Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 46

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.

Look how many valid entries are removed in this edit. Are all those removals really the doing of Dabfix? There are thousands of similar edits and they can be extremely difficult to assess since Dabfix does loads of reorganising and formatting at the same time. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, Dabfix doesn't actually delete anything. A few entries (mainly those with no wikilink) get shaded red as a prompt to consider removing them, but that shouldn't occur for the Pick example. I think these were human editing decisions. Certes (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I use Dabfix a lot. It does not reorganize items, that had to be the editors decision. It will remove entries if they were deleted and have no incoming links. Missing entries are appended to the bottom of the page and the editor usually has to incorporate them into the page manually. Tassedethe (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Currently, it throws a notice for red links without any mainspace links (

MOS:DABMENTION). — Dispenser

00:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have a tool to track all Dabfix edits for the past 30 days. — Dispenser 00:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: Removing ~10 entries is NOT a minor edit, and I know you're manually checking that box. And removing insignificant double space is wasteful of resources (AWB even has a template for this). — Dispenser 03:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There's an option in the upper right corner of the Dabfix page. I checked "Mark edits as minor by default" but it's true that today I kept having to check minor edit manually. I thought something might be broken and that the default for any DAB page edit was minor, so I kept checking the minor edit box on the article pages. Often I ponder what constitutes a minor edit. I've been wrong before.

No, DAB is fine. It's a great tool, a brilliant invention, and so is the common fix tool. I wish there were a tool that could fix even more silly stuff so that time could be spent on more serious matters, such as the writing itself, the citations, and the real substance of the articles. It's not DAB. It's my edits.

I'll quit disambiguating for a while. I'm disappointed that I've been screwing up. When I return, I will have read more of the documentation (again), considered the criticisms, and thought about how to edit. Maybe I should move on to something else. I can be a bold editor, and that doesn't always go over well, but so can many people are bold on Wikipedia, which is quite territorial and combative. There's a libertarian ethos at Wikipedia. You push until someone pushes back. A sort of demolition derby ethic.

On the Abraxas post: I thought many of those entries were crap. Fictional beings and places from video games, comic books, and bad science fiction movies. Who cares about that junk in an encyclopedia? Those entries I removed didn't even have their own articles. A virus from the movie Tron. Who is going to look that up on a DAB page? And why? The ones I kept aren't much better, but at least they had their own articles.

This was an unusual example. I'm not in the habit of deleting a large number of entries. But I do encounter dumb entries. People seem to think DAB pages are an opportunity to play bar trivia. There's POV. Some people want to explain what they think the term means, rather than using the lede from the article. Some entries are a waste of time because the linked article doesn't mention the disambiguated term. Sometimes the linked article is only tangentially related or implied. Sometimes there are no links on a line, sometimes there are only red links. Sometimes DAB removes entries. Sometimes DAB says, "Consider removing Link X per ABC" and I usually go along with the advice. Perhaps the problem is that I'm becoming overconscious of all the crap on Wikipedia.

So the gist of this post is I'll step away until I'm more confident I can help rather than harm. I've tried to improve DAB pages in a way that makes information easier and faster to find at a glance, trying to help readers. All of my work on Wikipedia has been to improve it and to improve the reader's experience. There's not a lot of ego in it for me. I certainly don't want to make WP worse. If requested, I can go into further detail about specific edits I've made.
Vmavanti (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment about double space. If there are too many blank lines (returns) between, say, See Also and the disambig notice at the bottom, then I remove the blank lines because it looks better. I thought DAB removed extra lines, too. I didn't see any harm in that. The page looks better without gaps of two or three blank lines. I don't see how that is a waste of resources or what you mean by that. I've never used AWB.Vmavanti (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@

MOS:DABMENTION are useful guides. It's fine to improve formatting when you're editing the page already for other reasons. Every edit uses (a tiny amount of) resources, so making edits just to remove space is discouraged. A way to detect this is to click "Show changes" as well as doing a preview. That also catches edits like disambiguating {{stn|Foo}} to [[Foo station (Bar)|Foo]], which upset some people. Certes (talk

