Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 28

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

A proposal has been made to move the above article to a new title and to move an associated disambiguation page at the same time. The discussion was started on December 29 and has been stalled for a few days now. If anyone is interested in expressing their thoughts on the matter, you're welcome and encouraged to do it at the

Help from experienced disambiguators would be appreciated at Talk:David Rose#Premature move. --NSH001 (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the moves as contested. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --NSH001 (talk)

Hello!

I would like a little bit of help regarding disambiguation pages. In case of Budapest there is a primary topic, and there is a separate disambiguation page. My question is, how can you disambiguate on the newly created pages (since the last major clean-up) without checking all the articles that link to the Budapest page? Thanks in advance--Istvánka (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If I understand what you're asking, I'm not aware of any method other than by combing through list of articles that link to the Budapest page. that is one of the drawbacks of primary topics. older ≠ wiser 13:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Hi, Istvánka. Unfortunately, there is no easy way for titles that have a primary topic. It's a trade off for that kind of verification vs. the benefit of placing an article (instead of a dab page) at the base name. We hope that at least some readers who reach a base name article that they weren't seeking will edit the page that linked them there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We assume that an editor will look on the target of his/her new link or, at least, is willing to think what s/he doing. But incorrect links are not uncommon, and we frequently resort to browsing Special:WhatLinksHere and fixing the crap, really. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Then why do you endorse primary topics? It should be easier the maintenance if you disambiguate the primary topic too (Budapest(Hungary) for example).--Istvánka (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary topics are good for the reader, so we allow ease of maintenance to suffer for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two strong arguments against it. First, it is not obvious, to which extent must Wikipedia disambiguate a topic to reach a full clarity in each particular case; another Budapest is Hungary could exist, isn't it? Second, due to grammatical features of English, it is very convenient to make links like [[term]], [[term]]s, [[verb]]ed etc. It looks much better and simplifies a wikicode maintenance rather than WP: piped links. But even in languages with complex inflexions and usually non-null nominative endings, such as Russian, titles are not disambiguated far beyond the necessary. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The original post said: "how can you disambiguate on the newly created pages (since the last major clean-up)". I guess the idea was: If somebody went through WhatLinksHere on a known date and cleaned up wrong links, then is there a way to limit the work in a new cleanup? The ideal would be to limit WhatLinksHere to links added after a given date. Short of that, are there other available metods? For example a convenient tool to remember the already checked pages if the same editor makes both cleanups? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd only want to exclude pages that haven't been edited since the last cleanup. But even so, having some sort of date filter for what links here sounds like a potentially useful way to focus on pages with the highest probability of having mistaken links. older ≠ wiser 17:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Added after a given date? The pagelinks table does not have a timestamp field. Even if it had, it would be unclear how to date-sort entries in WhatLinksHere (by earliest link or by latest one), as multiple links with the same source and target are possible. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You are most kind. We, on the Hungarian are trying to reach a consensus on whether we should use primary topics or not. The main argument against it usage is that it makes difficult the cleaning-up since every time all the linked articles have to be checked. That is why I asked the question, because it seems that on enwiki the primary topic is working fine. Do you buy any chance know some pages where I can find arguments for and against implementing this system. Thank you very much in advance.--Istvánka (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

General discussions of primary topic are most likely to be found here, and on

WT:MOSDAB, as well as the associated archives of those pages. I'd say very few on EN would support completely eliminating the use of primary topics. I think the disagreements are primarily in how to determine whether there is a primary topic or which of several candidates might be the primary topic for a term. older ≠ wiser

17:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

To give some background, hu.wikipedia uses a disambiguation system where primary topics also have a disambiguated title, and the base name is a redirect to the primary topic (with a special template so that bots can detect that links pointing there should be disambiguated). That way links to the primary topic need to be fixed only once, and readers still get most benefits of there being a primary topic, but the title of the main article can be awkward sometimes. There is a debate going on about this system, so it woould be interesting to know how other wikis deal with this problem. There are some 20.000 links to hu:Budapest; what do you do with disambig pages with a similarly large number of links to them, when there is a clear primary topic? Not disambiguate at all? Work through all the thousands of links again and again every few months? --Tgr (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I could do with some help at Fifth Dimension with an editor who misunderstands how to use dab pages.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Immaculate Conception (disambiguation) a dab or an article? I am tired of arguing with a persistent sock puppet reincarnation, so help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It was corrected by R'n'B. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've run into a dispute with User:NSH001 who thinks that disambiguation pages should better not have any talk pages at all [1] and if so he seems to think that a banner of WikiProject Disambiguation is the only valid tagging. Both concepts sound a bit strange to me regarding that there is a whole Category:Disambig-Class articles stemming from project banner templates. In my opinion it should not be prohibited for any WikiProject to place tags on disambiguation class talk pages if any topic listed there is of special interest for a project. Especially dab pages that exclusively contain links associated with one WikiProject should be allowed for tagging so they can be administered from time to time. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Other projects may have reasons of their own for wanting to track disambiguation pages of interest to the project. I don't see how the banners cause any problems. I think the prospect of editors with no interest in a particular project enforcing unilateral decisions as to what is or is not of interest to the project is fraught with problems. older ≠ wiser 21:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

NSH001 has told me that there's been a tendency to keep disambiguation pages as minimal as possible [2] but while I can see the value of it for the article side, I don't see any problems with those pages having a talk page with multiple tags. De728631 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Keeping disambiguation pages minimal has little or nothing to do the content of talk pages or with whether or not a particular project might have an interest in the page. older ≠ wiser 23:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it's possible to ban them completely, but they should be strongly discouraged. I only bothered to remove them on that particular page because it was obvious that they were added, in the first case, to an article page (not a dab page) and got left by default, and in the second case, having noticed the first, that it only applied to one entry on the page. There is really no reason why a project should be interested in a dab page unless all, or very nearly all, its entries relate to that project (this does not apply to the page in question), or there is some very special and particular reason why it matters to that project. The only purpose of a dab page is to help people navigate Wikipedia, a function that has nothing to do with projects except possibly in those cases I've mentioned. Please note, by the way, that the introduction here is not an accurate summary of what I wrote on De728631's talk page. --NSH001 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should they be strongly discouraged? What business is it of yours which pages a project takes an interest in? The project tags on a talk page has no effect whatsoever on the disambiguation page itself. older ≠ wiser 23:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I have found the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. It says that "if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article." I.e. you should not have removed the India and Middle-earth project tags from Talk:Mahal just because you think they are no longer valid as you said here. De728631 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This used to be redirect to Qajar dynasty, but somene changed it to point to Kajars sometimes last month. I've changed it to point to Qacar because it's the same word, just varying English spellings. Now, the catch is that most links pointing to Qajar want to go to Qajar dynasty not to Kajars or the dab. I'm very busy with the crazy arbitration on Muhammad's images, so I won't have time fix those myself. Sorry for the inconvenience. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason why the dynasty is no longer the primary topic for that title? Varying spellings can have different primary topics, and if there's no new consensus for changing from the old primary topic of "Qajar", the redirect should be restored. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to restoring it as a redirect to the dynasty. I've just left a message to the editor who changed the redirect to the ethnic group. Xe didn't specify a reason (in the edit summary) when xe made that change. But xe hasn't edited since Dec 4 either, so I'm not certain we'll hear back soon. Perhaps just restoring the redirect to the dynasty while waiting for a response would be the most practical course of action. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Came across it during TWLTDP-patrolling and fixed it for the templates.

_talk

23:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That still leaves the 250+ article links to be fixed... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. I redirected

Qajar. Anyway, I can easily make the necessary changes on all links pointing to Qajar, if you agree about it. Cheers! Yone Fernandes (talk

) 03:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to swapping Qacar for Qajar, i.e. moving the actual disambiguation page to Qajar. The Qacar spelling seems non-existent in English, but is prevalent in Turkish sources. On the other hand, Kajar[s] is used in English sources to refer to the dynasty as well, just do a Google Books search. It appears to be an older English spelling. So, I don't agree that Kajar[s] mainly refers to the ethnic group. For clarity I'd prefer that Kajars be moved to

