Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation Information & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation Links at HealthHaven.com

Shortcuts: WT:WPDIS WT:WPDAB

For discussion related to disambiguation on Wikipedia but not to the project, please see the Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation (general disambiguation) or the Manual of Style (specific style questions).

edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation:
On the disambiguation page for "David Goodman". The David Goodman who writes for Mother Jones should be included. (Brother of Amy Goodman.)209.216.179.131 (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Guideline (talk)
Style guide (talk)
WikiProject (talk)

Dos and don'ts

Disambig category
Cleanup category

CJKV task force
Suggestions

[edit] Proposed reorganisation of Stifford pages

I propose the following reorganisation. The current disambiguation page for Stifford would become an article and would incorporate the text from the current articles on North Stifford and South Stifford. The North and South Stifford pages would become redirects to the new article. I will hold for a while to allow time for comments. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of things described as pied

Your input is requested at a deletion discussion here. Neelix (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

List of things described as pied was deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Roch (disambiguation)

There seems to be a need for a disambiguation page for Roch and St. Roch (in fact I can't believe there wasn't one - maybe it got lost in the history somewhere). I've started such a page at Roch (disambiguation), but don't have time to complete it now, so if anyone feels like assisting... --Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a rapid response! Nice work, people :) --Kotniski (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AFD about a disambiguation page

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Norwich. doncram (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic

I notice Gothic was recently changed from a dab page to a wide ranging article. Obviously none of the disambiguation tools now work on 'Gothic'. William Avery (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Restored. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have to get back to work then. William Avery (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{dn}} to link to [[example (dn)|]], which redirects to [[example]]?

I've been working on Skating and discovered that a large number of the links require expert knowledge from the article author to disambiguate. I've placed {{dn}} templates in the past, but it's always hard to tell by looking at a list which articles have been {{dn}} tagged and which are potentially fixable by someone without expert knowledge. I'm suggesting, without having thought this all the way through, that tagged links get changed to [[example (dn)|]]{{dn}}, which redirects to [[example]].

In advance, I'd like to say I don't like the form of {{dn|linkname}}, because links in templates make it really hard to find them, and templates are too "advanced" for casual editors to understand (and thus fix the broken dab link).

Now, on the downside, there'd be a bunch of pages pointing at [[example (dn)|]], and once they're all gone you've got this crazy redirect - but redirects are cheap. A problem I can see is that if one disambiguator can't figure out what [[example]] is meant to dab to, it doesn't mean another will. You could go crazy nuts, and dump it in a link to [[example (dn biology)|]] meaning that someone who knows a bit about biology would be able to dab this particular link, but where do you stop?

What say you? Josh Parris 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This scheme appears to have some advantages although I wouldn't say I'm a supporter as yet. This would need widespread community consensus and knowledge amongst editors to work as its impact would be right across Wikipedia. Another thing I have seen done is deliberately linking to term (disambiguation) and using {{dn}}. This distinguishes it from lazy linking to a DAB page. Sometimes when disambiguating if I can't see a suitable term I have deliberately created an appropriate red link rather than using {{dn}}, partly for the reasons you discuss. One thing I would say is, is there a need to actually create the term (dn) link? Leaving it as a red link would draw additional attention to it as something needing fixing, for example from WikiProject Red Link Recovery. --MegaSloth (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The upside of leaving it as a blue link is that there's hope for the reader to figure out which of the dab terms was intended; a red link gives them nothing. I've long wanted links to dab pages to be green, but I've looked into it recently and it would be computationally expensive to do so in the mediawiki software. The reading I take on someone linking to [[term (disambiguation)]] is that they're talking about the dab page itself; based on recent disambiguation, if the term is intended to be used to subsequent disambiguation I think one ought to link to [[term]] - because the editor can change the first ambiguous term to a second, more precise but still ambiguous term that another editor change change again - and if you link off to [[term (disambiguation)]] from a dab page you prevent that from happening if editors assume that links to [[term (disambiguation)]] are intentional. Josh Parris 02:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DEA

