Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 51

 Done Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

An article that been involved with (Rayan) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Rayan (disambiguation)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have raised a TfD for Template:Ambiguous episcopal titles and sees in England, which may interest members of this WikiProject. Certes (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Editors who watch this page may be interested in

Closed: no consensus to move. Certes (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Orthodox Christian redirects to Orthodoxy#Christianity. However, most of the time it is used as a hyperlink on WP to refer to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Members of both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which are two dirrerent churches, are called "Orthodox Christians". Therefore, I think Orthodox Christian should link to the disambiguation page Orthodox and that some users from this project should be disambiguating since it will now pe pointing to a DB page. What do you think? (Please ping me if you answer). Veverve (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:RFD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk

) 08:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Should someone perform a cleanup on Ook as I believe that one of the links features a profane name (includes f***). Although it is a specific name of something, which we can’t change I believe we should attempt to change it. I will not take action to remove it unless someone else does agree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.63.205 (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The listed use is ambiguous and appears to be supported by the linked article. The entry should not be removed or censored.—ShelfSkewed Talk

19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have requested at Talk:Tmolus#Requested move 28 March 2021 that several pages be moved and renamed. Comments and suggestions are very welcome at that discussion. Cnilep (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Please can someone with a clue about China look at new dab

I have moved the disambiguation page to a dab title, and restored the previous redirect. As long as

WP:CONPRIME. BD2412 T

21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be possible to have a bot identify cases where there is a primary topic article and a disambiguation page for that title, but the topic occupying the base page name is likely not the primary topic (e.g., that article is a stub and/or has relatively few pageviews relative to other topics sharing the name). BD2412 T 22:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

An interesting idea. I've done some manual work in that area but using incoming link counts rather than page views. There are areas of Wikipedia where an "honorary primary topic" was grandfathered in. Some have gone – it's now nearly five years since AD 1 was evicted from 1 – but others such as surname lists remain. Certes (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely a good idea. I come across obviously unsuitable primary topics all the time (fixing them has been a source of serendipitous joy, though I'm sure that if all of the remaining ones are compiled into the big, big list that they'll inevitably be, the more likely feeling would be not joy, but misery). We don't need an on-wiki bot for that, right? Someone can write a script that extracts the relevant data from the pageviews datasets, give us the list once and allow us to be busy with it for the rest of our lives. Anyway, what criteria can we use? Some conservative ones would look like:

1. All cases where article X receives less than 7x as many views as X (disambiguation)

2. All cases where Y is a primary redirect that receives less than 50% more views than Y (disambiguation).

And we can go further, and keep ourselves busy for the afterlife too, by querying the clisktream dataset for hatnote links that receive disproportionately high attention. – Uanfala (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

My thinking was more along the lines of a ratio of "primary topic" pageviews compared to collective pageviews for subjects listed on the disambiguation page. This might kick up quite a few false positives, but I feel like we can eliminate those fairly easily. BD2412 T 00:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Going down the stub rather than pageviews route, quarry:query/53646 suggests some candidates. Pageviews are harder; as far as I know they're only available as hourly dumps. MusikAnimal has a tool which uses the inputs we need to produce different outputs and may be adapatable. Certes (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@R'n'B: resident data genius, what do you think? BD2412 T 00:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Bluelink patrol

has done some work in this area. Good sources of bad links include:

• Widely linked pages with qualified titles "Foo (bar)", where Foo is not a dab and they don't redirect to each other. I don't have this automated but did a manual run a year ago to check and fix the usual suspects such as Family (biology) and Billboard (magazine), some of which we monitor daily
• The Suicide Squad
• Surnames where links are usually for one person (
  Schoenberg), company (Braun) or other topic (Wills is always will and testament
  )

– Certes (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• IMO plurals should always redirect to the DAB page, or be the DAB page basename. Certes knows about Eagles - few of whom play sport or have recorded songs. Narky Blert (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  Good point. Here is a partial list of ambiguous sports team names, mostly plurals. Certes (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• A related issue is
  problem
  . This is the converse. IMO there is far too much emphasis on saving a (possibly small) majority of readers one click at the expense of degrading the encyclopedia. I remonstrate in such RMs when I fall across them, but often in vain. Very often, PTOPIC tests #1 and #2 are treated as separate; whereas in my view they are cumulative.

Talk:Kai (entertainer, born 1994)#Merger proposal (which I found today, only because it turned up in DPwL) is a similar type of problem. I've seen John Doe (footballer) and John Doe (soccer); as if that qualifier was enough to distinguish players of a game which is known by one name in one half of the English-speaking world and by another in the other. </rant> Narky Blert (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in Template talk:Disambiguation page short description#Short?, which discusses changing the short description provided to monst dabs via templates such as {{Disambiguation}}. The SD currently reads Disambiguation page providing links to topics that could be referred to by the same search term. Certes (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe the disambig page

There are articles about two WW2-era antisemitic propaganda organizations, one based in Germany, one in

• the Nazi German agency Institut zur Erforschung der Judenfrage^[de] based in Frankfurt, which on en-wiki has the English title, Institute for Research on the Jewish Question; and
• the Paris-based agency in Occupied France, which goes by its French name on en-wiki: Institut d'étude des questions juives (in English: Institute for the Study of Jewish Questions, a redirect to the article).

The recently-created disambig page Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question is almost identical in name to the redirect, being singular instead of plural, and it lists just those two entries. I think that the hat notes at the two articles are sufficient, and optimal for user search and navigation. Having a disambig page at that title seems unhelpful, because the page name is an exact translation into English of the name of the Paris agency, with the exception of the '-s' at the end of Questions. Rather than becoming a disambig page, "Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question" should redirect to the article on the Paris-based article with the French name.