) 10:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and generosity. You can recommend more parts of the documentation you find especially useful pertinent, or habits, approaches, essays, advice you have found helpful. I have trouble figuring out when to use my own judgment versus when to follow the documentation.Vmavanti (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm one of those users with "Hide minor edits from the watchlist" checked in Preferences, so I find it especially annoying to find major edits labeled as minor. So I disabled minor as default for Dabfix after concluding the majority case would be non-minor edits. — Dispenser 02:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Fried potatoes isn't now a dab page: I removed the project tag from its Talk page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Not in my book. The two red flags are that all of the links are on a similar topic (measuring coldness), and none are called "cryometer". It's a stub article that's been formatted as a list and just happens to look a bit like a dab page. Certes (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm just skimming through physics stubs, to reclassify them, does this count:

talk

) 15:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Potentially yes, but I think the science section of

fix the incoming links. (I can help.) Certes (talk

) 15:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I may do it. Do we need to fix all the links? (See

talk

) 15:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@

intentional links to the dab or just removed. I've tidied Polarity a bit to add magnetism and to give us a section to link to. Certes (talk

) 16:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Cool @

talk

) 16:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@

MaoGo: Ready! I've renamed the target section Polarity#Science. Do you want to make the changes, or leave me to handle this one while you continue with your list? Certes (talk

) 16:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

My change to Polarity (physics) has been reverted. At least the page has no incoming links at the moment. Certes (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted you. Polarity (physics) is not a dab page, but rather an attempt at a broad-concept article. A broad-concept article stub can look a lot like a dab page, but is not one. The distinction is that all of the meanings explained in a broad-concept article page are related. In this case, all fit the definition "polarity is an attribute with two possible values", and are related to physics. I'm not sure yet whether we need an article on this yet, or whether linking to articles on specific uses of the term is sufficient. I'll review the links you changed and see. If the article is not needed and there are no links to it, the correct solution will be to delete it, not to redirect it to a dab page. --Srleffler (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 08:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, polarity is a broad concept. I'm not sure that it's limited to physics; it can equally include male/female, heaven/hell, etc. The problem is that 80–90% of editors who link to

magnetic polarity. If (like me) they're not physicists, the thought process probably goes something like "The magnet's polarity is ... oops, I linked to a dab there ... where's the right article? ... ah, magnetism is a physics thing, it must be Polarity (physics)". Certes (talk

) 11:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Interested editors may wish to see the ongoing move discussion at Talk:Sad! (XXXTentacion song), which is within the scope of this project. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are some quick notes about what I look for when I clean up disambig pages. As far as I know, none of this goes against WP documentation.

I check the history. If article hasn't been edited or cleaned up in a while, I use DAB fix because DAB fix is a handy tool that allows me to cover more ground faster and because it finds mistakes that I don't. DAB fix is also handy on those tougher disambig links that persist on the monthly list and bonus pages. DAB sometimes uncovers links that solve those stumpers.

When I first look at the page, I want a sense of the structure. Per WP documentation, can I tell at a glance how the information is organized? Can I find what I need quickly and easily?

Too many categories slow down the reader. Short categories with one or two entries slow down the reader, particularly one-entry categories on long pages because the reader has to read each one.

Indents slow down the reader because the indent catches your eye. You read something you don't need to.

At the other end of the spectrum, long pages of, say, 12 uncategorized entries or more make your eyes glaze over. It's one big info dump.

Red links are distracting, even when they belong there.

Joke entries, POV entries, irrelevant entries I check the links to make sure that the entry is mentioned on the page being linked to. Often it is not, and someone is making a loose connection or implication.

Sometimes I have a sense that DAB pages are being used as a bar game or trivia contest, as in: how many items can I think of to tack onto this page because it's fun.

Entries that go into too much detail. I see this a lot. The documentation says there only has to be enough detail to distinguish one entry from another. In some cases, this means you don't need any description. I trim descriptions down to the bones. Every word must count. Every comma must be used correctly. I like to see the description fit one one line rather than wrap to the next.

To me, less is more, quality over quantity. To put this in a different context, why does everything seem to get red linked? There isn't enough thought about whether a term is notable enough to deserve its own article. Readers seem to create red links as though they were expecting gifts some Santa Claus. Link a term, then like magic someday it will turn into an article. I'm often baffled by why a certain term is a red link.

POV, axes to grind. In reading the histories I have found debates about what a term means, as though the article were being written or interpreted on the DAB page. Those arguments belong on the article's Talk page, not the edit summaries of the DAB page. A DAB page isn't an essay or a place to fight for a cause.

Are the items categorized correctly? Here are some uses that I consider unhelpful.

I'm OK with putting different kinds of "football" under the heading "football" if there are many entries, which is often the case. I know that in America we call it soccer, but I can concede the point for the sake of clarity. Sometimes I use "Football and rugby", and it might include gridiron football, association football, Australian rules football, and rugby. Similarly, "Baseball and Cricket" can sometimes go together. Sports is a huge topic on Wikipedia. It gets complicated because I want to keep every category chronologically ordered but I always like to group types of sports together. On the other hand, who is more likely to be sought: an American football player from last year or a British cricketer from the 1800s? As I said, complicated.

I dislike when "Places" goes beyond towns, cities, and other geographical divisions and includes lakes, rivers, parks, museums, schools, and zoos because they are "places". A lunar crater is only loosely a place.

And how many places really need to be included?

Like others, I tend to think of "Companies" as for-profit corporations and "Organizations" as non-profit.

Confusion of "Science" and "Technology". Depending on the number of entries, I sometimes break down the former into "Biology" and "Chemistry". The term "medicine" naturally encompasses biology and chemistry, for the most part. Often these are anatomy questions, so I end up using "Biology". "Science" is the safe term.

The "Technology" section usually winds up being called "Computing" because there are so many articles related to computers and the internet. A sign of the times. Sometimes "Telecommunications" is a handy heading, but often the entries are in some way related to computers. We use computers to access the internet, so you can usually say "Computing" where you might use "Telecommunications". One note: "Computing" and "Mathematics" naturally go together. There are more math terms on DAB pages than I expected. The descriptions for these are usually not helpful because they can be understood by only a small number of people.

I wouldn't put tanks or military aircraft under "Transportation". I use "Military". I don't put military personnel under "Politics". I use "Military". "Politics" and "Government" are interchangeable, but not "Politics/Government" and "Military". I also try to avoid combining lawyers and judges, who of course are lawyers, under "Government" and "Politics". If there are enough entries, which is rare, I use a separate "Law" category for judges and famous lawyers. Law professors are not a huge group either. They can wind up in "Academics" or the "Other" section.

I don't like the "Other" section to be large, but some entries simply don't belong anywhere else, and I nearly always have an "Other" section. This seems to bother some people, who want to empty the "Other" category even if it means creating categories with only one or two items. If the items are categorized correctly, a reader should know immediately whether to consult the "Other" section.

I try to organize the headers alphabetically because that's what the documentation says and because that's how people's minds naturally work when they search for a term. There are always exceptions. For some reason, many DAB pages aren't organized alphabetically by header.

Individual entries I tend to list chronologically and alphabetically. I haven't paid enough attention to What Links Here. Again, exceptions. One editor wrote an edit summary that said alphabetical order doesn't matter on DAB pages. I disagree with that. People's minds fall naturally into order, alphabetical or chronological, depending on what they are seeking.

Sometimes I redo the page from scratch if I think it's necessary and I think I can do a better job. Not because I'm smart but because the page is in poor shape. Usually I check the history first to see how much has been done. Sometimes the page hasn't been touched in years, and sometimes it doesn't have to be, but that's where DAB helps. Starting over takes a long time, but I fall back on the before/after question. Compare the article's previous state to the article after my changes. Is it better or worse? It's not chiseled in stone. Every change can be undone. If people dislike something, they can tell me and I can explain what I did. Doesn't happen often, and I'm not reckless about editing. I have reasons for my changes. But I want to learn and get better.

I have a habit of calling "Arts and Entertainment" simply "Entertainment", because to me art is entertaining, or supposed to be, and because "Entertainment" is a broader and more useful category. To me, an artist is someone with a paintbrush. Painting is art. I also include sculpture. But the word "art" has been inflated to cover so much that it's become meaningless. Entertainment, on the other hand, has a nicer ring to it. When you see that word in a header, you know what you are getting. I think it's safe to say that there are far more articles on Wikipedia about movies, television, and music than painting and artists.

Similarly, the use of the heading "Literature" is sometimes incorrect. This word, too, has expanded beyond definition. A comic book is called literature, or a company's pamphlet is called the company literature. Here I prefer more specific terms. If there are many entries, I use "Entertainment" as the main head, with sub-heads for film, music, albums, and songs. For novels I use "Fiction", though few novels usually appear on DAB pages. More likely: movies, television series, television episodes, fictional characters, comic books, computer games, and music.

If I've been careless when it comes to deleting, it would be in the area of fictional characters, comics, and computer games. But I never delete entries that have their own articles. I find dubious value in a long list of fictional characters that lack their own entries and that seem to have been added to DAB pages simply because it was fun to do so, not because there will be many people looking for those entries. I dislike listing a fictional character above a real person, but that's a quibble.

Which comes back the purpose of DAB pages, allowing readers to find what they are looking for quickly and easily. Many web pages today lack a hierarchy, which is poor web design. You visit a page and you are overwhelmed with information. One big info dump. You have to wade through a lot to find what you want. That's an annoying waste of time. If I get a sense of the whole page at a glance, and the page is organized logically, I can find what I want.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If items on the page meet

WP:DABMENTION, they should be there whether they are trivial or not. bd2412 T

18:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding alphabetized headers, the only exception I've seen for this that seems constructive is when a certain section more or less encompasses what would go into a "usually refers to" section, with the remaining categories alphabetized. It doesn't follow the letter of the lawstyle guide, but it can avoid conflict.

Regarding order of entries within categories, I would say that alpha or chronological only makes sense after first sorting per the instructions at

MOS:DABORG

(giant song lists are a good example).

Regarding the whole thing, you haven't really stated a purpose to this summary. Are you looking for constructive criticism? -- Fyrael (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You obviously go about this in a very systematic fashion, so well done. When you say "Red links are distracting, even when they belong there", I hope that you are not implying that you are removing them. Because if they belong there, obviously you shouldn't as per

WP:REDYES. A red link has a purpose beyond the purpose of a dab page, and that is to encourage editors to create a missing page. Schwede66

19:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen

Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area? It addresses some of your thoughts about section titles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk

) 09:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A page that consists only of a list of people with given name "Fred" is not a dab page but a set index article with tag {{Given name}}. A page that consists only of a list of people with surname "Bloggs" is not a dab page but a set index article with tag {{Surname}}. So why is a page that lists only people called "Fred Bloggs" a disambiguation page with tag {{Human name disambiguation}}? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

A given name or a surname article is not really an SIA. It's a bit of a hybrid: it does list people with the name (and hence serves a navigational purpose akin to dab pages or set index articles), but it also ideally contains encyclopedic content about the name (etymology, occurrence, frequency etc.). It's the presence, or potential for presence, of such encyclopedic content that distinguishes Fred (name) from Fred Williams. Maybe there is a case for handling list of people in the same fashion (say, by having them compiled and maintained by a bot), regardless of whether they're found in a name article or a dab page, but I don't think the days have come for that. – Uanfala (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

But my point is that "Fred Bloggs" is an SIA, isn't it? ("a list article about a set of items of a specific type (people) that also share the same (or similar) name (Fred/Freddie/Frederick Bloggs)." (

WP:SIA). If it were ships called "Fred Bloggs" it would be an SIA: why are people different? Shhhnotsoloud (talk

) 07:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, "Fred Bloggs" the dab page isn't an article about the various FBs, it's a navigation aid pointing to them with only enough info to distinguish which one the reader is looking for. "Fred" is, or ought to be, an article about the name, optionally with a list of name-bearers. It's neither a dab nor an SIA. PamD 07:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a distinction is that (as Uanfala wrote) we can write encyclopedic text about the name "Fred" but not about the name "Fred Bloggs". Also (unlike ship SIAs etc.) we only list people who have an article (or at least a significant mention in a related article) that we can link to. Certes (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I think of it the other way round. We don't include people without an article on an hndis (even if we wanted to) because it's a dab page. We can include further explanatory text if we want to on an SIA/name article but we don't have to: a standalone list is enough. At the moment, we can include "Fred Bloggs (no article)" in a list of Freds at the given name SIA/article "Fred"; we can include him in the surname SIA/article "Bloggs", but we can't include him in the hndis "Fred Bloggs". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You can have redlinks on dab pages per

MOS:DABRL. I also routinely remove redlinks from name articles by applying the same logic to them. —Xezbeth (talk

) 11:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Shhhnotsoloud. That's what I was trying to say, though ironically I did so in an ambiguous way. Certes (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So ... what do we think of this idea. Template:Human name disambiguation is retitled "Person name SIA" (or somesuch) and Category:Human name disambiguation pages becomes "Person name set index articles". Any person name SIA with title "Fred Bloggs (disambiguation)" is moved to "Fred Bloggs (name)". The effect: articles which list people (e.g. Givenname Surname) are now the same status as articles which list given names (including articles about a given name, and given name SIAs), articles which list surnames (including articles about a surname, and surname SIAs), and indeed other SIAs about things with the same name, e.g. ships etc. Redlinks are then allowed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If Fred Bloggs (juggler) qualifies per

MOS:DABRL then he can go onto the dab page; if not then he probably doesn't belong in a SIA either. The sole advantage of an SIA here is that we can describe the name itself. But I can't think of anything to write about Fred Bloggs (name) other than describing Fred and Bloggs separately, which would fit better on Fred (name) and Bloggs (name). If there's no primary topic then I think Fred Bloggs should remain a dab. Certes (talk

) 10:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Certes. Personally I find lists of people by given name to be mostly unencyclopledic, except for cases where the person is commonly known by the given name alone. I'd encourage pruning these from disambiguation pages. Where an article with content on the name as a name exists, it might be worth listing some notable individuals with the name, but in most cases any attempt at a comprehensive listing would next to impossible to maintain and become a magnet for vanity listings. Surnames are a bit different in that in many fields people are commonly referenced by surname only and are suitable for inclusion on a disambiguation page where there is not a standalone page for the name. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I know little about creating Disambig pages, hatnotes, etc. so I just thought I would point out the following situation. I have been working on the musician's history and discography and cleaned up some incorrectly-titled articles and repeated info, resulting in this collection of articles:

• Robyn Hitchcock -- (the musician's main page)
• Robyn Hitchcock and the Egyptians
  -- (currently redirecting to the musician's main page)
• Robyn Hitchcock (1995 album)
• Robyn Hitchcock (2017 album)

If your team thinks a Disambig or something similar is needed, act as you see fit. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: Good point! I too found it a bit confusing to dig through the main article to find the albums, so I went ahead and wrote Robyn Hitchcock (disambiguation), and added it to the biog as a hatnote. It's all about making navigation easy for readers.