Propossl to move of DEA to DEA (disambiguation) and changing DEA into redirect to Drug Enforcement Administration shifted to Talk:DEA#Requested move. older ≠ wiser 13:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Duke of Wellington

Is the victor of Waterloo the primary topic for "Duke of Wellington"? Please discuss at Talk:Duke of Wellington#Requested move.--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This one still isn't settled - and although it doesn't strictly involve a dab page, there's a lot of disambugating to be done whichever way the decision goes (particularly if it is not decided that it's a primary topic, since many editors have made links to Duke of Wellington expecting it to link to the well-known Duke). Comments still welcome. --Kotniski (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hebron massacre and Hebron massacres

The first of these was a redirect, which I have replaced by a MOS:DAB-compliant dab page. I have nominated the second for deletion. These pages have a long history of POV-pushing and edit-warring (which I hope my changes will put a stop to), so some input from project members will be welcome. --NSH001 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember that I got involved in dab work because of an edit war over Bugs - one editor wanted it to redirect to Bugs Bunny, the other... something else equally plausible. I looked at the linking pages (none of them wanting either of the two options), changed it to a dab, WP:TROUTed the editors and the war just melted away. Good feeling. Josh Parris 14:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wittan

When looking for 'Wittan', I was redirectd to the unrelated term 'Witta'

Wittan, a council of village elders or advisors to a lord or monarch in English folklore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.205.213 (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe Witan which redirects to Witenagemot? I've added a "See also" to Witta which may help. PamD (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Weekend

Weekend is now a half-article, half-disambig. Two ways to go here - keep it as a disambig and move the article material to something like Weekend (time period), or keep the article material at Weekend and move the rest to Weekend (disambiguation). I support the latter. bd2412 T 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. bd2412 T 15:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Horse (disambiguation)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have moved the discussion below to the article's own talk page. Please add any further comments there. PL290 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This dab page currently starts: "The horse is hoofed animal." It has been changed several times to replace "animal" with "ungulate". I have reinstated animal each time, with an edit summary to the effect that it's clearest to use a simple and familiar term on a dab page, but it gets reverted without comment. Those with views either way may with to be aware, and possibly to contribute to a discussion if one starts on the article's talk page. PL290 (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that "hoofed ungulate" is simply redundant, like saying "four-footed quadruped" or "meat-eating carnivore". Definitely go ahead and try to engage this editor in discussion on the Talk page; perhaps something can be worked out.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would opt for "The horse is a hoofed mammal." to match the Horse article's lede of "The horse (Equus ferus caballus)[2][3] is a hoofed (ungulate) mammal, ..." -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Problem dabs

Other interested editors welcome at Calbuco (disambiguation) and Dwarf (disambiguation). I have attempted to clean each of them and been reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to your version on Calbuco (dab), but this was instantly rv and the editor left a warning on my page. The editor also removed the clean-up tag. I've done my 2nd rv now, but based on the responses so far of this editor, I'm not confident that this will be over quickly. Boleyn2 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

JHJ, the reverter is relatively new. Might be worth a paragraph or two explaining what you are doing on the dab talk pages? (John User:Jwy talk) 23:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC

Someone else's turn now on Calbuco (disambiguation) - I'm losing patience with it. PamD (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See also the 3RR block -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Positive thinking

