I have set up this page to assist readers with navigating their way through the content of WP. To this end I do not agree with having ((dabnav)) since it is an aid for editors. I created ((Reader help)) for reader navigation and it contains links of interest to readers rather than editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone clicking on the link in the ((disambig)) box and coming here is not interested in copyright, images, categories and so on. They're interested in disambiguation. That's the only word linked in disambig box. This is why I originally put ((dabnav)) on here and restored it when you removed it. Please stop creating a distinction between readers and editors, we all started as readers and if you make transitioning into editors less inviting you're going to contribute to the ongoing decline in editor numbers. Your efforts at walling off Wikipedia from further contribution is misguided.
You've tagged this talk page with ((WikiProject Disambiguation)) but provided no hint of the existence of WikiProject Disambiguation on the help page. ((dabnav)) gives further information about disambiguation, including projects, guidelines and how-tos. Josh Parris 06:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can only assume what readers are interested once they come here. Obviously they want to know about dab pages but we know nothing else apart from that. Some who come here may be editors or potential editors in which case there is a hatnote link leading to Wikipedia:Disambiguation - which has the template in question. There is a definite distinction between readers and editors. There are significantly more readers than editors. There are 100rds of 1,000nds of 1,000,000s of readers and only 150,000 odd active editors. There is a difference. Also, editors edit and readers read. Some readers become editors and some don't. We dont have to attract editors - we have to attract good editors. At present there are 11,000,000 odd registered editors. A lot of them are vandal accounts. But all of this is academic. The barriers to anyone editing WP is extremely low and whether we have this or that template on this page makes next to no difference. Selecting the template that I created for this series of pages is not "walling off Wikipedia". To call me "misguided" is an opinion and naturally I do not agree. Editing capabilities are always one click away for readers and I cannot and do not want to change that.
With respect to your last comment on tagging this talk page with Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, the argument is the sme as with all ther pages. We use different namespaces for different functions. We also try and keep a strong seperation between content and project (admin/maint) pages. I tagged this page with Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation since it is of interest to that project.
Since there is no policy or guideline on this (as far as I know) we have to rely on consensus. Therefore we need to get some other editors in on this. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried a neutral canvassing and there's no interest either way. It seems that neither of us is convinced by the other's arguments. Perhaps we should start some kind of hostilities to garner attention?
We have had another editor come in and link disambiguation, but I think where it ended up is not where they intended it to. Ironic, that is. Josh Parris 09:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current ((reader help)) box on the page is nice, so I slightly prefer that one over the more confusing and editor oriented ((dabnav)).
--David Göthberg (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Wikipedia:Disambiguation[edit]

I would like that we move the Wikipedia:Disambiguation link to the top of the "See also" section, since that link is more useful for the users after they have read this page, not before they have read this page. At least I tend to skip over links at the top of the page and first read the page, and when I reach the end of the page I usually have forgotten there was a link at the top of the page. So I find it more logical to have links for "further reading" in the "See also" section.

Hatnotes (see also links at the top of the page) should mostly be used when we expect that some of the users coming to a page might really want another page. But this page is a good read before going to Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dabnav template again[edit]

I don't agree with having the ((dabnav)) template on this page. dabnav is for editors but this page is for readers. The hatnote takes readers and editors to the more comprehensive Wikipedia:Disambiguation page so dabnav is pretty much redundant. Because of the breadth of WP info we cannot let all pages become all encompassing for all visitors. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and David Gothberg. I'm going to remove it now, and unlink Wikipedia as similarly unnecessary. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

out of date?[edit]

the third bullet point in the scenarios, Michael Dobbs, seems to no longer be accurate, if i understand what it's supposed to be describing Adavies42 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Updated to use Anita Hill as the example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from, 19 January 2011[edit]

((edit semi-protected)) (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC) please help me to edit this problem[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Which problem? You didn't state which disambiguation issue you are having difficulty with.

Disambiguation page[edit]

I will be thankful, if I get explanations about the following. I created a Disambiguation page on a toponym the form of that being used in numerous academic sources. Shall I add the links to these sources there to prove that this form is used since at least 12th century and in modern academic works? Other user enters changes at this page, deleting the correct info suported by these sources. Thank you in advance, -- Zara-arush (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either you are trying to create a name article (see WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy) and can put external links and references there (if otherwise appropriate for articles), or you are creating a disambiguation page and cannot put external links or references on it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No you should not separate Cyprus article with Republic of Cyprus, as the Republic of Cyprus has a legitimacy recognised by the WHOLE international community over the whole island. Obviously thousand upon thousand of Turkish Cypriot exclusively recognise the Republic of Cyprus as their only motherland, not recognising the puppet state Turkey created on the north after the Turkish invasion. Of course some users of Wikipedia think suspiciously otherwise, but that is how things are. The Republic of Cyprus and Cyprus is exactly the same thing.UAEcy (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I would like for someone to please move the actual article "School of Tropical Medicine" to the "Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine" (The proper title) since there are various shools of Tropical Medicine, therefore making the current title a misleading one. Then I would like someone to convert the "School of Tropical School" into a disambiguation page which would include: School of Tropical Medicine (Puerto Rico), London School of Tropical Medicine, the Harvard School of Tropical Medicine and the Calcutta School School of Tropical Medicine. I tried doing it myself, but some one undid it and I would like to avoid a misunderstanding in the event that I am wrong in my suggestion. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request, with reply; please continue there

the in crowd[edit]

what douse it mean i only found out its a song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try a web search for <"the in crowd" idiom>, Wikipedia won't have an article on what you're looking for. Josh Parris 09:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
   Arguably better yet for less bold users, see wikt:the in crowd.
--JerzyA (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014[edit] (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation in different languages not the same. A WikiData task?[edit]

Often there are different Disambiguation pages in different languages for the same term. Several Disambiguations refer to Places, People, international terms, names etc., though. These would be valid in any language. Would it make sense to create a special WikiData template for this task? Can this be solved/supported by WikiData? Where should this request/proposal/discussion be posted in Wikipedia to find the right space for discussion and the right readership? (Superwallah (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Disambiguation pages list different meanings for a word. Since words with multiple meanings aren't the same in all languages, disambiguation pages can't be translated between languages. Example: the word "seal" in English disambiguates into "seal_(animal)" and "seal_(closes a letter envelope)", whereas in German the animal would be "Seehund" (literally "ocean dog") for the animal, and "Siegel" for the envelope-closing adhesive edge - two different words, hence no name collision, and therefor also no need to disambiguate what simply is not ambigous.
Another reason that disambiguation pages that at least might translate between languages, such as those referring to different persons that share the same name, are not the same in all language versions is that each article in each language edition of Wikipedia is not just a straight, content-identical translation, but a hand-written masterpiece of its own, and in language versions where there's only few users (usually because there's only a few million people or less who speak that language, unlike English's maybe billion speakers and German's 100 million speakers), there are usually also a lot less articles at all, and many topics don't have an article in these, or persons or things who or which have an article about them in one language are too irrelevant or unknown in other languages (like, why is there no article about my favourite b-level celebrity (the ones only known for occasional nudity or being wives or girlfriends of someone else) from Germany in the English or Chinese Wikipedia editions? Because those persons are unknown there ;) ).
These two reasons make disambiguation pages extremely language-specific, and this would remain true even if Wikipedia at some point tried to enforce that every article must be precisely the same content meaning for every language version. 2A02:8108:81C0:31E4:4551:8417:680C:BC04 (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colognian idioms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Well. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was intentional. I looked for a lemma that deals with a well inside a village, town, or city which is not intended for water supply but merely set up for beauty, as a reminder, accompanying a statue, or similar. I could not find one. Can you probably help? --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
English doesn't seem to be your first language (mine is German, so I often share your problem), and so you don't find the most useful word for what you want, even though there possibly is one. A publically exhibited decorational object "as a reminder" isn't "reminder", but "memorial". A well (water source, in German "Brunnen") not mainly or not at all intended for water supply could be a "fountain" (in German "Springbrunnen") which throws water up into the air, or a "decorational well" (in German "Zierbrunnen").
.. and looking up that guys first name, since I couldn't guess where it was from, and how it met with his German-looking family name, I found this:
note, saying he died about six weeks ago. :./ Looks like I really need a faster internet connection .. ;) But maybe it helps someone else. 2A02:8108:81C0:31E4:4551:8417:680C:BC04 (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015 01[edit] (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Help:Disambiguation.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Given the nature of this page, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I propose adding the following flowchart graphic to this page to help explain the process of disambiguation better. This diagram, which I created myself using Windows Paint, is not ideal in its design and layout, but it shows is the basic idea of how to proceed if you find a topic that is ambiguous and needs to be disambiguated. Thoughts? Cheers, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how this is supposed to work?[edit]

Suppose there is a DAB page for John Smith, and one of the entries is John Smith (author), yet there is no article for the author and the link redirects to Authors about basket weaving. Should the entry on the DAB be removed? What if instead of "author" it's "pedeophile"? My concern is search engines picking up people who fail GNG. I'm asking because I don't want to waste time removing dozens of such links.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That man from Nantucket, I'll explain.
I am going to point out to you something you seem to have overlooked. Almost all the hundred edits you have made since your last block expired, two weeks ago, were either to articles I started, or were otherwise connected to my efforts. I think you need to realize that this is a serious lapse from compliance with WP:Wikihounding. Geo Swan (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where's there's smoke... I'm not the one using original research and misrepresenting sources. There seems to be a clear pattern of that going on here. As far as red links being "always valid" in DAB, is there any consensus on this practice?That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to collaborate with other contributors you should feel comfortable contributing here. If you can't do this, please just leave.
No genuine good faith contributor knowingly inserts OR, or misrepresents sources. Your online comments about my contributions, and edit summaries, are full of implied or explicitly stated accusations of bad faith. These kind of inflammatory comments are inappropriate, and erode the civil and collegial atmosphere of discussion we aim for here. Let me repeat, if you can't be civil and respectful to other contributors here, would you please just leave? Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you point with one finger, you have four pointing back at yourself. But let me ask my question again, where is there any consensus for red links being "always valid" for DAB pages? You are making this claim, and I don't see anything to support this. I see no valid reason for DAB links for living people to exist if they are not notable enough for their own article.That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes against DAB! (Pampulha)[edit]

I think I've committed crimes against DAB! In an effort to edit boldly, I've dug a hole I can't get out of. Sequence of events:

Any idea on what I should do from here? Prburley (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Prburley: you're looking for WP:Disambiguation ProgrammingGeek talktome 20:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without an article[edit]

Is a disambiguation page necessary if it consists of multiple entries without a Wikipedia article that is directly related to the disambiguated term? E.g. High on Life consists of multiple entries but none of which has a Wikipedia article. The editor whose username is Z0 06:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transforming a disambiguation into a simple redirection[edit]

Hello, The current disambiguation page : VBRG points towards two separate pages :

Could someone please help me transform the disambiguation page into a simple redirection - or point me towards someone else who could do it?

Thanks in advance and best regards, -- (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Domenjod (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List "Disambiguation page" at the top of each of the pages as part of the Template[edit]

I suggest we list the phrase "Disambiguation page" at the top of each of the disambiguation pages as part of the Wikipedia Template. Currently, when people visit such pages, they may not understand that this is the kind of page they are on, and think it is an article or a stub.

Can someone with savvy please make this global change? Thank you!

Misty MH (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Search at bottom of page[edit]


I was wondering why there is a "Search" section with a Wikipedia search box at the bottom of this page.

Thanks --Nywillb (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

copyedit: Anita Hill example[edit]

The Anita Hill example for an article where there is a primary use and only one other use could be reworded to suggest major use and minor uses? In any case, Anita Hill links two different alternate articles in its top hat.

I know this is a tiny thing and it doesn't really make the article unclear, but perhaps changing the wording or example, eg Earthsea could be useful next time this help page gets reworked :)

mouse fren 🐁 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DAB page with only one link?[edit]

@Lithopsian: What is the proper way to handle a situation where there are two programs with similar names and there is only a wiki article for one of them? A redirect is misleading at best, and will cause problems if an editor later writes an article on the second program.

I've seen DAB page sections like SMS (disambiguation)#Science and technology where an entry doesn't have a link, and superficially that looks like a good way to handle it. Is that legitimate? What about using a redlink?

The page in question is DFSMS; there are two products called Data Facility Storage Management Subsystem, and Data Facility Storage Management Subsystem (MVS) covers one of them, but there is no article on Data Facility Storage Management Subsystem for VM.

A redirect to the one article would be confusing, and the old redirect to Hierarchical Storage Management is simply wrong. How should this be handled. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No point offering to take people to an article that doesn't exist. If it is a notable subject, then write an article and then we can talk about dab pages. If it isn't notable, then not much point telling people about it. No matter how autistic we all are, dab pages are lists of Wikipedia articles that are likely alternatives for the dab page title, not lists of "everything" remotely related to it. In edge cases, there may be subjects which aren't notable enough for their own article, but are mentioned on other pages, perhaps have their own section. Then, that page may be included as a bluelink even though it may have a different title from the dab page. In rare (and I mean rare!) cases, a redlink may be used, but only where it is undoubtedly a notable title that does not yet have it's own page but does have a significant number of wikilinks already to it. See WP:DAB and MOS:DAB for details. Even when there really are two existing pages, consider whether you are helping by showing readers a dab page which may be confusing and unexpected. A redirect to one article (see WP:TWODABS may be more helpful, with a hatnote at the top of that article telling people about the alternative. This can also happen when there are more than two alternatives (eg. NATO) and the hatnote can point to a separate disambiguation page for that title (eg. NATO (disambiguation)). Don't get hung up on making exhaustive lists, spend your time writing articles and helping people find the one they want.
SMS (disambiguation)#Science and technology only has entries with no link because you put them there. I took them out again. All the other entries I saw have a blue link of some sort. The third entry you added looks a little dubious. Would people really type "SMS' if they were looking for Data Facility Storage Management Subsystem? If not, it shouldn't be in there, it is just cluttering the place up and making it harder to find what people were really looking for. Again, dab pages are not endless lists of everything, just things that people might have been looking for when they typed "SMS" or "DFSMS".
Lastly, don't just re-instate changes that were reverted by another editor, even when you have correctly started discussion of the changes. Doing it at all is an edit war and is wrong. Doing it persistently or repeatedly (eg. WP:3RR) will get you banned. Another editor reverted your changes at DFSMS; I strongly suggest you leave it that way until there are some real pages to disambiguate. Lithopsian (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging initialisms[edit]

For redirects there is ((R from initialism)) and a corresponding category. Is there an equivalent for dab pages, and, if so, should it be listed on the HELP and WP pages? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Hill[edit]

The Anita Hill example mentions only "one other" use, but the Anita Hill article must have changed since then. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about template?[edit]

I wanted to make the hatnote links on Hamish Stuart and Hamish Stewart more descriptive, so I came to this help page which describes the ((Other uses)) and ((For)) templates. But those two articles use a third template, ((Distinguish)) which isn't mentioned here, or in section Disambiguation pages with only two entries section of the detailed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. If it's common, I think ((Distinguish)) should be mentioned in one or the other. I eventually found usage guide for it in Wikipedia:Hatnote -- Skierpage (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Butcher of Tehran" redirect page should be a disambiguation page?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Butcher_of_Tehran and see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebrahim_Raisi#1988_executions as per https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2024/05/20/ebrahim-raisi-iran-president-helicopter-butcher-tehran/ + https://www.euronews.com/2024/05/20/butcher-of-tehran-who-was-iranian-president-ebrahim-raisi + https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/death-iran-president-raisi-prompts-grief-relief-celebration-rcna153003 Oathed (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]