One goal in disambiguation or redirection I believe, is to get a user to the correct article as fast as possible, and imho, changing this page to a redirect saves one click most of the time (the French agency is better known), and is no worse (two clicks) the rest of the time. But I know there are some subtleties regarding disambiguation, so I thought I'd better ask here.

(P.S. There's an orthogonal problem which I don't think affects this question, but is worth mentioning just in case: I believe that the common name of the Paris agency in English books is in fact the English term, "Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question" (or, "Questions"), and the article ought to be moved to that title. But that is a separate issue from the disambig page question, and in any case would have to undergo an

• Keep: the two institutions have such similar names that either could be intended when a reader lands on this dab page, and page views since Dec 20 page move are very similar so neither is an obvious primary topic. There's probably scope to add several more variations as incoming redirects to the dab page, which could be intended for either organisation. The page history of the Nazi org shows the work done by Mathglot to disambiguate. This dab page serves a useful purpose. PamD 07:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps reconsider Ah, just realised Mathglot is the proponent of the deletion ... no time to look further and reconsider, need to go out now. PamD 07:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Until PamD reminded me of it, I had forgotten all about the section I wrote at Talk:Institute for Research on the Jewish Question#Disputed title; multiple orgs with similar names. Just to complicate things one click further, I'm copying the following entry from that discussion; this is also a possible entry for a disambig page, with the caveat that no English article exists yet for it, AND its English translation is an exact translation of the current disambig page, which however does not mention it:
  • de:Institut zum Studium der Judenfrage ("Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question") – an organization of the German state propaganda ministry under Goebbels; founded 1934.

I'm no longer sure what should be done here. Maybe we should keep the disambig page, rename it by adding '(disambiguation)' to the end of it, and add this org as a new entry. Per

ill}} to indicate the existing German article, which might spur someone to create it here. (Are you listening, User:Mathglot? This is up your alley for a translation, isn't it?) Note that the article Institute for Research on the Jewish Question already mentions this institute in plain text in paragraph two of the lead; all that is required to make a red link out of it, is to add square brackets. Mathglot (talk

) 06:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've got it squared away, now:

• the original disambig page is now moved to same name, + suffix: Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question (disambiguation)
• the original title (without
  WP:PARENDIS) is now a brand new stub about the 1934 German agency under Goebbels: Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question (a translation of part of the lead of de:Institut zum Studium der Judenfrage
  );
• the stub is now added to the d-page as the first entry on the page;

Some d-page entries may need to be beefed up (they're still confusingly similar) and other pages need {{About}} to link them to the disambig page. I think this should do it, but feedback appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's also redirect other attempts at an English translation of any of these confusingly similar titles (Institute for the Study of Jewish Questions, Institute for Study of the Jewish Question) to the dab. In particular, it seems wrong that Institute for Study of the Jewish Question redirects to Institute for Research on the Jewish Question when we have an article on a different organisation called Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question. The dab can also list near misses such as Institute for the Study and Elimination of Jewish Influence on German Church Life. Certes (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@

IEQJ; if they search for that, shouldn't we just redirect directly to it, instead of forcing them to go via the Disambig page? Besides the extra click, mightn't that even make things worse, confusing the reader by confronting them with a disambig page listing all those confusingly similar names, where no confusion existed in their mind before, when they were just reading the reference? If somehow it actually is the wrong article (let's say the book's author or translator got it wrong (!) ), then the hatnote at the top will take care of that. I just don't know if we should go first to the d-page; at least if they land on some real page, even the wrong one, there's both the hatnote, and they can read the lead paragraph or so to figure out if they're in the right place. Just not sure what is best here. Mathglot (talk

) 23:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Good point. If reliable sources tie an English-language name unambiguously to one organisation then we should point that name at its article. Maybe, in practice, only Institute for Study of the Jewish Question needs to redirect to the dab (or could even be its title). Certes (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Certes:, yes perhaps, but there may also be some preparatory (or follow-up) work involved, regarding in-links that are or were all over the map before this began to be addressed. This is described near the bottom of this discussion. I definitely think we're making progress and getting closer to getting it right, but there's no doubt it's been confusing, and remains so in part, and one has to tread carefully. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Just started to look at in-links; I've checked two so far, and they both got trapped by the confusion, and were wrong. They are now fixed. The very first one is Hans F. K. Günther, and was fixed in this edit. The second one is the Reichsleiter Rosenberg Taskforce, fixed in this edit. I suspect there may be more articles pointing to the wrong target if linked, or simply using the wrong words in plain text, as the Günther article did, reflecting the confusion we've described above. Mathglot (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Same at Alfred Rosenberg; that's 3 checked, 3 wrong. Stopping for now. Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, links need to be sorted out. It's tempting to do that now but we can do a better job once we're sure what the articles will be called. Certes (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there's two different kinds of sorting out that needs to be done; getting the names right is one of them, and I think we're there or mostly there now, and the other is linking to the right "concept", irrespective of the name of the article. Given that the three articles I checked had links in them pointing to the wrong article (that is to say, the wrong concept; e.g., meaning to point to the Rosenberg-1934-Frankfurt org article, but pointing to the Goebbels-1939 one instead), I think it's more important to fix them so they point to the right place. If the name changes later, a move-redirect will track it to the right target. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the links are more important, but they can't sensibly be fixed until we're confident that the titles won't change, so we have to do the less important job first. Certes (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot: As long as each meaning has a different title, and all links are fixed to point to the current title of their intended target subject, then any later decision to change the name of one or more articles can easily be sorted out by Moving articles and letting double redirects convert to single redirects. PamD 12:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Would another editor please have a look at Dry hole. My cleanup tag was removed despite 2 of the 3 entries leading to articles that don't mention the term. You'd need to be aware of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Dry Hole. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The page could be deleted, but I guess it doesn't hurt much. In the meantime I changed the first entry to link to where the term is mentioned, however briefly. Station1 (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The removal of the bizarre cleanup tag was explained at Talk:Dry hole. – Uanfala (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The cleanup tag, applied by me because 2 of the 3 entries fail