When writing a DAB page for "Positive action", should I list all the more notable topics involving something I can confirm is a positive action of some sort or, should I list only the topic I think will be the most commonly searched term and any group or incident entitled Positive Action? ~ R.T.G 10:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation page disambiguate ambiguous Wikipedia articles, so they should list only ambiguous Wikipedia articles. You could make a List of positive actions and list things that you can confirm are positive actions of some sort, but only entries that a reader would be looking for as titled "Positive action" should be on Positive action (disambiguation). (And note that the primary topic Positive action → Positive Action should be set off from the rest of the list.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that is very toungue twistery but I wont pretend not to understand it. Why would the person searching for "Positive action" not expect to find -the -definitive -resource -of -information -on *actions -which -are *positive? Where should I begin such a resource because every time I start to or suggest it someone says "Affirmative Action", that's the topic and when I ask about describing *actions* which are *positive* and the lengthy use of the phrase everybody becomes obstinate and clams up. I am becoming glad to see that Affirmative Action gets such mixed appreciation. Those who value it seem to show, I am sorry, a lack of intelligence and understanding. Playing stupid does not make things right unless you want someone to rob you. Dirty smelly entraptment. No wonder all reports say it's not working. Where did I read about a feeling of having your brain put into dirty water? This water stinks to high heaven. I would cry out for some positive action but nobody would even understand what I was talking about. ~ R.T.G 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, I am sure that action for equality in America is great but on Wikipedia it is all dur wur wuh and wah. I just can't respect that. ~ R.T.G 13:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I won't pretend to understand that. To repeat the answer to your original question,

No, you should not list all the more notable topics involving something you can confirm is a positive action of some sort on Positive action (disambiguation)
Yes, you should list only the topics that could be titled Positive Action -- that ambiguity needs to be clarified, and Positive action (disambiguation) is the place to do it.

If you want a list of notable topics involving something you can confirm is a positive action of some sort, create that list at List of positive actions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So, that which is a positive action is not included in that which might be ambiguous to "positive action", only the singular unambiguous positive actions. Don't pretend to understand that either. ~ R.T.G 17:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may, here's a comparison that might perhaps offer clarification (or might not): the Robot (disambiguation) page lists various things that are titled "robot," or referred to as "robot". It doesn't list famous robots such as HAL 9000 or C-3PO, because those topics are not referred to as just "robot"; for the same reason, you wouldn't locate the article about C-3PO at the title Robot, because he's not known as "Robot", he's known as "C-3PO". But C-3PO could be mentioned within the Robot article as an example of a robot, and he's listed on the page List of Robots, which is also linked in the "See Also" section of Robot (disambiguation).

By the same token, if a topic is referred to as "positive action," and could reasonably be located at the title Positive action if the other meanings of that term didn't exist, then it should be listed at Positive action (disambiguation). But if the topic is just an example of a positive action, or a type of positive action, then it should not be listed on the disambiguation page; it should be mentioned in the relevant article, and/or listed on a page such as List of positive actions. The assumption is that when the user looks up the title "positive action," the user is expecting to find a general article on some meaning of "positive action," not a list of various specific positive actions. As another example, if you look up shoe, you're not expecting to be taken to the article on high heels. Propaniac (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Page Patrol - Disambiguation bot

I'm forming a proposal for a bot. The intention of this bot is to immediately bring to the page author's attention that the article is linking somewhere other than they thought it would be linking.

The bot would inspect all new main-space articles except for redirects and dab-pages. Redirects are valid to point at dab pages, as are other dab pages. Any new page that has any links to disambiguation pages will have {{dn}} added after each link.

Is this a bad idea? Why? Josh Parris 06:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds useful to me. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But remember to allow links to disambiguation pages that are titled "Whatever (disambiguation)", whether or not they are redirects. If feasible, you could also {{dn}} links to redirects that target disambiguation pages if the redirect isn't titled "Whatever (disambiguation)". Cheers! --- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consolidate discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#New Page Patrol - Disambiguation bot Josh Parris 00:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Channels 70 - 83

All of these - Channel 70, Channel 71, Channel 72, Channel 73, Channel 74, Channel 75, Channel 76, Channel 77, Channel 78, Channel 79, Channel 70, Channel 80, Channel 81, Channel 82, and Channel 83 - are highly problematic, with multiple linked terms per line, copious external links and footnotes, and some other indicia of being articles rather than disambig pages. bd2412 T 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents