Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 37

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.

I am looking into ways to condense the results from searches like ornithology. I took the 3842 results from this search and manually classified the results into groups. I converted the classified list to wikipedia table format and put them at User:RC711/Tree/Ornithology

It took me about 8 hours of work to read each page title, and brief descriptive text from, from the search and decide what type of page it was. As one might expect, there are many pages with Bird/Species name, then pages with a persons' name, then pages about geographic places, then Ornithology journals and books, then ornithology topics. I am sure that this process could be done in seconds with a database list of bird names and species, a database list of pages about people, a database list of pages about geographic places, a database list of pages about organizations -- and an automated way to generate and display these lists.

Grouping things into types of pages helps a lot, since I usually know if I am looking for an organization, a person, a place, a topic, a print document or something else. In terms of finding things, it really helps to have the search results in alphabetical order.

While it is a lot of work to do this manually, there might be instances where it is worthwhile, especially if there are many queries to a particular term.

What I am suggesting is that something like this might be useful when directing people to the right place on Wikipedia, if they only have a broad term to start with. It gives an overview of the types of pages containing the search term. This situation might occur in searches, but it also could affect dsb pages, since they often deal with general terms - and try to get the visitor to the right page(s).

Here is a summary of the results:

RC711 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen Outline of birds? Doesn't that serve your purpose? PamD 00:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I have seen that page. The problem is how long it takes to read it and find what you are looking for. I am looking for a standard way of navigating Wikipedia for any topic or search. Something faster than the bulk results of a search, and easier to read than a rambling article. For these broad topics, you would need an entire book to cover the topic. I am trying to index all of Wikipedia for a given topic. In all of English Wikipedia, there were only 3842 pages that had the term ornithology. Rather than forcing the visitor to work their way through all that material to understand what Wikipedia knows about ornithology, I can group the pages, and people can quickly see that names of birds are important, then People in birding, then organizations, then journals. There is a natural science of the activities of large groups working on any topic. Did you see

? It lists all the Category pages and articles for ornithology, but rather than browsing in a Category page, you can traverse the entire category tree with a few clicks. Unfortunately, the Categories are assigned from the bottom up, and there is no overall organization.

The current articles in Wikipedia are limited by the time and patience of human editors. I am looking for automated ways to discover clusters of related articles, even when no one has manually classified them. For instance, I came across nonlinear phenomena recently. There are 85 pages with the exact phrase "nonlinear phenomena". I know the subject well enough to write a Wikipedia article that many would find useful. But the topic will grow steadily over time, so that eventually 200 or 500 or 1000 articles will contain this precise term. My viewpoint is the new visitor who reads an article in Wikipedia and comes across a term like "nonlinear phenomena" for which there is no page. What do these people do? I would like to at least help them with a list of pages, grouped by type of page.

Imagine you are reading an article that mentions "Hybridization". If you search, you go to the dab page at Hybridisation. The dab page is very concise, but it seems lacking in some way.

• • • If you search for "hybrization", there are 3665 page, but only 13 intitle pages. In the full search you will find the following contexts where hybridization is used:
      variable hybridization, [[]], hybridization of ideas, hybridization between populations, fps/rpg hybridization, hybridization of cultures, demonic hybridization, morphological hybridization of the styles

I see that one of our editors has taken it upon himself to alleviate that lack by writing Yesterday (time). I note that today and tomorrow are both disambiguation pages. I would propose that there should be a single article combining the temporal concepts of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and that all three titles should redirect there as the clear primary topic of the terms (and the topics for which all others by those names are named). bd2412 T 03:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note: This is an updated version of a post that I previously made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I will be at Wikimania, and would be glad to paper London with flyers. How about:

Cheers! bd2412 T 17:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RFC:_Naming_of_one_and_two_digit_numbers_and_years PamD 14:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I imagine the topic is well-worn, but a brief search didn't seem to yield something addressing the following – sorry if I missed it.

