debating this endlessly; you shared your opinion (which I respect) and I shared mine. But I will say that if you think improved clarity is a benefit of your preferred method, it might behoove you to explain how, because I don't see that you've mentioned that before, and it's not obvious, at least to me. (And I can't help thinking that a lot of people would argue that it looks better and improves clarity to add a lengthy, complete description after every entry on a dab page.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You've been so behooved already. "Topic link, noun phrase description of topic" reads better to me than "Topic, prepositional phrase related to the topic". Adding "a song" does not transform a short description to a lengthy one, although it does make it read better to some readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
My confusion was because I don't think of "reads better" and "improves clarity" to be the same thing, particularly in the context of a dab page; now that I understand you do consider them to be the same thing, I understand why you said your preferred method improves clarity. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Note: Everyone should be listening to Grayfolded ("over a hundred different performances of the song "Dark Star" between 1968 and 1993" remixed together), whilst reading this discussion. 'tis a lovely ambient (and no vocals) album. ;) –Quiddity (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Year ranges on disambiguation pages

I've asked for clarification about how year ranges for births and deaths are to be applied on disambiguation pages at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Year ranges. older ≠ wiser 13:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Order of entries allowing geographic order explicitly, yet another time

Another perhaps-new-to-disambiguation editor has arrived and has focused upon the order of entries in dab pages of historic-register-listed houses and similarly named items, such as

MOS:DABORDER
section still does not fully and properly reflect consensus that geographic order of entries can serve readers well. This was pretty much hashed out, discussion-wise, in archived August-September 2010 Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 40#Order of entries allowing geographic order explicitly, again. My understanding was that multiple editors agreed there that geographic order (meaning order alphabetically by state then by city within the United States, for example), works well for dabs consisting of historic places.

Can we now please revise the MOS:DABORDER section? Currently it allows geographic order only within a subsection, and unfortunately would impose "bluelinks first before any primary redlink (with supporting bluelink) items" in a dab page such as Phillips House that is not broken into titled sections. So, technically, I think a newly arriving editor does have a point, that the DABORDER says the current order is wrong.

However, we don't want edits that churn several thousand DAB pages unnecessarily as NRHP primary redlinks gradually turn blue, and that serve readers poorly. Again, it is obvious that most readers arriving a dab page are looking for a local "Phillips House" or whatever, and they are well served by quick lookup in a state-then-city ordered lookup list. They want to find the bluelink to their local place, or to discover that it is merely a redlink and they could give up or go to a supporting bluelink. They are poorly served by wading through some non-obvious "bluelinks-first" ordering. So, can that be fixed? --doncram 13:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The ordering in Phillips House was also discussed in April, 2009, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_16#followup_feedback_sought_on_NRHP_disambiguation, where the upshot was that ordering by state then city was verified okay then, too. Nothing has changed, basically, including that MOS:DABORDER is imperfect. --doncram 13:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about Red links on dab pages

There is a discussion at

talk
) 14:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A relevant AfD

   I responded, according to what i think i learned here & in sharing an occasional Dab-cleanup with others i've seen here, to

Dale, Virginia should either be a redirect or be supported by two SIAs; others may be interested.
--Jerzy•t
03:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification regarding WP:DABREDIR

The general rule at

WP:PIPING
states:

Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages. This is to make it clear to the reader which article is being suggested, so that the reader remains in control of the choice of article.

The exception at

WP:DABREDIR
states:

  • Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section. For example:
James Cary may refer to:
  • (correct)
    James Carrey
    or Jim Carrey (born 1962), Canadian actor ([[James Carrey]] or Jim Carrey (born 1962), Canadian actor)
  • (incorrect) James Carrey or Jim Carrey (born 1962), Canadian actor (James Carrey or [[Jim Carrey]] (born 1962), Canadian actor)

JHunterJ (talk · contribs) interprets the exception as meaning that if a redirect exists it must be included on the corresponding disambiguation page, even if the redirect is not an appropriate title for the target article. This has come up in at least two cases:

"The redirect exists, so if it's accurate it should be used and if it's not is should be moved or (re)deleted."
— User:JHunterJ 03:52, 8 January 2013

"Feel free to nominate the redirect for deletion. Until it is deleted, it fits the criteria for this disambiguation, that is, it is called 'Social Security'."
— User:JHunterJ 04:21, 27 July 2013

I think the wording of the exception in WP:DABREDIR should be amended to avoid such confusion and highlight that linking to a redirect on a disambiguation page is only appropriate when the title of the redirect page:

  • "contains the disambiguated term"; and
  • "could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section"

and otherwise should not be used if both criteria are not met. The quoted sections are the existing wording, so this change is merely clarifying and emphasising the criteria that apply.

Also, the Jim Carrey example is outdated since his article has been amended to remove the alternative spelling from the lead and the disambiguation page has been amended. I would like to see an example that shows:

  • When the redirect page should be wikilinked (i.e., when the redirected title appears as an alternative name in the lead of the target);
  • When the correct page title should be wikilinked;
  • When the target page should be omitted entirely (i.e., when the target does not use the disambiguated term).

—sroc 💬 00:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I don't interpret that; I recognize what the usual approach is that that guideline attempts to quantify. The simple, elegant approach it to see "all pages with a prefix" of "Title", and list all of the "Title (qualifier)" articles and redirects. The guidelines attempt to capture that common practice. Redirects that shouldn't be listed on the disambiguation should be deleted; redirects that aren't deleted should be listed on the disambiguation page. Simple. Straightforward. Clean. Gives paths forward for either resolution. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. Redirects exist for many purposes. The mere existence of a redirect does not mandate its use on a disambiguation page. And simply because a redirect might not be appropriate to use on a disambiguation page does not mean it should be deleted. older ≠ wiser 03:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous indeed. Redirects exist for many purposes, and a redirect that could exist at the base name "Social Security" but instead has a qualifier "(Australia)" because there is ambiguity at the base name can be disambiguated by a Wikipedia disambiguation page. In fact, disambiguating such ambiguity is why the disambiguation pages exist in the first place. If the qualified title redirect doesn't belong on the disambiguation page, it should be deleted. Simple. I do agree with you, though, that these conversations are like beating one's head against a wall. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Where is the requirement that a redirect with a qualifier must be used on a disambiguation page or that if there are better options for presenting the entry on the disambiguation page than the redirect that the redirect must therefore be deleted? older ≠ wiser 13:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not an either/or scenario: it is not the case that we must either delete the redirect or include it in the disambiguation page, as there are different considerations. In fact,
deleting redirects is harmful for a number of reasons, so it is advised not to delete redirects unless the redirect is itself harmful. That does not mean that the redirect must therefore be listed in the disambiguation list, as this would contradict WP:PIPING. —sroc 💬
13:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
JHunterJ: The exception states: "when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section." You're concentrating on the first part (the redirect contains the disambiguated term) but ignoring the second part (the disambiguated term could serve as an alternative name for the target article). As Bkonrad has pointed out, there are many reasons why redirects are in place to aid readers who get the facts/spelling/detail/whatever wrong. The fact that a redirect exists does not mean that it meets Wikipedia's standards for serving as an alternative name for the target article. It is simply wrong to trawl for every redirect that contains the term and add it into the disambiguation page without regard to the actual criteria in each case. —sroc 💬 03:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's another example:
helpful for a number of reasons so it need not be deleted. —sroc 💬
14:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the cases mentioned above where this has fallen into dispute are situations where:

  1. Someone created an article at the inappropriate title Title (incorrect).
  2. Someone later moved the article to the correct title Correct Title.
  3. The former Title (incorrect) is not "an alternative name" for the target article.
  4. Title (incorrect) serves as a redirect to Correct Title, rather than being deleted, because deleting redirects is generally discouraged (see Wikipedia:Redirect#HARMFUL) as it may nonetheless serve useful purposes (see Wikipedia:Redirect#KEEP), e.g.:
    1. There may be any number of wikilinks to the old title in Wikipedia (which generally need not be "fixed": WP:Redirect#NOTBROKEN);
    2. There may be any number of links or other references to the old title from outside the wikiverse;
    3. It would aid accidental linking to the incorrect title;
    4. It would avoid accidental re-creation of the same title;
    5. It may aid searches;
    6. Someone may find the redirect useful.
  5. A dismabiguation page exists at Title (disambiguation) and the question arises whether the redirect Title (incorrect) should be included.

In this case, the redirect serves a useful purpose and should not be deleted, but it is not an accurate title either (it cannot "serve as an alternative name for the target article") and therefore my understanding is that it should not be listed on the disambiguation page. —sroc 💬 23:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wording

My proposed wording:

  • Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both:
  1. the redirect contains the disambiguated term; and
  2. the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article (meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section).
For example:
Jim Crow may also refer to:
  • James "Jim Crow" Chiles
    (1833–1873), American Confederate outlaw
[redirects to
James Chiles (outlaw)
; the alternative name is stated in the lead of the target article]
Alternatively, a link to the appropriate title may be placed elsewhere in the entry, for example:
John or Jon Ritchie may refer to:
  • John Simon Ritchie (1957–1979), English musician better known as Sid Vicious
[instead of linking
John Simon Ritchie
which functions as a redirect; the birth name is stated in the lead of the target article]
However, it is not appropriate to include a link to a redirect where the disambiguated term would not serve as an alternative name for the target article (although the redirect may be useful for other reasons). An example of incorrect usage:
James King may refer to:
  • James 'Jim' King
    (1899–1984), American civil rights leader
[redirects to
Martin Luther King, Sr.
; however, "James 'Jim' King" is not mentioned as an alternative name in the target article]

—sroc 💬 15:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed simpler wording

I propose

  • Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the title of the redirect matches the ambiguous term with a disambiguation tag.

since that's the purpose of the qualifier (aka disambiguation tag) and the purpose of Wikipedia disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that would be changing what is currently provided by deleting one of the criteria for when a redirect may be included. What I am proposing is a clarification to make it easier to follow. —sroc 💬 16:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Your proposal also wouldn't account for other legitimate cases that don't fit the Title (disambiguator) format, such as the [James "Jim Crow" Chiles] or [John Simon Ritchie] examples. —sroc 💬 16:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, that is my proposal, to simplify the guidelines by (a) deleting one of the bullets, which didn't prohibit redirects anyway, but has sufaced in these head-against-a-brick-wall discussions (b) lining it up with the actual purpose of disambiguation, disambiguation tags, and redirects and (c) lining it up with actual practice. My proposal would not change (either way) the other guidelines on using redirects that don't have disambiguation tags, true. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
(a) The bullets reflect the current wording of WP:DABREDIR which limits when the exception applies and therefore when redirects may be included on disambiguation pages may be included. (b) On what basis do you determine "the actual purpose of disambiguation, disambiguation tags, and redirects"? (c) On what basis do you determine "actual practice"? Provide evidence for this substantive change to the guideline. In any case, your response that the guideline needs to change implies acknowledgement that your interpretation of what you think should happen is inconsistent with the guidelines as they are written now. —sroc 💬 21:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:R describes the actual purpose of redirects. On observing the actual practice over many years of working with disambiguation pages. In any case, please stop wikilwawyering. -- JHunterJ (talk
) 11:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing in these guidelines that indicates that redirects must either be deleted or else included in a disambiguation page.
In any case, there are a number of flaws with your counter-proposal:
  1. It reflects a substantive change in the guidelines, which would require consensus.
  2. The drastic over-simplification only considers the Title (disambiguator) format and completely disregards other relevant cases, including the examples of [James Carrey], [James "Jim Crow" Chiles], [John Simon Ritchie] and [John Simon Ritchie].
  3. It completely contradicts the general rule that "redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages" without any regard to the relevance of the title in each case.
  4. It would specifically allow the inclusion of redirects that could not be an alternative name for the target article, when this was not the case before.
  5. It ignores the numerous reasons why deleting redirects is harmful even when the redirect is not an acceptable alternative title for the target (see Wikipedia:Redirect#KEEP).
  6. It provides no examples and is itself unclear to understand.
—sroc 💬 13:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposing something on the talk page that requires consensus is a "problem"? I disagree. Proposing something that completely covers one case has no bearing on the other cases, so that's not a problem either. A proposal for restating one of the exceptions to the guideline against redirects does indeed contradict (make exception to) the guidelines against redirects, but doesn't completely contradict it, so that's not a problem. It would allow for redirects that haven't been deleted to be included, but redirects that could not be an alternative name for the topic covered by the target article (or section) should be deleted, so that's not a problem. It ignores none of the reasons for deleting incorrect redirects, so that's not a problem. Examples can be easily added, so that's not a problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that there are more that one or two editors who look at the current wording and think it tells them to do something stupid? Unless there are, just tell the one or two editors to stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Which editor(s) are you referring to? The difficulty is that there seems to be a difference of opinion as to which course of action is "stupid". —sroc 💬 05:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to name anyone because we all do stupid things -- myself certainly included. Comments like "That is ridiculous", "This is ridiculous indeed" and "It is simply wrong to..." lead me to believe that other also think that something wrong or ridiculous was done in good faith. Which leads me to a basic truth: If lots of people read some instructions and conclude that they should do something that is dumb, we need to change the instructions whether or not we happen to like the existing wording. If very few do, then it is almost certainly better to tell them that most folks don't interpret the instruction like that. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, "something that is dumb" is subjective, and I don't wish to say that what someone else does is "stupid", yet telling one person that their interpretation is wrong is unhelpful if they simply reject it. That's why I'd like to get more input on what the right thing to do here is so that we can clarify it one way or the other — whether the consensus is that I'm right or wrong. —sroc 💬 09:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: This is an unhelpful tangent. Yes, it is clear the guideline can be clarified to avoid different editors reaching opposite conclusions. Now, do you have any comment on which interpretation is better or how the guideline can be clarified? The placement of you comments suggest that you agree with the change proposed by JHunterJ (which by JHunterJ's past practice would mean a redirect with a parenthetical disambiguator MUST be used on the disambiguation page or else deleted). Is that the case? (PS I just noticed there was an unsigned comment from JHunterJ that at first glance appeared to be by Guy. My apologies if I have misread what you intended from the placement of your comments). older ≠ wiser 12:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
@
WP:CONSENSUS is for. If you tell me that my interpretation is wrong, I think it is right, and pretty much everybody else agrees with you and disagrees with me, I need to follow the consensus even though I disagree. If I don't, then I have a behavioral problem, and there are ways of dealing with that
. Note that this assumes that the answer to my unanswered question is "very few". If the answer is "many", we need to fix the instructions rather than asking all of those people to do something.
@Bkonrad: Re: "This is an unhelpful tangent [...] do you have any comment on which interpretation is better or how the guideline can be clarified?", I strongly disagree with the notion that asking whether a problem exists before jumping in and evaluating a proposed solution is a "tangent". You may very well prefer Ready, Fire, Aim, but I choose to stick with Ready, Aim, Fire. Feel free to not answer my question as to whether there exists an actual problem that needs fixing, but please don't tell me not to ask it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Yes, there does appear to be an actual problem, or perhaps you haven't bothered to read this section or the previous section or the linked discussions from the talk pages of articles where this problem originated. older ≠ wiser 15:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Your insulting multiple participants in this discussion does not strengthen your argument. Quite the contrary, actually. I read the previous section and saw no evidence of several editors getting this wrong. If you believe that a particular talk page discussion contains evidence that supports your claims, please tell me where. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, really it is only one editor who is insisting that their interpretation is the correct one. This one editor has been in conflicts with multiple other editors over this precise issue and refuses to acknowledge the possibility that they might be mistaken. older ≠ wiser 19:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I've been involved in one other discussion with another editor at Pawpaw, and that one was resolved, no problem. And I've tried to describe how the multiple guidelines and projects coordinate simply enough, without resorting to calling the other interpretations as "simply nonsensical" (which looks a lot like a refusal to acknowledge that one might be mistaken). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, except it is your description of how the multiple guidelines and projects coordinate that is mistaken. You have not been able to point to anything that mandates the use of redirects on disambiguation pages where they exist and similarly there is no existing criteria for deletion that recommends deleting redirects because they are not used on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 20:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, so the answer to my question ("Is there any evidence that there are more that one or two editors who look at the current wording and think it tells them to do something [pick whatever term you prefer]? Unless there are, just tell the one or two editors to stop doing that") appears to be "No. Just the one". I therefor conclude that there is no reason to change the wording of any policy or guideline, and that we should instead tell that one user to
drop the stick. --Guy Macon (talk
) 05:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
If only it were that simple. I get the sense you haven't actually been following along and have only dropped in to proffer unhelpful advice. older ≠ wiser 11:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You appear to have confused me with someone who cares what you think. In particular, I have zero interest in your opinions about whether I have been following the conversation or whether I am being helpful. I stopped paying attention to your antics around the second or third insult, so please stop wasting all our time with your inappropriate personal comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It was rather quickly apparent that you had no interest in the matter at hand and appear to be only interested in making pointless comments. older ≠ wiser 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Bkonrad, that's why I propose improving the guidelines to better reflect the goals of disambiguation, naming conventions, and redirects, as well as actual practice. Most of the time, using all of the titles (articles and redirects) of the form "X (qualifier)" from "All pages with prefix" meets with no comment at all. A few times, it meets with comment, is explained (the way I've explained it), and accepted. Twice now an editor has objected with the objection that the topic lead to by "X (qualifier)" isn't really ambiguous with X at all, a situation easily address by improving the encyclopedia and deleting the errant redirect (if the topic isn't really ambiguous with X, there is no reason for the redirect to be). You have not been able to point to anything that mandates the existence of the redirect "X (qualifier)" where there is no ambiguity (that is, a redirect that acts as if there's ambiguity where there is none, potentially causing confusion and otherwise making no sense, two of the reasons to delete redirects). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Except that your proposed clarification is not supported by any current guideline nor is it clearly established common practice. Yes, in many, perhaps most cases, a redirect with a parenthetical term is acceptable to use. However that is not a universal rule and there may be better ways to present that entry instead of using the redirect. Redirects are cheap. If a redirect might help some readers find an article, that is reason enough to keep it. That alone does not mean it is the best option for presenting the entry on a disambiguation page. In none of the cases that I'm aware of so far is your statement a redirect that acts as if there's ambiguity where there is none, potentially causing confusion and otherwise making no sense true. The matter is simply that the redirect is a less appropriate manner of presenting the entry on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You haven't been following along: this isn't a clarification; this is a proposed improvement. It is clearly established common practice. If a redirect of the form "X (disambiguation tag)" might help some readers find an article, that's reason enough to use that helpful redirect on the X disambiguation page, since readers one the X disambiguation page are looking for something they think is referred to by X, and qualifying it with a disambiguation tag is the familiar way to tag its ambiguity and qualify it precisely. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You're right, my bad; it is neither a clarification nor an improvement. A redirect of the form "X (disambiguation)" may help some readers find an article, but in some cases, that form may still be less desirable than another manner of presentation on the disambiguation page. I don't agree that your suggestion should be enshrined and thus enabled as a club to wield in disagreements. older ≠ wiser 12:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Right, because that's my goal here, club-production. Don't know when your opinion of my motives took such a nosedive, but all I can do is assert that I'm still trying to improve the encyclopedia through improving disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sett

I've just encountered an example like this;
Sett (textiles) be deleted, given that it is not eligible for inclusion on the dab page? It does seem like an unlikely search term. --Florian Blaschke (talk
) 03:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I would have made the same call that you did, because
Sett (tartan), I might have been more likely to use it. On the subject of deleting the redirect, I generally find the redirect deletion process more trouble than it's worth, but that's just my view. Theoldsparkle (talk
) 13:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the link to
WP:DABREDIR as discussed above? —sroc 💬
10:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't be nice to remove hundreds of disambiguation pages?