I don't think that The Egyptians are notable independently of RH. However, I added RH&TE as a see-also to the DAB page Egyptian (not everyone automatically thinks back from The Egyptians to RH, just us two). Narky Blert (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Participants involved in this project may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Diceratops#Hymenoptera. Please comment there to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

DabSolver doesn't get it. Check it out

Technically it's not a dab, it's a

set index article. Links to SIAs are generally allowed, and DabSolver doesn't complain about them. In this case, I don't see why anyone would legitimately link to it except in a navigation link (the hatnote on The Evening Star and the see also in Evening Star (newspaper) look fine), so there is a decent case for making Star (newspaper) a dab like The Telegraph. Certes (talk

) 11:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone linked to

talk

) 11:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I also remember sorting out a pile of Star links a while ago and most of them turned out to be Australian.

WP:DOUBLEDAB page seems more practical to me. See also Daily Star. Certes (talk

) 11:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

See: Talk:Living dinosaur if you wish to comment. --tronvillain (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I just started helping the disambiguation pages with the DabSolver, I noticed that in one weekend all categories went up by a lot. Biographies had like 400 articles to be fixed now is 1300. The categories with more like 10 articles were like ten now there are almost a hundred categories. is this normal? what happened? --

It's too late to check unless you can name specific articles, but such spikes are often caused by a template. If 100 articles transclude the same template, and someone introduces a link from that template to John Smith, then all 100 articles will show a link to that dab until the template is fixed. Certes (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was a template but I haven't seen yet a pattern or something that is repeated. Just videogames and physics categories that had 9 and 0 articles this Friday now have 51 and 24 with no clear pattern. --

talk

) 12:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any patterns in Physics or Video games either. Some of the links, such as Magnetohydrodynamic drive → Concave which you just fixed, had been around for a while. Perhaps they weren't showing up for some reason on Friday. Certes (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to our

WP:FIXDABLINKS

. Also, some of the fix-needed lists refresh daily; but others only at the start of each month, and that can cause spikes.

If you know about

WP:INTDABLINK, you're one of a small minority. I recently pointed an admin who's been editing since 2007 to that guideline, which they didn't know. Narky Blert (talk

) 04:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Your likely looking at topic_points which only lists links participating in the

WP:DAB Challenge. Those will jump when the list is refreshed at the start of the month. — Dispenser

04:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The use of 'LSE', by far, refers to the London School of Economics. Even though I am myself slightly biased on this matter since I study there, I don't think any of the rest even mildly resembles the use of LSE as the London School of Economics in general public discourse. In fact, the page was created 15 years ago as a redirect to the school. The rest of the entries listed--even London Stock Exchange, are very much specialist terminologies that are rarely used without their context.

I think it's ambiguous. The London Stock Exchange has a similar number of page views and is referred to as the LSE, albeit less often than the School. This discussion on "The LSE" is slightly relevant. Certes (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

[This] AFD discussion is open now. I don't believe it P-town is a valid dab page as there are no entries by that name. If kept, perhaps a List article. Please comment there. MB 17:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It's part of a series of varying quality. I wonder what will happen when they notice C-Town (disambiguation)... Certes (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McArthur Lake (2nd nomination). --Doncram (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Please can another editor look at Paul Coleman? As you'll see from the page history, I've had a few tries but don't want to escalate an edit war. My POV is on the talk page. Thanks, Certes (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#RfC: INTDAB links to non-dab pages. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

On the IATA airport code page there is a list of metropolitan areas with their own IATA code, with each of the airports within that area getting a different code, like this:

• Guarulhos (GRU) and Campinas
  (VCP)