MOS:DABMENTION, was not "bizarre". Ultimately, it's about WP:Verifiability. We cant just override policy with it's obvious. Shhhnotsoloud (talk

) 11:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried to verify those two uses and failed? For me, both meanings are given by the dictionary that's the very first result when I google the terms. How much easier could it possibly get? You

WP:V always trump the minor style guidelines that recommend against refs on dabs?). – Uanfala (talk)

12:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No, if it is so common, it should be uncontroversial to add something to an appropriate target article that satisfies

WP:DABMENTION. The onus for ensuring the entries satisfy criteria rests with those wanting to include entry. Else it is nothing more than a dictionary definition. older ≠ wiser

12:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that linked articles

Business venture have no significant information on literal or metaphorical dry holes. Hydrocarbon exploration#Terms used in petroleum evaluation and Business failure might just qualify as reasonable targets. Certes (talk

) 13:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Oil well#Abandonment is the relevant section, but as for metaphorical ones – yeah, Business failure seems like the better place to link. – Uanfala (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Can "dry hole" describe an abandoned well, or only a site which never produced oil? Certes (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, good point. So, this particular section may not necessarily be relevant in that case, which means the link should just go to the article, as it currently does, and not this section. I don't think retargeting to the glossary is going to be of much of use to readers – the information it contains is more or less equivalent to what is already present in the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It's rare for an abandoned well to be actually dry: production ceases when remaining reserves are economical to exploit. It may even reopen if prices rise, taxes fall, new technology makes extraction easier or politics cut off alternative supplies. Certes (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm ignorant, (having been on WP for 11 years perhaps I should know), but aren't dab pages supposed to avoid the use of

• Going through a redirect, which makes it clear why the term is in the dab page, is fine; it's not the same as piping. (If the link had been input as [[Patient zero (medical science)|Patient zero]], that would have been piping.) PamD 09:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I actually meant redirects, not piping. :-/
Is my sentence 'structure':

"The index case, the first documented patient in a disease epidemic within a population, colloquially known as 'patient zero'.",

not appropriate for a dab page named '

Patient zero

'? If so, is:

" 'Patient zero' is a colloquial term for the index case, the first documented patient in a disease epidemic within a population.",

any better? Just wondering. Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 07:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The page now has

a RM discussion

. If the proposed move does not occur then I like the current dab entry:

• Patient zero (medical science)
  , or the index case, the first documented patient in a disease epidemic within a population

There's nothing wrong with using a (non-piped) redirect here, and it clarifies why the meaning is listed in a way that index case wouldn't. Certes (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is

MOS:DABREDIR.—Bagumba (talk

) 10:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I would welcome some help with improving disambiguation page Bagha. Its history shows varying views as to what should be included. Certes (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting a discussion at its talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Done; Talk:Bagha#Page contents open for comments. Certes (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I made what I thought was a helpful improvement to the Scion page (although was a bit unsure about phrasing and formatting given the meanings), which was reverted by an experienced DAB editor. To my eye, the way it is at the moment is not helpful to the reader who is looking for the actual meaning(s) of the word. Unfortunately "Descendant" leads to another DAB page, but the botanical/horticultural usage is listed far down the page under "Other uses". I am aware of the Wiktionary box on the right, but it is not highly visible and the casual reader could easily miss this. Could the botanical use (which is fairly well known, and many dictionaries give this meaning first) not be used as the primary topic, and/or descendant/heir not be somehow explained near the top within the rules of a DAB page? Wikipedia rules should not be an obstacle to helping finding information, surely? I just cannot see why fictional entities and brand names get precedence over a perfectly common use of the word. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If there's a lexical meaning that's common to most entries on the dab page, and if it's likely it won't be known to some readers, then it's usually helpful to include a brief definition on the first line of the dab page, as you have done. That's the 'heir' meaning, but I won't object if the grafting one is included as well. – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: The reality is that the horticultural use is nowhere near being a primary topic by usage (see [5]). Entries on disambiguation pages are organised, not prioritised, unless there's a good case for putting a common use at the top. In this encyclopeadia (as you've probably noticed!) it's very common for fictional entities and brand names to get much more traffic than common use of the word: after all, it's not a dictionary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Organization is based on

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, consensus could be to place a few main usages on top. It's not clear if the grafting one is one of them. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so listing its common definition(s) is not directly a consideration for dabs.—Bagumba (talk

) 11:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Are set indices in the scope of this project? I assumed so as they are mentioned on its main page and they often contain "(disambiguation)" in their title as well, but then I found someone who removed the talk page banner and wasn't sure. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:PROD) Cyclone Hamish (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk

) 07:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; I nominated the page per

WP:ONEOTHER. Looking at Category:Set indices on storms, there is a set of pages using "List of", but quite a few is using "(disambiguation)" as well. Should they be renamed? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk

) 07:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The advice in WP:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Storm set index articles matches our own practices: with two topics, one being primary, no list or dab is needed. Where the secondary topic does not have its own article, that link advises a hatnote to its mention, but gives the example of Hurricane Andrew which lacks one. Certes (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Certes Thanks for the link. This seems to support my proposed renaming. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Other recent discussions:

Talk:Tropical Storm Abby#Requested move 13 February 2021 Certes (talk

) 20:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Album Himno de mi corazón is listed in

MALPLACED. Certes (talk

) 13:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Simply delete the "dab page" and move

Vasos y besos (album) to Vasos y besos. - Station1 (talk

) 15:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume that simply deleting the dab page is a CSD process that can be done by an Admin, after which moving the titles should be pretty basic. I'll leave the procedure to you guys. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If you think it's controversial then start a

WP:RMTR. Either way there's no need to ask for the dab to be deleted explicitly; it will go as part of the album article move. Certes (talk

) 17:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Your disambiguation page for `Ruth Allen` does not have an entry for the artist `Ruth Allen`. Please create the wikipedia page for her and fix the disambiguation page.91.240.227.220 (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't really the right venue for this request. You could try listing the subject at

notability guidelines. Colin M (talk

) 14:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed links from Alba (disambiguation) and was reverted.

This also implies a question as to whether dab pages like A. alba and similar should exist. I'm pretty sure it was agreed that they shouldn't, and that List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names does the job better.

Any thoughts? (@YorkshireExpat: for info.) PamD 17:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:DAB or somewhere please? YorkshireExpat (talk

) 17:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the acid test is

MOS:DABNOENTRY: "On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name ... This does not apply if the subject is commonly referred to simply by Title." So, is Barn owl, Tyto alba, the common barn owl commonly known as "Alba": definitely not. Is Isotheca alba, a species of flowering plants belonging to the family Acanthaceae commonly known as "Alba": probably not. Is Alba, a cultivar of Bergenia stracheyi commonly known as "Alba": probably yes ('Alba' there needs single quotes). As for Canadensis, that's an abomination, and should be reduced to two entries—Canadensis, Pennsylvania and List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. Shhhnotsoloud (talk

) 18:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: Thanks for that. How do you feel about List_of_species_named_simplex? Should a similar thing be done with Canadensis? It's the lack of consistency that troubles me. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@YorkshireExpat: List articles and disambiguation pages are different. Actually a good solution would be to move the binomial species entries from the disambiguation page to a new article List of species named canadensis, and leave the disambiguation page with 2 entries—Canadensis, Pennsylvania and List of species named canadensis. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed previously at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_53#Specific_epithets, and Talk:Tristis is apparently where these started. There doesn't seem to be consensus in the last discussion against abbreviation dabs such as A. alba, but I'm not in favor of them. C. elegans (disambiguation) is illustrative of what a "complete" abbreviation dab page might look like. Plantdrew (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

1977 college football season used to redirect to 1977 NCAA Division I football season as Primary Target where there is a hatnote pointing to the dab 1977 college football season (disambiguation). Today, it was turned into a duplicate dab. I reverted this once, and now have been reverted to "be consistent with other season". The current state with two dabs is certainly wrong, but I haven't looked at "other seasons". If someone wants to look into this further... MB 22:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As for consistency, 1978 college football season is a dab, but 1976 college football season was a redirect until today. BD2412 moved the 1977 dab a couple of years ago as a "better solution", so may understand the problem better than I do. Of course, if the dab should live at the base name then we should move it there rather than duplicating it. Certes (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I would contend that the clear primary topic for any college football seasons across multiple divisions will be the NCAA Division I, which is the one with all the ranked teams and bowl games. BD2412 T 00:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like UW Dawgs created many of these dabs today, replacing redirects to the NCAA Division I (for years after 1972). Before 1973, there was NCAA University Division and NCSS College Division and the redirect was to the University Division. MB 01:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CFB project has YYYY content and articles which span all all leagues and divisions of football. In such cases, being able to link to "YYYY college football season" which renders as a DAB is preferable. That general behavior and consistency serves readers and editors in my view. Understood that "foo" and "foo (disambiguate)" are in play as well. UW Dawgs (talk

) 01:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

About 80% of the links to DABs are now resolved.[6] There are 140 remaining articles which create 1 or more link to a DAB. Almost none of remaining links should ever point to the former target at the "top" level of NCAA. We've sort of hit the wall on easy/recent and the remaining inbound DAB links are from older seasons in lower leagues with more obscure teams where something like ESPN College Football Encyclopedia may be helpful. Certainly some of these can be delinked where appropriate, but the remain progress will be much slower. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• The reason why several non-regulars of this WikiProject (I think I'm the third) have joined this discussion is the number of links which were broken by the changes and need to be fixed manually. Of the original 2000+, several hundred remain; see the current report by
  WP:FIXDABLINKS. Narky Blert (talk
  ) 06:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• @
  Template:Infobox NCAA football yearly game. For years 1956 through 1972, by default this should point to "XXXX NCAA University Division football season" and for years 1973 to 1977 to "XXXX NCAA Division I football season". We also need to add division field, so when needed these infoboxes can point to lower division, e.g. in the case of 1972 Grantland Rice Bowl, the infobox should point to 1972 NCAA College Division football season. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk
  ) 13:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Same thematic issue flagged at Template talk:Infobox NCAA football yearly game#Extend YYYY / NCAA level logic. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Jweiss11, I think I fixed it and I added an optional division parameter. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Frietjes, everything looks great. Thanks for your work here! Jweiss11 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Some help at Talk:Great Western Railway (disambiguation)#Primary topic would be appreciated please. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Dispenser's Dabfix working for anyone? With https://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/view/Dabfix, the page won't load and I get the message "Secure Connection Failed". With http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/view/Dabfix, it will load the page but any search results in "A problem occurred in a Python script". Do I need to work on my browser settings or is this a problem with the current script? Leschnei (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Dabfix is broken, probably because it has not been maintained since the databases it uses moved earlier this year. None of Dispenser's tools work under https:, because the certificate relates to the domain name rather than the IP address. (You may be able to get round this by using a local hosts file pointing dispenser.info.tm at 69.142.160.183.) Most other tools work using http: and the IP address. Certes (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. Leschnei (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Recently,

Agreed, and it needs to be split, with Model, Colorado etc. moving to Model (disambiguation). Certes (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I have split it between Model and Model (disambiguation), but it needs some work. BD2412 T 20:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little dubious as to whether this is the primary topic. I predict that a month from now, it will have accumulated a bunch of bad incoming links (especially ones intended for model (person)). I agree that the earlier version of the dab page was off-model with respect to MOS, but I'm not sure this is the best solution. Colin M (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say that model (person) is just one specialized instance of a model-as-representation. However, it is possible that there was a missing broad concept article for the general meaning of model which is still not itself the primary topic of the term. BD2412 T 06:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I could support a move Model → Model (representation) and Model (disambiguation) → Model but I'm more reluctant than most to put a borderline primary topic at the base name. I'll monitor incoming links and report back. Certes (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I caught my first new model! Certes (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

New links seem to be exclusively for Model (person). (Today's crop.) We could almost get a bot to fix these as they appear, in the same way that songs with a genre of Soul, Country, etc. get fixed to Soul music or Country music. Certes (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that the fix for most cases of Model (person) is to unlink. When describing a person as a model, this is a common word that is understood by most and should not be linked. MB 16:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we improve the hatnote on Model (person)? Model (art) is also a person (as was Abram Model, though no one will seek him at that title). Certes (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted edits to Tarazi twice in the past 24 hours, and don't want to run afoul of edit-warring rules. Attention from contributors to the project would be welcome.

User:Leschnei cleaned up the DAB in May, removing details about the surname and an external link. W7d3rb (talk · contribs) reverted that edit. Eventually Leschnei added a {{dab-cleanup}} tag, and I cleaned up the page again last week. That was reverted by an anonymous user, then restored by me, and then again reverted by W7d3rb.

I moved the non-DAB content to

Cnilep, I hope your changes stick this time. Like you, I backed off of this page for a while because I didn't want to engage in edit warring. Thanks for your efforts. Leschnei (talk

) 11:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Could someone sort this out, please? There been a strange history here (read Talk:Gubbi Gubbi people for some context), but I am fairly certain that there is no primary topic for the term "Kabi" and that the DAB page should be moved there. — Goszei (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:RM#TR if the existing redirect blocks you from doing so. —Bagumba (talk

) 09:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Anybody here willing to take a look at the discussion here, Talk:Baten Kaitos#Redirect Baten Kaitos, and close it. It's wildly in favor of a dab page, with only one editor objecting. Skyerise (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Disappointed#Requested move 22 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk

) 18:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Software changes to reduce the number of unwanted dabs links created

Following my proposal in the community wish list, which got the second highest number of votes, the community tech team have started to consider this at meta:Community Tech/Warn when linking to disambiguation pages & some discussion has stared on the talk page there. Interested editors (especially those with more technical knowledge than me), may want to get involved so that whatever solution is developed helps to reduce the number of unwanted dab links created.— Rod ^talk 20:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Change from set index to DAB?

I've just noticed that Marika appears to have been created as a set index page, and includes various name categories, but is now effectively a DAB page. I'm not sure what to do about this - can someone please advise? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the non-name entries to Marika (disambiguation) which I've convertted to a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. There has been no showing of an absence of a primary topic, that being the name. BD2412 T 16:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud, that's better. I'm thinking that perhaps the Polish singer with the single name Marika belongs on the name page, or both pages? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The seven incoming links were all for different topics, including three different singers performing under the mononym "Marika". I've added a hatnote to

partially disambiguated title to the not-a-dab Marika. Certes (talk

) 00:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Certes. I'll leave others more experienced in DAB matters to opine on that one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally there is an entry for people who use a mononym at both the disambiguation page and the name page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Morning Star ceremony

I have another question - what to do about the

Morning Star ceremony, listed on the Morning Star DAB page and targeting a section within Pawnee mythology, about an historical ceremony. The Yolngu Morning Star ceremony (variously spelt with and without capitalised C) is a hugely important and ongoing Aboriginal ceremony, which is often represented in art. There are 7 incoming links to the Pawnee redirect. I would like to have an R to section redirect for the Australian one. Any advice? Laterthanyouthink (talk

) 05:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:RfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk

) 06:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Shhhnotsoloud. I ended up shuffling the DAB entries a bit and playing around with the order, in order to get the two ceremonies together... Is that acceptable? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple dabs on New York City Subway stations

Could anyone help and advise on the table containing multiple links to dab pages on New York City Subway stations in the section headed Stations with the same name. Some of these dab pages just include stations on the NY subway but many include links to other things (eg The dab page for Third Avenue includes a band and an album) or articles about other cities (eg Canal Street includes places in the UK, an album and a jazz festival in Norway) - I am not sure how useful this is to readers. I have started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:New York City Subway stations#Stations with the same name and would welcome your comments.— Rod ^talk 14:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Witt

WP:INTDAB suggests a link via Witt (disambiguation), but that is felt to be inappropriate here. What changes should we make? Certes (talk

) 10:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not just move the list of people out of the dab and into a new Witt (surname)? With about 40 entries, it's pretty long already. – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing for a long time: splitting surname from dab. But I have only so many fingers. For example, yesterday for several hours I wikignomed over my new template {{abraham-name}}, surprisingly many of them. Pages like XX (surname) have many advantages for my work, even if they are redirects. if they have problems for bots, they must be excluded from bot processing. As a programmer I am thoroughly surprized this is a difficulty to add 2-3 lines into the code of the bot to skip articles with titles of particular format. I disagree with the idea that a bot has precedence over a human. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree with creating a Witt (surname) article. That would cause no problems for the bot or us: deliberate links to the surname will go to the new article, they won't need to be fixed, and bots won't report them because it's not a dab. The problem only arises when XX (surname) redirects to a disambiguation page and articles link via that redirect.

More generally, we need the bot to report links to lists of topics which should instead lead to a specific topic. Suppressing reports of genuine errors isn't a fix. Apart from other surname pages and their templates, almost nothing links deliberately to a surname; incoming links are usually mistakes. Last year I fixed about 5,000 errors of this type (for example, over 100 links to

not the only editor working in that area. A previous project fixed 1,500 in taxonomy articles alone (insects discovered by Johnson, etc.) Edits like this come in daily. (Nassar should be Nassar (actor) in this case.) We can help fix them, but only if we can find them using a report without too many false positives. Certes (talk

) 17:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Split done. Thanks for the suggestion. Certes (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan: I've produced Quarry:query/57256 in case it's useful. It lists the dabs which link to the most people and at least 10 non-people, though those links aren't always dab entries. ("John Doe, contestant in Mr. Ruritania 1983" counts as a non-person link.) Certes (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ceretes: I don't quite understand. YOu have "Jiří 112 22" I dont' see in Jiří and "what links to Jiri" neither 112 nor 22. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Manu (bird), Manu (film), Manu Temple, etc.): more than enough to support a dab with a single entry for the name. Certes (talk

) 01:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Nonce

There are a number of editors who'd like to add a prominent slang meaning to this DAB, despite it not appearing on the target article. My kneejerk reaction was "no", but maybe this is a special case. At any rate, it would be good to see more opinions on there from those with disambiguation experience. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting disambiguation: Al-Ashraf

I think a disambiguation should be created for the name Al-Ashraf as there many articles that start with it. Currently Al-Ashraf points to Al-Ashraf Musa, Emir of Damascus but maybe should point to Al-Ashraf Musa (which is itself another disambiguation). I am making the request here because I do not know how to proceed. I have several questions, (1) should Al Ashraf the city be included in the disambiguation? If so, should Al Ashraf be the common name for the disambiguation or should we use Al Ashraf (Disambiguation)? The village is not so notable. (2) Does Al-Ashraf Musa, Emir of Damascus need to keep that redirect from Al-Ashraf? (3) Finally, should Al-Ashraf Musa be just a redirect to Al-Ashraf (Disambiguation)? --ReyHahn (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just make a disambiguation page at

No such user (talk

) 10:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Wow, you discovered just a tip of the Iceberg. I filled

No such user (talk

) 11:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

In this case this Al-Ashraf Musa appears to be the main topic, and you should have followed the guideline

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, i.e., Al-Ashraf must redirect to him and Al-Ashraf Musa, Emir of Damascus must have a natnote {{redirect}}. Lembit Staan (talk

) 16:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

... OR maybe not. SUltan of Egypt is quite notable as well. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

To me both are important on the same grounds. Yet all Al Ashraf articles are still stub of start class.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

For posterity: I did consider whether the Emir of Damascus is the primary topic, but in the end it did not seem to be the case. He is certainly well attested in the historical records of his era (and consequently linked from a number of our articles), but 40-odd links is not an overwhelming number, and his

No such user (talk

) 14:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Primary topic of brave?

The DAB page at brave currently says that Brave most commonly refers to:

• Brave, an adjective for one who possesses courage
• Braves (Native Americans)
  , Native American warriors

I think it is quite a stretch to say that it "commonly" refers to the Native American warriors, considering how few page views it gets and the fact that this sense is labeled as "dated" in Wiktionary and other sources. I, for one, can't recall the last time I heard this usage. This makes me want to say it should not be listed at the very top, but I am not the most familiar with DAB pages and I notice that long-term significance is an important factor. In that regard, this sense may possibly be more significant that the more popular Brave articles: the

talk · contribs

) 00:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's common compared to Brave (1994 film) or Brave (Joyryde album). Many readers will have learnt that Wikipedia articles rarely use adjectives as titles, so warriors are probably not far behind courage as the topic most likely to be sought. Certes (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "[M]ost commonly refers" is definitely original research, which has no place anywhere in wikipedia. @
  cn}}, because there is not a single ref that attests this usage. Even there was, it is thoroughly dated and definitely cannot be "most common" even compared to web browser. I feel that the correct title would be Warriors of the North American Native Americans or something like that. Lembit Staan (talk
  ) 01:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Therefore I would write the first sentence as "Brave is an adjective referring to bravery or courage" -- and move warriors elsewhere. Lembit Staan (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Am aware that at least is Slavic languages there is a common practice to call categories of elite warriors by some synonyms of "braves" "courageous", and there is a vice-versa linguistic process:

Fenimore Cooper used the term "the braves"; but I was reading this stuff 60 years ago :-). Lembit Staan (talk

) 01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DABCOMMON

says:

"In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below. See Mojave or Mercury for examples of this."

The examples currently say "most often refers to". Disambiguation pages are not articles and don't have references. I think it's OK for a disambiguation page to say "most often/commonly refers to", but common sense and often page views should be used.

Braves redirects there and few people will search it as "Brave". If there is a "most often" part then it should list Courage, Brave (web browser) and Brave (2012 film). Courage has much fewer views but "brave" very often refers to it in English. It's just not something many people read about in an encyclopedia. PrimeHunter (talk

) 02:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Respectfully, objection. References, no references, but all information in Wikipedia is subject to
  WP:V
  . If there is no ref, just don't use this expression at all. If there are "unclassified" items on top, this is a wikipedians' decision, and in fact it is.
• My common sense tells me that only overwhelmingly more common usage must be on top. The rest must be in "classifieds".
• We do have disambig pages with many adjectives or verbs, especially when math/physics or other science is involved, e.g. smooth. However this is not the case, and I am repeating my suggection to treat courage as a dicdef for "brave", rathwer than a separate independent item, because it is the base meaning of all listed meanings. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• I would make
  bravery. BD2412 T
  04:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree: few readers will look up an adjective in an encyclopedia, so the reader searching for "brave" is unlikely to be using the adjectival sense of it. In everyday conversation the most common use of "brave" is probably the synonym for "courageous", but Primary Topic reflects what a reader is likely to be looking for in the encyclopedia. PamD 06:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Seconded: in WP, to ease the navigation, the "primary topic" is what is commonly searched, not commonly used.

Indeed. See Large. Certes (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to split the dab page into
  No such user (talk
  ) 07:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  I support that, though the warriors are one of the few topics which should appear on both pages, perhaps via redirect

  Brave (Native American). Certes (talk

  ) 09:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's the clickstream data for the dab page for March, effectively showing how many times each link on the dab page was followed (ignoring links with fewer than 10 hits for the month):

Brave   Courage                 link    36
Brave   The_Brave_(TV_series)   link    72
Brave   The_Brave_(film)        link    99
Brave   Braves_(Native_Americans)       link    123
Brave   Hyphen-minus    other   13
Brave   Brave_(1994_film)       link    40
Brave   Brave_(web_browser)     link    789
Brave   Brave_(Marillion_album) link    25
Brave   Brave_(Sara_Bareilles_song)     link    46
Brave   Brave_(2012_film)       link    853
Brave   Brave_(2014_film)       link    17

Some conclusions that can be drawn from here: the "most commonly refers to" section at the top should probably be changed; a primary topic for Courage is likely to be of use to a vanishingly small proportion of readers; and there is a case for the redirect Brave (film) to be retargeted away from the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Another way is to add supersections "Brave" and "Braves" into [Brave] dab, to simplify navigation. It is inconvenient to jump across pages, esp. in mobile device browsers, which, as I see are very commonly used today. BTW, can we get stats for this, similar to the above?

This resectioning can be done right now, without disrupting the current discussion, what do you think? Lembit Staan (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

What stats do you refer to? The familiar aggregate pageviews [7] can be broken down by desktop and mobile (just select "Platform" from the options on the right left hand side), but that's probably not what you had in mind. – Uanfala (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I exactly had in mind, thx for the hint. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sunday Sun (song)

What should we do with Sunday Sun (song)? Redirecting to a set index of newspapers (with a couple of musical interludes) doesn't seem ideal. Redirects Sunday Sun (Beck song) and Sunday Sun (Neil Diamond song) exist. I've fixed the sole incoming link. Certes (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a set index anymore. Problem solved.
<rant> I've never understood the purpose of

No such user (talk

) 14:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've dabified the page. Set indices may have their place when the existence of something that doesn't merit an article is notable, but 0% of links to "[The] Sunday Sun" will refer to all papers and songs of that title collectively. Also, the <rant> tag is going on my wishlist. Certes (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@

No such user: If I am not mistaken, SIA pages were first suggested for long lists of minor villages with "typical names", some of which pop up in wikipedia articles, but nobody knows where the are. per WP:DAB they cannot be listed in the disambig pages, but such lists are useful for information search. A bit later they found their usage for minor ships with same names (or vice versa). Lembit Staan (talk

) 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

So typically, rather than adapting the rules for certain kinds of disambiguation pages and/or their entries, Wikipedians invented a whole new class of articles with their own set of rules. Including silly ones such as permitting links to SIAs (who would ever want to do that?); or disallowing creation of {{

No such user (talk

) 07:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Given enough people, we'd review and divert all links to SIAs.

Ministry of Defence, and fixing them as they arise. However, there simply isn't enough labour available to mend them all. Certes (talk

) 08:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is there are a HUGE number of pages in, e.g,

WP:NGEO: merge smaller geographilac features into a larger one, so that in the given example Bely, Russia, for an item "*Bely, Krasnodar Krai, a khutor in Temryuksky District of Krasnodar Krai", create a list of populated places in Temryuksky District and list khutor Bely in it, turning the redlink into a redirect. However when I tries to do this for Bely, Russia, I immediately run into a major problem which plagues nearly all Russia SIA articles: violatiolation of WP:Verifiability

: I cannt add Bely into Temryuksky simply because I have no idea if it exists.

Therefore I am inclined to nuke 'em all and mercilessly delete all redlinks not backlinked in wikipedia. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ezhiki: As I see, you seem to have created many of these. What's your say? Especially in the issue of verifiability. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Every single entry you'll see on those pages is verifiable. The project is work in progress, so some pages are better developed than others. The ultimate goal was to bring all SIAs to the quality of Alexandrovka, Russia, where each section is referenced to a source, and each entry can additionally be verified via the supplied coordinates. Nuking all this work because we don't have manpower to continue the project would be counterproductive beyond measure.

I'm happy to reference any individual page where valid concerns exists (some may very well be out of date; it's been a while), but in the past few years I had no time to devote to this project for real-life reasons, so I simply cannot magically fix it all overnight in bulk. Few others are interested in this (very highly specialized) topic. That in no way invalidates the groundwork laid so far; the topic is without doubt encyclopedic and should be covered. Eventually everything will be up to snuff, and since Wikipedia

is not on any kind of deadline, that "eventually" might very well happen to be beyond both of our life spans (Russia, as you might be aware, is a somewhat large country, with a lot of poorly covered geography). If we start going around nuking unfinished work because we don't know how to handle it, that's like shooting ourselves in the foot. Let's maybe find a more productive way to deal with it. Stuff is easy to organize when all the links are blue, but the caveat is that sometimes you have to resort to things like SIA in order to know where to even start painting the seas of red.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?

); August 5, 2021; 22:35 (UTC)

My main concern is that someone editing an article such as Second Battle of Kharkov will add a link to Alexandrovka, Russia and feel that their work is done. DPL bot won't prompt the editor to be more precise, because the link leads to an article rather than a dab. Certes (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly be against nuking those – these lists are carefully curated and perhaps even more useful than the typical village substubs. But I would like to treat them as (equivalent of) disambiguation pages, with DPL bot preventing linking to them except via (disambiguation) redirects. Can anyone point me to the RfC concerning mandatory (?) creation of those redirects, if you know what I mean? It was about a year ago and I saw it in passing, but it failed and I did not even !vote on it, and I don't even know where to look (Village pump, wikipedia talk).

No such user (talk

) 09:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"Carefully curated" is false statement: most of them are unreferenced. All info in WP must be verifiable, and obscure things, such as Russian manors (khutors, most certainly must be referenced, and this concerns lists and other "non-article" mainspace pages. Sure, I trust Ëzhiki he knows Russia, but suppose he makes a typo or cut-and-paste error... Lembit Staan (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Set indices on ships isn't limited to minor ships; all the ships named HMS Ark Royal were large, and several are distinctly famous.

I don't think I've looked at a single page of the 1,975 in Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia which did not have at least one ambiguous in-link - and I've only looked at one when trying to find a clue to solving a nearby DABfixing problem. (Russian WP badly underlinks placenames, and is rarely an immediate help.) Iran is another country notorious for recycling place names, see e.g. Saadatabad, and manages perfectly well with {{geodis}} pages. Narky Blert (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Chris Baker and Christopher Baker

The disambiguation page for Chris Baker/Christopher Baker has gotten lost in some recent edits - I made some feeble attempts to fix the situation, got confused, and came here for assistance. I'm not sure if the DAB page should be at Chris Baker or Christopher Baker, but they both currently redirect to Christopher R. Baker. Leschnei (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, not all people who go by Chris are actually called Christopher. So I reckon we either need both, or just Chris. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This seems to have happened:

• Ragnarok861 moved dab Christopher Baker to Christopher R. Baker
• Ragnarok overwrote the dab with a new biography
• EmausBot retargeted Chris Baker from Christopher Baker to Christopher R. Baker to "fix" the double redirect

Now we need to:

• Revert the overwriting of the dab by the biography
• Revert the move, taking the dab back to Christopher Baker
• Revert the bot edit, retargeting Chris Baker to Christopher Baker again
• Either restore Christopher R. Baker as a new page or delete it if not notable
  • Since it is an obvious work in progress, it must be restored into the draft space. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That will need an admin's help. Certes (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I second that. Now, what kind of admin request this would be? It involves two Admin actions: splitting page history so that the top part of it goes into draft space and revert of the move. I will try

WP:ANI#Help undo a complicated messing with a disambig page by a noob, to see if anyone is willing to lend a hand or to give an advice. Lembit Staan (talk

) 23:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Relatively straightforward. Dab page back where it was, redirect retargeted, and new edits moved to draftspace. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Leschnei (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

DAB pages with (qualified) titles

The bot which populates Category:Disambiguation pages with (qualified) titles picks up {{dab}} pages (e.g. Chemistry (journal)), but not {{hndis}} (e.g. Celia (footballer), which I've just categorised manually). Narky Blert (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hootenanny

There is a merge discussion on Hootenanny that could use some eyes. How often do you get to work on such a fun word? Leschnei (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Tiberius Claudius Nero

This article had a Short Description that said it was a DAB, but wasn't tagged as such and had a comment that said it wasn't (apparently so it didn't have to follow

*Treker:. MB

14:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• The editspace comment about it not being formally a DAB was because an editor a decade ago tried to turn this into a prosopographical list by adding more comments and some sources. This was unnecessary, since the previous revision added nothing which the individual articles alone did not already cover, and ambiguous titles should by all rights have a corresponding dab page. The non-linked entries are already covered
  Avilich (talk
  ) 15:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Looks like a standard hndis to me, though I'd add at least a "See also" link to
  DABMENTIONs of other meanings of the title. Certes (talk
  ) 16:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• I endorse Avilich's action in turning this into an hndis page; and the similar action on Lucius Julius Caesar (which resulted in an article), and any similar cleanup. Many Roman gentes were praenominally-challenged, choosing from only half-a-dozen, to the confusion of historians. The place to sort that out is on the page about the gens.

BTW, does anyone know how to edit a Central description? The one on Lucius Julius Caesar (proquaestor) is hopelessly wrong - he was about a fourth cousin of Mark Antony, and was a first cousin once removed of Julius Caesar. i doubt whether even the latter would be a worthwhile description; "follower of Pompey" would be better. Narky Blert (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to edit on Wikidata, but the central description of him there is actually correct

Avilich (talk

) 18:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hebrew (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hebrew (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wheat gluten#Requested move 6 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wheat gluten#Requested move 6 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)