Arab people not Arabs as article title. ASCIIn2Bme (talk

) 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I took a shot at it. Shame that the word is not in wiktionary yet though. older ≠ wiser 13:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Well... there is this entry फूल -

talk

) 09:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As many of you know, English Wikipedia will be blacked out during January 18th 05:00 UTC - January 19th 05:00 UTC to protest SOPA and PIPA. As a result, editing via the API will be disabled (see here). This means, among other things, that there will be no Daily Disambig update on 18 January. There's basically nothing I can do about this. Some other bot tasks may also be affected. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some people are of the opinion there is no clear primary topic and they want to move the island article to Taiwan (island) and the dab page to Taiwan. Now it gets funny: there is opposition not only from people that believe the island is the primary topic, but also from people that think that the ROC is the primary topic. But if there are these two opposing parties, there votes should neutralize each other, no? At least there is no majority for the island as the primary topic. Have a look at Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation)#Move request. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guidelines for opposing parties' !votes cancelling each other out. IMO, if there's no consensus for a proposed change, there's no consensus for that proposed change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You both seem to be assuming incorrectly that "

not votes and "consensus" is not determined by counting the views on either side. Instead, "consensus" is determined by some random uninvolved user coming along and subjectively determining which set of views he or she finds most persuasive. Thus, contrary to JHJ's apparent conclusion, there may indeed be a "consensus" in the scenario described above. Since the discussion hasn't closed yet, we can't say whether there will be a consensus or not. (I put the word "consensus" in quotation marks because, as should be obvious, the process described above does not in the slightest resemble consensus as that term is commonly used in the English language outside Wikipedia.) --R'n'B (call me

Russ) 16:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming that, no. If there's no

WP:CONSENSUS. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 18:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me for misunderstanding you. I wasn't entirely sure what you meant, which is why I said "apparent." It seemed you might have been implying that the fact that various users had expressed opposing views as to the primary topic would necessarily lead to a conclusion of "no consensus." I now see that that was not the case, and thank you for clarifying. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

@JHJ - of course they cancel each other out, since 1/3 says A is primary, 1/3 B is primary and 1/3 no one is primary, then the page should be a dab page, since there is no "consensus" of what is primary. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't automatically cancel each other out, because they aren't votes and this isn't a election of consensus (as R'n'B and I were in violent agreement on above). If there's

WP:CONSENSUS for a change, change doesn't occur. There have been proposals to make "base name dab" the default consensus any time that a change is discussed as if "base name dab" were the unchanged state no matter when the change is brought up, but as far as I know that interpretation hasn't been adopted (or resolved with the tautology that it would appear to contradict). -- JHunterJ (talk

) 19:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you think violation of

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is fine? Since the discussion clearly shows that there is no "consensus" for the existence primary topic. Huayu-Huayu (talk

) 19:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hysterical. I'm as staunch a defender of

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as you're going to find. Your claim that !votes cancel out is misplaced; find another rationale. I haven't evaluated the discussion. Assuming there was a prior consensus (implicit or explicit), a new consensus will need to be formed to effect change. If there's no new consensus, there's no new consensus. If there's no consensus to change to "no primary topic", then there's no consensus to change to "no primary topic". If, OTOH, there's consensus that there's no primary topic (for the whatever rationale), then there's consensus that there's no primary topic. But you can't conclude that that consensus has been formed unless that consensus has been formed. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 19:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has tagged The Entombment (disambiguation) for cleanup, but with the generic clean up request. I was about to fix it to the project-specific one, but since it's my work they are objecting to, I've refrained. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I just converted Selective to a disambiguation page, but both trying to figure out what to include and trying to figure out good descriptions were a pain, so I'm sure someone else could improve it. TimBentley (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, TimBentley. I've removed some of those entries, that seem suited for other dabs ("selection", "selectivity") or were

partial title matches. I'm not sure about the schools. For descriptions, if needed, I usually just copy the lead sentence from the article, but the descriptions there seem fine. The problem with adjectives in particular as ambiguous names is that very few topics are actually referred to by just the adjective. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 20:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed six links that intended selective school (or the NSW variety), so it seems reasonable to leave that in. TimBentley (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion at

Can both be merged together, or no need? --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no obvious need. If there is a need, they could be merged. Are some of the topic likely to be sought by the other title? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "sought"? If merge is not necessary, then... leave them alone? --George Ho (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Readers seeking one of the topics for the ambiguous title have an article "sought" -- and we can't predict which one, so we give them a disambiguation page. In this case, two. If there's a good likelihood that a reader seeking an article on Golden road would enter "The Golden Road" (or vice versa), that would be a reason to merge them. Otherwise, yes, I'd leave them alone. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Golden Road" and "Golden road" are similarly popular, yet "The Golden Road" is more popular than the other within last 90 days. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That won't tell us if they are popular with readers who are looking for entries on the other side. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Could other dabbers assist me with watching Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)? Several IPs have taken apparent exception to the earlier discussion for the primary topic of the capital-T title (the TV show, per Talk:Big Bang Theory) and have been disrupting the dab page without discussion. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a good idea to alert WikiProject Disambiguation, but the use of

WP: rollback feature by JHunterJ in an edit war is definitely not good. Incnis Mrsi (talk

) 13:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's an interesting case, needing decisions as which of "The Big Bang Theory", "The Big Bang", "Big Bang Theory" and "Big Bang", each in all plausible capitalisations, should point to which of
  Big bang theory, as well as edits to the dab page in question. PamD
  13:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My use of rollback to combat disruption is exactly what it is meant for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the incorrect implication of the primary target by Incnis Mrsi[3] in contradiction of the discussion and the current targets of

WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic to suit your desired outcome. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 13:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This page, Thulasi, has had its redirects written over, and it needs a proper dab page for the various topics lost in its edit history. Pseudofusulina (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried a month or so ago to have the {{Disambiguation}} template removed from this page, but was disputed by an editor who evidently feels very strongly about the issue. As background, the portion of Kashmir on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control has been divided by Pakistan into several administrative units; there is no entity within Pakistan that corresponds to "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", but the quoted term is used by international bodies to refer to the entirety of the area composed by these multiple administrative units. The disambiguation page seems to imply that the quoted term refers either to Azad Kashmir or to Baltistan, but in fact it actually refers to the geographic area comprising both of them. There is no way to "fix" most of the incoming links because they explicitly refer to the entire area and not to either of its subdivisions. Assistance of other editors in resolving this issue would be appreciated. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I threw up a dabconcept tag and a talk page section explaining the issue. bd2412 T 19:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Some issues, see talk page. Don't mind changing it into a redirect, but no consensus to keep article after an RFC. I've also noted that there actually is a disambiguation. The two states were one before 70s and were termed by this same title by the UN. Further comments welcome on article talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make it ambiguous any more than Southeastern United States would be ambiguous for having had differnt state borders in the past. I have proposed a redirect which, I think, solves the entire issue. bd2412 T 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Clicking on maple takes you to disambiguation, but I wonder whether the disambiguation linked to this page should also have something about foods from the maple, such as maple syrup? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a danger of a reader looking for maple syrup searching on just "maple"? I don't think there is, so those entries would be omitted per

WP:PTM -- JHunterJ (talk

) 15:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the reader who wants to know about the "maple" of "maple and walnut cheesecake" etc should have a link. I've had a go at the dab page. PamD 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for info, Oxford English Dictionary has a definition of maple as "Designating food made with maple syrup or maple syrup flavouring, as maple buttercream, maple cream, maple fondant, maple loaf, etc.", so although WP is not a dictionary, it seems helpful to link from "maple" to

lookfrom}}. PamD

16:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hugo Hansen, a former Norway international footballer, does not have it's own article on wikipedia, so I've had him on my "to-do-list" for some time. Less then a week ago I noticed that his red name had turned blue, and I pressed his blue name to find out that a bot had redirected the page to Hugo Hansén. On the talk-page of the owner of the bot, I was encouraged to ask my question here:

• should Hugo Hansen be a dab page, and the article about the footballer placed on Hugo Hansen (footballer) or
• Hugo Hansen is the article about the footballer, with a "not to be confused with" on both Hugo Hansen and Hugo Hansén

I was also encouraged to create a stub about the footballer first, since both

I would think:

• Create your stub for the footballer right now, over-writing the redirect.
• Give it a hatnote: {{about|the Norwegian footballer|the Swedish theatre director|Hugo Hansén}} - plenty of people will type the Swede's name without an accent, for technical reasons. That hatnote replaces the current redirect.
• Is it likely that someone looking for the Norwegian might think he has an accent like the Swede? If so, then add a similar-but-reversed hatnote to the article on the Swede, but unless that's plausible, then that article doesn't need a hatnote: no-one will land there accidentally while looking for the Norwegian.

