Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 33

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.

There are a number of schools called Royal College in Sri Lanka. Some have articles on Wikipedia:

I would like this projects view on this matter - can the following articles be included on Royal College (disambiguation) and Royal College (Sri Lanka) (disambiguation):

• Horana Royal College;
• Monaragala Royal College;
• Nagoda Royal National College;
• Panadura Royal College;
• Royal College Wayamba, Kurunegala?

References have been given in each of the above articles to show that the schools are sometimes referred to as "Royal College". I have looked at similar dab pages e.g.

Also, there is another article,

If they are known as "Royal College", then they belong on

Talk:Royal College -- any of those are workable arrangements. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 20:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a disagreement as to how a page with a primary topic should be formatted. Other opinions are welcome. older ≠ wiser 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Member of this WikiProject may be interested in a proposed merger now being discussed at Talk:Boy Scouts#Merge of Boy Scouts (disambiguation). Cnilep (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I know that hatnote is enough for readers to search, but, even with recentism, I bet that both the old Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek Into Darkness will have equal long-term significance. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the two films will have similar long-term significance, but only one of them is titled "Star Trek II". What benefit would the suggested change provide? (The detriment would be that everyone typing "Star Trek II" would have to follow a link to the intended article.)

A better case could be made for making

David Levy

09:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek (film) would not be a disambiguation page, but could be a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} if needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That makes even less sense to me (because, as noted above, only one film has the exact title Star Trek).

The primary basis of a hypothetical move from

David Levy

11:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too brief. If there is consensus for disambiguating "Star Trek (film)", then it would not be a dab page itself, but a redirect to the film section of the "Star Trek" disambiguation. I did not mean to suggest that that should be done, only that it could be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I understood that you weren't advocating a change, but I forgot {{

David Levy

12:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I bet that "Into Darkness" is not referred to as "Star Trek II" anywhere near as often as "The Wrath of Khan", and I bet that readers who search for "Star Trek II" will be much better served by the current arrangement. I also bet that the WikiProject is not the right place for this discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically, "Into Darkness" is "Star Trek XII", although I suspect the fan base will take to calling it "STID". I would join those here who oppose disambiguating either "Star Trek II" or "Star Trek (film)" because there has only ever been one production under each title. Any confusion as to the next nearest match can be solved with a hatnote. bd2412 T 11:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur. There is, and will always only be, one Star Trek II.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We have

The current state of affairs seems sensible. What's the issue? --

talk

) 15:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What proposal? There are enough things to fix on Wikipedia without looking for fixes for things that aren't broken. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: "Scream" was only moved from "..(film)" to "... (1996 film)" in March 2013 - see comments at User_talk:Roman_Spinner#Scream_move. It's perhaps a matter of policy for the Film project to sort out - if someone moves a title away from a primary-type title like "... (film)", is it their responsibility to update all the incoming links so that the "... (film)" can be redirected to the base name dab page as it should be? PamD 07:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been hours, and I was hoping that you can help me. --George Ho (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines have been updated at

talk

) 09:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You may not be aware that

Just to summarise PBS's comment at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Enacting_the_new_policy - this is guidance not policy, no need to move pages. Widefox; talk 12:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with moving them when we come across them though... --

talk

) 12:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A while back,

A primary topic was created (the meat) where there was previously no consensus - would anyone like to comment on this change at

Need admin assistance here to undo the undiscussed move (which did not previously have consensus) and fix the talk page issue - it seems the talk pages are all mixed up now with multiple moves. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend a fresh