As they are "sentence fragments", the notice displayed when editing a disambiguation page ("This is a disambiguation page, for directing readers quickly to intended articles...") instructs editors not to end entries with periods. But they almost always seem to be fragments that end a sentence started above them – usually something like "X may refer to [...]" – so, in these circumstances, is/are there any other reason/s to omit the periods? Curious, Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Trivially, they are unneeded, and save a byte per entry. In entries that need no description at all, I think they would seem odd. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Today I created a stub for Rip tide in its correct, rather restricted meaning. There are several related pages, and I don't know what is the best thing to do with them. There is a pre-existing redirect page for riptide as a misnomer for rip current -- perhaps this should be eliminated? The page Riptide (disambiguation) also exists, and I tried to add the new article meaning there. Another thing: the spelling "rip tide" is at least as common or more common than "riptide" and previous to my edits that was not really acknowledged nor is there a redirect page for it. This all seems unduly complicated; can some nice person take a look at all this and see if it can be rationalized and simplified? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've redirected

Riptide to Rip tide instead of Rip current and made some minor tweaks to these articles as well as to Riptide (disambiguation). Please see if it looks good to you now. — Kpalion^(talk)

19:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a big improvement, thank you very much Kpalion, I really appreciate your help! Invertzoo (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Members of this Wikiproject may be interested in discussion of Chinese people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Chinese people. The article was reclassified from 'DAB' to 'stub' in 2007, but hasn't changed much since. Cnilep (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Are coordinates allowed in DAB pages as has been entered at in Canada Antrim#Places in Canada and Leduc#Places? Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In a word, no. They may be acceptable on a set index, such as for mountains, where the purpose is completeness (and an appropriate source can be given as reference), but a redlink with only the coordinates is not an acceptable entry on a disambiguation page. Minimal requirements for a dab entry is that an existing article must mention the term. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm coming across quite a few of these while going through a Wikidata backlog of items with links to DAB pages that also have coordinates listed. I'll remove offending cases as and when I find them. Cheers! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Can any disambiguation experts advise on how best to deal with the confused situation we have over Cortes and related names? We have the dab page Cortes, which covers places and institutions called Corte and Cortez as well as Cortes (and variants with diacritical marks). People called Corte and Cortez are also listed at Cortes, but people called Cortes are listed separately at Cortes (surname). This all appears to have arisen from various past splits and merges, but what we are left with seems rather incongruous. I'm not well enough acquainted with the conventions of dab pages to know how best to untangle things. --Deskford (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've split the page back, so that Corte and Cortez are now separate disambiguation pages. I've done some cleanup too, but you can still help with expanding these pages. It seems there's particularly much work to do at Cortez, as you can see in these search results: Search: Cortez. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks – it seems much better to have them as separate pages. --Deskford (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Dabfix tool is down, and has been down for the past several weeks. When attempting to fix any page, it just gives an error and displays the note "The foundation is to serve the community, not the other way around."

Does anyone else know anything about this? It was an extremely useful tool and is still linked to all around this WikiProject and Wikipedia at large. Is there a replacement we can use?

EDIT: Looks like Toolserver shut down. Hopefully we can get this back up soon.

Ithinkicahn (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a go at cleaning up

I've had a go but wasn't sure about Sea Gypsies. PamD 09:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please check the

It's at the base name. It passes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note this request, where I've asked someone with bot to tag the talk pages of disambiguation pages as being of interest to this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Technology

• Hive, a highest-level logical section in the Windows Registry
• hive, a physical or virtual host computer, hosting a group of member packages of the Hostsharing platform.
• HIVE
  , an abstract game programming library
• Apache Hive, a data warehouse infrastructure built on top of Hadoop

When searching for more information about computer gaming jargon, I was trying to find a wiki entry about what a hive is.

I found the disambiguation page for the word "hive" and thought I had found what I was looking for, but when I clicked on it, the link that loaded was, I think, in German (de.wikipedia.org). I was on the English (en.wikipedia.org) disambiguation page when I clicked the link. There is no English entry for HostSharing on the English version of Wikipedia. I was going to fix the link, but because it would lead to a redlink, I thought I would bring it to someone's attention in hopes of getting the link fixed and a page with the actual information on it in English on the English version of Wikipedia. If I knew enough, I'd do it, but I came here looking for the information myself, lol.

This is the page I landed on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIVE_%28disambiguation%29 This is the section where the German (?) link is located: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hive&action=edit&section=6&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro

There is no entry for Hostsharing in English. Can anyone translate it and make one? I do not know how to do that. So, I thought I would mention the link and ask here before attempting to do it myself and maybe messing something up.

Jamastiene (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where to find the hatnote experts, but I guess some of the watchers of this page may be experts. There are debates at

Is there a primary topic for

I don't know that narrowing the topic would deprive it of its primary topic status. bd2412 T 19:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The broad definition would be something like "A range; a continuous, infinite, one-dimensional set, possibly bounded by extremes" and the narrow would be "a range of colours representing light (electromagnetic radiation) of contiguous frequencies; hence electromagnetic spectrum, visible spectrum, ultraviolet spectrum, etc."[1] I don't think that the narrow definition is the primary topic, but the broad definition might be. If it is, then its option 0) don't do anything. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The spectrum article seems like

WP:BROADCONCEPT, IOW I don't see the reason to change anything. What actual problem are you trying to fix? --Joy [shallot] (talk

) 11:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right: it's a broad primary topic so the article titles are fine as they are and there is no need to change. The initial problem was expanding the spectrum article and figuring out what the intended primary topic was. After expanding the article a little, it became clear that it would hold together better than I first thought it would. Thanks for helping me figure this out! --Kkmurray (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor has requested a page move at

There's disagreement on the entry (mostly the link to use) for the organisation in the news. More opinions welcome at Talk:Isis (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 09:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, there's an issue with my edits being reverted on this page by an editor with a history of edit warring. I don't want to get involved in edit warring, so can someone else please look it over? See its edit history. Thanks in advance for any help, Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is an issue.

your pet Wikiproject doesn't get to override site-wide guidelines. Joefromrandb (talk

) 09:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP obviously does not apply in this case, as anyone who had bothered to look would know. DuncanHill (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, there should be an article for the MP and to quote the first link you gave above Joe - " Only add the red link if there clearly should be a corresponding article AND there is an existing article to link to (e.g., a blue link) elsewhere on the page." - which clearly applies here. DuncanHill (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP is the reason that

WP:BLP does apply. Since there "should" be an article about the MP, simply write one. Problem solved! Joefromrandb (talk

) 09:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The redlink made clear it was about an MP. Seriously - I have never, in 8 years of editing, come across anyone applying your interpretation of this. BLP does not apply to very dead people, and it is ridiculous to pretend that it does. You have also engaged in personal attacks and have continued to impose your personal views while avoiding discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah; you can look at this page and see just how much I've been "avoiding discussion". The arrogance! Joefromrandb (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I did and you have. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Suuuuuuuuuure. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• @
  p
  14:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you, @Purplebackpack89:, I honestly thought aasking for a third opinion would end it - what a shame. Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Joefromrandb @DuncanHill:, @Purplebackpack89:. Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:GNU_(disambiguation)#Add_and_delete_articles.3F, about adding and deleting entries from this dab list. Please add to the consensus. Please note each Add and Delete sub-section. — Lentower (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a Category:Letter-number combination disambiguation pages
I was wondering:

• whether it might be positive to create a category for two letter disambiguation pages,
• whether it might be worth agreeing (if it hasn't already been done) a preferred style for such pages (simply capitalised - AA, or displaying various options - "AA,Aa,aa" or "AA,Aa,aA,aa" or similar)

Would a suitable title be: Category:Two letter combination disambiguation pages, Category:Two letter disambiguation pages or something else?

• there's also a discussion on this week at:
  talk
  ) 16:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The preferred style is "XX" where "XX" is not a word (only an acronym/initialism), and "Xx" where Xx is a word (and possibly also an acronym/initialism). If created, please hyphenate "two-letter". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur that "Xx" where Xx is a word is the preferred style, although there are a number of current cases (including BI) where that is not being followed at the moment. These should be conformed to one consistent practice. bd2412 T 13:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as the category is concerned I will go with Category:Two letter disambiguation pages,

for text,

Gregkaye ✍♪

16:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

NEW QUESTION,

when I add: [[Category:Two letter disambiguation pages]] at the bottom of pages, should I also remove {{disambiguation}}?