Maybe I am missing something, in which case, forgive me for consuming your time and, please, give me some good info & advise. Otherwise I really can't see the usefulness of many of the disambiguation pages. Anytime that there are pages with an identical word-starting title, search engines, inside and outside Wikipedia, do a very good job of presenting the different options from which the user can choose precisely what he wants, without any help from disambiguation pages. This is 100% sure for any TWODABS about personalities with same name. There is not need of Hatnotes either. Lets take the example of John Quested. if I type it in Wiki search I'll see three options: John Quested (the disambiguation page), which is totally useless, John Quested (producer) and John Quested (aviator). If I perform the same search on the net, I'll find, among others, both Wiki pages plus the disambiguation page, which, again, is doing more arm than good. There could have even been three or four John Quested. All four will be found.


Lets take now another kind of example. I know something about a personality called Adler (surname) but I cannot remember the first name (say Friedrich). Doing a search on the net with Google (first page) I get Alfred Adler and, at the bottom, some other choices of a contemporary kind. If by chance my Adler is not among those, I am down. Alfred Adler's Wiki page has no other suggestions and if there are some, like in Wiki's Steven Adler (another Google suggestion), it will be about other Steven or Stephen Adler, which is not helping me at all (unless I was by chance searching for a Stephen one).

Doing the same search with Bing it's getting a little bit better. In fact the first Bing page proposes also Wiki's Adler page, which i consider to be an Adler disambiguation page, having more than eighty different Adlers, and, very confusing, having also an Hatnote proposing an Adler (disambiguation) page. But these two pages don't help at all, why? Because there are also disambiguation pages that bring up other disambiguation pages. In my case the Adler page proposes not all the Friedrich Adlers of the world but a disambiguation page that enlists all the Friedrich Adler. So I have to go there before being able to read some minimal biographical clues which is what I was searching for in order to know exactly whom I was searching for. But it takes time and it's not a linear process.

For all these reason may I suggest some basic guidelines?

  • Remove all disambiguation pages and hatnotes that are not absolutely necessary
    • Check the real necessity for disambiguation pages and hatnotes by testing titles with the search engine
  • Never allow secondary disambiguation pages, that is disambiguation pages linked from other disambiguation pages
  • It should be considered of strategical importance the creation of good titles, and, as such, properly checked
    • Don't put “(disambiguation)” in the title because these pages will never appear in the search list box
    • Compel the creation of titles with an obligatory second word (bracketed or not), leaving the simplest wording titles only for disambiguation purposes (when necessary), which will always appear on the search listbox
      • the first word should be the main word, the adjective or qualifier being the second and not viceversa. For example, and contrary to the current conventions, the page
        mechanical fan
         should be "fan, mechanical" or "fan (mechanical)", because only this way you can find all the related topics "fan (mechanical)", "fan (manual)", and so on in the search listbox, without any help from disambiguation pages and hatnotes
      • Another exemple: Battle of Waterloo should be "Waterloo (battle)" so that it will be shown in the search listbox with all the other seventy or so Waterloos, maybe with an option of creating an automatic temporary page with the entire listing when they are more than, say, ten
  • Don't allow the creation of absurd pages, as a cover of a missing primary topic or a bad general planning
    • Adler EN Wiki page is an example. It should have been the only Adler disambiguation page with “Adler is a surname of Germanic origin” as primary topic. The current starting lines don't have even the right to exist in the EN Wikipedia. In fact the common word Adler is not even an English word.

Sorry for my rambling; I am just trying to help. Carlotm (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Yes, you can find either term through a search engine, but you may not, for several reasons:
- more instances of one subject makes it hard to find another
- search engines do not call out the primary qualities of a list of subjects
- when in WP, and finding the "wrong article," it is much more intuitive, and faster, to 1) have your "incorrect" find noted at the top, 2) clicking through instead of searching
Please note that the majority of WP articles are found via search engines to begin with, indicating that a "bad hit" may be the best reason of all to have hatnotes and DABs. Dovid (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
For the
notable
enough to be on the list.
Adler may also be a useful article because it provides information about the origins of the name that a mere disambiguation page would not. That said, if there is confusion between Adler (which lists people with that surname) and Adler (disambiguation) (which lists other articles with that term), then that is an issue for discussion on the talk pages of those articles, I think. No need to re-write the rules for all disambiguation pages for this particular situation. —sroc 💬 10:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification about "Items appearing within other articles"

The stipulation "if a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included" is a bone of contention in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hetty King (disambiguation) (2nd nomination). Hetty King, wife of James Green Martin, is mentioned just once in her husband's article, yet certain people feel that a mere mention entitles her to a dab entry. I don't agree, and think the MOS should be amended to say that some whiff of notability is required. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You have it backward. Hetty King, wife of
MOS:DABMENTION. If you think the wife of James Green Martin is entirely non-notable, please remove the unencyclopedic mention from James Green Martin. The reason that a "mere" mention is sufficient is simple: disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia ambiguity. -- JHunterJ (talk
) 01:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of WP basics - notability is a criterion for valid article subjects, which is totally different from what may be worth mentioning in an article on another subject. There are tens of thousands of non-notable parents, spouses, children etc rightly mentioned in biographies, but who should not be included in disambiguation pages. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You contradict yourself. I fully agree that notability is a criterion for valid article subjects. A redirect or its equivalent where the title is ambiguous, an entry in a disambiguation page, is not an article subject, so is not subject to any notability criterion.
Phil Bridger (talk
) 13:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes that's what I'm saying. I was objecting to "If you think the wife of James Green Martin is entirely non-notable, please remove the unencyclopedic mention from James Green Martin" by JHunterJ above, equating "non-notable" with "unencyclopedic", which is completely wrong. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe I'm just a bit slow, but I still don't get your point. It appear to me that your words "notability is a criterion for valid article subjects" mean that notability is not a criterion for including a topic in a disambiguation page, but "There are tens of thousands of non-notable ... who should not be included in disambiguation pages" means that notability is a requirement for such inclusion. Which is it?
Phil Bridger (talk
) 13:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You want me to be dealing with something other than what I was dealing with. First and main point I was making here is as stated in my last reply - very basic and simple; can we agree on that? Second point, which I wasn't addressing directly: the criterion for what should go onto a dab page are different, and more to do with the degree of coverage in the article where they are mentioned, but also I agree with those below who want "a whiff of notability", and if the person or thing is thought notable, then even a brief mention would justify a mention on the dab page. This quite often happens with dynasties of artists for example. But non-notable parents etc should only receive a dab page mention if the coverage of them is more significant. I'm not suggesting the policy should reflect this complicated and somewhat subjective approach, but that the current prescriptive wording, very rarely followed, should be softened. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You must be joking! But I've noticed the disam project often seems to live in a little world of its own. Maybe this should be taken to Village Pump. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with

Aztec Theater (The Simpsons) redirects to a section of Springfield (The Simpsons) that specifically details the fictional Aztec Theater; a whole paragraph, more than a fleeting reference, but insufficient for its own article; it therefore deserves a place on the Aztec Theater disambiguation page. Every spouse and child mentioned once on Wikipedia does not require them to have their own page or a separate section on their lives, nor should this warrant a place on a disambiguation page. If someone really wants to find that one fleeting reference to a person on Wikipedia, the search box is right there. —sroc 💬
04:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@Johnbod, regarding the large number of possible "Virgin and Child" listings, if there are so many paintings with this theme, the appropriate thing to do is create a set index page listing "Virgin and Child" paintings by notable artists; there is no Virgin and Child (disambiguation), and the listing would not be ambiguous to the primary meaning, Madonna (art). bd2412 T 13:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
No it isn't, for those without articles! It would a) take years, b) contravene
WP:NOT, c) be not very representative and useless to anyone. The appropriate thing to do is what everyone has done for the last 12 years, ignore the policy and do nothing. Johnbod (talk
) 13:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree in general - I set out briefly my criteria for when the section should be followed before the first indent at the top. I also think it depends on whether the topic is potentially or certainly notable, in which case a pretty brief mention justifies a dab entry - I used the example of dynasties of artists. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I should propose a draft. Current: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included." Should be changed to: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then it may be appropriate to include a link to that article. The notability of the topic and the amount of coverage in the article are factors that should be taken into account when deciding on the appropriateness of including a link." Any comments? Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Should not be changed. The notability of the topic is a factor that should be taken into account when deciding on the appropriateness of mentioning it in the article. Once it's mentioned in the article, if it's ambiguous with a Wikipedia title, it should be disambiguated on Wikipedia. I do not understand this desire to introduce more arguments to disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That's the same fundamental mistake you made higher up the page. If, say, we know the names of the wholly un-notable parents of a notable person, we of course include them in the article if it is of any length. Where do you get the idea that "The notability of the topic is a factor that should be taken into account when deciding on the appropriateness of mentioning it in the article"? What policies do you think support that? It has never been normal practice, & shows a complete misunderstanding of what notability is about, and for. The "desire" is, as several people have said above, simply to bring the written policy into line with what WP has always done, and should do. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That's the same fundamental disagreement we have, yes. The mistake is not mine though. In the absence of any other topic on Wikipedia, could a redirect have been created to the mention on the other page? Yes. Since there's ambiguity and that redirect can't go to the mention, we disambiguate it. It has normal practice, and your comment shows a complete misunderstanding of what disambiguation is about, and for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Better take this to the community then. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with
    Talk
    20:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    We don't let non-notable things remain in articles either. Things that are mentioned in articles are notable -- they are able to be noted, and are in fact noted in the article. (BTW, "crutch" there, not "clutch"). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Aargh, no, no, no! Where do you get this stuff? Start using "notable" when you mean "encyclopedic", & a whole raft of WP guidelines turn to gibberish. WP:Notability begins "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article", and the last para of the lead is (original emphases) "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." What is it about that that don't you understand? Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying to follow this, and it seems to me that some things are indeed being confused here, or are at least confusing me. Since dab pages exist only to disambiguate article titles, and not to serve as indices (as has been hammered home repeatedly over the years to those of us outside the dab project), then how is it that "mentions" can be listed among disambiguated topics? I suppose I might see it if the topic "mentioned" in the article existed as a redirect. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion, in April 2012, seems to be when the "dab 'em all" interpretion set in - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_29#How_far_do_we_go_in_including_unlinked_entries.3F. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Cynwolfe, the confusion may be that "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." ("Topic", not "Title"). See
WP:D you don't understand? You seem to be suggesting that the topics mentioned on articles don't need to have their own articles, but that topics disambiguated on disambiguation pages do; and you're wrong. I'm not suggesting that we change the disambiguation page style guidelines to add "notable"; that was Clarityfiend's suggestion. -- JHunterJ (talk
) 14:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
In this section you have twice asserted that topics that are non-notable are also unencyclopedic, and mention of them should be removed from articles, and twice defended your assertions. You are totally wrong, and
MOS:DABMENTION for how mentions MUST be listed among disambiguated topics". Johnbod (talk
) 03:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
True about the assertions. Incorrect about those assertions being totally wrong. Instead, you have asserted that the disambiguation page is the place to make judgments on the worthiness of topics mentioned elsewhere in the encyclopedia. You are totally wrong; the talk pages of the articles in the encyclopedia are the places to make judgments on the worthiness of topics mentioned on those articles. This is why disambiguation pages don't need references; Wikipedia disambiguation pages disambiguate ambiguity among topics in Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's concentrate on the topic at hand - ie what you said. As WP:Notability says in the clearest possible terms, the Wikipedia concept of "notability" simply does not apply to material covered within an article that is on a notable topic. Until you get that right, nothing else will be. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
So, it needn't be notable to be within an article, but it needs to be "notable" (but somehow notable without references) to be within a disambiguation page? Let's concentrate on fixing your assumption there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Please stop dodging around the issue. I have explained my view of Dabmention above. Does something need to be notable to be within an article, in your view? Yes or no? Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Please stop pretending that our continuing disagreement is my dodging. I have explained my views above as well; and this is Clarityfiend's topic at hand, not mine. To answer your question, a thing needs to be just as notable to be listed within a disambiguation page as it needs to be to be within an article. Just because that answer doesn't feed your desired script doesn't mean it's dodging. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Still ducking and weaving! You have not explained where this view has any backing at all in WP guidelines, other than
WP:DAB, which is not (outside the Disambiguation project perhaps) regarded as having anything to do with the content of normal articles. Johnbod (talk
) 22:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Still moving the goalposts! You're right, I'm relying on the disambiguation guidelines for disambiguation pages (such as, what shall we disambiguate on disambiguation pages, in case you've forgotten the topic at hand again), and I'm not applying article guidelines to non-article disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Coming quite late to the party, but this seems to be a disagreement about the goal of DABs. The two sides of the argument discussed are: DABs are they there so a user can find similarly named articles vs. DABs are there to allow a user to find a subject. I don't believe either is true. I think DABs are there to... disambiguate! I.e., to avoid confusion by readers, who would otherwise find "wrong" topics, or have difficulty finding topics. So, more formally, the goal of a dab is, firstly, to avoid the confusion of ambiguity of names of subjects, and secondly, to make it possible for the reader to self-educate easily, without having to dig too far. As such, the primary goal is to prevent confusion arising form similarity of names, or occasionally, dissimilarity of a topic and its expected name. We do no user any service by allowing a name to creep into a WP article somewhere and set the user off for a round of trying to figure who a person is NOT, what a thing is NOT, what an idea is NOT. To meet the goals of having DABs altogether, once a topic requires disambiguation, the DAB page should be more inclusive, not less. I would not create any kind of page for Hetty King at all... but once a DAB exists that someone might find when looking for Hetty King, we shoudl link to whatever we can on WP for it. Dovid (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bringing this back on track, as stated above, I agree with Clarityfiend and Johnbod that a topic needs more than a brief mention to warrant a listing in a disambiguation page. A topic needs to be notable to have its own article but not to be mentioned in an article on a related topic (Wikipedia:Notability does not govern content, only whether an article may exist for a given topic). Disambiguation pages are intended to resolve conflicts between topics with similar names, where a "topic covered by Wikipedia" is "either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject" (Wikipedia:Disambiguation). Thus, to be listed on a disambiguation page, the topic must be at least a "minor subject covered by an article" (i.e, enough that a reader might potentially be looking for it) without having to meet the notability criteria. For example, Richard Henry "Dick" Abbott is mentioned as the father of Australian prime minister Tony Abbott but is not notable enough to have his own article or be "covered" in enough detail in his son's article to be regarded as a "minor topic", and thus does not qualify to be listed on the Richard Abbott disambiguation page.

To this end, I propose the following amendments to

MOS:DABMENTION
for the sake of clarification:

  • The first line be amended to read:
If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned discussed in detail within another article, then a link to that article should be included.
  • Add the following at the end:
If a topic is only briefly mentioned in another article and is not covered in detail, then that topic should not be listed on a disambiguation page. For example, a family member who is named in a biographical article would not normally be included in a disambiguation page unless the family member is also covered in detail.

—sroc 💬 12:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Good golly, is this argument still going on? Of course I support the amendment, with one proviso. I think it should be weakened slightly to "some detail". Clarityfiend (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, with slight preference for "Some detail", but either would be an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, being mentioned is sufficient. If the thing being mentioned is non-notable, the entire mention should be removed from the article space as non-encyclopedic. Many song titles, for example, are mentioned without any detail on track lists for albums, and should remain listed on disambiguation pages. The proposal simply sets up additional drama over what constitutes "discussed in detail", while the current consensus avoids drama by relying on the clear-cut "is mentioned" or "is not mentioned". Oh, and I suppose I should have opened this comment with some empty rhetoric like "Good golly, is this argument still going on?" to indicate that editors who disagree with me simply haven't thought about the issue sufficiently. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
notability guidelines "do not limit the content of an article or list." To take your example, many songs are listed in articles about the albums they appeared on or the artists who created them. Some songs are notable and either have their own article or have significant discussion within another article, and these would warrant inclusion on a disambiguation page, I agree. The vast majority are not notable enough to have their own article and are not discussed other than a passing mention or inclusion in a track listing, and these should not be included in a disambiguation page. We certainly don't say: "Delete the tracklisting because the individual songs are not notable enough for their own articles!" —sroc 💬
22:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
If that's the implication of this, then I also oppose. A song with a specific title is a legitimate topic to search for. I see no reason to hobble the utility of disambiguation pages by excluding a song because it only appears in the track listing of an album. I am somewhat more sympathetic to excluding persons mentioned only in passing in another article. Although, to be honest, I don't see the harm in it. older ≠ wiser 22:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
There isn't any harm in it because nobody ever follows the policy, according to which they are supposed to add everything mentioned in passing to disam pages. I don't have strong objections re song titles, though if they were actually all on disam pages there would be a good deal of clutter. But consider all the family members mentioned in bios & paintings mentioned in art articles. If the policy was followed there the breach of
WP:NOTDIRECTORY would be massive. Johnbod (talk
) 13:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I don't think the policy requires editors to seek out and add everything mentioned in passing in other articles. The policy does suggest that such uses should not be removed. It is common practice among several major contributors to disambiguation pages to seek out and add such uses, especially in the course of a deletion or requested move discussion, so the claim that nobody ever does so is patently false. Personally, I simply do not see the problem with including titled works that are verifiable and mentioned in other articles on disambiguation page. As I've already mentioned, persons are somewhat more iffy. older ≠ wiser 14:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
"if a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included" seems perfectly clear. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Splitting hairs, but that is not policy, but is from the MOS editing guideline. FWIW, I'd be fine with softening that by changing "should" to "may" and perhaps including some suggestions for when inclusion might not be appropriate. older ≠ wiser 15:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
If someone searches for a song and it's mentioned on Wikipedia, the search will find it. What we end up with is lists of every song titled "Angel", "Crazy", "I Want You" or "Smile" whether they are noteworthy (i.e., worth more than a passing mention) or not. Is this really what we want? —sroc 💬 23:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I've done such searches without the disambiguation page and it can be like looking for a needle in a haystack. I don't see the problem with having disambiguation pages include a list of songs with the title. older ≠ wiser 00:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Would you support the proposal if the final paragraph were amended to read:
A person who is only named as a family member of someone else in a biographical article would not normally be listed in a disambiguation page unless the person is covered in some detail.
? —sroc 💬 00:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't support such
WP:CREEP. It gives no benefit to thew encyclopedia. The ordering of entries ensures that mentions are placed below links, so no reader is impeded by including mentions. -- JHunterJ (talk
) 10:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I was addressing Bkonrad. —sroc 💬 11:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I was addressing the amendment you proposed on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. If you want to talk to Bkonrad without other input, you might try email or User talk:Bkonrad. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
sroc: You are confusing notability (the test for "whether a topic can have its own article") with the disambiguation criteria for including an entry in a disambiguation page. Since the disambiguation page interrupts the search process, we include entries (or "mentions") of topics that are mentioned on other articles, even when those topics wouldn't have articles of their own. In this way, users who would otherwise reach the article (say, about an album) by something mentioned in the article (say, one of its songs) may still do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
There's no valid reason to list every un-notable family member who gets a passing mention in someone else's biography in a disambiguation page:
  1. Readers are unlikely to search for an un-notable person.
  2. Readers looking for a person who is only notable for being related to someone else would expect it more likely to find the article on the notable person more easily than a listing in a disambiguation page for the un-notable person.
  3. If a reader searches for an un-notable person by name, a search will find the mention of them.
  4. There are essentially four scenarios for disambiguating people with the same name: (a) if there is only one notable person with that name with that name (or none), no disambiguation page exists; (b) if there are two or three notable people and one is the
    United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan, 2014 ("Declared: Richard A. Abbott"), Labaya
    ("Some researchers, such as Richard Abbott…"), and so on. We would not create a disambiguation page just to list un-notable people mentioned fleetingly on other articles, nor would we list them if there were only two or three notable people with articles disambiguated by a hatnote, so why should we suddenly list every person with a particular name when a disambiguation page is created? This simply promotes inconsistent treatment for no good reason.
—sroc 💬 11:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
@Sroc: Based on patterns I've observed, I'd argue the disambiguation page should include many of the instances you mention. A composer/lyricist is likely to have other song credits and editors are likely to create links in articles about the songs (or for albums containing the songs). When disambiguating such links, it helps a lot if the disambiguation page contains an entry for that person. Otherwise, everytime someone adds another link for the same person, someone will need to start research all over again. For persons whose only known accomplishment is being related to a person or having some minor role in association with some event, I'd be fine with leaving such persons off the disambiguation page. For sports persons on a junior league team, I'd suggest that the MOS for such team articles should more strongly discourage using redlinks for the player roster and such players should not be included on a disambiguation page. For professional teams, there is a fairly good chance that individual players will have an article as some point, or at the least be a topic for a search. Declared candidates for a federal office from a major party seem worth noting on a disambiguation page. Though including previously unknown candidates for state or local offices are a bit more iffy, IMO. I'm not sure if there is an easy way to formulate such guidance (apart from common sense). older ≠ wiser 14:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
@Bkonrad: Would you support the addition of this line at the end?
A person who is only named as a family member of someone else in a biographical article should not be listed in a disambiguation page unless the person is covered in some detail.
—sroc 💬 23:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
@
WP:CREEP would cause problems as editors begin debating how much detail is needed or whether a particular naming was an example of "only named as a family member". The current guideline is sufficient and simple -- things that are mentioned can be listed if an editors bothers to list them on the disambiguation page (if no editor bothers, there's no "clean up" designated to go find all missing mentions). -- JHunterJ (talk
) 12:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@JHunterJ: We have each clearly stated our respective positions. We must agree to disagree. —sroc 💬 22:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Other links within explanations

I would suggest that the guideline “Include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line. ” is unreasonable. It depends what has brought one to the dab page, but it is quite possible that one comes across a term, wants to find out more, finds it in the dab page, and realises what one really wants to read about is another topic; extra links save that detour via the article, including perhaps having to absorb part of the information one does not care about. Ideally one would base such a guideline on reliable information about users’ wishes and behaviour, but I doubt we have that! PJTraill (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer a guideline suggesting that certain links are useful, e.g. those helping users to understand the explanation and those enabling the jump I described above. PJTraill (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
How do you propose editors accomplish this predictive mind-reading feat? older ≠ wiser 12:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
@PJTraill, a disambiguation page is a simple navigational device, much like a redirect, except with multiple possible redirect targets (and, obviously, we can't have links to other pages on redirects). Ideally, a disambiguation page should be as minimal as it possibly can be, to avoid confusing or distracting the reader who is seriously searching for a particular topic that is in fact ambiguous to the title. The fact that a reader may suddenly decide that they are interested in reading about something other than a meaning of the title for which they searched is irrelevant. If a person types in Phoenix, they may suddenly decide that what they really want to read about is New Mexico (because it is next Arizona), or Kleenex (because it sounds similar), or Jennifer Lawrence (juxtaposing the whole girl-on-fire/bird-symbol thing). The fact that people may change their minds about what they are really searching for is why we have the search bar. bd2412 T 13:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
(ec) It is just as possible that one comes across an unambiguous term, wants to find out more, finds it is a redirect (not a dab, since it's unambiguous), and realizes what one really wants to read about is another topic. Shall we then change the redirect to no longer redirect to the topic, but instead list both the original topic and this other topic, to save that detour via the article? (No.) This is exactly the reason we link only to the topic that could have had the ambiguous title -- the dab page is there only because we cannot redirect a single title to multiple articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
@User:BD2412 - it may be the case that the user does not change their mind, but has not made their mind yet, and need additional help to figure out which link to follow. For example if I read about
WP:JARGON
may help in that "mind reading" - preemptively anticipating user needs; if the terms describing each entry are technical in nature and not common words, also include a link to their descriptions and/or parenthetical explanations.
The view that disambiguation exist exclusively to solve a technical problem with article titles is rather naif. DABs are full-featured pages with an emphasis on navigation, and their complexity may depend on the complexity of topics covered and vocabulary used. Sometimes, removing information make people using it slower, not faster, if the information removed is just the one that the reader needs to make a decision on what link to follow. Diego (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There has never been a consensus on this project for disambiguation pages to be anything but minimal navigational devices, and for good reason. These pages can quickly become a chaotic, unreadable, and unhelpful mess (and my experience is that they do when the minimalist structure is not followed). It is therefore emphatically untrue (and contrary to long-established and well reasoned policy) that "DABs are full-featured pages with an emphasis on navigation". bd2412 T 14:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Minimalism != clarity. It's true that clutter needs to be removed, as it make navigation harder; but you shouldn't make them
recent US government shutdown the minimalistic approach was leading people to believe that the DAB page was an article, and that this was the only information that Wikipedia contained about it, and asking if there existed a list of all shutdowns (to be found in the main article, but not linked from the DAB). This shows that it's no good being extremist about following the rules, and sometimes it pays to bend them a little to explain things in context. Diego (talk
) 14:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Curious that you chose government shutdown to use as an example, since it is not a disambiguation page and could include whatever additional explanatory details might be appropriate for such a list. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It was a disambiguation page when people needed it. This reinforces my point - if DAB rules had been enforced, it could not have contained the information that readers were asking for. (And I don't know why it has been changed from a dab to a stub... it's still the same concept as
Government shutdown in the US). Diego (talk
) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it only reinforces the point that
WP:DABCONCEPT. bd2412 T
15:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The view that disambiguation exists for reasons other than to solve a technical problem with article titles is rather naif. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut for Misspellings section?

Would it be helpful to create a shortcut to the "Misspellings" section of this guideline? Would WP:DABSPELL perhaps be a suitable title for the shortcut? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"One blue link per bulleted entry"

I'm a bit unclear on this caveat. As each bulleted entry is itself usually blue-linked, does this mean "one blue link in the descriptive phrase", or that the entry itself is the one blue link, and a blue link should only be included in the descriptive phrase if the bulleted entry is red-linked or non-linked? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The latter is correct. Once there is an article, additional links are no longer needed on the dab page. The description is there only to help you find the correct article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying! Joefromrandb (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of divisions in DAB pages

Should there be more guidance on when to use section divisions?

Meaning when to use
Places
  • Yada yada
People
  • Yada yada
and so on?

Also on hiding the TOC box? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Longer than what?

"On longer lists, section headings should be used", we are instructed. Longer than what? Longer than six items? seven? ten? Longer than

a piece of string? A bit more specificity would be appreciated. Cnilep (talk
) 04:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought longer than one per section, at a minimum, but apparently even that is not uncontroversial. Cnilep (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
A group of one needs neither a section heading nor a group heading. I've edited Anadarko. I don't think we need precision here though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That is one opinion, and you may even be able to defend it logically. In the absence of any standard, though, we find situations where one editor will add section headings, followed by another editor changing those section headings to group headings. Disaster it is not, but without a standard there is no reason in principle for the back-and-forth to ever end. That is the point of having a
manual of style; the rules may be somewhat arbitrary, but they can be applied more or less consistently. Cnilep (talk
) 01:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
So what number do you think should be added to the manual of style? Or how do you propose we find a consensus number? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I doubt there would ever be any strong consensus on how long is too long, but I would support language to clarify that sections containing one entry are too short. older ≠ wiser 02:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.) I see what you did there: "That's a good question; what do you think?" OK, I'll give it a bash.

I note that the MOS has illustrations with up to 3 items in groups, so as a first approximation I would say, more than three per group – or at least, more than three in one group. Glancing at a random selection of DABs, I find Fabien has 18 items in one group and five in another with no section headings, and it strikes me as too hard to navigate. On the other hand, Valens Valens (disambiguation) uses section headings and its sections contain 8, 3, 2, and 1 items. This seems helpful here.

So, to start the discussion I propose: "On lists with more than two sections containing four or more items, section headings should be used instead of, or in addition to, bold headings." I'm not sure if I've worded that clearly enough, though. Cnilep (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Two sections of four items is still too short for sections. The illustration on the project page illustrates how to do groups, and is an excerpt example. Two groups of four items each is easier to navigate with the group headings. I cleaned up Valens (disambiguation) too; once the partial-title-match name holders were removed to the "name holders" section (until someone creates the anthroponymy list article), it's too short for groups. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If you're willing to clean up individual pages, as you did with Valens (disambiguation), 154,163 more times, we won't need to establish a standard. <g> Cnilep (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, Fabien isn't a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Side note on the examples: I used a random number generator to select pages from Category:Disambiguation pages – which turned out to be somewhat fruitless, since most of the pages it selected were either short or, like Fabien, not typical DAB pages. Better examples might make for better discussion, but I didn't want to risk cherry-picking pages that fit my biases. Cnilep (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
As an aside, I'm not sure that the guidelines should recommend using pseudoheadings such as bold markup or semicolons which are deprecated by
H:DL. older ≠ wiser
13:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hyphenated names

On Stuckey, I put Elizabeth Stuckey-French after Darrell Stuckey. Is that correct since we're alphabetizing by first name? Thanks... --Smarkflea (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That name list is probably long enough to get its own anthroponymy article. I don't know how that project handles hyphenated surnames. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation at the WikiProject Comics Manual of Style

A Request for Comment has been made regarding the appropriate level of generality of article title disambiguation for articles under WikiProject Comics. Please join the discussion here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Explanation needed on new additions to a dab

I guess I seem to have a personal mental blockage on why an addition I added to James Coats (disambiguation) keeps getting removed. I asked on the remover's talk page but his reasons are not registering for me. I'm sure it's my fault but I still don't understand why a non notable military baronet should get a listing in this dab but a hall of fame songwriter (who should very likely have a wiki article) does not. Is it the way I word it? Should I have linked it to Elvis Presely's "How Great Thou Art" album where he's listed as a songwriter? Like I said this one is confusing me and I want to make sure I understand so I don't make the same mistake in other wiki additions. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of doing that but I didn't know if I'd have time this week. I was just confused as to why one dab but not my addition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What about redirects?

I've been told that dab pages should not link to rds. However, when the rd is a likely future article, it may be useful, as someone creating the article likely won't think to update the dab page. An example is

Kavango languages at Kavango. Linking to the broader article it rd's to will not be useful if the article is created, and linking to the specific name causes no harm that I can see. — kwami (talk
) 05:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoever told you that is mistaken.
Kavango language(s), it appear that may be a misunderstanding as to whether Kavango exist as a distinct language within the partially eponymous language group Kavango – Southwest Bantu languages or if "Kavango" in that name identifies the geographic region of the language group. older ≠ wiser
11:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! — kwami (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary topic question

It is very clear in

Linking to a primary topic
that the primary topic must be on top, but whoch of those primary topic edits are right?

This example below is from 007 (disambiguation) This one:

007 is a codename of James Bond, a fictional character. It may also refer to: ...

or this one:

007
is a code name of James Bond, a fictional character.

007 may also refer to:

Also, another thing. The article name is case sensitive except for the first letter which is always capitalized. There is an ongoing discussion to

MOS:DABPRIMARY
? What will you suggest just to fix that page and make it clear for readers following the rule in a primary topic?

By the way, I saw the

Popular Song (Gershwin Prize
) is the primary topic?

Thank you whoever responds on my question?

j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 08:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

MOS:DABPRIMARY
. In general, we use the second form: we use the base name link, even if it is a redirect, in the intro of the dab. If it is a redirect, we don't pipe it. There's an exception for surname redirects.
For the other thing, there is only one primary topic for "Popular Song",
Popular song would be the primary. But sometimes both are listed early; see HP (disambiguation) for example. I've cleaned up Popular Song (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk
) 11:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Mr. JHunterJ thank you for that. Hopefully, add this rule on the MOS page so that it is very clear for some contributors about the case sensitive and which link should be used. By the way, check Pacific (disambiguation), North Atlantic (disambiguation), South Atlantic (disambiguation), Atlantic Basin (disambiguation), Atlantic_Coast_(disambiguation). It seems that this does not follow the standards of the article itself. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 02:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are probably many dabs with primary topics that are out of step with the consensus. Feel free to fix them, or tag them for cleanup. Perhaps a bot can be set to seek out and list those on one of our maintenance pages. I have added the clarification on the primary topic to the MOSDAB page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, thank you for that. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 02:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Should topics that do not have wikipedia pages be consider Primary Topics?

See the interesting discussion at Talk:Yesterday#Requested move 2. When one thinks "yesterday," one thinks of the day before today - but we don't have a page for that and it would basically be a dictionary entry (IMO). If we omit that meaning, Mr. McCartney's songs appears to be a clear Primary Topic (again, IMO). What should be done? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a topic that is only part of another Wikipedia article can be the primary topic for a title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Does this violate the rule?