WP:RM. There seems to be two previous consensuses, the discussed one and the undiscussed one, but the undiscussed one can still be consensus, since it "stuck" for over a year. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 21:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Can an admin fix the talk pages? and as I don't have an opinion on the primary topic, I'm happy to leave the current undiscussed consensus. Widefox; talk 12:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've CSD'd

talk

) 13:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe

talk

) 13:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just tagged Black Tuesday (disambiguation) for cleanup; I've reverted the errant addition twice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Widefox; talk 14:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look at the Yui disambiguation page. Another editor has re-added a non-navigable red link entry after I previously removed it. I left a message on his/her talk page explaining why the addition wasn't appropriate, as it didn't include any navigable blue links, but the entry remains, so maybe someone here can check whether it belongs on a disambiguation page, and if not, remove it. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed the link to Bessatsu Shōnen Magazine, which mentions the YUI in question. bd2412 T 03:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wide Awake Club is under deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wide Awake Club. --Bejnar (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I placed a speedy deletion tag on Crow House, which was contested by another editor. I thought this was a perfect candidate for deletion because it "disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title". All the entries are redlinks, even though each has a blue link to a list article. Also only one of the redlinks actually uses the exact phrase "Crow House". I don't care too much if it stays or goes, but I'm wondering if others think deletion is appropriate here. 66.217.202.141 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Same with

Perfectly reasonable dab page which helpfully distinguishes a batch of houses which could all plausibly be known as "Crow House", which are all currently redlinks but have entries in the lists to which blue links are provided. Helpful to readers. Why would you want to delete it? PamD 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A case could be made against Petty House as a partial-title-match list (all but one entry). But that would be for AFD, now that it's contested. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have tried just now by this edit to clarify at the Speedy Deletions guideline page, that the supporting bluelink to a redlink topic on a dab page "counts", so the Speedy Deletion rationale used in these cases would even more clearly not apply. --doncram 17:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SIA not DAB pages, so do not need to conform per guideline. I fixed them. The above arguments do not apply. User:Doncram as you've created and maintained these, maybe you'd like to fix the rest of them, and you are free to list what you like and how you like per them being list articles (but being subject to reference requirements). Widefox; talk

08:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am pretty sure these are DABs not SIAs. The purpose of them is to help readers find their way to the article of interest to them or to learn that there is not yet an article on their local one, and to clue editors to the existence of existing or future articles on valid Wikipedia topics having similar names. It is not to display a collection of info in a List of houses happening to have similar names.

JHunterJ, for years now, has consistently agreed that all the items, bluelinks or redlinks each with a supporting bluelink, are valid entries (per

MOS:DABRL

, and that helps. The important thing is that these pages be kept, and that all the entries be kept.

Secondarily, usability is enhanced if these pages, which are basically disambiguation lists of places, be kept in an obviously reader-friendly order, which is by geography (by country, then in the U.S. by state then city). There were past discussions and attempts to change MOS to require or to explicitly allow vs. merely to allow sensible ordering by geography. I am not checking right now to see what MOS currently says.

Anyhow, thanks all for your interest. --doncram 13:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

They were valid disambiguation pages. They can also be recast as lists (as they have been), although I've also suggested that the usual naming "List of places named X" would be the better title for them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too literal (no doubt) ...but

WP:SIA states "A disambiguation page is a list of different types of things", therefore logically it is not a DAB ({{hndis}} and no doubt others are also cases that get caught by this)... but can only be a SIA. We either want conformity, or to loosen the wording there on what's an SIA. Widefox; talk

14:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that note is wrong. Hndis pages and schooldis pages, for instance, list the same type of things, but are dabs. Many SIAs would be valid disambiguation pages, but there's a desire to deviate from the disambiguation style. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these are properly disambigs, not SIAs. If, by contrast, a single person surnamed "Crow" or "Petty" had built famous houses in different places, the list would properly be an SIA, as it would be an index of houses named for the same person. As for disambigs being different "types" of things, David Johnston (disambiguation) is a list of things that are the same "type" of thing (human beings), but the members of such a list are generally unrelated except for their sharing of a name. A list of things that are both the same type of thing (houses, for example), and are related in some way other than the coincidental sharing of a name would be a more apt description of an SIA. bd2412 T 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, just because they are useful for disambiguating, doesn't mean they must be DABs or can't be SIAs (although my point is that I think we should tweak the SIA wording if that's what consensus is here)...take the

WP:SIA example USS Enterprise - clearly same type, but no additional set attribute is necessary for it to be an SIA. Doncram - a list format may also suit your requirements more with less constraints so you can (for instance) go back to listing more items as in the history of those non/articles, and sort with less constraints. Widefox; talk

14:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Depends on how narrowly or broadly one interprets "things" as being of the same or different type. A while back, when SIAs were still relatively new, Temple Israel was rejected as a SIA. See Talk:Temple Israel#Requested move 2 and disambiguation vs. set-index-article for the discussion. Not sure if the reasoning was valid, but it has set a precedent of sorts. The question is, what is the specific type of thing that these are a set index for? "Places" is rather baggy. "Places listed on the NRHP" could perhaps be a set, though what happens when you have one more item that doesn't fit in the set? And finally, what is the benefit for readers to making such distinctions? older ≠ wiser 14:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, good example...currently as a DAB, the first entry Temple Israel (West Palm Beach, Florida) should be removed ...I wouldn't want to remove it as it would be better served as an SIA (IMHO). That's a benefit.

comment...can I also point out there's a building in the ship set

WP:SIA example USS Enterprise

! clearly SIA and DABs are overlapping (as you say depending on what the set attribute is) and we should reflect something about this in the SIA wording.

JHunterJ has an important point (as often), that the clarity of lists being prefixed as such helps readers, but would it help if, like these, a redirect to a list is what would result. Widefox; talk 15:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd say that the SIA should be titled appropriately, and then the primary topic for the "X" determined. If there is no primary topic, and if the disambiguation page would simply be the same topics in the SIA just restyled to the dab guidelines, then "X" should redirect to the SIA rather than creating the normal base-name dab. If a disambiguation page is later needed (because a different type of thing is identified that is also ambiguous with "X"), then the redirect would be overwritten with a dab, and the SIA would be linked from its "See also". -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

About SIA vs. DAB, I think it is important whether there is a coherent topic for a list, that one or more editors believe is useful to collect together. For the USS Enterprise example, there is a coherence: all the Navy ships and then the StarTrek ones and even the one building, are all clearly related by intentional naming to relate to the first ship and to one another. When one ship gets sinks into an ocean or into a black hole, a new ship is deliberately commissioned to carry on the name. And there is some plausible reader interest in knowing about them all. For "List of houses having Crow in their name", there is no plausible reader interest, IMO; a reader is only wanting to find their way to the local one. I don't "own" these, of course, but my purpose with Crow House and Petty House is to help the readers with disambiguation only, and I don't want to array photos and descriptions or anything else. I do work on many other lists, e.g. List of Presbyterian churches in the United States and List of Elks buildings where I do think there is reader interest. --doncram 15:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, JHunterJ sounds very good. Any thoughts on wording of the SIA to qualify set/"type" or something (and where do hndis and ships come in)? Widefox; talk 15:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The differences between dabs and SIAs are (a) SIAs are list articles while dabs are non-article navigation pages; (b) SIAs must be constrained to a single type of thing (some dabs happen to cover only a single type of thing, but are not so constrained); and (c) dabs follow the disambiguation style guidelines. hndis pages are dabs; shipindex pages are SIAs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

good point Doncram - "reader interest in seeing them together" - is that the additional SIA set attribute we can use? Widefox; talk 15:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would improve

wp:SIA if some discussion about this is added, i.e. that a SIA is for collections of some possible interest for readers to see together, that there is some plausible reader interest in seeing the whole list. That is a distinguishing characteristic for an SIA vs. a DAB, imho. For example, a dab could include 3 unrelated places named exactly "Crow House" and two unrelated places named almost that and a musician named "Crow House" and a TV show named that, while an SIA would not include disparate items. A list of just the 5 places could not be an SIA, because no reader is interested in seeing them together, it is useful only for navigation. The current definition of SIA would allow it though, so adding this criterion would be helpful to clarify thinking. --doncram

18:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(not sure where this fits in the indent levels) An observation about redlinks. Widefox pointed out the redlink

WP:DABMENTION should support the usage claimed on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser

16:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Erm, shouldn't this discussion be proposed as a multi-page

requested move on the talk page of one of the affected pages? older ≠ wiser

03:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, I will back it out and start over. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, it seems that a complicating/confusing factor was that originally a disambiguation page was at Echo, then someone changed that into an article about an episode of Dollhouse, which was later moved to Echo (Dollhouse episode) and was then redirected to the show's article. The disambiguation page was recreated but a lot of the edit history at the episode page should likely be reunited with the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 03:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I was wondering why the edit history kept changing out from under me. Anyhow, I've put a "multi" requested move on

Talk:Echo (phenomenon). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail

) 03:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

I made a suggestion at

That is a good selection for discussion locations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I would redirect

Education Bill to Education Act, which is a list of such legislation, and add the Kerala bill and any others with a similar title to it. For Land Reform Ordinance there's Land reforms by country; again far better as it lists many countries and describes them, with links where appropriate. A bit more work to merge but I'm not sure if it's needed as India's described in a broad way.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds

22:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and yes.

WP:RfD might be a good place to get them sorted. Widefox; talk

23:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I did some work on Malvinas (disambiguation) and created Malvina (disambiguation) and Malvinas Argentinas (disambiguation) and hatnotes. Could a fresh pair of eyes have a look as the Spanish makes it more unusual. As they are linked politically, I wonder if a new SIA (or list) would help, where we could put together Malvinas, Malvina and Malvinas Argentinas? Widefox; talk 16:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If there's anyone familiar with Chinese language and Chinese family names, please take a look at

Are these surnames notable? The newly added articles do not list any notable people who have them, nor do they have any references, in contrast with

Feng (surname), which lists a large number of people by that name and is at least (poorly) referenced. I agree with respect to the lack of meaningful distinction in the titles. In this context, surname and last name mean the same thing, and all of these are Chinese surnames. bd2412 T

18:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The new user is not listening to Bkonrad's request to talk. See aslo

Talk:Lì (chinese surname). In ictu oculi (talk

) 03:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a sizable move discussion that might benefit a larger number of participants at

Talk:Lì (chinese surname) and a cleanup required of the DAB Li . Widefox; talk

15:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There's disagreement on the style of the primary topic entry at Pavlov's dog (disambiguation) . I've tried to summarise what I consider the two opinions may be at Talk:Pavlov's dog (disambiguation) , so would like more opinions . Ring, edit! Widefox; talk 21:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

For some strange, unknown reason, the film Foxy Brown is not located at the primary topic but at Foxy Brown (film) and the term "Foxy Brown" is instead a disambiguation page. Since all references to the term "Foxy Brown" derive from the name of the film, the film should be obviously moved the primary term "Foxy Brown" and the current dab page moved to "Foxy Brown (disambiguation)". Could someone help fix this error? Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Being the source of derived names does not automatically make a topic primary, so there is no "error".

WP:RM at Talk:Foxy Brown or Talk:Foxy Brown (film) (with notification on the other) can see if there's consensus to change from one state (no primary topic) to another (the film as primary). -- JHunterJ (talk

) 11:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There is very clearly an error. The film "Foxy Brown" is and always has been the primary topic per

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and all other uses are derivative of this topic. Why a disambiguation page was created and the primary topic was disambiguated remains unknown. It looks like someone tried to promote the rapper named Foxy Brown (rapper) (named after the film) and spammed the {{Def Jam Recordings}} template across the encyclopedia to pump up the incoming links, which is entirely meaningless when one takes into account that the film represents the primary usage of the term with long-term significance in English reliable sources. Why does an obvious fact like this need to be discussed? Viriditas (talk

) 11:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is so obvious, then there should be mo problem putting together some evidence supporting that claim and allow a RM to determine consensus. FWIW, from the edit history, it appears that the page at Foxy Brown was originally about the rapper, which was moved in 2008 and changed into a disambiguation page. Without evidence, I see no reason to presume that the film is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 11:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on page traffic, there is no contest -- the rapper should be the primary topic by that criteria (39597 vs. 7952 over last 30 days). But a look at Google books shows a more even balance between the film and the rapper, so on the evidence for the long-term significance is a draw or perhaps slightly in favor of the film. With such overwhelming difference in traffic stats compared with weak evidence for long-term significance, having a disambiguation page at the base name may be the best you can hope for. If you propose a move, you might find a boomerang effect with editors wanting to move the rapper back to the undisambiguated name. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak evidence for long-term significance about the film? That's just crazy. To quote film critic Katrina Hill, "Foxy Brown is one of the most culturally significant blaxploitation films ever made, with a legacy that extends far beyond the film itself..." Both of the singers named in the dab use stage names taken from the film's character "Foxy Brown", because the film is so significant. The film itself has been around for 39 years, far longer than each of these singers careers (19 years for the rapper and 24 years for the Jamaican singer). I can't believe we are actually still discussing this. There's no "balance" here at all nor any "weak" evidence. You're going to need to learn to discriminate between marketing, A&R, advertisements, and actual, reliable and scholarly sources about the term, which far, far outnumber anything about the rapper or the singer. I'm not worried about any boomerang, I'm worried about the decline of civilization evidenced by this "discussion". Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A ridiculous conclusion from this "evidence". To paraphrase, "A pop culture topic I understand the significance of is obviously more important than pop culture topics I don't, and if everyone doesn't take my word for it, then our society is doomed." All three topics have long-term significance (over a decade, less than a century). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A demonstrably false statement. Please demonstrate the long-term significance of the Jamaican singer and the rapper with reliable sources. As I've already shown the film is considered culturally significant, and the legacy of the character "Foxy Brown" from that film led directly to two female singers taking her name. The sources do not indicate any "long-term significance" in regards to the rapper or the Jamaican singer. In fact, I could not find any reliable sources about the Jamaican singer at all. So we are left with two topics, not three, and no need for a dab page. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You're basically engaging in the

WP:RS. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 16:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There is very clearly not an error in the arrangement of articles. There is clearly an error in your reading of

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in which "derivative", "derived", etc., do not appear. "Primary" as in "primary topic on Wikipedia" does not mean "first" or "that from which all others are derived". I do not know what an obvious fact like that needs to be discussed. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read it that way, and I'm quite familiar with PRIMARYTOPIC as I already explained. The primary usage of the term "Foxy Brown" with long-term significance in English reliable sources refers primarily to the film and the character who appears in that film of the same name. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a clear primary topic here. The argument could be made that a Platinum-selling #1 recording artist is a strong candidate for primary topic. I'd support the status quo. --
  talk
  ) 12:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Make that argument using reliable sources about her long-term significance. Clearly, the sources indicate the long-term significance of the film "Foxy Brown" in greater numbers and with more authority. Virtually every major source refers to the film's ""enduring iconic status" and explains the reasoning behind the film's long-term significance with multiple examples and lines of evidence. You cannot even begin to make the same argument about the rapper, let alone the singer. This is a closed case. Even academic sources like Gwendolyn D. Pough at Syracuse University acknowledge the long-term significance of the film and how young women like the rapper and singer are attempting to reclaim Grier's character of Foxy Brown as their own. (Pough 2004, p. 68) Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

    The case is obviously not closed, and cannot be closed here.

    WP:RM. -- JHunterJ (talk

    ) 16:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the dab template. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I would take this a step further and move

Artificial), and add a short lede noting that Artificiality is the state of things being the product of human invention or manufacture, rather than occurring as a product of nature, and is often used for things that are made to appear or function like their natural counterparts (artificial sweeteners, artificial organs, etc.). I'm sure a source could be found for this proposition. bd2412 T

03:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

And it is along again, at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Inadequacy of current WP:UE guideline with regard to Chinese names -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Requesting that

redirect to "Sixpence"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.99.229 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In England d used to be the abbreviation for a penny, hence 6d = sixpence and somebody added 6D. It's not entirely without logic. SchreiberBike talk 02:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been a couple of disambiguating edits on Kaleidoscope Dream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which have been reverted, on the basis of overlinking, which is fair enough. But it continues to come up on toolserver as a page that needs disambiguating. Is this because of a bug? If I try the "unlink" function on dab solver it takes the word away completely. StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

mw:Extension:Disambiguator will be enabled with 1.22wmf8 on June 27. This adds the __DISAMBIG__ magic word. --  Gadget850 ^talk 10:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Now enabled. --  Gadget850 ^talk 21:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently updating WPCleaner so that it can use this new extension. The release taking this magic word into account will be 1.28 and will probably be released during the coming week. WPCleaner will make less API calls when analyzing a page (faster page loading), because it's easier to retrieve the information of a page being a disambiguation page or not with the "disambiguation" property being set by Disambiguator. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 21:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Disambiguator extension is already enabled; see Special:Version. --  Gadget850 ^talk 22:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but tools dealing with disambiguation links need to be updated to take advantage of it ;-) I'm just saying I'm updating my tool for that. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 22:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

WPCleaner 1.28 has been released, now using the "disambiguation" property. Loading pages for full analysis is now faster, thanks to the property to be able to do less API requests. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

More opinions about the creation of a primary topic for DNS are welcome - see

Opinions on the primarytopic for initialisms needed. Widefox; talk 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Similar to #DNS primary topic, more opinions are sought on the primary topics at Talk:TCP and Talk:TLS.

For acronyms, would it be useful if

How does it contrast with

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? -- JHunterJ (talk

) 10:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarify...WP:ACRONYMTITLE talks about "To determine the prominence of the abbreviation over the full name, " and to check abbreviations.com. My hunch is the awareness of those may be distorting the PRIMARYTOPIC debate which should be focussed on likelihood and longevity. As to what to add, maybe something along the lines of "In contrast to

WP:ACRONYMTITLE, the selection of an acronym as a primary topic is unrelated to usage of the full title versus the acronym, and solely about in comparison with the other ambiguous terms." That is one thing I'm thinking, but it may need some work so rather than contrast, maybe unite would be better, a suggestion. Widefox; talk

12:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I like that. In general, not just with acronyms, the article titling guidelines are about "Here's a topic. What title should it have?" While disambiguation asks "Here's a title. What topic should it have?" A topic article always has to have a title, but a title doesn't always have to have a (primary) topic. It doesn't matter if the Title1's topic should be titled "Title2" -- that just means we redirect Title1 to Title2. If Topic1's title should have Topic2 (the primary topic for the title is Topic2), then Topic1 needs a qualifier appeneded to the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

To unify discussion with Dicklyon's proposed WP:NOTFORNERDS change to PRIMARYTOPIC [3], moved to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary topics - acronyms Widefox; talk 13:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed deletion of Channel 18 using PROD. The disambiguation page points to one article in main namespace (TV18), and links to two categories via a template. Earlier, I added a hatnote to TV18 pointing to those two categories. Cnilep (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I just redirected it. Deletion isn't necessary in this case, and the name is a likely alternate for TV18. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Another user has returned the page to its previous version, with one article link and two category links. Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate use of flag icons? Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No,

WP:MOSDAB#Images and templates seems pretty clear: Icons, including flag icons, should not be used on disambiguation pages. Only if flag topics are being disambiguated and images are needed to do so, then flag icons or flag images might be added. In this page, the flags are not for the ambiguously named places, but for the countries in which the places are located. older ≠ wiser

