Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 5

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.

Quick gathering of opinions: is there a point in basketball (disambiguation)?

The film entry is a redlink, and to be honest, I don't think it'll ever earn itself an article, at least not in the foreseeable future. "The Basketball Diaries", in my opinion, has no risk of confusion — someone that wants to find out about "The Basketball Diaries" will probably search for "The Basketball Diaries" or perhaps "Basketball Diaries"; most people if not all would be able to figure out a mere "basketball" won't get them anywhere in a search. The final entry, "BASEketball", has a different spelling and I find this unlikely to be confused with the sport.

Just wanted to see what others think. Neonumbers 12:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep. Although the redlinked movie is questionable (it is not even listed under the director's credits at IMDB, the other entries are valid.

important to include in the page

.

Because of the questionable existance of the redlinked movie, and the difference in title of The Basketball Diaries, I guess I could see putting a disambiguation link on Basketball linking to BASEketball, but it seems to be better as a disambiguation page. -- Natalya 17:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I can see why BASEketball is a reasonable entry (kind of), but I maintain that the others are not — I can't be bothered changing that hatnote link, so we'll just see how things go. Neonumbers 09:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be grateful for advice on issues concerning Ptolemy (disambiguation). I have summarised the editing history and centralised links for discussions at Talk:Ptolemy (disambiguation). If you have any advice or comments, please leave them there. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[Refactored and edited discussions copied here from the Help Desk and Category talk:Lists of ambiguous human names - please note I have copied these comments - apologies if this breaches any etiquette, though I think refactoring like this is OK.]

The Leonardo (disambiguation) page has a bit allowing people to see all articles starting "Leonardo", or rather to see a list of AllPages starting from Leonardo, as seen here. This is the first time I've seen this, though the Leonardo disambiguation talk page led me to Robert, which does look a bit overdone, but also has the "AllPages" link. My question is whether this is a common practice, or whether it falls foul of the "no self-reference" rule about not linking to non-article space in Wikipedia (creates problems with mirror/redistribution sites)? Carcharoth 18:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Special:Allpages link from

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). -- Rick Block (talk

) 02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the allpages list isn't usual. Bad idea. All those pages should be listed on the disambiguation page. William Allen Simpson 07:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[end quote]

So is using Special:AllPages a bad idea? It is a useful tool to find articles to put on disambig pages, but it seems lazy not to list them on the page itself. If the complaint is "there are too many", then that suggests something is wrong anyway. Carcharoth 01:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think using Allpages is bad, but using Special:Prefixindex/Leonardo etc. for first names could be useful. The Dutch nl:Sjabloon:Dp actually has this link on their version of the {{disambig}} template (which only works if the dab page is Foo, not for Foo (disambiguation)). Kusma (討論) 02:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Special:Prefixindex/Michael doesn't really work, since the "next page" link doesn't do what it should. In that case, Special:Allpages/Michael is more useful. Kusma (討論) 02:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Kusma, you are missing the point. No links to any form of Special Pages are acceptable. One of the reason for

Which brings me to another point. The pervasiveness of Wikipedia results on web searches should be emphasised as widely as possible to all editors of Wikipedia - maybe even in the editing boilerplate text. I fear that people who are not aware of how widely the content is redistributed will "check facts" using web pages that are just regurgitating the thing they are trying to check! A horrendous exercise in circularity. Carcharoth 02:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I do understand your point and your concern, but still want to argue a bit why this idea should at least be thought about for a little while before it is dropped again: That "Special" pages don't work on mirrors is something the people who run mirrors should worry about, or that could be amended by putting these links into special CSS that makes the mirrors not use it. While a hand-made list of all people whose first name is Michael could be prettier, that list will never be up-to date. The alphabetic indices on Special:Allpages and Special:Prefixindex can be useful in some circumstances like this one, but are rather hidden from the casual user, who will probably only see them when searching for a nonexistent page. Perhaps at the very least a Special pages link should be on the talk page of disambiguation and some other pages (like first name pages), to be checked every now and then to see if more content needs to be added to the page. Kusma (討論) 03:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(reply to Carcharoth after edit conflict with Kusma)Then perhaps we should emphasize that any such special pages links should use

Template:Selfref

, then at least reusers who at least make an effort at making the content usable can simply strip out such self-references. Now whether and when links to Allpages are appropriate probably merits some discussion -- it has come up before on one of the disambiguation-related talk pages. Personally, for things like first names (like Leonardo or Robert), I think the dab page should only list persons who are commonly referred to solely by that name. However, for people who might want to browse all the articles beginning with "Robert", a link to Allpages allows that (we really can't expect novice users to know about Allpages--and it is not so unreasonable to think that a disambiguation page for "Robert" might direct one to such a tool).

Similarly, there are some terms that can be used as adjectives which are not commonly known solely by the term (only in a combined form). A link to Allpages is a way to forestall those who want to list all those numerous terms that don't really belong on the dab page and which are dynamic (but again it is not so unreasonable to think that a disambiguation page for the term might direct you to such a tool).

If we envelop such links within the Selfref template, for example, {{Selfref|[[Special:Allpages/Leonardo|List of all pages beginning with "Leonardo"]]}} which renders as

List of all pages beginning with "Leonardo"

, I don't think there should be too much concern about self-references. Responsible re-users will be able to easily remove such references. older ≠ wiser 03:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what both Bkonrad and Kusma say here. Didn't know about the Selfref template. Does that also apply to linking to category pages from an article, or is that allowed now? (ie. Are categories supported by all reusers?) Carcharoth 03:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The template and the category title read like they should be used for "ambiguous numbers". I think that means only 666 (disambiguation) or 2600 and similar pages. However, the category currently mostly consists of disambiguation pages whose title starts with a number. I fail to see how any of

• 1924 Olympics
• 27th Division
• 2001: A Space Odyssey

qualify as "number-oriented articles". These articles do fit the category description, though: "This category consists of titles that begin with numbers." So should we amend the template, or recategorize some of the articles? Kusma (討論) 22:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me over here, Kusma. I'm not sure this is the best place to discuss, as it seem a style issue, but I agree the template language needs to be updated. (Reminder, I can point to several places where I asked what are we going to do about numberdis.) How about matching {{geodis}}:

This page of titles that begin with numbers is a disambiguation page....

--William Allen Simpson 23:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That indeed describes the current use of the template, and would be a better description. I just don't quite understand why this template makes sense. I mean, how is this really different from {{diacriticdis}}:

This article containing a diacritic in its title is a disambiguation page...

or maybe {{LetterAdis}}:

This article whose title starts with the letter A is a disambiguation page...

I think I would prefer to see the scope of this category narrowed. If 2001: A Space Odyssey belongs in any category, it should be something like Category:Titles used for more than one work or something like that. As I am trying to point out with my silly examples above, the connection to "numbers" is quite arbitrary. Kusma (討論) 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The long-existing category was recently renamed (to conform to policy) after a CfD that chose to keep these numerical lists in a separate category. In fact, there was only a single delete vote (unsurprisingly, Tedernst). Arguing about the wording of the template, sure I'll help with that. But the template should match the contents of the category as clearly as possible.

Meanwhile, let's ponder the wording for a few days, and see whether there are better suggestions.

--William Allen Simpson 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. I hadn't followed the categorization of disambiguation pages, and hadn't read Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 16. Maybe rescoping this shouldn't be done right now, then, so let's just keep this category and template for now and only edit the explanation. How about this?

This article about topics that share the same name and start with a number is a disambiguation page...