P.S. The actual best option is secret option #4 being utilized at LON, but sadly there's not an equivalent to Airports of London for all the other cities. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• ...although
  MOS:DABMENTION for "LON"! For those cases where there isn't an Airports of ... article, and which are mentioned at IATA airport code, I think a link to IATA airport code (or, better, an anchor on that page) is best, because there is actually a list there which would enable the user to see what airports are included in each metropolitan code. Or, perhaps, create Airports of ... list articles where they don't exist? Shhhnotsoloud (talk
  ) 07:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'll try to find a place for the LON code in Airports of London, not for the sake of satisfying our requirements but because it's just good information for that article. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Another alternative (#5?) is to link to a more specific dab such as

Berlin Airport, though some such pages do list airports not covered by that IATA city code. Certes (talk

) 10:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Not strictly about disambiguation but closely related: do we have a list of common wrong targets for wikilinks, where the base name is used for an article but popular culture associates that title with a different topic? For example, I just fixed a few dozen links to Prince which were meant for Prince (musician). Certes (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I could be misremembering, but I think BD2412 has their own list. There was a thread here fairly recently that mentioned some of the most common ones. A properly maintained list with its own separate page would be extremely useful. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a handful:

Supreme Court). bd2412 T

11:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; that's the sort of thing I meant. I'll see if I can use a few heuristics to find others and put a list together. Certes (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I would think such a list would correlate strongly with the articles that repeatedly pop up on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. I'm guessing that's where BD2412's own list came from though. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently, Qalandar is a redirect to Qalandar (disambiguation). Is that as it should be? Isn't the DAB page usually at the bare name, and the name with parenthesis a redirect? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I thought I'd better ask.

Also, Kalandar redirects to Qalandar, which means that right now it's a double redirect. I was going to fix it, but I'll wait to see if those pages swap places. I already 'fixed' Qalander before I thought to check, so if they do swap that will need to be undone. Cnilep (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There's quite a mess here as the Qalandar redirect has a lot of incoming links, predating the move of content to Qalandar (title) for which presumably most of those links are intended. Might be necessary to do some unpicking. A decision was made by one editor that the title was no longer the Primary Title, after a page merge. PamD 08:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was

WP:MALPLACED. I fixed that before I noticed this discussion, because it links to Qalander. I think I'll tag that as a misspelling. – wbm1058 (talk

) 00:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for a disambiguation in this

WP:RM to determine whether there is an absence of a primary topic. bd2412 T

19:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@BD2412: It's like we're telepathic: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Frances Murray. I thought for a moment my response had mysteriously disappeared then I realised it was on a different page :-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion about whether The Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should redirect to Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or to Sun (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). THe discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 25#The Sun. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Is a disambiguation page necessary if it consists of multiple entries without a Wikipedia article that is directly related to the disambiguated term? E.g. High on Life consists of multiple entries but none of which has a Wikipedia article. The editor whose username is Z0 06:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC) (discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation). The editor whose username is Z0 11:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Z0: You asked exactly this question at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, and I answered it there. You also posted it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Please don’t post the same question in multiple places. — Gorthian (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, can somebody please check Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts which I think has been vandalised. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done: good catch, JennyOz. Certes (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Certes for fixing that. JennyOz (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Odd kind of page here: disambiguation geeks might like to have a look. PamD 07:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It obviously doesn't need to exist. It should be retargeted to Lambert (pianist), or that article should be moved back to its original name. If the term is considered ambiguous then it should point to Lambert as an R from incomplete disambiguation, but I personally don't think it needs to. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

{{Annotated link}} is now available. This template can be used to automatically annotate a link using the associated short description. It remains blank if there is currently no short description, and automatically transcludes it when it exists. This might be useful for disambiguation pages. The syntax is very simple (see example), and it only works for custom short descriptions, and does not currently work for redirects. The annotations will remain up to date when the short description is edited.