17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the link in Delusion23's comment, to a diff-perma-link prior to Bkonrad's fixes (for which thanks :) to make the discussion clearer. –Quiddity (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You know that MOS DAB is being over applied when:

1. It deletes links that are often clearly linked to the wrong article from other articles,
2. It deletes links that often oversimplify a term when there are more specific articles for the use of that term,
3. It deletes links that are commonly used to disambiguate and aren't easy to find in search of that term,
4. It deletes multiple links with
   WP:JUSTAPOLICY
   in the edit comments, and repeats reverting the same links without discussing it on the talk page.

All these links to the wrong articles and links to articles where the term in context is not covered by the article just makes wikipedia and wikipedians look dumb. Wikipedia is going to lose credibility over this project if it continues with this fundamentalistic bot-like application of the guide. Just calling it as I see it. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

On a subject related to discussion of

Hearing nothing, I have cleaned up the DAB pages from Channel One to Channel 22 Channel 25 Channel 33, with one exception. I can find no article, literally nothing in article space, called "Channel 17" or "TV17". Therefore, I have left Channel 17 as it was: a disambiguation page with no pointers to article space. Cnilep (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've found eight more pages (26–30, 32, 34, and 35) that likewise have no pointers to article space. Cnilep (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's some fun: I stub-sorted

I've boldly split that list and created

Adjectives are a problem, all over the place. Have fun. PamD 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

updating the section title to avoid collision with #Artificial above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't exactly have a disambig page with only one link using the name. Nothing is disambiguated. Either Artificial (film) should be moved to that title, or we should have an article on the concept itself. My vote would be to have an article at Artificiality, as I proposed in the discussion above, and redirect this title there with a hatnote to the film. bd2412 T 12:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have made a start of an article at Artificiality. What do you think? bd2412 T 13:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, have added a link to that from the dab page. I think it was a useful dab page in a slightly

WP:IAR kind of way, even with only one disambiguated entry: one advantage of it being a dab page, rather than a list, is that anyone linking the word "artificial" will be prompted with a message to remind them they've linked to a dab page. There are also the various "See also" links, which I suggest provide a useful service,so I'd be reluctant to see this swept aside and made into a redirect to the philosophical concept with hatnote to the film. I've cleaned up 4 incoming links just now: unlinked two, and linked two to articles artificial life and artificial stone

, where in both cases the phrase was used but only "artificial" was linked.

Sorry I didn't remember, or notice, the discussion above before leaping in with action! PamD 15:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am a strong believer that adjectives should, where possible, redirect to their noun form (i.e.

stone", and so on - so I would not consider such links to be errors requiring repair. bd2412 T

16:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not articles on Nature and Artifice, or Nature and Art, rather than naturalness and artificiality? --P64 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no particular preference for Artificiality over Artifice, except that the latter is currently an article on a magazine of dubious notability. bd2412 T 17:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that what's wrong with linking to the philosophical concept is that it's not appropriate in these contexts. The reader of

Artificial which I missed at the bottom of the incoming links list: reworded one, delinked another, and found a better link. In none of the cases would the reader have been likely to be interested in Artificiality

, I'm sure (manmade lake, garden centre company, and tv episode featuring a fake cherry tree).

Another question is what we do with the redirects

Artificial (all created 2008, no incoming links). I've re-targetted the first to Factitious disorder (but then self-reverted), and created another redirect at Factitious airs, but I'm inclined to RfD the 2nd and 3rd, and perhaps the first also. There are no incoming links (there was one in the Nitrous oxide article, a link from within a quoted title, so I delinked it). Yes, to RfD with the lot of them. ... Done. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_5. PamD

16:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that Artificiality (or Artifice, if we take up P64's suggestion and move it there) could effectively discuss most topics currently on the page, List of articles about things which are artificial. The key question is, what is the primary topic of the term "artificial"? bd2412 T 17:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)