I saw the Right-handed (disambiguation) page but when I saw this, there are some flaws on it. The lists of the contents are about the pitcher. Do you think this deserved to delete this? Thank you. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 08:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've prodded it and Left-handed (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments please: Old Dock (disambiguation)

Should

Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Where_piping_may_be_appropriate? See recent 3RR changes [4] [5] [6]
.

See also

WP:MOSDAB. Andy Dingley (talk
) 01:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The piping should not be used. I also moved the primary topic to the top. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

About
Wikipedia:DABMENTION

I just notice that part that the link must show the whole title.

Ii should be like this?

Maggie Anderson may also refer to:

and not this?

Maggie Anderson may also refer to:

Reply ASAP. Thank you. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 08:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Links in the description for an ambiguous entry may be piped normally, to make the description read well as English. So the second form of the two above is correct. If the entry itself had a link (in the examples above, "Maggie Anderson"), it would not be piped except to apply formatting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
O, i see. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 08:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Linking to redirects when the redirect is an acronym expansion

There's a new discussion at

MOS:DABPIPE. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk
) 19:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Statistics

Why do Disambiguation Pages count as content pages at Special:Statistics?- Gilliam (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gilliam: a late reply: maybe the answer is that no software developers have fixed the problem. I searched Bugzilla and the closest bug I found was T17341. Perhaps a bug needs to be filed for the issue you have noticed.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Synonyms on disambiguation pages

There currently is some disagreement or confusion amongst editors regarding the appropriate use of synonyms on disambiguation pages. This issue was discussed in some detail on Talk:Dick, where multiple editors independently attempted to add a link to a common slang usage of the term. Another editor repeatedly reverted these edits on the basis that the linked article did not specifically mention the term. This editor later modified this page in an attempt to codify his opinion as an official Wikipedia guideline. However, the linked discussion demonstrates a clear lack of consensus. Further discussion is needed before changing the official guideline. Augurar (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Further clarification. The issue in question is whether including a link from a disambiguation page to a synonym of the term being disambiguated requires that the linked page explicitly mention the synonym. For instance, the disambiguation page for Stone includes a link to the article on Rock (geology). However, the latter article never mentions that "stone" is a synonym for "rock". Under the proposed new guideline, that link would have to be removed from the disambiguation page. Augurar (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome to disagree, but form the new consensus first, rather than edit warring over it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are talking about. You are the one who is proposing to create a new policy. I will file a RFC on your behalf. Augurar (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove most of the guidance against using redirects

And with the discussion there at Talk:DRM#Digital rights management redirect, I question why the prohibition against any redirects other than non-printworthy redirects is needed at all. If the redirect is a valid (printworthy) redirect and matches the ambiguous title more closely than the title of the article is lands on, why wouldn't we use it all the time? And triply so for {{R with possibilities}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Some background reading:
My opinion is that there is little value to creating redirects solely for the purpose of making a blue link that contains the term being disambiguated. There are many good reasons for creating and using redirects, but making the disambiguation page match some artificial aesthetic is not one. older ≠ wiser 01:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
But the language used in the guidelines isn't "don't create redirects". It's apparently keeping us from using the
Digital restrictions management redirect on the DRM disambiguation page. If the consensus is not to create redirects for dab use, let's say that instead. -- JHunterJ (talk
) 11:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I kind of thought "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages" covered that pretty well. - Aoidh (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It over covers it. I kind of thought I covered that pretty well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it over-covers it at all, and looking at the past discussions, I think that's pretty clear. It says don't create redirects because, with few exceptions that are spelled out, redirects serve no purpose and do no good on disambiguation pages but to mislead a reader into thinking they are clicking on something else; they should know what they're clicking on before they land on the page. They
shouldn't be surprised that what they clicked on isn't exactly what they arrived at, not on a disambiguation page, which is specifically meant to disambiguate. - Aoidh (talk
) 19:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
That redirect's history says it's existed since 2003. That redirect's traffic statistics say it's visited 15-20 times every day (1754/90d) - and that's without the link to the redirect from the acronym disambiguation page. Simply because it's a legitimate search term in its own right, refusing to link it seems to me like a classic case of
"fixing" links to redirects that are not broken. --Joy [shallot] (talk
) 20:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There are appropriate places to use redirects, the disambiguation page isn't one. If it still has an entry at the DAB page it's obviously still there, just formatted in a way that makes it clear what the article is about. Simply because "it's a legitimate search term in its own right" does not mean the disambiguation page should give the reader the perception that it has its own article when it doesn't, especially when the actual article title is already wikilinked. Wikilinking the redirect over the actual article title is ambiguous, and a disambiguation page should disambiguate as much as possible; clarity over aesthetic. What you linked,
WP:NOTBROKEN, is about piping wikilinks. That's not happening in the DRM example, so there's no conflict between this guideline and that one, so it's hardly a "classic case", that's not even relevant here. - Aoidh (talk
) 01:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I've already expressed my disagreement with this whole perception issue at Talk:DRM, so I'll refrain from further comment, there's no point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I concur with every word Aoidh wrote above, who said it all in half the space I would use. I also agree with Bkonrad that there's no point creating a redirect simply so one can have the blue link one wants on a DAB page. If a redir doesn't serve either an in-article purpose or a "this term is likely to be looked for by real users" purpose, it should be RfD'd.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree, provisional on wording. Disambiguation pages have items linked between two ends of the spectrum:
  • WP:ASTONISH
    - no redirects, ever (not even primary topics)
  • WP:NOTBROKEN
    - preference for a) the ambiguous term and b) linking at the start of the entry - where ultimately all entries (that aren't parenthetically disambiguated or the primary topic) are redirects
Where we choose on that spectrum should be based on aiding the reader, and practicalities (such as ability to succinctly describe that in MOSDAB, and unintended consequences)
Both ends aren't useful for readers.
Ability to quickly recognise the desired topic based on the ambiguous term should be the priority
This is not about creating redirects, (it is ASTONISH-NOTBROKEN not ASTONISH-WP:NOTYETCREATED), although I'm cautious as I understand the concern of unintended consequences to relax the redirects
Properly worded, there may not be any unintended consequences of relaxing the opposition in MOSDAB to redirects - maybe by explicitly cautioning against creating redirects for use in the disambiguation, or printworthy. We have examples of redirects used in primary topics, this should be extended to non-primary topics with an example or two.
My full reasoning is given in (possibly a corner case due to the complications listed) at Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation) where I assert that a redirect is useful to the reader, and that by my understanding, it follows our MOSDAB redirect exceptions, even though the redirect has parenthesis (there's a redirect without parenthesis too). The blanket "no redirect" is too blunt to deal with at least this case, and as ISIL is one of our top articles, I've been keeping the dabs pointing to it according to my understanding of what's most useful for readers - towards the NOTBROKEN end per that spectrum. The issue being that commonname is shifting, so there's really no reason to NOTBROKEN a redirect when large parts of the world are using the organisation's current name, despite it not (yet) being the commonname. In fact the opposite. We currently penalise the redirect too much (depending on interpretation of MOSDAB).
Does this need fixing? Yes, there's examples in MOSDAB using redirects with parenthesis that imply it is OK to use such redirects as the articles have moved since. That'll be happening all over dabs and we should just legitimise this, anything else would be maintenance. Widefox; talk 11:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTBROKEN is less maintenance. Widefox; talk
17:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

technical limitation or incorrect dab

Navidad (Jaci Velasquez album), but there was an article in the way and it has still not been removed. The redirect is not working because the speedy template is in the way. There was an edit war over this at the new dab at navidad. The reason: WP:DABPIPE says point to the linked article. Is it a technical limitation and so we can pipe the unaccented dab element, or should we honour the present article name? Walter Görlitz (talk
) 03:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The speedy move request did not show that you were right; it was not a technical limitation so the piping should not be used to alter the diacritics. Dabs should reflect Wikipedia as it is, not as it is predicted to be in the near future. In this case, though, I completed the move and updated the dab to the current arrangement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
How can the speedy move not show that I was right? It indicated the article was supposed to be at the article without the diacritic and because the redirect was broken (a technical limitation of the existence of the speedy tag on the article).
This is a stupid guideline and should therefore be modified to reflect what is correct despite lazy admins and anal editors who don't know their diacritic from their elbow, but since it's fixed now, I'll let you discuss why it's wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addendum to
MOS:DABSYN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against including "Synonyms that are not mentioned on Wikipedia should not be included on the disambiguation page", or similar language, in the Manual of Style section regarding synonyms on disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User JHunterJ has proposed adding the following new guideline to the Manual of Style section regarding synonyms on disambiguation pages:

Synonyms that are not mentioned on Wikipedia should not be included on the disambiguation page.

Augurar (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • My opinion is that the proposed guideline would be needlessly restrictive and serves no purpose. Note that
    MOS:DABMENTION does have a similar guideline, stating that "If the title is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic". However, this reasoning does not apply to synonyms, because the title and linked article refer to the same subject. Some more discussion of this proposed policy can be found here. Augurar (talk
    ) 05:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
This is your RFC, not mine. Please reword it for your proposal, that the text be removed from the manual of style. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
See this diff. Unless I somehow logged in as you to post the new policy, this is your proposal. Augurar (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Note on Augurar's proposal: the text they would like to see removed from the MOS would not help their goal, since it is the same as elsewhere in the MOS: "If the title is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic." (
    MOS:DABMENTION). The reasoning does indeed apply to synonyms -- if the "refers to the same subject" applies, then the synonym should be mentioned on the subject article. If it is too trivial to mention on the article, then it doesn't need to be disambiguated on Wikipedia, since it is not ambiguous on Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk
    ) 10:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, the issue in question is not whether to remove the text, but whether it should be added in the first place. This was first added (without consensus) by this diff, and would constitute a new policy. Augurar (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It does represent the consensus that has existed on the project for some time. older ≠ wiser 01:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Please provide links to any relevant past discussions. One can observe that many talk pages do not follow this guideline, which suggests to me that this is not a widespread consensus. A search for "a slang term for" reveals the following examples of disambiguation pages that link to articles that do not mention the disambiguation page title:
Examples

(Not an exhaustive list)

Although some of these examples are questionable and require cleanup, others are beneficial as an aid to searching. As the "bad" examples show, there is a problem of excessive slang terms being included sometimes, but I think this proposed policy is not the right solution. Augurar (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That
true. If there is nothing in the linked article to support the claim, such entries are indistinguishable from original research, or worse, complete nonsense. older ≠ wiser
10:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of crap gets added to articles as well. A claim made on a disambiguation page can be challenged for a source no more and no less than can a claim made on an article. If we don't want the resulting references to clutter the disambiguation page for readers, then they can be given as comments in the wiki code (or on the talk page with a note in the wiki code, or something), so that editors can check that the claim is sound. No need to tar all such entries with the nonsense brush, particularly in cases when we know perfectly well that they are not nonsense. Nor is there any need to try to control everything with iron rules. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Except that disambiguation pages are not articles and do not contain references. any such reference properly belongs in the linked article. In the absence of any such mention in the linked article, there is no basis for including on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing in a circle or ignoring what I said - I've just pointed out that it's perfectly possible for information on disambiguation pages to be supported by references, if we allow it to be. In most cases the refs won't even be necessary, since things that are common knowledge or can be checked in any dictionary won't get challenged. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
No, you are suggesting that disambiguation pages should become a sort of list article with hidden pseudoreferences. I advocate keeping things simple: if the linked article does not mention the term, there is no basis for including on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Even if this does simplify the policy, this simplification interferes with the ultimate goal of disambiguation pages, which is to aid in searching. Augurar (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are not a general purpose search engine. They are specifically to help readers find ambiguous existing content on Wikipedia. If the linked article does not contain any information about (i.e., does not even so much as mention) the ambiguous term, then what benefit is there to the reader? older ≠ wiser 16:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the primary purposes of disambiguation pages is "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be" (
WP:D
). In a sense, disambiguation pages function as redirects with multiple targets.
Regarding "what benefit [there is] to the reader", if X and Y are synonyms, then an article about X is the same as an article about Y whether or not the term Y is mentioned in the article. Remember, "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by" (
WP:NAD). Thus if a reader searches for Y, it is entirely reasonable to point them to X. Augurar (talk
) 16:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If the synonymy is not so much as mentioned in the linked article, it is indistinguishable from original research or worse. If the article does nothing to explain or describe the synonymy, the reader is not benefited (and may be better served by directing them to wiktionary). older ≠ wiser 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You ignore everything we say. It is not indistinguishable from original research, if sources are provided on the disambiguation page (they don't have to clutter the article). And explaining (or rather mentioning briefly) the synonymy on the disambiguation page is much more helpful to the reader than directing them via a different project, only for them (assuming they navigate the maze correctly) to come back to Wikipedia to search for information on the thing they quite likely interested in in the first place. That's just bureaucratic nonsense, rules before people. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You ignore everything we say. We could say the same about you. So now you expect the gnomes that maintain disambiguation pages to also evaluate the quality of references provided. Again, if the linked article says NOTHING, not even so much as to mention the term let alone describe the synonymy, there is no benefit to the reader. older ≠ wiser 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Look, people are not necessarily looking for terms (for that, we can indeed direct them to Wiktionary), but may be looking for topics under certain terms. That's why we have redirects, even though articles aren't obliged to contain a list of all possible synonyms for their topic names. I'm suggesting (and it's not a novel idea, it's widely done, though - shock horror - against the rules) that if it's legitimate for X to redirect to Y, then it's also legitimate for Y to appear on a disambiguation page for X. In fact, if there was a redirect (something like "X (slang)", redirecting to Y), then your gnomes would probably have no objection to that link appearing on the disambiguation page (because it's not against the rules, even though it has exactly the same effect as the thing that they so loathe as being against the rules). W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems to me an unnecessary and undesirable "rule". It will often be helpful to readers to be directed to an article from the disambiguation page of a synonym of the article topic, whereas it may not be appropriate for the article itself to contain a list of every possible synonym. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a thesaurus. Wikipedia disambiguation pages serve to disambiguate Wikipedia ambiguity. Sending readers to articles that don't mention the topic sought is not useful, which is why this rule is necessary and desirable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    No, I don't mean articles that don't mention the topic sought, but articles that do mention the topic (perhaps) sought, but don't (necessarily) mention the phrase sought. This is certainly potentially useful, and hence the rule is wrong. However, I see this place is inhabited by people who care only about rules and policing them, and not about usefulness or even about common sense. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    And I see you are among the many who count "disagrees with me" as "lacks common sense". Yes, we care about usefulness and common sense, and having worked with both, we've reached a handy set of guidelines to improve the encyclopedia, which we then usefully and common-sensically apply to the appropriate pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I strongly support the existence of this clarifying language, which does nothing more than specify that links already prohibited by
    WP:DABMENTION itself should be amended to prohibit the inclusion of links to nonmatching titles unless there is a sourced reference to the term in the target article. To be very, very clear, disambiguation pages are merely navigational devices, lik redirects but with multiple targets. Aside from a few words describing the link target to make it easier to choose the right one, a disambiguation page should have virtually nothing on it that a redirect page would not have (which is nothing at all but a target link). bd2412 T
    16:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that redirects should also be restricted to terms mentioned in the article? (See also my initial comment as to why
WP:DABMENTION does not apply here.) Augurar (talk
) 16:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not raise the propriety of redirects, just their content. Of course, redirects serve numerous other purposes, such as bringing readers to the article from common typos or variations in capitalization. It is worth noting that a redirect can be challenged and deleted for being unconnected to the topic to which it points. Stripping away comparable standards for disambiguation pages is very dangerous ground. If someone decides tomorrow that from now on they are going to call promiscuous people "mirrors", should Promiscuity be added to Mirror (disambiguation)? bd2412 T 17:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You are being inconsistent. If you're saying that disambiguation pages should be like multi-path redirects, which I more or less agree with, then there absolutely should not be a requirement that the actual source phrase appears on the target page. Such a requirement would be silly for redirects; for the same reasons, it's silly for disambiguation pages. But we're agreed that statements should be reliably sourceable, so it's not OK if just "someone decided" to use a word in a particular meaning, it must be backed up by acceptable sources. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You continue to misunderstand the function of disambiguation pages. A disambiguation page leads the reader to content in Wikipedia that matches their search term.
WP:DABMENTION, but having it here otherwise seems to constitute a piecemeal forking of the content that was previously deleted. Note also that if the reader really wants the dictionary definition of "skank", there is a link to Wiktionary, which provides more information about the use of the word to mean "promiscuity" than any Wikipedia article would. bd2412 T
18:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
So explain how exactly the reader is harmed by having the link to promiscuity on the skank page? For me, it seems to be saving them a back and forth trip via Wiktionary (a project that they may not even be familiar with), and telling them very quickly what they quite likely wanted to know. I.e. I want to help people, you want to maintain some misguided ideological vision of what a disambiguation page should look like. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
We obviously disagree about what it means to be helpful. I don't agree that it is helpful to lead a person to an article that says nothing whatsoever about the term being disambiguated. older ≠ wiser 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The information about the term being disambiguated doesn't have to appear in the article - we're helping them by putting it on the disambiguation page. Then the information about the topic (which they might indeed be interested in, if they were searching on that term) appears in the article, to help them even more. I can't see why this is so complicated. Of course they could go via wiktionary, and that might be the best solution if there are a lot of meanings or the meanings don't really have articles, but it's not always necessary to give people that extra trouble, as I think the "skank" example shows. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If "skank" is worth mentioning in
WP:PTM. bd2412 T
19:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course, but your gnomes/Vogons won't do that, they'll just delete the link, and congratulate themselves on another box ticked. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
(after ec) Except if there isn't any information in the article. You assume that a person searching for the term "dick" wants to know about the mostly scientific and medical information presented in the penis article. It's just as likely (or perhaps more so) that the only part of the article that might be of interest to a person searching for that term are the photographs. Or perhaps the person actually wants to know why the term dick is associated with the penis, in which case the current article would be a huge waste of time for them. Thing is that we just don't know and the article does not provide any useful details to provide any context. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Well yeah, as you say, we just don't know, so let's not try to think for them by taking away one possible line of enquiry. They might not be sure of the meaning of either the slang term or the technical term, for example. Anyway, I think I've made my point, I won't be replying any more, mainly because I'll be away from Wikipedia for a time. Keep up the good work disambiguation guys, I do think in general you do a great job and I try to help with it myself from time to time, but I believe the emphasis should be more on helping readers in a given situation, not blindly enforcing generalized rules that might not be appropriate in particular cases. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You are correct, adding a link from Dick to Penis will not be useful to everyone. But this is no reason to forbid it. It will certainly be useful to some people. This is especially true because a disambiguation page gives a summary of what the linked article is about, allowing readers to decide if it is what they were looking for. Augurar (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
In other words, a person looking for medical and scientific information about penis wouldn't even use the term. A person looking for information about the slang term would actually be done a disservice by directing them to the article. And for persons looking for prurient interest, there are other places on the internet with much more relevant information. older ≠ wiser 20:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
There is already a line at Dick for: "Dick (slang), a euphemism for the penis as well as a pejorative epithet". As it happens, I wrote Dick (slang). It's a good-sized piece, and I'm very proud to show it to people. bd2412 T 20:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was the one who added that to the disambiguation page.  :) But if that article did not exist I think a link to Penis would be the best alternative. Augurar (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If the article didn't exist, then there should be some sourced discussion in Penis about slang terms commonly used to identify that subject. There's no such link in Peter for example. bd2412 T 20:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Strongly support keeping the text (so strongly disagree with removing it), per DABMENTION reasoning. Dabs shouldn't be a location for OR / need references to justify claims. Obviously in keeping. Widefox; talk 08:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "Dabs shouldn't be a location for OR / need references to justify claims", in fact this is already part of the guideline. But what is the best way to include common synonyms? For instance, Booze is a well-established slang term for Alcoholic beverages that's been around since at least the 1800s. We could do any of the following:
  1. Link directly to Alcoholic beverage from the disambiguation page
  2. Create a redirect from Booze (slang) to Alcoholic beverage, and link to that from the disambiguation page
  3. Add a "Slang terms" section to Alcoholic beverage listing some common slang terms for alcoholic beverages
  4. Omit this fact from Wikipedia entirely
Option 1 would be ruled out by the guideline. Option 2 is no better than Option 1 in terms of OR, but would be allowed by current guidelines. Option 3 is the best in terms of verifiability, but I don't think this fact belongs in the article itself, because of
WP:NAD
and other reasons. Option 4 seems to be what some editors would prefer, but it seems ludicrous that such a well-known meaning of the term should be omitted because of the interaction of some poorly considered rules.
My view is that if Option 2 is considered acceptable, then so should Option 1. The same editorial process that weeds out poor redirects and preserves useful ones can be trusted to remove dubious synonyms from disambiguation pages and preserve widespread ones. I also think that
WP:CREEP is a much more serious problem than unsourced synonyms on disambiguation pages. Augurar (talk
) 17:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that Option 2 is allowed currently. Apparently others think not, see above #Remove most of the guidance against using redirects, and more opinions are welcome.
Option 2. is better than 1. as at least the redirect is able to be scrutinised / RfD / deleted, so the justification for it doesn't reside in a dab page. (and can be used for linking, although as slang would it be used?) 3. is best 4. we have articles using the term, so worth seeing
WP:SLANG ) . 5. it is already linked in the dab's wiktionary link. I fixed the page to keep it in for now. Widefox; talk
21:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Realistically, I don't think users are going to refer to Wiktionary to find the correct Wikipedia article for a given term. Augurar (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I would agree. I'm not sure where you're going - we have Wikipedia and Wiktionary. There's some overlap and cross-linkage but it's good to have our boundaries given that layout WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A mention seems a good threshold. As we don't use slang to write WP, direct quotes aren't linked, and "booze" isn't in the beverage article, it's currently only wikt that covers it. Seems a bit low priority as it's slang, despite popularity. Widefox; talk 07:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
There is another option available, which is to write a separate, freestanding article about slang terms for alcohol, and include this on that page. An encyclopedic treatment of the subject would not merely be a list of words, but an explanation of where they come from, why they are associated with alcohol, and how usage has evolved over time. bd2412 T 13:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly 6. Deficiencies in WP could be easily improved with any of 2,3,4,6, we don't need workarounds with dab complications 1 (any unsourced / UNMENTIONED / OR on a dab is exactly that). Widefox; talk 21:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with W.P Uzer that this seems to be an unneeded rule. While I'm inclined to say that yes, let us add these synonyms to the page itself, I think this extra rule is pointless. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    The guideline reflects the consensus inclination to say yes, let us add these synonyms to the pages themselves if they are encyclopedic, and then disambiguate the encyclopedic ambiguity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The bot sent me. Interesting RfC. I've got to agree with W. P. Uzer and Rsrkanth05 on this. W.P. Uzer's comment, "whereas it may not be appropriate for the article itself to contain a list of every possible synonym," convinced me. The extra rule seems unnecessary. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The same logic goes for
WP:V problem) or wiktionary or elsewhere. Widefox; talk
18:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Proposed rule is just an example of
WP:DABMENTION, so fits neatly and elegantly with no new rule (as just an example). Anything else is a new rule though, so IMHO has a high bar. It involves more maintenance - i.e. we will be dependent on wiktionary, and need to check that. I prefer simple, if it's encyclopaedic MENTION it or write an article, then put it in a dab, much easier and better for readers and maintainers. Widefox; talk
18:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If it's just an example of something already detailed, then it is redundant and unnecessary. I don't necessarily agree with the current wording of
WP:DABMENTION says something similar simply reinforces the fact that this has no purpose here. - Aoidh (talk
) 01:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you clarify your position pls - how can you both disagree with the consequence of it (you object to it), and say it's redundant (so you don't object to it)? If you object to DABMENTION then that's (somewhat) a different topic. We have lots of style examples. For instance your position may be that you want an example to show that you want an exception to DABMENTION? Widefox; talk 12:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The material is redundant if it already exists in the guideline. The suggestion that I don't object to it or that I couldn't by saying it's redundant is inaccurate, but as you said,
should change. The proposal is, in my opinion, taking a step backwards. I'm not suggesting that it's "wrong" but that I simply have a different opinion. - Aoidh (talk
) 21:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Aoidh, it is redundant, yes, but it is useful (like much of redundancy in communication). It was placed (redundantly) in the additional position in order to improve communication, since it's useful in both sections. They're both there to avoid your flawed conclusion about what Wikipedia disambiguation pages disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that, per usual, you assume anyone with a different opinion is "flawed", but (1) this is a different discussion, and (2) you failed to show how your opinion was anything other than an opinion; my opinion is not "flawed" just because I disagree with yours. If you cannot back up your statements, the answer isn't to respond to me anywhere else I discuss other things and try to bring up your rather imaginative view of what was said. That you assume anyone who disagrees with you is "flawed" says much, but that you edit-war on this guideline page to try to sway a discussion elsewhere, to the point that it had to be full-protected to prevent further disruption says much more about the merit of your accusations of others. - Aoidh (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
And I appreciate that when I simply mirror your "flawed conclusion" rhetoric, you, per usual, paint it as if the chutzpah is original with me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The issue is you assuming that your position is "correct" and others must be "flawed" to disagree. Those are your words, not a "mirror" of mine. Additionally, the problem is that you seem unable to communicate with others without dragging other, unrelated conversations where they have no purpose. Merely disagreeing with you is not a "flawed conclusion", you are responsible for your own comments, even if you are under the impression that they are a parody of someone else's, and your comment was both inaccurate and inappropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
First occurrence of "flawed" here: Aoidh 01:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC). First occurrence of "correct" here: Aoidh 21:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC). So you're right about the issue, just wrong about the source. Please do be responsible for your inaccurate and inappropriate comments. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you even capable of making a comment without trying (and failing) to repeat the words of others? Deflecting the blame for your actions as "well I was just copying you" serves no purpose but to highlight a critical misunderstanding about the responsibility of your own behavior. The
have the last word because you have made it clear that you have nothing to actually say. - Aoidh (talk
) 08:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as contrary to the purpose of disambiguation, which is helping readers find the right page, not providing verifiable and encyclopedic information. DAB pages are not articles and are not strictly subject to original research nor verifiability; they should help readers find their sought topic from the terms they know and are in common use, even if those terms have not been noted in reliable sources. The guideline should recommend adding the synonym to the target article when it's verifiable and relevant to the topic, not removing it from the DAB when it's not.
We apply the same criterion for redirects, which are also navigation tools and are not required to comply with articles content policy. The principles at hand for navigation tools are based on utility, not encyclopedic value. The rule to apply to avoid proliferation of this class of links is the
principle of least astonishment, to ensure that readers are taken to the pages they're expecting. I agree with the discussion above that whenever the term can be covered within the encyclopedia, it should be; but not that this can be taken as a reason to remove useful navigation when it's not up to article standards. Navigation items for neologisms, and for common but unencyclopedic synonyms should not be victims of content policy. Diego (talk
) 14:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(P.S. The link from Dick to Penis - or Skank to Promiscuity - is quite be useful to any non-native English speaker as myself, BTW. Slang terms in DAB pages are huge candidates to benefit users with less than stellar knowledge of the language). I didn't know the term Skank, and had I searched it at Wikipedia, I would have assumed from the DAB page without the link to Promiscuity that it was a proper noun related to music; I would have never thought of checking Wiktionary for extra secondary meanings. Diego (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S.2 - Also, the wording of the rule in this RfC seems to be opposed to actual practice in DAB pages. Enforcing this rule would cause many entries at DAB pages to be removed. Not to mention that DAB pages should be actively monitored every time the target article changes to check whether it still contains the synonym, and delete the link in case that the term has been removed. Diego (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Dab pages are for the current content of WP, which is why DABMENTION aids keeping them maintained. They tend to slowly build up items, and I really don't want to have dabs depend on other resources like wiktionary, and have to check those external resources to maintain them. Widefox; talk 09:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Clarification on redlink entries

Currently, redlinks seem to be permitted if (a) there are non-dab pages that link to them AND (b) there is a blue link item in the entry that "describes" the redlinked entry. (see

WP:DDD uses "mentions" rather than "describes" and these ought to be harmonized. Carlossuarez46 (talk
) 20:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Codes

There's discussion at Talk:I7 about the style for an entry with an IATA airline code. As we have many codes and units, is there a style for codes and symbols? Widefox; talk 10:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC) For instance, AEY has 3 codes out of 4 entries. Widefox; talk 12:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

While
MOS:DAB
doesn't currently have explicit guidance on this, it does say that the link should be the first thing in any entry, and unpiped where feasible. For my money, the best approach is:
—Swpbtalk 16:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I prefer
-- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I've switched my preferred style to 3. listed there, so:
or
Widefox; talk 09:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Christmas Eve (disambiguation)

The date for Christmas eve was removed from the dab. I don't see clear guideline to state that it should be present or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

In either event, Christmas Eve is not necessarily December 24. Rather than a specific dab guideline, this may have been what the other editor meant in the edit summary referring to the Christmas Eve article. "Christmas Eve" can also be on a couple of different dates in January depending upon the religious tradition. Dekimasuよ! 20:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The wording is copied from the article. We can either include the date or not. If we do, we have to qualify that it is not always 24th. My preference is was to not include and keep concise per
WP:MOSDAB. We have the same choice on Christmas Day (disambiguation), which also did not have the date. It does now. It's probably better to include which also may help prevent people adding the date without qualifying it.  Done on both. Widefox; talk
10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine now. I doubt that many who celebrate Christmas Day in January would use the particular formulation of "Christmas Eve" in English. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Page organization: seeking consensus to be more explicit about a common best practice

As a long-time member of WikiProject Disambiguation, I often see pages with many entries at the top, not in any section. A reader looking for one of those pages has to scan down the section headings to see if any of them matches the topic they're looking for, then back up to the top of the page to find the article. Ideal navigability means being able to scan the page in one direction (down) and spot the page you want on the first pass; that's why we usually put these entries in an "Other uses" section at the bottom. I think it's time to more formally encourage this practice in the style guide. I propose replacing this sentence:

Disambiguation pages will often have an "Other uses" section at the end for entries that don't fit neatly into another section; this is perfectly acceptable.

with this text (followed by a paragraph break):

Aside from the most common meanings, which may be listed at the top of the page, entries which don't fit neatly into any section should be placed in an "Other uses" section (or subsection) at the bottom of the page (or section). This section should be relatively short; if it becomes excessively long, it may indicate that the page should be reorganized.

Although dab pages vary quite a bit, I can't think of an instance where this guidance would be inappropriate. Thoughts? —Swpbtalk 16:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Other uses" sections would still precede any surname-holder lists, given-name-holder lists, and "See also" sections. I would avoid mentioning top-level "most common" meanings; "usual" disambiguation pages should not have them; they are exceptional. Usual disambiguation pages have the single primary topic (if any) before any sections, and nothing before the sections if there is no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
To editor JHunterJ: Thanks for the rapid feedback; I agree with everything you said. How about this amended version:

Entries which don't fit neatly into any section should be placed in an "Other uses" section (or subsection), at the bottom of the page (or section) but above any "See also" section. The "Other uses" section should be relatively short; if it becomes excessively long, it may indicate that the page should be reorganized.

Surname-holder lists and given-name-holder lists belong in "See also", but I think mentioning that here may be confusing and detract from the thrust of this section. Maybe those should be mentioned in the section "See also" section, just below? —Swpbtalk 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Name-holder lists are not in the see also section. They are covered in
MOS:DABSEEALSO could then be clarified that they are not sections of the disambiguation entries, if needed. -- JHunterJ (talk
) 17:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
True, my bad. My only concern with your proposed phrasing is that some "other uses" belong in subsections, e.g. "Other uses in arts and entertainment", which go at the bottom of their parent section, but not the bottom of all the dab entries. How about this – I've added links to the other relevant sections:

Entries which don't fit neatly into any section should be placed in an "Other uses" section or subsection, at the bottom of the page or section (but above any

"See also" section
). The "Other uses" section should be relatively short; if it becomes excessively long, it may indicate that the page should be reorganized.

—Swpbtalk 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so not seeing any more concerns here, I've gone ahead and implemented the last version above. —Swpbtalk 16:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes an entry (or entries) are more useful at the top before the sections. That may be desirable if it/they are more likely. Ping me if you want examples. Widefox; talk 09:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The MOS already states clearly that primary topics belong at the top. —Swpbtalk 13:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

About song name piping

So, I've been wondering this for a while, and since I could not find my answer in the archives, here goes: Why is it a standard to pipe titles that are song names with quotation marks if the quotation marks added do not match the title name? If it was

wiki markup, I would understand, but since quotation marks are not wiki markup, if an editor were to copy and paste that link into the search bar, unless a redirect exists, they don't arrive at their intended page. Steel1943 (talk
) 22:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Per
WP:DABPIPE. —sroc 💬
23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I think I see now. If the title of the target page is just the name of the song, you could just link the name inside the quotation marks:
But if the title of the target page includes a disambiguating word or phrase (e.g., "(song)"), which will usually be the case when linking from a disambiguation page, you need to include this in the link but should still follow the style of enclosing song titles in quotation marks, and therefore pipe the link to achieve this:
  • "Route 66" (song)
—sroc 💬 23:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sroc: Exactly! From what I understand about disambiguation pages and their goals, it seems to be the standard that if the link is at the beginning of the line, then the entry should not be piped. With wiki markup, if the title is copy/pasted into the search bar, it goes to the intended article since there is no difference in text or characters. However, when it comes to quotation marks, adding them makes the title appear different. Here's an example of what I mean by this: March of the Pigs exists, but "March of the Pigs" does not. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Further comment: However, I'm also, more or less, trying to figure out why the quotation marks have to be there, but only specifically for disambiguation pages. They seem to cause more trouble than its worth for anyone who may copy/paste the entry in a search bar, or click the link and assume that the article title also has quotation marks, when it doesn't. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Quotation marks are not just there for disambiguation pages, they're there as a matter of style per MOS:SOPHOMORE. It just happens that there's a conflict between MOS:SOPHOMORE which requires quotation marks around song titles and WP:DABPIPE which says not to pipe links in disambig pages. —sroc 💬 05:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, so that conflict may need to be addressed... Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no conflict -- see
WP:DABPIPE
). You are encouraged to use pipes to properly format names.
The rule for dab pages, succinctly: don't use piping in a way that obscures the actual name of a target article. A "target article", in my nomenclature, is an article whose name (or potential name) matches the ambiguous term that is the subject of the disambiguation page.
(The rule is not "if the link is at the beginning of a line", although it usually turns out that way.) --NapoliRoma (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@
wiki markup is formatting, but adding quotation marks is not (or should I say "not") formatting as it technically makes the title appear different via characters that appear in the title. In other words, quotation marks cannot be used to modify the appearance of a title with the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} parser function, whereas wiki markup can be activated in piping that still makes the title appear to match the actual article title. Steel1943 (talk
) 18:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a matter of terminology, then. Generally among WP editors, the concept of "formatting" the name of a work is considered to embrace both italics and quotation marks, even though quotation marks do not involve special markup, but rather just... quotation marks.