--Kusma (討論) 00:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure i recall at least a discussion (possibly a guideline) regarding putting a year (or vital stats or range of reign) in paren as the Dab'g suffix on an ambig name. IIRC the practice was at least denounced and not defended. But i haven't found again anything about it. Help!
--Jerzy•t 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, my use of a variation on that (see The boxers Davey Moore and Davey Moore) when i broke up a joint bio, seems to have gone unchallenged for going on a year; it continues to strike me as a rare (and perhaps enlightening) exception to the rule that there is virtually always something better than dates to distinguish people. IMO, this case justifies it bcz the time periods are more likely to be both recalled and clear (for any but serious fans) than anything else (like weight class or form of trauma ("(beaten)" vs "(crushed)"?). Comments welcome.
--Jerzy•t 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm posting my three (initial) 'graphs for this section at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Dab'g suffixes for Bios and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Dab'g suffixes for Bios. If someone comments, it would probably be good if the first one would also put a note at the top of the section at the other location, urging that the responses be centralized. (Also good:

*put a note after this 'graph, on the same page that has your response, saying "done as to Moores" or "done as to years in general"

*indicate on the non-centralizing page which of the two topics has/have drawn responses.)

--Jerzy•t 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Does rationing count as a disambiguation page? If not, is there a suitable category to put it in as an article that gives an overview of the use of a term in many different subject areas? Carcharoth 13:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks suspiciously like a

multi-stub page to me... -- Natalya

16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum for a help request, so I apologize if I'm out of place. Regardless, I have discovered there is a need for a disambiguation page for Marcus Claudius Marcellus. If you follow the link, the details are in the discussion page. Thank you for your time.--ScottieB 00:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It turns out only disambiguation links were needed, and it has been taken care of. :) -- Natalya 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I came across

If you take a look at the

Manual of Style for Disambiguation Pages, you'll probably notice that WTF is substantially different that what disambiguation pages are supposed to look like. It's not *all* that bad, but mainly the problems are the long descriptions for each article. It makes it a big harder because What the fuck redirects to WTF, though there is no appropriate article. I'd suggest moving the "What the fuck" information to a separate article, but what do other people think? -- Natalya

01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there's enough here for at least one split, but I'm too prudish to do it myself. Also, several of the entries are unencyclopedic and need to be eliminated altogether. --Smack (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguating links to

As a newbie, I thought I should ask for help on this: Sths currently redirects to Santa Teresa High School. However, the abbreviation is also used by

I had a go at this myself. Actually, I redirected Sths to STHS, and put the disambig page there. You're welcome to check. Many thanks. Winterelf 10:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary topic links, I'm proposing to remove some confusing (and apparently often ignored) sentences from the guideline. Any comments are welcome. If there are no objections, I will remove the sentences after a week or so. older ≠ wiser 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to tidy up the Democracy (disambiguation), and would appreciate some input. I've removed some links such as First Party System, but they are being defended as articles people interested in democracy need "disambiguated". This seems (to me) to clearly be what a disambiguation page is not, but some other views would be appreciated. The discussion thread is at Talk:Democracy (disambiguation)#Weeding_the_links- David Oberst 16:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to create a new article about the writer Lisa Tucker (well-known novelist of young adult literature), but the Lisa Tucker currently on Wikipedia is the American Idol contestant/singer. First thought was- make Lisa Tucker (disambiguation) and use the singer as the main Lisa Tucker. On second thought, they both seem to share equal, average, notability on Google search result pages. In fact, the writer Lisa Tucker has more news that override the singer Lisa Tucker (whom, the only news the singer has is when American Idol or Star Search is referenced.) What should be done? Should the current Lisa Tucker be moved to Lisa Tucker (singer)? Or should a new page, Lisa Tucker (disambiguation) be created? User:Arual 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem like there is any obvious primary topic, it seems most appropriate to have the disambiguation page be at Lisa Tucker, move the current article there to Lisa Tucker (singer), and create the article you want to create at Lisa Tucker (author). -- Natalya 22:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an embarrassing example of "We forgot!"...

It's something called "McQueen". In light of recent movies, what does that mean...

Lightning McQueen.

And somebody forgot to put it at McQueen (a disambiguation page).

I did it because:

Imagine. Somebody is looking for the Lightning McQueen article, and they just type "McQueen". The disambig that comes from there did not have Lightning McQueen, thus being a

In case you don't have Category:Disambiguation on your watchlist, there's some discussion at Category talk:Disambiguation#Secondary disambiguations of some new subcategories which may be of interest (or concern). older ≠ wiser 22:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked through the talk archives and couldn't find the answer. Do we use {{

Anyone else want to comment at Talk:Grass? --Usgnus 15:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be getting into an edit war over whether universities should be listed above capital cities at Georgetown. Any advice from those more experienced? Also look at the talk:Georgetown talk page for a related issue. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not worth fighting over. As long as it stays a dab page, and people can find the place names easily, leave it be. Besides, universities are often referred to without the "university": Harvard, Oxford, McGill, Johns Hopkins, etc. --Usgnus 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that in context, "Georgetown" means Georgetown University. I'm not sure whether that's true when the context is "Encyclopaedia", but I'll accept the advice "not worth fighting over" for now. Checking the examples:

• Harvard redirects to Harvard University
  , but none of the "cities" named Harvard have a population as big as the student body at the university or any sort of capital status. A number of the places named Georgetown are larger than the university — two have 250,000 people.
• Oxford University in the lead paragraph. Oxford (disambiguation)
  lists places before education.
• McGill redirects to McGill (disambiguation) which lists the university first, but it's bigger than the town.
• Johns Hopkins is a person. His article has dab links to a university and a hospital which are also both in the opening paragraph. Incidentally, I'd never heard of the university, but had heard of the hospital.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm not sure who I should talk to about this, but I think there should be a disambiguation page for the phrase "Romana". It should definitely include the two most obvious choices:

Go ahead.

Romana d'Annunzio. --Zoz (t)

22:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. You probably don't need the redlink to the Marquid os La Romana, since La Romana would be included anyway. Let us know if you need any help. -- Natalya 23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As an anon they can't start a new page, so I created the page for them. --Zoz (t) 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit above me to do, but the disambiguation page for amelia is meshed in with amelia the disease. Could someone extricate it & add a link to Amelia (novel)?--Ibis3 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --

Interiot

14:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. It looks much less confusing now. --Ibis3 17:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the disambigutation policy and didn't find anything that really addressed this question: should the relative important of the pages to potentially be disambiguated matter? The two pages in question are scope creep and scope creep (relationships) Antonrojo 16:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just realized the article had been deleted making this an academic question. Antonrojo 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it does matter, because you will have to decide if there is a primary topic or not. For information primary topics, you can take a look at

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Linking_to_a_primary_topic. -- Natalya

17:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just made available a new mediawiki engine feature: From now on, the MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage page is a regular wiki page with the list of all disambibuation templates. It should have a short description, plus links pointing to all templates used for disambiguation. The page may be in any format, and contain any number of links, but only links to the Template: namespace will be treated as disambiguation templates.

Once you change it, the Special:Disambiguations will start showing all the pages linking to disambiguation pages, thus allowing users to correct links - and point them to the specific topics. That list gets regenerated every week (might be more often - need to check with admins).

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. --Yurik 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The page Wikipedia:Disambiguation Templates is no longer needed, as it contains the same information. --Yurik 19:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am TrackerTV from

This discussion has actually now been moved

Power Points. The talk page has more detailed info. -Zappernapper

18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This issue has now been resolved, thnx anyways. -Zappernapper 18:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't really know if this is the right place to ask, but does anyone know what the policy is for this? For example, at R, there is a link at the top to the page R (disambiguation), but all the items here are already in the main article anyway! This appears very inconsistent, e.g. there is no disambiguation page for B, and there are some extra articles at C (disambiguation) that are not at C. -postglock 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between a list and a disambiguation is that you fix backlinks for disambigs, but lists intend to keep all their backlinks intact. (should this be mentioned on WP:MOSDAB?)

In this case, the section in

Interiot

03:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The following is copied and pasted from Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation:

I could really use some mediation on this. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is an official policy on this. It's determined on a case-by-case basis. There is an official policy to ignore all rules as you see fit, and, although there is a good argument that the redirect should (strictly speaking) point at the dab page (as it does), I suspect that most people looking for

Pixies will want the article about the band (at least for the next couple of decades), and probably don't need to be inconvenienced for getting the name right just because fans of pointy eared tricksters don't have the good sense to look for Pixie

.

Slap a disambiguation tag (pointing at Pixie (disambiguation)) on the top of Pixies (band), and the problem goes away, doesn't it? If the Pixies people want the redirect enough to fight for it, I say let them have it.TheMadBaron 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly feel that the vast majority of people looking for "Pixies" are actually looking for Pixie. I would take issue with any move that hadn't garnered concensus first. --Storkk 11:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Go to Pixie (disambiguation), hit "What links here", read 'em and weep. TheMadBaron 03:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the user is referring to searches, not links. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.

Firstly, thanks. Second, what did that second sentence mean? Feh. Thanks to you all for the responses. Sometimes I do wish Wikipedia was a democracy. Voting would have more meaning and we could officialize new policies semi-easily. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 17:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this should still be at

This is not comparing like with like. A quick look at the album covers on the pages concerned will confirm that the correct name for The Beatles is The Beatles, the correct name for The Kinks is The Kinks, the correct name for The Jimi Hendrix Experience is The Jimi Hendrix Experience, and the correct name for 'The' Pixies is Pixies. Some silly people refer to 'The' Pink Floyd, too, but that doesn't mean we should move the page there.... TheMadBaron 03:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that all definite articles were removed from the

Frank Black article by an IP user last month. Something strange has been going on here, that's for sure. Dekimasu

09:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...speaking to the first thing, that's really not up for debate, and hasn't been for weeks before I brought this up.

To the second, I wouldn't know, but there are certainly hidden uses of "Pixies" that haven't been found and changed there.

Still, what I could really use is the policy I mentioned: Plurals redirect to disambiguation pages. Ace Class Shadow; User talk:Ace Class Shadow. 09:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Would adding a banner to disambiguation pages declaring that it is adopted by a user be feasible and effective for directing interest in disambiguation repair? For example the banner on the talk page could say:

• "This disambiguation page Football has been adopted by User:Example and User:Example2. Click here to adopt this page or here to help assist in disambiguation repair, where help is always needed."

Or something to that effect. Then people could take ownership for each page by including their name on the talk page on the banner. To get more participants another banner could say:

• "This disambiguation page Football needs to be adopted. Please click here to adopt this page in assisting in disambiguation repair."

Then they could go to that page or this one and adopt a page and include their name on the talk page banner. Would this be effective or possible? I know there are a lot of disambiguation pages, but all projects start small, and this could help to increase adoption rates and link repair. If this works, then a message can be sent to all of the WikiProject: Disambiguation participants asking them if they want to adopt a page. If you support/oppose this, please respond. If somebody knows how to program the banners to work, could somebody show an example? Just thought I would try and see if this would work or not. --Nehrams2020 21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled across Template:Maintained which looks very similar to what I'm talking about. Is this possible for disambiguation talk pages but in a different format? Nehrams2020 05:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't think this is a good idea for the dab page itself, but perhaps its talk page. --Storkk 22:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC) .... hitting head against wall. Yes, it would be ok for the talk page, but I don't know how much interest you'll get. In my experience, people don't care too much about dab pages. I only participate because I get frustrated when following a link to any dab page. I probably wouldn't maintain one after clearing its links. But I don't know. It's possible I'd adopt one or two. --Storkk 22:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a dumb idea. Maintain or not, it's a personal decision and it doesn't need to be stated outright like that. I maintain several dab pages like I do several articles, but I don't go saying: "This page is under the watchful eye of ACS" or some such. That kinda thing seems like it'd be bordering on a violation of

Annie, ya know? Anyway, no. No to the idea, however well intentioned it may be. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited

. 22:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure

WP:OWN applies that well to gnome-like activities. It's practically an administrative task, and one that many editors avoid. And in my experience on the project, it's not like anyone minds if someone jumps in to help with some of their disambig page. The idea seems to encourage people to keep at it, as well as encourage new users to take that on as a contribution to the project. Dina

23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm undecided. While there could be some benefit from such a plan, I see are the potential to scare people off from helping maintain pages and editors becoming inactive after adopting pages (after a month or a year, etc). It might be more effective for dab talk pages to have a more general template pointing people at the the DAB project page to encourage helping out. I started working on dab pages mainly because one of the articles I was watching was updated to resolve a link and it seemed like something I could help out with fairly easily. Upholder 22:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is a pretty great idea. My very first edit to Wikipedia was an edit to the talk page of an article, pointing out that a link in the article needed to be disambiguated. I had no idea how to change it at the time and so posted my observation to the talk page of the article (sort of okay in retrospect, but now, obviously, I would just fix it.) Can we possibly consider putting a message at the top of the article page of the disambig and not the talk? I realize that's not pretty, but many people, even new users, following the bad link, might just fix it if they knew how. I'm thinking a combo of the adopted pages idea (which I like) with something like the message one gets when one clicks on a red link (ie. if you think you are here for a wrong reason, here are some steps you can take). An adopted page could also have a link to the "parent's" talk page, so a user could point out a specific problem (helpful especially if the disambig was tricky, as they can be.) I mean, really, maybe we ought to be thinking of disambig pages as error messages -- they're not, if you come upon them in a search, but they are if you get there through a link. And I suspect that's how most folks arrive there. So why not a template at the top? Dina 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit Conflict. I think that it might be useful. As for posting it on the actual dab page, I don't think that is such a good idea. Remember, Wikipedia must always be useful to the reader, not to the editor. The average reader has no need or care to know who works on the page, hence the reason why the maintained template is put on talk pages. The average reader isn't gonna be looking at talk pages. If an editor needs to know who works on it, they can go to the talk page. Put simply, I think that the template could be useful but not on the dab page. DoomsDay349 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as a good idea. Considering the amount of work that needs to be done, ISTM that this would help recruit people to the task; I also think it would be a good idea to provide a readily identifiable point of contact who has gained familiarity with the dab page in question. As for this being a violation of

WP:OWN, it's certainly no closer to that than Template:Maintained. I do agree that the template belongs on the talk page and not on the main page. --Tkynerd

23:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just adding my POV here: I don't think I, as an editor, would want to use a feature like that. Simply because I feel it puts too much "pressure" on me. I fix these pages occasionally, when I have time, and when I feel like it. I don't want to take any kind of "responsibility" for them, checking the pages I edited regularily. If I feel the need to periodically check a certain page, then I'll add it to my watchlist. So, I'm totally OK with this feature if it helps others, I'm not against it or something. It's just something that I wouldn't use... Darkstar 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad idea, IMO. Pages will be marked as having been adopted by well meaning editors, and then abandoned. People won't bother to disambiguate those pages, thinking that the task is in hand.

A better idea would be a link repair message/banner for article talk pages (because an awful lot of ambiguous terms don't even have dab pages) and dab main pages simply stating that links have been disambiguated, when, and, perhaps, to what extent. There's no point in putting anything on dab talk pages. No-one looks at dab talk pages. The average reader shouldn't ever have to see a dab main page. Most dab pages don't even have talk pages yet, and that's a good thing. TheMadBaron 23:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that no one looks at dab talk pages. I rather like the idea of a link repair banner, but it still seems to me that the dab pages themselves are where they ought to go. Dina 00:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nah. If you decide to "adopt" a page, then add it to your watch list and fix things as they come up. I don't see the point of posting your name to the talk page saying that you're doing this. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 00:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I really like your idea, Nehrams. I think it would help a lot. —EdGl 00:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good plan, Nehrams. It will help keep us on track too (I often start repairing links to a page, and then get distracted, so I think it's good incentive!) —

wreak havoc-damage report

00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)