But other people may have different thoughts. I note that there are already four article-space links to Hugo Hansen, previously redlinks and now going via the redirect to the wrong man. PamD 17:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this page truly a disambiguation page or has it started to turn into List of military museums? To me it's looking rather like the latter. NtheP (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a list article to me too. They don't share the name "Military Museum". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this is "overlinking" and call for consensus. See User talk:Eekerz#Dabprefixes for my reasoning. —Eekerz ^(t) 03:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked into this, and it seems completely useless. I can see zero value add whatsoever. Perhaps I've missed something? Josh Parris 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JHJ and Josh. If we were to condone this, the logical outgrowth would be that every article on Wikipedia would contain a link to every other article, which would be utterly useless to any reader. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it would not be (and is not) useless. As I already stated on my talk page, {{

intitle}} also aid in dab navigation and yet they are accepted on dabs (as is {{letter disambiguation}} on single-letter "root" dabs) so what is the big deal about extending letter dabs a bit futher to double- and triple-letters? —Eekerz ^(t

) 09:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the benefit of having {{letter disambiguation}} on single-letter dab pages? Why would someone looking for something they think is named "C", likely also be looking for something on the "Q" or "M" dab pages? Station1 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Navigation; since there aren't any parent letters to single-/root-letter dabs, the only other way (besides clicking a link on the dab) to navigate out of a root-letter dab is another root-letter dab. I think {{

compound word dabs, like The Tree, links to The (disambiguation) and Tree (disambiguation) dabs are useful too (as are reciprocal links). —Eekerz ^(t

) 01:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

root-letter dab!? Sorry, but WTF? More unintelligible jargon in an area already heavily steeped in obscure terminology. If someone is looking for AB it is extremely unlikely they would look for AA. If you want to browse in that way, just enter the letters in the search box. These templates provide no benefit whatsoever for the purposes of disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: template is not useful and adds unnecessary clutter to dab pages. It has no similarity to {{
  WP:OCE for its irrelevance to this discussion. PamD 08:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Made this comment on the editor's talk page, linked above, but the discussion seems to be here so have copied it across. PamD
  08:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If the editor does not yet recognise this as a consensus against the use of the template, perhaps someone should take it to

TFD? PamD

08:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove. Just because something is "accepted" does not make it blanket acceptable for everything. Since it was mentioned, I find {{
  TFD is in order. France3470 (talk)
  14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, contribute to this discussion about advertising of true disambiguation hatnotes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the collection of over 900 pages in Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages are not really ambiguous terms. Instead, they are lists of different chemicals that share the same molecular formula. For example, C12H19NO2 (or C₁₂H₁₉NO₂) merely lists the various molecules composed of twelve carbon atoms, nineteen hydrogen atoms, one nitrogen atom, and two oxygen atoms. I don't think these pages are properly classified as "disambiguation" pages, since it is possible for an article to correctly be referring to the class of molecules having this formulation without referring to any individual example. I think the entire group should be reclassified and recategorized, perhaps as lists or set indices. Some, like C3H4O, are so elaborate as to almost be articles in themselves. bd2412 T 04:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, valid link targets, so not dabs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Before we get too involved here let's ask the chemists to comment - I've droppped a note at

Template_talk:Molecular_formula_disambiguation#Category:Molecular_formula_disambiguation_pages. PamD

18:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not think so. We may dispute, either such things as C₁₂H₁₉NO₂ should remain dabs or become redirects to (sections of) lists, but any formula where more than one essentially different compounds exist (L- and R-isomers not counted) is definitely not a legitimate target for linking. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You've hit the crux of it, but reached the opposite conclusion: the title is the formula. Some formulas might have move than one essentially different compound, true. If you intend a compound, you should link to the correct one, but if you intend the formula independent of its possible compounds, there is a valid link target. Formulas are things, not just titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe these pages are search targets rather than link targets. It makes no sense to link to any one of these pages. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you're talking about the formula as opposed to the compound. (Note that if they truly should not be targets, C3H4O is going to be sharply reduced to its navigational info.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I would not want to see that particularly well-crafted set of information lost in bringing the page into conformity with

WP:MOSDAB. That page, at least, seems more like a set index than a disambiguation page. I would guess that there are other pages like this in the mix, and would imagine that many pages for complex formulas could be made into something like this. bd2412 T

04:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(chemist here) C3H4O is a terrible page IMO. It tries to prosify loose bits of information and convert to outline form something that isn't really as hierarchical as that approach would make it seem. But it definitely does provide good google-fodder to help find the "right" page (or possible choices) when all one knows is a formula. That puts it conceptually on par with DAB pages. But the prose winds up making it harder to find the information (inconsistent wording and outline-levels, visually not pleasing to have wall-of-text to match visual-table). I don't see the extra details in the prose (beyond name/CAS/link) as adding anything. But the lede ("these are the compounds with the following formula...") does seem like a standard DAB lede. If it weren't for a centralized collection of all the possible diagrams, I don't see the value in having this (all the articles already do have the formula, so a search for the formula already finds a list of them all). The image is one of the key parts of the "DAB" idea here, maybe we need a visual-dab concept in general?

From a chemistry perspective, it's useful to be able to find other isomers of a certain one ("what other compounds have the same formula as the article I'm reading?"). The infobox formula might usefully link to the formula-page to help "build the web" and organize or find relationships among articles. The chembox does have a "related compounds" field, which is manually and inconsistently populated with structural and steroisomers, random different halogen/cation alternatives, etc. Autolinking to the formula page (either from the displayed formula itself or as an automatic "other isomers" entry in the related-compounds display) would help clean up that mess.

One problem is that sometimes we actually do have full articles on the "the formula" for various reasons. For example, Butane includes major content on both isomers, and there are no other compounds with that same formula except those two. Having any sort of other DAB page pointing to those two would be a useless fork of that page, so the formula should redirect there IMO. That's unlike other genres, where I can't think we would ever have an article about an "ambiguous topic-term". DMacks (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Where pictures are useful for disambiguation (which is rare, but true in this case), pictures can be included on dabs. The lede is not a standard dab lede. That would be "C3H4O may refer to:" and then a bullet list of entries pointing to Wikipedia articles (not external links), either articles about the compounds or mentions of the compounds in other articles. But I'm not a chemist; if the article is unsaveable, it should be converted into a standard dab page (with images). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Work-in-progress at

MOS:DABRL item 1. And including these is an important bit of content as a search-target and page inter-linking (which is the only reason I support having these pages at all). However, I don't see substantial value here in including CAS when there is a WP article (bluelink) available (wikilink in preference to extlink). It would already be on the target article and it seems like a cherry-picked database key. DMacks (talk

) 04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I still think these tend to be more like set indices than disambiguation cases. A clearer example of disambiguation would be Mercury, which might be an element, or a planet, or a deity, or the former lead singer of the band Queen - completely different classes of things, unlike eight or ten molecules which, although very different from each other in chemical effect, are still the eight or ten known combinations of a very specific set of atoms. bd2412 T 05:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"because the topic-term has a meaning" is exactly why I think it should remain an article (a stub, list, set index, or redirect to one of those). A link intending that meaning of the topic-term should have a valid target, not a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no links to C3H4O at this time, so I can't get any context: when could someone accidentally link to this article/dab/chem-dab/whatever? I've looked at Talk:C3H4O/graphical-dab and I am none the wiser as to which C3H4O the author could have meant when linking there. Finding the right article: fail. Is there something inherent in chemical notation that means H4C3O is wrong? It kind looks like a List of molecules with only 3 carbon, 4 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atom to me. Josh Parris 07:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hill_system. --Rifleman 82 (talk

) 09:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved the dab to

Dramamine as a redirect to the primary topic. And then a little formatting fixing. Thanks for starting the page! -- JHunterJ (talk

) 16:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I probably should have done that to begin with. My thinking was that maybe

set index article could work, though with only two articles to link to that seems pretty thin. —danhash (talk

) 17:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a hatnote is enough.

Dramamine II might be added to its "see also" section, though. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. —danhash (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could look at Freemake too? —danhash (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I stubbed that one out. It was otherwise a list of partial title matches, but the set had a them that (subject to notability, sourcing, etc.) could use an article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Since "Freemake" refers to Ellora Assets Corporation's brand of software, I moved the article there and will expand when I have time (certainly could use help!). —danhash (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone see a (substantive) reason why

Nope. Nor

Badisch, which I've also restored. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see the RfC at the Doctor disambiguation page:

• RfC: Objective inclusion criteria = accredited doctoral graduate degree.

If you are interested in the question of whether the city of Gdańsk is or is not the primary topic of

Discussion, and page moves, continues. I took the redirect to

WP:RfD to formalise discussion. PamD

08:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The redirect at

CAMRA survived RfD. There is a disambiguation page at CAMRA (disambiguation) which is currently at AfD. PamD

07:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move closed by editor who has clear bias and conflict of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.204.129 (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Move is denied

_talk

10:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the various big bangs off of my watchlist. Too much drama at

Hello. The number of tagged dab pages has been over 300 for a while now, and I'm trying to get it down, but am just finding more to tag! Can anyone help try to get the numbers right down again? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer, Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've turned it into a redirect to Cruciferous vegetables (assuming it's the primary topic), allowing the hatnote and lede there to assist readers who are seeking the family. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Good decision. --Bejnar (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

On 20 March 2012,

Since someone has seen fit to tag Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion for deletion, I'd like to revive the discussion about having a single forum for discussion proposed de-disambiguation, redirection, or other disputes involving the status of disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I just came across Proto. This was a disambiguation page before 2012. Now it's a SIA in which every article is added which title contains "proto". The result: you can't see the forest for the trees. Should this be changed back into a disambiguation page or is there another option? LittleWink (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely not an SIA, as the subjects listed in the article are not related. bd2412 T 19:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a quite a mess. older ≠ wiser 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

At least there are only a handful of incoming links. bd2412 T 20:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a quiz on

I think there ought to be hatnotes on both

The Third Degree and Third Degree pointing to Third degree. And I hate counting on article title case to perform disambiguation. As you've just shown, it falls apart when a reader searches. TJRC (talk

) 23:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I just added hatnotes, which is probably a good band-aid, but I still hate disambiguating by case. TJRC (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please use the (disambiguation) redirects when intentionally linking to dab pages.

WP:INTDABLINK -- JHunterJ (talk

) 23:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for updating them. At least my edit left it better than it was. I still it's just a bandaid. TJRC (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the correct solution, not just a band-aid. The "as you've just shown" there isn't accurate. ACEOREVIVED was hitting an ambiguity between two things sharing the same capitalization: "The Third Degree" quiz and The Third Degree film. One of those doesn't have coverage on Wikipedia, so the search would not have helped regardless. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It results in a search taking him to an article that is in no way the

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That's what happens a lot when you rely on case for disambiguation. TJRC (talk

) 16:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you disagree with the selection of the film as the primary topic for "The Third Degree". That's different. If the consensus at

Talk:The Third Degree is that the film is not the primary topic for the title, the film should be moved and the base name made into a disambiguation page or redirect to the existing disambiguation page. Different than, say, the consensus for primary topics at HP vs hp, for instance. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 17:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The BBC show has an entry, at The 3rd Degree (radio series). The dab page was incomplete and is a bit of a mess - I'm planning to tidy it up to make it easier to spot things (eg NOT split 3rd/third, but group by topic). But can't do it now... kitchen timer has just gone off so need to serve Mother's meal. PamD 18:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And while the veg were in the microwave... did a quick tidy up of the dab page. PamD 18:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ: No, it's not just a disagreement about which article is the primary topic; it's that searches do not take case into account and disambiguation based on case direct to the wrong articles. It's not just this one, we see this all the time. I think it's poor practice and begs for trouble. (I should also add that it's exacerbated by the additional practice of disambiguating by inclusion of an article like "the" or "a"; and the combination of the two practices, as here, makes for an unholy mess more often than not.) But, hey, that's just my two cents.

PamD: I had just added

The Third Degree, 3rd Degree, &c. is now much improved. Thanks! TJRC (talk

) 18:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

But there's a job to be done in cleaning up the incoming links to the dab page. PamD 19:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with the current approach of allowing differences in capitalization to suffice for article titles. But that's different than the original poster's problem, and separate from the issue of whether or not "The Third Degree" has a primary topic. You're right that it leads to trouble, such as at

WP:PRECISION permits differentiation by capitalization, so IMO it follows that disambiguation pages have to recognize those differentiations. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 19:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So long as there are hatnotes on pages like

The Third Degree, I am not concerned that readers will be unable to find what they seek. I would point out, however, that me must then be vigilant to insure that articles linking to Third Degree, for example, intend that specific article. bd2412 T

17:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor has requested that ENB be moved to ENB (disambiguation) and ENB be redirected to English National Ballet. Could members of the project please provide input to the discussion at Talk:ENB? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a move discussion at