It is also true that WP style is to not include quotation marks in the display of the title of an article. This is independent of whether or not {{DISPLAYTITLE}} is involved. You could just manually add quotation marks to the title, but that's not the agreed-upon style.

However, WP style is to always place song names in quotation marks when they appear in articles or dab pages. So the conflict you point out between how such names appear in the title of their article and elsewhere is not specific to dab pages.

Dab pages, then, follow the general WP stylistic rule, but have an additional twist -- we do not want to hide the disambiguating term (as opposed to within articles, where we do.)

(Note, by the way, that the fact that you can't copy the article name as it is displayed and use it to jump straight to the linked article is not unique to this situation -- it's pretty much true of any piped link.)--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

But can anyone tell me why the shortcut for that stylistic guideline is called "

MOS:SOPHOMORE"?--NapoliRoma (talk
) 17:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. It's because the unrelated term "sophomore" is also discussed in the same section.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How much text in a description is beneficial for readers

A discussion that may be of general interest for this project is at Talk:Aurora (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 16:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Brevity redux

Bkonrad has taken up the brevity banner last raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 41#Brevity, only by repeated edits at Aurora (disambiguation) rather than seeking a new consensus here. If "a song by" is now somehow too large a burden for the readership, we should update the Grateful Dead example here to eliminate it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the same discussion from the section immediately preceding this one. To be clear, the disagreement is whether there is any actual benefit for readers by repeating the words "a song" for most of the entries in a section labeled as "Songs" in which every single entry is a song as in this version. JHunterJ has been unable to explain how this sort of edit does not violate the clear guidance to Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. If anything, the Grateful Dead example might be clarified to explain that the first example
is best used in a heterogeneous list while the second example
is best used in a homogeneous subsection in which every entry is a song. For what it's worth, Dark Star#Music currently uses the second option.
In the previous discussion, it is interesting that JHunterJ is the only person advocating for such unnecessary redundancy while @NapoliRoma:, @Theoldsparkle: and myself argue against it. Is the consensus claimed on this really just a matter of JHJ agreeing with himself alone? Also, is the proposed solution at Aurora (disambiguation) to merge all the music subsections really helpful to anyone? older ≠ wiser 01:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Either is OK with the example out of context. In the context of that dab, prefer without. If convenient, remove the section name from descriptions. Widefox; talk 20:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Caps question

In the case of a dab page where all of the links happen to be proper nouns, should the title also be treated as such, even when it is not one? It seems pretty clear to me that it wouldn't, but there are so many dab pages that do this that I figured I should check here. Primergrey (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If there's no mixed case, then the dab should be at the correct case. Which dab? Widefox; talk 17:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

References

It is quite reasonable to expect that references are included inside the disambiguated articles....but:

  • What happens if the articles are not yet created? How can anyone be sure that the red links are real and not the product of our imagination?
  • What happens if among the entries are descriptions which are valid, but not enough to constitute an article? Should these descriptions stay unreferenced, without verification?

Check:

The argumentation for no references in disambiguation pages stands perfectly well for blue links. I believe that the case for red links is very shaky and it merits a second thought. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Per
MOS:DABRL
, red links should only be added to a dab if they are already linked in an existing article. Ideally, the linking article(s) would include references for that information. Looking at your examples,
  • The red links in Abbey referring to wards are generally mentioned (but not linked) in the article on the ward constituency. I would suggest redirecting these to the sections that mention them (for example, I have just redirected
    Abbey (Nuneaton and Bedworth ward) to Nuneaton and Bedworth#Subdivisions, which mentions Abbey as one of the wards of the constituency. bd2412 T
    18:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are not articles. Put another way, they should not contain content. They should direct the reader to actual content.
References are associated with content. If you have a reference, it should be tied to content. If you have content, it should be in an article.
Thus, the solution is simple: if there is a need for a reference to be in Wikipedia, and there is no article -- create the article.
If you read the disambiguation guidelines, you'll find a large number of them really collapse to: "do not clutter this directing mechanism with content."--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Or another way to look at it: Disambiguation pages disambiguate WP articles. They explicitly do not disambiguate the web.
A reference with a redlink is really saying, "Hey, nothing about this thing you're looking for here on WP, but here's a link to someplace else!" So that fails "don't disambiguate the web".--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Came here to say that I strongly agree that text on disambiguation pages should have references, especially when that content does not exist anywhere else on wikipedia. I appreciate the need for streamlined, uncluttered pages, but this is not more important that verifiability and accuracy. Bangabandhu (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge
MOS:DAB/WP:MOSDAB
?

Should

WP:DABACRONYM. Pol098 (talk
) 13:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines fault: "
Order of entries
"

   Presumably, everyone reading this talk page is familiar with the accompanying MOS page's meticulously specified "Introductory line" styles (which of course anticipate the IL being preceded, where appropriate, by a Wiktionary link and/or a Primary-topic line), even if no one's personal mental representation of it is as precise as this:

The At the top of the page section enumerates, first, three examples where only one spelling is being disambiguated on the page, each case having one or two acceptable IL versions (presumably to wisely suggest both how much and how little improvisation is welcome);
that done, it then exemplifies three kinds of situation (again, for one case, illustrating two equally acceptable wordings) in each of which two spellings are being Dab'd together.

Thus, IMO, any reasonable reader of the page would conclude either that such was the whole story of introductory-line formats, or that any need for further variation in an introductory line must be reflected at least by some minor modification in that section.
   Nevertheless, for many years, the section much lower on the page (namely

MOS:DABORDER
) about how to organize the Dab entries has said, as indented-point #1,

where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below

and offered as further explanation a link to (the current state of) the Dab page at Mojave that requires (or precisely, that then did, and to date has continued to require) an introductory-line format clearly outside the range of what we have been maintaining on (at least 99% of) Dab pages. (What i'll call the "Mercury" style is a second example in that section, added only later. It involves a first section -- following a conventional equal-Dab'n intro line -- with the heading "Common meanings" and orthodox Dab entries for each of several articles.) The original, "Mojave", style finds the enumerated introductory line styles (one for equal-Dab'n and Primary-topic) unsuitable, calling instead for

Mojave or Mohave most often refers to:

to be followed by a section heading like "Common meanings", and what the relevant MOS language calls "several of the most common meanings" -- in that specific case, three, each formatted as an orthodox Dab entry.)    (As if to add insult to injury, this circumstance has introduced me to a no-doubt new abomination: the term "co-primary topics", apparently reflecting the assumption that something being "primary topic" reflects nothing of no more moment in our work than an approach to organizing one Dab page.)
--Jerzy•t 06:06 & 07:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

   If the "Mojave model" language were a day or a few months old (and undiscussed), i'd rush into resolving the matter by pointing out that the order passage made no hint of requiring, let alone establishing, anything differing from
the existing guideline on introductory lines, but perhaps that ship has sailed. I'm examining again Mojave's edit history (what i did earlier was just Wikipedia:WikiBlame-ing for the crucial-looking wordings) for significant stages), and probably will do the same for Mercury, although it's of less interest. And i should soon manage to try out some searches for Mojave-model language.
--Jerzy•t
05:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Templates

   Against the possibility that the above described "Guidelines fault" lacks support for a quick solution (i have one in mind, but not the brass to start implementing it), i am instituting two templates that can help collect data that may be available only by searching for specific language in Dab pages, and having interested parties tag instances that don't get found in practicable searches, as they encounter them. One template is for Mojave-model, and one for Mercury-model, and if they are useful for longer than it takes to achieve resolution, they should probably be elaborated into means of facilitating counting relevant variations via category counts.
--Jerzy•t 05:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

DABPIPING when disambiguated article title is redundant to description

I would like to add another exception to

WP:DABPIPING. The final entry of Albert Lucas, for Albert Lucas (juggler)
demonstrates the problem.

The current DAB entry reads:

The word juggler in the disambiguated title, and the word juggler in the descrtive text, are redundant and awkward. I originally put in something along the lines of [[Albert Lucas (juggler)]], professional juggler who is.... Due to fat fingers, I actually left out the word juggler, and another editor helpfully applied

WP:DABPIPE
and removed the piping. If I hadn't messed it up, he might have left it alone, but technically, he woudl have still been correct because I don't think DABPIPE/DABPIPING allows removal of the (disambig) from the title, despite it is redundant to the text.

My reasoning:

  1. When structured this way, it already meets the spirit of the reasoning within WP:DABPIPE - to give the reader the critical differentiating information. IN this case, it is there anyway.
  2. Following the existing advice results in awkward redundancy
  3. Should only apply in cases where the descriptive text "naturally" inlcudes the disamiguating term, and would be awkward to ellide it

Proposed changes ***set off with asterisks***:
In WP:DABPIPE:
Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages. This is to make it clear to the reader which article is being suggested, ***if it would not otherwise be as clear***, so that the reader remains in control of the choice of article. For example, in the Moment disambiguation page, with the entry for Moment (physics), " (physics)" should be visible to the reader. In many cases, what would be hidden by a pipe is exactly what the user would need in order to find the intended article. However, raw section and anchor points should not be displayed. See § Section and anchor point linking for the handling of these cases.

In WP:DABPIPING:

  • Similarly, use piping if the entry's article title differs from how it should actually be rendered, due to
    Softimage|XSI
    .
  • ***NEW SET OF BULLETS*** When the descriptive text following the link would normally include part of the text of the article name, and repating that text would be awkward, then the article name may be piped to remove the redundancy. However, descriptive text should not be made to artificially include the repetitive part just to allow piping; this exception shoudl only be employed where it would not make sense to disinclude the term. Examples:
  • Proper (eliminates the repetitious "juggler," which is not easily removed from the description):
* [[Albert Lucas (juggler)|Albert Lucas]] (b. 1960), American juggler who has set several world records
...yields: Albert Lucas (b. 1960), American juggler who has set several world records
  • Improper (don't pipe, can drop the entire description except for the year):
* [[Changes (Yes song)|Changes]], 1983 song by the band Yes
...would yield: Changes, 1983 song by the band Yes
  • Questionable (the description can replace "magazine" with "periodical," avoiding the repetition:
* [[Gemini (magazine)|Gemini]], a Norwegian magazine
...yields:
Gemini)
, a Norwegian magazine
  • When the link is part of the description, rather than the actual entry name, piping can be used more freely. However, ..........

Note: The Improper and Questionable examples are not true to life, because they are piped for other reasons (adding italics) on their DAB pages. I use them only for illustration.

- Dovid (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. We should err toward not piping, especially if a pipe would be used to hide a disambiguating word or phrase. The description is only there for when the link itself is still potentially ambiguous; we should not be in the habit of making the link more ambiguous. Repetition can frequently (if not always) be avoided by pruning the description. I, for one, see nothing wrong with:

or even better:

since that should certainly be enough information to disambiguate the subject. —Swpbtalk 16:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree with Swpb. Keep the pipes parens, reduce duplicated information in the textual explanations. bd2412 T 21:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you mean "keep the parenthetical disambiguating terms" or "keep avoiding the pipes." —Swpbtalk 21:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hard to find

I found this page a bit hard to find... should it perhaps be more prominent in either Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style where it is currently hidden away in the obscurely named subcategory Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (Wikipedia content), or in the sidebar Template:Style, or both?

It's an important page which inexperienced and less experienced editors need to be able to find easily, IMO. And these are the very people who don't know the shortcuts. Andrewa (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is listed at
MOS:C).—Wavelength (talk
) 22:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
True, and I did find it eventually. But I think it should be better linked. I should be able to find it almost instantly.
But yes, had I got to MOS:C more quickly that would have saved some time. It is in
MOS:C more prominent, perhaps on the sidebar. Andrewa (talk
) 02:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it could be made easier to find – since all the items in the sidebar under "Contents" are either in the "Content" category or the "Wikipedia content" category, I've made the latter a subcategory of the former. Will that make this page ultimately easier to find? or would you suggest something further? – Paine  01:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It is also linked from
WP:DDD, which is also linked in that template. But feel free to add links to this guideline wherever else you think they would be appropriate; dab pages are very misunderstood, and more views here can't hurt. —Swpbtalk
14:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are the guidelines not admin protected?

As a follow-up to the previous discussion, is there any reason these guidelines are not admin protected? The purpose of guidelines is to provide guidance, and therefore they should be reliable and stable over time. As it stands now, any wandering vagrant can just walk in and change/reword whatever he likes. Followed by the next one, and the next one, and so on. That completely defies the point of having a policy. It's not a policy, it's a policy du jour.

Can they not be locked down, and, for instance, reviewed quarterly with agreed changes? --Midas02 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Protection is only used sparingly to guard against vandalism. These guidelines are patrolled by enough eyes to revert "wandering vagrants". Locking would put an unnecessary strain on admins and slow down the processes Wikipedia is based on. (That's three reasons for a start.) —sroc 💬 04:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. To wit, this particular guideline currently has 315 watchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swpb (talk • contribs)
Sorry, but I don't agree to that. 'Being watched' is not a substitution for firm guidelines on which you can rely. Laws are being watched by many as well, but it doesn't mean they can change overnight. --Midas02 (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Midas02: You don't have to agree. It's Wikipedia:Protection policy not to protect pages pre-emptively. —sroc 💬 04:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

People section

Resolved
 – Resolved for now; concerns have been addressed with changes to the guideline. —Swpbtalk 12:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I've been incorrectly placing people sections immediately before "Other uses", rather than immediately before "See also". For example Mir (disambiguation). Anyone agree that we should include an example in MOSDAB? If so, adding an "Other uses" section to the Moss example may be the easiest (and while I'm here, the "Spanish moss" isn't included in the example). The example should make explicit the order "Other uses", "People..." and "See also". Alternatives are to replace the Moss example with a different one or just add an additional example. Thoughts? Widefox; talk 11:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the justification for putting "People" after "Other uses" to begin with? I suppose there's a consensus discussion on that somewhere? —Swpbtalk 12:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, it was an off-shoot from one of the many discussions about whether names belong on a dab page. I think the consensus if any for the placement of the people section language that was added was more in the nature of no objection being raised. I don't see any really good reason to place it after an other uses section. Other uses is almost by definition a miscellany of items that don't fit other categories and it doesn't make much sense to place another section after it aside from a see also section. older ≠ wiser 13:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Partial title matches are typically excluded from disambiguation pages, but an exception was made for given-name-holders and surname-holders in cases where the anthroponymy list article does not yet exist. In those cases, the partial title matches are hosted on the dab page, but always after the ambiguous entries (including any in "Other uses"). The good reason to list the "other uses" first is that they are ambiguous, while the name holders are not. A case could be made to move the name holders to subsections within "See also", since they are not ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I would dispute that given-name-holders and surname-holders are generally unambiguous, and "Other uses" followed by "People" followed by "See also" strikes me as very illogical. Hndis pages and "all page containing/starting with" belong in "See also"; otherwise, any specific people really belong before "Other uses". Anyone else? —Swpbtalk 15:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
That given-name-holders and surname-holders are generally not ambiguous with the single name (given or family) is the consensus. The exceptions (Madonna, Elvis, Shakespeare, Obama) are the exceptions. Those exceptions, specific people who actually are ambiguous with the ambiguous title, should be listed with the rest of the disambiguation page entries, agreed. I have no problem listing the partial title match name holders in "See also" with the hndis pages and "all pages starting with/containing). So we may be largely in agreement, with the possible exception of just how ambiguous the typical name-holder is with any one component of their full name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well if a given person isn't likely to be called by the page name, then they don't belong on the dab page in the first place; I assume that's what you mean by "generally not ambiguous"; I was referring to names that are sufficiently ambiguous to be on the dab page to begin with. Bottom line; putting anything between "Other uses" and "See also" is confusing at best, and I propose to take any such language out of the MOS. This discussion began because Widefox found the current guidance counterintuitive, and it seems Bkonrad concurs. Whether there was a prior consensus on the matter or not, it seems like a good opportunity to re-examine. —Swpbtalk 17:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, JHunterJ's analysis is spot on. This is the general case that many dabs have name holder lists. The sections linger pending splitting off to anthroponymy articles. The most logical place may be in the See also (as a

WP:PTM
). That's unusual for See also sections to be sub-sectioned, so isn't obvious. As they are maintenance items, we could leave them in the body with a maintenance template. There's no right place for them, so it's a choice of say one of these compromises. In any case, they're so common we should try to reach consensus:

  1. In body (but with a maintenance template)
  2. Immediately before See also
  3. Immediately before Other uses
  4. Subsection of See also