Definitely do not remove the disambiguation template. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I moved the category to its proper hyphenation. Please update the pages appropriately. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I commented here but was directed here. Would it be better to do this with a template that replaces {{disambiguation}}, e.g. like {{Letter disambiguation}} (but without the navbox unless there's a sensible way to do one) or the others in Category:Disambiguation message boxes? This would deal with the over-categorisation and allow for a better description, as the default in this case, "articles associated with the same title", is perhaps not ideal.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Something more like {{hndis}}? This template provides a different disambiguation descriptor, and also adds the page to the appropriate category (see, e.g. Max Weber (disambiguation)). bd2412 T 18:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: What's the need for this category? Is there a link to some proposal or reasoning as I don't see any above. The question "might be positive..." isn't answered (or proposed). As we discourage categories on dabs in general that aren't created by the parameters on the {{disambig}} template (or the other exclusive templates {{hndis}} etc), a gentle ask. (similarly, this extends to the Letter-number combination category template {{Letter-Number Combination Disambiguation}} too - at least we have a template for it, rather than a manually added category). I'm asking this instead of removing from the dabs I've seen it arrive on. Widefox; talk 22:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC) (clarified Widefox; talk 11:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC))

I think it's a very good idea to have this categorization scheme. It lets us see whether we are being consistent with place of these pages at "XX" or "Xx" titles. bd2412 T 22:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Just saw Talk:BI#Request_technical_move. I can't imagine they get moved often, and there's about 26^2 = 676 of them. A one time check would be preferable. If there's a need for it long-term (not yet convinced), I agree with JohnBlackburne that the merits of either a new template or a parameter of the disambig template could be discussed. I'm against more categories being added when we discourage them. Would we stop at 2 letters, for instance? Widefox; talk 00:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• As I mentioned at Talk:BI, I prefer for words and acronyms not to be conflated in the same disambiguation page - that way we avoid having to prefer anything. If done in an orderly fashion, the impact of splitting the two on the speed of reader navigation is negligible. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't agree in general - way too much splitting. BI needs cleanup already. Widefox; talk 00:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

In general, for navigation (dabs) we don't put a high priority on capitalisation. If a reader needs to find their article, we certainly shouldn't split based on types of words... e.g. whether ISIS (or IS, ISIL, Islamic State etc ..., NATO, BBC, HP, IBM) are initialisms or not may not be known by the reader before they reach the article, distinguishing them would be a further decision they may not know the answer of. Put another way, what problem does it solve? Widefox; talk 08:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the benefit of only having disambiguation pages categorized in the disambiguation category, which has hundreds of thousands of entries and is therefore basically unsearchable? This lets us put several hundred pages sharing a distinct common characteristic in one place, where their titles can otherwise easily be compared. bd2412 T 11:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Simplicity. I'm against feature creep on the dabs as there's such a high bad edit rate, and I'm not convinced our cleanup rate matches it. I consider we're failing to get across the basics for even experienced editors without greater complexity - there's admins that don't know MOSDAB. The simpler the better. Saying that, if you need this, you get my yes vote without question. Widefox; talk 12:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There are several rivers in Iceland called Jökulsá. Until now, English Wikipedia had only an article about Jökulsá á Fjöllum and Jökulsá was a redirect there. I created now Jökulsá á Dal (mainly as a translation from German-language Wikipedia) and changed the redirect into a disambiguation page Jökulsá. As I'm active mainly in German-language Wikipedia where disambig practice apparently differs from here, I wanted to make sure - was it correct to include only the two rivers where articles in English WP already exist? In German WP, we usually also add red links to disambiguation pages if we're sure that the topics are notable. However, as Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts says "Don't add entries without a blue link", I did'nt add Jökulsá í Fljótsdal, Jökulsá í Lóni, and Jökulsá á Sólheimasandi (they all have articles in German WP, however). Correct? - I also wondered whether to use a hatnote, Jökulsá á Fjöllum may be the best known one. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You have the sense of it in general. However, many of these do appear to be included at

partial title matches. older ≠ wiser

02:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I think it looks good now. If they were partial title matches, if I understand it correctly, we would need to delete