Example:

* {{Annotated link|Wikipedia:Short description}}

• Wikipedia:Short description – Use of short descriptions on Wikipedia

* {{Annotated link|Wikipedia:Short description|''Short description''}}

• Short description – Use of short descriptions on Wikipedia

Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to this page and don't quite understand the project - I wanted to update a page on Mark Pilgrim but it looks as though the talk page has been blocked or something because of disambiguation. I don't know of another Mark Pilgrim that would cause confusion. I just wanted to add some information to the page to clarify and expand on some of the discussions there. Advice please? Thank you! CountryMama27 (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You added your question to the wrong place, which I have fixed. Talk:Mark Pilgrim had an old disambiguation header from when it was previously a DAB page. I have corrected that, but that shouldn't have prevented you from editing the page.MB 00:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The article Lycée Edgar-Quinet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All three of these schools are currently red links. Lycée Edgard-Quinet (Paris) is the only one with links from other pages, and those only via Template:Lycées in Paris. There is nothing a disambiguation page can reasonably link to. Please create the articles before disambiguating them.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm looking for advice on disambiguation of "

• Committee for the Defense of Human Rights (Chile) (CODEH, 1970) – forthcoming
• CODEH
  , 1981) – this article owns the shortcut CODEH
• "Committee for the Defense of Human Rights", Nigeria (1991, Lagos); no article on Wikipedia
• Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (Slovenia) – currently Committee for the Defence of Human Rights
• CDHRAP
  , 2010)
• Committee for the Defense of Human and Workers' Rights (Chile) (CODEHS, 1978) – forthcoming

For an intro line, I was going to have:

Committee for the Defense of Human Rights may refer to a

human rights organization

in any of several countries.

Do we need specific accord from editors at the Slovene page for the move, or can we just do it because it's per policy (if I'm reading it right)? Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Notifications: Added WikiProject notifications at

WP:CHILE

is moribund).

Considering that there are already three articles, and you'll be creating a fourth, I think you can be

MOS:DABRL, I would not add any redlinks before the articles are created. And the intro line should be simply "Committee for the Defense of Human Rights may refer to:" Station1 (talk

) 00:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Should List of Soviet aircraft carriers named Admiral Kuznetsov be tagged as a SIA or a dab page (or something else)? DexDor ^(talk) 20:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I would just delete it. It's not a dab page, not a SIA, not a list, few people look at it[2], and I don't see what value it adds. Station1 (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@User:Lyndaship - do you agree with deleting it (i.e. MFD it or simply turn it into a redirect to Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov) ?

I'd get rid of it, but edit Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov to add a hatnote (or at least an earlier and more prominent link in the lead) to Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier. (I think the ship editors like us to use that template.) Certes (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

There was once an article on a Japanese singer named Yuki Goto but she was deemed non-notable and the article was redirected to her band Nice Girl Project!. That is where you will end up if you simply type in the name. Now there is a new article for a different singer of the same name at Yuki Goto (singer). I did not create that article but moved it to the current title in an attempt at disambiguation. The article's creator tells me that the two singers have the same name in the English alphabet, but they use different characters in Japanese. Not sure if that matters here, though I do wonder if the search term should go to the newer article (an RfD request), or if we need new hatnotes, etc. Please advise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The kanji used does not affect the ambiguity of the name "Yuki Goto" in English. I think in this case it would be best to move

Yuki Goto (singer, born 1993) and move Yuki Goto (singer) to Yuki Goto (singer, born 1986), then have an hndis at the base term. —Xezbeth (talk

) 18:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: -- Please clarify your final phrase: Have a what at the base term? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

doomsdayer520, Probably hatnote disambiguation, Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Human name disambiguation. I don't think it's necessary though and would prefer the first option. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. I have differentiated the two singer articles to

Yuki Goto (singer, born 1993) which was the original article that was redirected to her group Nice Girl Project! a long time ago. I also created Yuki Goto (disambiguation), and clarified hatnotes at both singer articles. I think this might clear up the confusion, but I'm not sure if that new disambig page is totally necessary based on how users are likely to search for things. Please adjust as you see fit. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs

) 17:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikpedia Talk: Article titles that is relevant to this project. Interested editors may wish to contribute to the discussion there. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)