(In order of my preference). Is there a link to previous discussion? Any other suggestions? Widefox; talk 23:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Swpb, I agree that they don't belong on the dab page in the first place. The consensus is, however, that the non-belonging name-holders may be listed on the dab page until an editor moves them to their own anthroponymy list article. Until such an editor comes along to any particular list, we currently list them after the do-belong ambiguous entries to be disambiguated. Widefox, I don't see the point of a new maintenance template (or of putting the non-belonging entries in the body). Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists can be used by those editors who want to perform that maintenance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It can be misleading to make blanket statements that name holders do not belong on dab pages. There are persons who are well-known by the surname or given name only and there have been editors who sweep all the name holders off to a separate name page (e.g. Hamilton). It isn't helpful to force readers to jump through multiple pages in such cases and it is not always clear where to draw the line. For example, in some scientific fields, attribution may be by surname (I'm thinking of taxonomists in particular, but it may be common in other fields as well). Point is that it isn't helpful to make blanket statements about names, especially with surnames. For given names, I think the case is clearer that unless a person is commonly known in reliable sources by given name only there is no ambiguity f and personally I don't think lists of given name holders is particularly encyclopedic, but that is another matter). older ≠ wiser 12:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Exceptions are exceptional, yes. In general, surname holders are not ambiguous with their surnames, even though there are specific people (exceptions) who are. Your point about given names is just as clear with surnames: reliable sources that refer to an individual by the single name (given or family) without expansion make it clear where to draw the line. It is helpful to make guidelines ("blanket guidelines", since guidelines are about the general cases?) about names and surnames. And I agree; I don't think either list is particularly encyclopedic, but that's not the WP consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Except that such exceptions are common enough to not be exceptional and such blanket statements encourage thoughtless binary approaches that mostly ignore edge cases. In general, articles on individuals rarely make explicit claims about a person being commonly known by surname and under some approaches to cleansing disambiguation pages such mentions should always be removed regardless of any evidence that might be provided. older ≠ wiser 14:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
We disagree on the commonness of the exceptions. Thoughtless approaches should be avoided though, of course. Calling guidelines one disagrees with "blanket statements" is a similarly thoughtless binary approach. All guidelines make blanket statements that should not be taken as encouragement to thoughtlessness. Guidelines are not for individualized treatment of specific cases but for blanketing cases in general. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
All guidelines do not make blanket statements. That's ridiculous. Most guidelines are carefully crafted to delimit scope of applicability and to avoid giving free reign to black/white approaches. older ≠ wiser 17:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I must be working on a different Wikipedia. All the guidelines I work with are carefully crafted and still are taken as free rein for black/white approaches by some editors. Even what you're reading as negatively blanketing is consistent with the other carefully crafted guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree that you may be working on some other Wikipedia. I see very few guidelines that give free reign to black/white approaches. Most seem carefully (and at times excruciatingly) nuanced. That some editors still manage to make simplistic reductions is something that can't be avoided in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. older ≠ wiser 20:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Widefox: My preference order for those options goes: 1 and/or 4 (depending on level of ambiguity), 3, ...(a big gap)..., 2. Option 2 (people potentially after "Other uses", but before "See also") may make sense as JHunterJ has justified it, but that justification is far too obscure and subtle for the average dab reader or editor, who will just find that order confusing (as you did). Option 1 (in body) is what casual readers/editors are most likely to expect for ambiguous people. Option 4 (subsection of "See also") is reasonably well-supported by precedent for less-than-ambiguous people. —Swpbtalk 15:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
My ordering (with a new option)
  1. Moved to an anthroponymy list article
  2. After the disambiguated entries and before "See also" (tied with #3)
  3. Subsection of See also (tied with #2)
  4. In body immediately before Other uses (but with a maintenance template)
The location of the name-holder list in the body is really just part of the "in body" option. If the issue is the subtlety of not mixing entries of topics for the ambiguous title with partial title matches, perhaps the fix is to find a better section header phrasing than "People with the surname X"? I don't know what that would be, but it should help de-obfuscate the reason. "People with the name but not ambiguous with it", "Partial title match people", etc. etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Your option 1 (move to anthroponymy list) is, I think, universally acknowledged as the right answer; the question is what to do before there are enough entries to justify such a list. In preferring your option 2 (people before "See also" but after any "Other uses"), you seem to stand alone (with Bkonrad, sroc, and myself dissenting), so I think it's fair at this point to strike that option. That leaves "in body" and "subsection of see also", which I think both have appropriate applications. —Swpbtalk 20:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to have a !poll, have a !poll, but reading the tea leaves and ending up with your starting position "1 and/or 4 (depending on level of ambiguity)" isn't exactly fair either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Widefox's options 1, 3, and 4 remain on the table, and I'm fairly agnostic from that point. But it would be hard to make the case that anyone but you supports an "after other uses but before see also" option, which is the confusing state that got us into this discussion. I know you have a justification for it, and I see the logic of it, but it doesn't seem to have a lot of fans. —Swpbtalk 20:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In this very brief discussion. The instruction has been there since 2006, the result of a much longer discussion. See the three discussions linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Home backup#Background reading. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I think they are other cases to consider. What happens when there are people known solely by the name? Do we have a people section in the body section and then another listing of the partial title match name holders in see also or somewhere else? And I don't agree completely with statement that persons with the surname do not belong on a disambiguation page. If that it's the standard then we need to remove George from Washington, since the George Washington article doesn't clearly establish that he is commonly known as simply "Washington". older ≠ wiser 21:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of semantics, it doesn't make much sense to have "Other uses" and then "People with this name" (i.e., another other use). It would make more sense to move a list of people with a particular name (who are not worth of being listed higher up by virtue of being ambiguously referred to by that name) as a sub-section of "See also" (if at all). If there are some people listed as entries on the disambiguation name (because they are referred to by the name alone), the sub-heading should be "Other people with this name" of course. —sroc 💬 13:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Some points:
  • The current wording is "...can be added below the main disambiguation list. "(emphasis my own). I interpret that as below the "Other uses" section, before the "See also"
    • Swpb I don't find that confusing, just unnecessarily subtle. It lacks being explicit about where the location is.
      • I've been consistently putting these sections in the wrong place for a while! (I've been putting them: 5. Just before the Other uses)
    • An example would help clarify the current wording (and as I see no obvious consensus for change yet, my focus is mainly to make explicit with an example, but now pending conclusion of discussion here...)
  • "Persons with the surname Xxxx" ... this wording, to me, feels at odds with keeping section names concise, bears little relation to the item name that would replace the whole section, and gratuitously repeats the ambiguous term. In fact, we commonly just have "People" (just a point of fact rather than suggestion) highlighting how the guideline wording may benefit a trim (if desirable). These are sections that should be replaced by items such as Moss (surname) and Moss (given name) in the "Other uses" section in Moss (disambiguation). This naturally gives another option:
    • 6. Subsection of Other uses (which would collapse to an item when the article is created)
  • 1. agree with JHunterJ that there's no need for a new maintenance template. Widefox; talk 01:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to highlight the following extract from the guidelines: ... entries – lines which direct the readers to Wikipedia articles on the various topics which might be referenced by the term being disambiguated. No need to provide evidence that people are in general referenced by their surname, and that there are a lot of historical people of whom we don't even know the given name. Or we're not sure. So I find it rather disturbing to read suggestions that people names would be 'partial matches', and thus belong in the See Also section. Their presence fully respects the mission statement I've quoted. Some other points:

  • As stated before, it goes against all logic to put things between other and see also. It stops at other, or at least it should.
  • Having a framework is good, but overregulating does more wrong than good. Some have long name sections, others have really short ones. So every page is different, and for some pages it even makes good sense to have the names at the top. And I fully agree with Bkonrad on the blanket statement. It's never black & white.
  • As mentioned before, the wording can be added below the main disambiguation list is an issue. I interpret that differently than Widefox, and I'd rather have the "below the ..." removed altogether. Name sections can be added, full stop.
  • As far as I can see, nothing is broken, so why make an issue out of this. On every page I've ever seen, I've always been able to quickly identify what I needed, no mather where they were located within the body.--Midas02 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

To editors Bkonrad, JHunterJ, Sroc and Widefox: So, this discussion has gotten quite long and deep...but where do we stand right now? We've all put arguments out there; lets see if we can summarize:

  • Status quo, I believe, is for people ambiguous with the title to appear within the body of the dab page; I don't believe anyone wants to change that.
  • As to people with the title as a given name or surname, but who are not generally called solely by that name, there are a few positions, which are not all mutually exclusive:
1. Such people should only ever be listed on an anthroponymy page, which may linked from the dab's "See also"
2. Such people should be listed on an anthroponymy page, but may be listed on a dab page if the anthropometry page doesn't exist. From there, they belong:
2a. In the body, anywhere above any "Other uses"
2b. In the body, immediately above any "Other uses"
2c. In the body, immediately below any "Other uses" (the apparent status quo)
2d. In a subsection of "Other uses"
2e. In "See also", or a subsection thereof.
  • There's an additional question about how the header for such a section should be worded, but I think that question is best resolved after we settle the "where" question.

So, lets maybe rank our preferences again, so we can at least narrow the discussion. Positions that no one favors, we can discard. Positions that are broadly favored, we keep talking about. —Swpbtalk 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb: FYI, I didn't get a ping from your {{to}}. You might want to check whether Bkonrad and JHunterJ saw this, too. —sroc 💬 04:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not simply creating an anthroponymy page for such lists, even when there are only two or three people with such a name, rather than debating where to put the list in the disambiguation page? Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards § Articles notes: "If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created." It also provides the example of Schnaufer, which only lists two articles, which is enough for disambiguation pages, too. —sroc 💬 05:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That's what option 1 means. —Swpbtalk 12:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I thought 1 meant to leave the list of names out if no anthroponymy page exists, rather than creating an anthroponymy page to accommodate them. —sroc 💬 14:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll

  • User:Swpb, from first to last choice: 2e, 2a, 2b, 1, 2c/2d (tied) — Preceding unsigned comment added by swpb (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 May 2015
  • JHunterJ Agree with your 2 or 3. As this is the current wording I'm done if everyone agrees and we put an example in.
    • To clarify, do you mean my 2b and 2c? —Swpbtalk 12:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Your preference 4. the style I've been using for a long while (my number 5.) (I probably shouldn't say these two further options...but while I'm here...MOSDAB could just say 7. they should be moved (and therefore there's no style guide needed - JHunterJ's 1.) 8. Create a redlink in the appropriate place and sublist "**" them (ugly but we want to encourage the creation at the right title and get them moved). Widefox; talk 22:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • By Swpb's options, I would vote for 2e because the topic does not ambiguously refer to those names and therefore does not fit above "Other uses" and doesn't make sense after "Other uses". I wouldn't be irked if those names were grouped with any ambiguous names under a "People" section though, provided the most likely options were listed first. —sroc 💬 04:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the options accurately capture all the cases. Apparently there is agreement that nameholders known by the name only should be included in the main body. Would these go in a section called "People"? And would this "People" section be sorted "normally" (usually alpha sort) with other sections or placed in some sequence? And if there are other nameholders without a separate name page, should those be included there or listed separately somewhere else? Also, it is still unclear how it is determined whether surname holders are known by the surname only to be included as ambiguous or shunted off to a separate page. Most articles on a person do not make any explicit claims about being known by the surname only. It appears to be consensus that determines whether a surname-holder is sufficiently ambiguous to be included. And if that is the case, then how is that different from the situation at
    Hillary Rodham Clinton there. Although the article does not explicitly support that usage, there is abundant evidence for the ambiguity. Why is it not OK to include that ambiguity by consensus while ambiguous surname usage gets a pass without any explicit mention in the target article? But in any case, of the options given, I'd prefer to include the section in the main body without any template (unless the list is really getting so long as to overwhelm the disambiguation page). older ≠ wiser
    17:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    Topics whose articles could have the ambiguous title should be included in the main body, even if they are people with full names longer than the ambiguous title. If not the primary topic (e.g.,
    Patton), they could go in a section called "People" (if there are multiple such people, see Madonna (disambiguation)), or in "Other uses" (especially if there's only one, so not enough for a section), or at the top (see Lincoln (disambiguation) or Madonna (disambiguation) again). -- JHunterJ (talk
    ) 18:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    And if there's only one such person, and that person's notability is due to their musicianship, they could be in "Music". Etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    I think the question of exactly who counts as "ambiguous" is important, but tangential to the question at hand, which is, assuming we can agree that a given person is not ambiguous with the title, where should we put them? As for people who are ambiguous with the title, the naming and placement of their section is also a separate matter. (I would typically go with "People", in alphabetical placement, but again, that's a separate question.) —Swpbtalk 19:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    But that's not addressing the question of HOW we know a person is know by surname only when the article makes no such claim? older ≠ wiser 20:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And to clarify my votes in the table below, I'd be OK with 2e when there are ONLY unambiguous partial title matches (i.e., if there is an existing PEOPLE section in the dab page, I think it would be confusing to have some people in one section and some people in another). I'm not OK with implication of 1 that nameholders should never appear on dab pages. If that point is clarified to unambiguous partial title matches (i.e., no persons known by the name alone) then I might be OK with it, although I am concerned that we have no clear criteria for determining when a surname-holder is ambiguous. The only option that's a complete non-starter for me is 2c. older ≠ wiser 21:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll results

To editors Bkonrad, JHunterJ, Midas02, Sroc and Widefox: The results of the straw poll, as best I can tell. In some cases I've extrapolated from your comments; please change pluses/minus in your column if I've misrepresented. For simplicity, let's try to stick to a +/0/- system, and let's stick to this one question.

Unambiguous people belong:
Editor: Bkonrad JHunterJ Midas02 sroc Swpb Widefox Total score
Option 1: Only on anthroponymy pages, never dab pages - + 0
Option 2a: Somewhere above any "Other uses" + - + - + +1
Option 2b: immediately above any "Other uses" + - - - -2
Option 2c: Immediately below any "Other uses" - + - - - -3
Option 2d: In a subsection of "Other uses" + - - - -2
Option 2e: In "See also", or a subsection thereof - + - + + +1

Ok, now:

To editors Bkonrad, JHunterJ, Midas02, Sroc and Widefox: Clearly, 2b/2c/2d are not favored, and I've made an edit to that effect. Right now, the guideline section

MOS:DABNAME
still indicates the rejected 2c. So let's focus on the remaining options, rank them, and give arguments for/against them:

Unambiguous people belong:
Editor: Bkonrad JHunterJ Midas02 sroc Swpb Widefox Total score
Option 1: Only on anthroponymy pages, never dab pages - + 0
Option 2a: Somewhere above any "Other uses" + - + - 0
Option 2e: In "See also", or a subsection thereof - + - + + +1

Since we're just talking about unambiguous entries, I've dropped my + for 2a, giving 2e a slight lead, but I think there is a decent case to be made for any of these three options. SO, argue away! —Swpbtalk 22:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no inclination to vote again on the same options. I've already indicated a couple of times already that I think these options do not consider the full context adequately. older ≠ wiser 02:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditto, it seems like trying to solve a problem which does not seem to exist for many people. --Midas02 (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Piling on. The problem with 2a is that it treats unambiguous entries (which is the assumption of this question) as ambiguous entries (in the list of ambiguous topics, no matter which section of that list of ambiguous topics they're on). I do not understand why some editors prefer to treat them (the people who aren't ambiguous with the title) as if they are ambiguous. The exceptional people who are ambiguous with the title can be placed in any section of the list of ambiguous topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

To editors Bkonrad, JHunterJ, Midas02, Sroc and Widefox: Fine. I've done everything I can to capture all the options and add some organization to this sprawling discussion. Is the goal even to fix the guideline, or just to exhaust every line of argument? The one bit of consensus we seem to have gotten so far is that no one but JHunter likes 2c, yet JHunter has reverted my edit to the guideline to that effect. So I'm done. The rest of you can type your fingers raw and end up back where you started, I see no further point. Clearly, the current language of the guideline is not supported by consensus, but that's not my problem. —Swpbtalk 12:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Swpb. You have established there was no consensus for this, which is an achievement as well. I have reverted Jhunterj as he has reverted an edit which was introduced on 28 November 2014 without any consensus whatsoever, and I'd like to ask him to respect the consensus model. --Midas02 (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And I'd like to ask you to do so as well. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages/Archive_41#Page organization: seeking consensus to be more explicit about a common best practice. Just because you didn't look at the Talk from the time of that edit doesn't mean it's not there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I super the removal. The discussion JHJ points to as establishing consensus was a conversation between himself and Swpb only. As Swpb made first attempt to remove the guidance this time around, it appears that your "consensus" consists of one. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Just so we're clear: the earlier consensus (no quotation marks) was a consensus. I'd appreciate it if you could all take a breath and phrase things where your assumption of good faith is a little more apparent. Now, it's quite possible the consensus has changed to moving the PTM name-holders to See also. Well and good. Rather than making half the change to the guidelines, reflecting that new consensus should be done completely in the guidelines, if they are to reflect the new consensus. I object to editing the guidelines to conform to neither the old consensus nor the new one. Which is what I mentioned in the edit summary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Except I don't see there is consensus for that edit either. There may have been some limited consensus previously, but there's clearly none for keeping that language now. I don't think there is any clear agreement about placing name-holders under see also. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
And this is the nonsense I'm trying to avoid. The old consensus can't change without a new consensus, but we've landed (temporarily) on neither. It's very easy to simply pick and choose the elements of a discussion that happen to agree with any one editor's viewpoint and use them to remove (or add) things to the guidelines, but that's not consensus. It's just shenanigans. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Pot, kettle, black. It's also nonsensical to pick and choose those parts of a discussion you happen to agree with as basis for establishing some new consensus when the on-going discussion hasn't really agreed on anything other than lack of support for the current language. older ≠ wiser 14:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
In this case, the pot is calling the kettle a kettle. The discussion had either not reached a consensus for what to change the guidelines to, or (if you wanted to make a change) had indicated what to change them to. The halfassery was shenanigans. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You can think whatever you want, regardless of whether there is any basis in reality. Just don't expect others to go along for the ride just because you say so. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Dude. I respect your standing as a veteran editor and the source of a lot of good ideas, but sometimes you need to follow the law of holes and recognize when your position has no support. —Swpbtalk 15:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Which seems an odd claim, dude, considering you then returned the same message to the guidelines that I had, that I called shenanigans on when Bkonrad reverted me. "My position" is the consensus, which I've always sought and followed even when I've disagreed with it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Clearly, I was referring to your insistence that there was ever a consensus for 2c; not your later embracing of 2e: I don't support this revert, but I absolutely support this one and this one. On 2c, and especially on reverting to 2c, you stood absolutely alone. —Swpbtalk 12:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I would say:
  • if there is one person with the relevant given name or surname who is not ambiguously referred to by that name alone, then list that person under "See also"
  • if there is more than one such person, then list them in anthroponymy page linked under "See also".
Why does Elvis (disambiguation) link to Elvis (name) under the section "People"? It doesn't make sense to have different places to link to an anthroponym ("People") and to an anthroponymy page ("See also"), does it? —sroc 💬 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that last comment, and I never leave links to anthroponymy articles in "People" sections when I clean up a dab page. The name as a topic is not a person, but a name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
To editor Swpb:, I've also done everything I can to clarify the guidelines, and to identify potential fixes to the actual problems that I see (e.g., if "People with the name" doesn't communicate well enough that that section is for partial-title-match people, we can try to find a better name). Otherwise, yeah, we're all typing until our fingers are raw. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Specific language

To editors

MOS:DABNAME
as follows. Please don't make me regret the effort. Black text is unchanged, red text is struck, green text is added:

Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should not be in the same section of the disambiguation page as the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g.,

Shakespeare). For short lists of name holders, new sections of Persons with the surname Xxxx or Persons with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list.Small numbers of name holders can be added to the "[[MOS:DABSEEALSO|See also]]" section, below the main disambiguation list. For longer lists, create an anthroponymy list article
and link to it from the disambiguation page. If it isn't clear that the article includes a list, consider mentioning that in the description.

—Swpbtalk 18:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I do have two concerns though. 1) We have no clear criteria for determining when a surname holder is commonly known by the surname only. 2) It is somewhat illogical in cases where there are individuals known by the plain name alone to be listed in a "People" section or something similar to also have other persons listed in see also. That is, a reader looking for a person might see the "People" section, see that the person they're looking for is not listed and give up without considering there might be another listing of people elsewhere on the page. On a tangential matter, the second concern is in some ways similar to another discussion involving placement of lists containing supplemental disambiguations. older ≠ wiser 18:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. My thoughts are this: 1) The "how to identify consistently" question (broadly addressed in the first sentence of the ¶ in question) is important, and could stand to have its own discussion, but its resolution has no bearing on the resolution of the "where" question (which is addressed by the second sentence). 2) I agree that having people in two different places could be less than ideal, but it is consistent with the long-standing principle of "ambiguous-with-the-title entries in body, anything else in See Also". My solution would be to err towards listing people in the body, if there's a reasonable belief that they may be called by that name alone - thus avoiding the "reader gives up" scenario. I also think it would be reasonable to put truly borderline cases in both the body and "See Also". —Swpbtalk 19:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You're right about 1, but in combination with the present language (or in fact the previous language as well), there is justification for editors to remove all surname holders from dab pages aside from the truly exceptional cases where the primary topic is a redirect to a person. You're approach to 2 is sensible, but other editors will and already do take different approach to err on the side of removing all surname holders when there is a surname page. older ≠ wiser 13:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, perhaps we could address that by softening the first sentence as follows:
Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should not be in the same section of the disambiguation page as the other links unless should be listed in the body of the disambiguation page if they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare). Otherwise, small numbers of name holders[...]
It has the advantage of being shorter, and being expressed as a "should if" rather than a "should not unless". With any language, some editors may err too far one way and some too far the other, but I think this strikes the right balance and avoids being over-prescriptive. —Swpbtalk 14:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is an improvement IMO. older ≠ wiser 14:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then I'm going to be bold and do it. I don't think there's any need to drag this one out. —Swpbtalk 14:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Good idea, and fully logical, with ambiguous people listed with the ambiguous entries and the people-not-ambiguous are listed with the entries-also-not-ambiguous, just like ambiguous places would be listed in the main list and PTM places would be relegated to the See also section, even on the same navigation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the new change and the wording, well done. (life intervened). Widefox; talk 12:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking to clarify
MOS:DABMENTION

I'd like some input before editing the section on items appearing within other articles. I'm confused by the phrase "In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink". I come to this article because of a recent dispute at the edit warring notice board.

MOS:DABMENTION was brought up as support for the edit in dispute, and I believe this section on policy may be the key to the right edit, but I think the section has been misapplied. I'm just not sure based on my confusion about the phrase above. The edit in dispute [7] adds Jamie Jackson (actor)
as a red link, which looks to be the issue that started everything.

The example given in this section is

Maggie Anderson may also refer to:

From this, it seems the appropriate edit would be

Jamie Jackson may also refer to:
  • Jamie Jackson, Australian actor in
    The Blacklist

If that is correct, I intend to edit the phrase to read: "In this case, navigable blue links are maintained by adding a description with links to appearances of the title within other articles". The details behind disambiguation pages are new to me, so any input is welcome. Willondon (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The second entry goes against the guideline set in
    MOS:DABENTRY
    , specifically the part that states:
  • Include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line.
In a case like this, in my opinion, you would need to determine which of the articles the subject of the line is most notable, and link that article only. Steel1943 (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Steel1943 that there should only be one blue link. And there is
another portion of the guideline that suggests a redlink is appropriate if articles other than the disambiguation page link to the redlink (i.e., the assumption is that an article can be created and leaving the redlinks saves some effort in recreating the links when the article is created). older ≠ wiser
02:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I have created
Draft:Jamie Jackson (actor). bd2412 T
03:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: Thank you for creating the draft.
@Bkonrad: Nothing linked to the actor anywhere prior to Midas02's addition of said redlink to the disambiguation page. You are welcome to check the history. Adding a redlink to a disambiguation page and then adding the same redlink to other pages is bad practice. Helping other editors to edit war instead of waiting for an actual consensus to form is also bad practice. I hope for a better dialogue in the future. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 07:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@EauZenCashHaveIt:, no, click on the redlink, then click on what links here. There are articles other than the dab page that contain the redlink. Those other links pre-date the current kerfuffle and from the edit history, Midas02 had nothing to do with adding those links.older ≠ wiser 11:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@
WP:WANTED. (However, I'm not saying that red links alone establish the subject's notability, but rather establish the subject's connection to other articles and subjects on Wikipedia, which can be seen as helpful to our readers.) Steel1943 (talk
) 17:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion for an appropriate entry on the disambiguation page: bluelink the show/movie that Jackson most notably appeared on and just go with it. The main problem is that there are no sources on him that would make his name even remotely notable to include on Wikipedia. I just Googled him again and got nothing. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 07:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added as many sources to the draft as I could find, amended the page to include the actor, redirected the actor link to the disambiguation page, and bluelinked according to the guideline. Dear disambiguators, please stop ignoring the merits of this discussion and its predecessprs for the sake of shoving that redlink at all cost. Let's all call it a day. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 17:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bkonrad: Stop changing everything at once and participate in this discussion until a consensus is reached. So far, your edits do not line up with it. Helping your fellow disambiguator get his way because it's "your domain" is plain wrong and disruptive. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@EauZenCashHaveIt: Stop making silly edits that aren't supported by guidelines only to satisfy your peculiar obsession with this. Your revert war with Midas02 completely ignored the other parts of the edits (putting entries in alpha sort). Then you add a blue link to the actor's entry that doesn't even mention the actor and revert war over that and as well as over a redirect from the dab page to the disambiguation page that is completely inappropriate. How about you just stop the nonsense while the discussion (which I am participating in by the way) progresses. older ≠ wiser 10:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@
WP:AFD (had to dig in to find you a policy, hope it's the correct one). EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears
) 23:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@EauZenCashHaveIt: There is no consensus for the redirect and certainly no basis whatsoever in policy or guidelines. I've nominated the redirect for deletion. older ≠ wiser 00:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Scope of links unnecessary for disambiguation

Additional opinions are welcome at WikiProject Disambiguation#Scope of links unnecessary for disambiguation. Claim has been made that I am the only person who thinks additional links and detail are unnecessary on dab pages such as Monroe County. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I had thought avoiding such links was standard practice. older ≠ wiser 12:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification to "Linking to a primary topic" (example needed)

I've been thinking for several years that we need a clarification in this section along these lines:

Occasionally, the link to the primary topic should be clarified, and this clarification may also include a link if it is to an article with a dissimilar name that is fairly likely to be what the reader is looking for:

followed by one or more examples. I never write this down when I think of it, so right this moment the only example fresh in my mind is one that came up yesterday, and which may not be appropriate (

WP:NOTCENSORED
notwithstanding):

Shit is an English-language vulgarism, literally referring to feces, but having many metaphoric uses.

This sort of example is good, because the main topic article is almost entirely a

words as words article, and has virtually nothing to do with what shit/feces actually is. This isn't even a silly example; any informal learner of English, picking up the language via interaction, is very likely to quickly learn the word "shit", but unlikely to learn words like "feces", "manure", and "excrement" until much later. I just don't think we need a "shit" example in the guideline, so I'm hoping someone can think of a better one. It would most likely also be a words-as-words case, since that's where this issue usually comes up. Sometimes also when words have widely divergent meanings in different ENGVARs, e.g. "pants" (undergarment vs. trousers).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢
 ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, also that there are many items in this guideline which are interpreted too strictly, to the detriment of the disambiguation pages concerned, and sometimes to the discouragement of editors.
To expand on the "one link per item" rule, it may be that on discovering Foo is a type of Bar, a reader would want to go straight to
Foo
. I would say a more general guideline to only have links that seem likely to used a significant proportion of the time would be sensible.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC).

Templates

"Several templates are available for creating properly formatted links. These should be substituted, since templates are discouraged on disambiguation pages (see § Images and templates below)."

This is an example of mindless application of the guideline, in this case to itself. Such templates can be improved over the years, for example {{

'
}} was recently changed. Encouraging people to subst: this sort of template due to another clause, which is probably directed at navboxes and infoboxes rather leads to negative outcomes.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC).

order of entries allowing geographic order, yet again

In this edit, I revised the ordering requirements to allow for ordering of places by country, state or province, city or town, which may be termed "geographic ordering" for discussion purposes here, within a section of places or on a page of all places. There are many thousands of dabs about places that do this. Past versions of the ordering section have allowed for it explicitly or at least the section ordering requirements did not disallow it. There have been a number of past discussions here clarifying the need (search on "geographic order" in the archives).

Note, it has previously been pointed out that if readers are best served by country/state/city order that country sections, state subsections, city subsubsections can be inserted. That does not suffice. For some very long lists of places such as First Presbyterian Church, having country sections and, within the U.S., state subsections, works fine and serves readers (they can jump to the state of interest using the TOC). However for medium-sized lists, say Memorial Stadium, inserting subsection titles for each state seems excessive, and subsection titles are very likely to be removed by other editors. There are about 40 Memorial Stadiums in 23 different U.S. states. It would be absurd to require 23 subsections just so that geographic ordering will be allowed, just so that editors can avoid falling afoul of a bureaucratic requirement at MOSDAB. On dabs like this there has been churning over time as some editors strictly enforce the ordering that sometimes is specified by MOSDAB, while other editors (aware or not of MOSDAB's obscure, changing specification) regularly reorder dabs of places into reader-friendly order (geographic order). When state subsections are inserted or removed from pages ordered geographically, the pages should not bounce back and forth between technical compliance or non-compliance.

For example, for Memorial Stadium, it is easy for readers looking for a U.S. one to find the one they want by state, then city. Readers arriving to the U.S. section are almost 100 percent to know what state their target is in, and they know that it has "Memorial Stadium" in its name. It is difficult and aggravating for readers, if the ordering has been changed to focus on an essentially random characteristic, i.e. whether or not the official name of a stadium includes a person's name or a university name preceding the "Memorial Stadium" or on other minor variation in official naming. If, as happened for me just now, a reader is looking for a stadium that turns out instead to be named "Memorial Field", then they should be allowed to determine by reviewing their state's relatively few entries that their target is definitely not on this page, so then they would turn to the "See also" section for suggestions including "Memorial Field (disambiguation)". I just took a few minutes to restore that dab page into geographic order, and I hope that others will not arrive to put it back into reader-unfriendly order.

I hope this small change in the ordering specifications of MOSDAB is not disputed unnecessarily. Sincerely, doncram 15:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I see that at the bottom there is a clause edited down from past changes which, if you were a government lawyer, you might say covers this (and then other lawyers would disagree): "Within each group within a section, and within each non-subdivided section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This might mean in decreasing order of likelihood as user's target, alphabetically, chronologically, or geographically, not to the exclusion of other methods." I have no idea what that means. I don't know how users "target alphabetically or chronologically", or what a "group within a section" is, or what is "geographically" in that context (east to west?). What my edit put in is clear, by contrast, IMHO. --doncram 16:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit confuses "ordering" and "grouping". It's perfectly reasonable to group geographic entries by geographic subdivision, but that doesn't address how those entries or groupings are ordered. The recommended ordering is still "by similarity to the title", and then alphabetically or chronologically. The appropriate place to address groupings is one subsection down: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Organizing_long_lists_by_subject_sections. I don't think geographic grouping needs to be explicitly mentioned, but you may disagree. —Swpbtalk 20:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Exceptions"

I propose to add to the "Exceptions" section:

If an exception to the MOS for disambiguation pages is needed to make a page completely informative, for example by including topics that do not meet
WP:DABMENTION
or by including external links, then it is likely that there exists a topic that requires different treatment than a disambiguation page. In such cases, a set index or concept article may be more appropriate.

Cheers! bd2412 T 16:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I don't think this adds any new information, just new verbiage. —Swpbtalk 18:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I just need something to point to when other editors insist that they need to add nonconforming material to a page questionably presented as a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 18:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem is some particulary pedantic people will need to have it in writing before they call it a day. I'd change the tone of the last sentence though, not 'may be more' (leaves the door wide open again), but something stronger like 'should be used'. --Midas02 (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative names

For names such as William/Will/Willie/Bill/Billy, Joseph/Joe/Joey, Charles/Charlie/Chuck and Robert/Rob/Robbie/Bob/Bobby, we have some dab pages that combine all of the variations onto a single dab page (ie William Thomas), whilst others have individual dab pages, linked via the See Also section, such as (James Thomas and Jim Thomas). Is either method preferred? Should there be a guideline to merge or separate the lists? In any list, some of the people are going to be 100% known by one of the variations - even if it isn't their birth name, whereas others would be known by both the full and shortened names. Personally, I would like to see them merged into a single page, unless it becomes too long, even when split into topics. The-Pope (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I also favor combining them into a single page when it does not make the resulting list impractically long. Nick Number (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that there are two factors to consider - how long will the combined page be, and how interchangeable are the names. Most people called "Charlie: or "Chuck" are formally named "Charles" and most people called "Jim" are formally named "James", but there are some short forms that go with multiple names ("Ed", for "Edward", "Edwin", "Edmund", etc.; "Al" for "Albert", "Alan", "Alphonse", etc.), and some names that occur as short forms can also occur as the complete name ("Rob" and "Will", for example). bd2412 T 17:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Commas vs Dashes

In

MOS:DABENTRY to codify this. -- Ϫ
01:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
MOS:DABENTRY does include other details about punctuation, I agree that your suggestion will help to nurture consistency, so I went ahead and added the bullet. Feel free to tweak it if you deem necessary. Joys! Painius
  03:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Need for stricter guidelines on adding fictional characters on disambiguation pages or anthroponymy articles

Hello, I'd like to probe the community on the need for stricter guidelines on adding fictional characters on disambiguation pages or anthroponymy articles. Quite often I'm seeing the following kind of entries on dab pages or anthroponymy articles :

  • Mr Smith, a character in novel abc by xyz
  • Boris, the dog of Jim Johnson in the film abc
  • Dork, the name of a Klingon in Star Trek xyz

The relevancy of these entries is often less than non-existant. Other than when the notability of a fictional character is larger than the work it was mentioned in, I don't see why they should be mentioned. The problem is that guideline

MOS:DABMENTION
allows for the inclusion of these entries, based on the simple fact that they are being mentioned in the relevant articles. Thus opening the door to add each and every name mentioned in an article to a dab page.

Therefore, does anyone care to propose a set of stricter guidelines specifically for fictional characters? --Midas02 (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, make that fictional characters and objects, as the latter is sometimes an issue as well. --Midas02 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind guidelines to prevent things from appearing on the pages if it is unlikely anyone is ever going to look up the term to find that usage, but I'm not sure what language would effect that. Are any pages actually becoming overwhelmed with such mentions? bd2412 T 00:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's a small sample of pages containing such entries: Hayes (surname), Severin (given name), Stevens (surname), and Sinclair. Don't be deceived by the presence of a blue link, they're often not more than a redirect to the work the character is being mentioned in. --Midas02 (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:D "reasonably likely". Off the top of my head, to assess the subjectivity of that likelihood: is the character known outside of the context of the fictional work? Else it would be reasonable to assume users would search for the work first, and then the character. I would have thought some guidance or working rule has been discussed. Widefox; talk
10:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages/Archive_41&oldid=1137421059"