List of tallest dams in the world linked to "Jökulsá", meaning the Jökulsá á Dal (so the link even did go to the wrong Jökulsá as long as it was a redirect), Öxarfjörður also linked to "Jökulsá" and meant the Jökulsá á Fjöllum (both are fixed now). Gestumblindi (talk

) 18:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There's discussion at Talk:Danzig (disambiguation) and Talk:Baykal (disambiguation). It may be that a couple of examples for the different types of alternative wordings for primary topics may help standardise, as there's issues of if we're going to use italics for "words as words" / foreign words, vs what we currently do. Separately, regarding

Well, (a) piping is not permitted when linking to another disambiguation page and (b) set index articles (including plant indexes) are not disambiguation pages. So the piping is not needed, and the link to the set index of partial-title matches is not needed outside of the "See also" section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think hatnotes are closely related to this project. There is a contentious hatnote being discussed at

Input from this wikiproject would be appreciated at Talk:Marriage equality (disambiguation)#DAB lacking link to primary topic and Talk:Marriage equality#Restoring redirect target.--Trystan (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

See

Well the logo is non-free, which should help with the decision whether to remove it. William Avery (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone's cleaned up the page.

talk

) 08:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have started drafts for a number of topics that have a clear primary topic, but for which there is currently no article at all on that topic, and a disambiguation page in that space. The quality of these drafts varies widely, but I would like to build them up and knock them out of draft space in short order. So far, the drafts I have begun are:

Cheers! bd2412 T 04:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A RfC is open at OpenOffice on how or whether to include terms that, while not ambiguous with that title, are ambiguous with another topic that is.

Please participate here. --Tóraí (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There's some pretty fundamental differences of opinions about the role/function/scope of dab pages in this RfC. Some input from editors experienced in this area would be appreciated. --Tóraí (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you've a mind to, please come and help out at Template talk:Dmbox#Should talk pages be categorized?. Thank you! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 06:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is some disagreement about whether

Correct, for completeness, also The Islamic State

See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Remove most of the guidance against using redirects. Where I've commented. Widefox; talk 10:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: Does the dab has any valid entries per

WP:DABCONCEPT? Opinions sought on this at Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation) . I've marked for cleanup in the meantime. Widefox; talk

18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We are having a disagreement on what form the hatnote should take for the redirect "Kennedys", for the discussion, see Talk:Kennedy family -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Disambiguation. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kennedys (disambiguation).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the use of {{SpeciesAbbreviation}} on Americana (disambiguation)#Species proper, or is that something that should be replaced with links to the various pages the template returns? It seems wrong to me, as there are no descriptions or common names of the species, which seem necessary for fixing incoming links. Cnilep (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I just created Talo (disambiguation).Can someone help me getting everything right?For example moving Talo to Talo (disambiguation) e.t.c..Thanks in advance.--Catlemur (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned it up. It currently has a

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the bread article, which seems fine. If you don't consider it the PT, then best to ask for further opinions to reach consensus for the page move. Widefox; talk

10:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Page move discussion ongoing; join in. --George Ho (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

More opinions are sought over Ebola (disambiguation), which has a hatnote to from our currently most read article. Widefox; talk 18:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like there are already plenty of opinions there. —Swpb^talk 13:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I tried to turn Guoyu into a proper DAB page, but even as I was doing it I questioned whether it was advisable to keep all the languages that were at various times the national language of China. (國語 means "national language"; it is pronounced guóyu in Standard Chinese. One user has added a paragraph to each of those language articles, essentially stating that it was "referred to as Guoyu during foo dynasty". Of course, that's a bit of an anachronism, as 國語 was not pronounced guóyu by the rulers during those periods.)

Another editor has since changed my wording, so even if my actions were advisable, they were not uncontroversial. Would somebody else like to have a go? Cnilep (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone made an article out of the Lofty dab page. I thought you should take a look. The present article may need to be moved though.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an obvious problem: Lofty (disambiguation) now redirects to the article about an e-commerce website. Either the DAB should be recreated at the (disambiguation) name, or the page should be rolled back. It's not obvious to me that the website is notable, but the article does cite two external web sources, so it might be. At the very least, the biographies of Lofty England, Lofty Large, and Lofty Wiseman, plus Mount Lofty need disambiguation. Cnilep (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is another slightly less obvious problem: the altered Lofty appears to have been copied from Beepi, with a few key words changed. Compare, for example, "Lofty was initially funded by angel investors, including Fabrice Grinda, who has invested in more than 100 start-ups" with "Beepi was initially funded by angel investors, including Fabrice Grinda, who has invested in more than 100 start-ups." Cnilep (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have rolled back to the DAB page and started a discussion at Talk:Lofty#Commercial website article. Cnilep (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that was exactly the right thing to do. bd2412 T 13:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My efforts to bring this page into some semblance of conformance with

• Note: this situation seems to be largely resolved, but should be watched for changes following the resolution of the current AfD. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Will an uninvolved admin or experienced editor close this RfC on OpenOffice? Thanks. --Tóraí (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Portfolio management is a disambiguation page in some respects not including its organization or layout.

There are six incoming links from Article space, if i count correctly, and one of those concerns geological explorations rather than securities, applications, or projects, which may be considered three things whose portfolios the page now covers in various ways.

--P64 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Our DPAGE Imprint (disambiguation) provides as PRIMARYTOPIC a narrow sense of "imprint, in publishing" (linked as i have done here). The DPAGE doesn't list what else imprint in publishing may refer to, nor suggest that there is any ambiguity. But the PRIMARYTOPIC target page imprint begins with a free-hand disambiguation: "In the publishing industry, an imprint can mean several different things:". Four bullet points follow, of which the second is the narrow sense we give here.

See Talk:Imprint.

The page imprint may have been overlooked by systematic on-topic editors. Only this hour I tagged that talk page with three maybe-appropriate WikiProject banners (Books, Brands, Business). --P64 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• I tweaked the lede a bit to make it clear that these are related - they are all "kinds of information about the publication of a book or other work". bd2412 T 02:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about how to disambiguate the titles of articles about albums and/or songs that have the same name, at

I noticed there are lots of disambiguation pages like Conway — Conway River or Cooper — Cooper River or Cottonwood — Cottonwood River. Both should have a "See also" section, with a blue link pointing to the other. Some times there are also disambiguation pages with title ending in "Brook" or "Creek". Same rule applies to them too. Lakes too. Example: Black (disambiguation), Black River, Black Brook, Black Creek, Black Lake. Sometimes "Bridge" too: Black Bridge (disambiguation). Easy edits for anyone who wants to pick the task. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• This sounds like something that might be automated. bd2412 T 18:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It is quite annoying that I am unable to solve the six links to disambiguation pages somewhere hidden in

The links:

• Ayn al-Bayda
• Bura
• Minas
• Nasrat
  (redirect page)
  • Nusrat
• Qiziljah (redirect page)
  • Qezeljeh
• Samad

The Banner talk 21:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have dealt with this issue before. The links all originate in Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, which calls links without showing on the "What links here" page that they are in the template. Unfortunately, the only way to fix disambiguation links in the page is to copy a list of just the links to a separate page and see what shows up as ambiguous. The situation is further confused by the fact that the "link" to be fixed is the text following the link= parameter, not the text in brackets. bd2412 T 21:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they are fixed now. bd2412 T 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the difference between Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation & Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links? because both are wikiprojects & aimed at same objective.( !dea4u  06:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC))

"Disambiguation pages with links is a project that patrols the incoming links to disambiguation pages" (its first sentence). It's not a WikiProject, but part of WikiProject Disambiguation: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#Repair incoming links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• (
  Nara, Nara → Nara -- How can we disambiguate a Japanese city from a prefecture of the same name? With your help, we may be able to come up with a better way than double naming the city. NotUnusual (talk
  ) 12:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not a project member now, but I'd like to comment on this discussion as a Japanese.

    In Japan, we use the word Nara for both the prefecture and the city. But for formal use, we call Nara Prefecture(Nara-Ken:

    Nara City.--Psjk2106 (talk

    ) 17:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  The discussions are

  here and here. NotUnusual (talk

  ) 23:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)