This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 40#Species abbreviations I was going to suggest adding something like this in WP:PARTIAL:

In a binomial name (genus species) the specific epithet (second word) should not usually be included in any corresponding disambiguation page; for example the Tupaia (genus) species Tupaia minor and Tupaia montana are not listed in Minor or Montana (disambiguation).

However,

• there is still a T. montana (although Tupaia montana isn't currently listed there)
• and Montana (disambiguation) lists T. montana and others

So is there a standard?

• If so, what?
• If not, should there be? If so,
  • what?
  • should it be listed here?

jnestorius^(talk) 16:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added Tupaia montana to DAB page T. montana, because it certainly belongs there. Narky Blert (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I support adding the text you've suggested.

I am not aware of any discussions in Tree of Life projects in favor of adding species epithets to disambiguation pages, or creating disambiguation pages for abbreviations of scientific names. Most of the effort to do so seems to be the work of NotWith/Nono64/Caftaric (blocked for sockpuppetry, long history of edits that Tree of Life editors disagreed with) and Neelix (left Wikipedia in disgrace after creating thousands of inappropriate redirects), although some editors with generally positive contributions have done some work with these. The disambiguation pages are not being kept up-to-date with addition of new articles on Wikipedia that have the relevant epithets or abbreviations.

Species epithets are a classic case of partial title matches. They basically never stand alone without the genus (barring informal spoken contexts when the genus has already been established). There are a few exceptions, but I can only think of three right now; Japonica is a (not very common) common name for Chaenomeles japonica, and "sativa" and "indica" often stand alone in Cannabis related contexts (indeed, sativa/indica standing alone indicates that the context is Cannabis)

Readers are not likely to search for a species epithet hoping to find there way to an article on a particular species. Species epithets should not be added to disambiguation pages, and disambiguation pages should not be created that only list species epithets or abbreviations of scientific names. Plantdrew (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Specific epithets are down-the-middle WP:PTMs. By analogy, we shouldn't have redirects from unique epithets to species articles either. I like the commonsense loophole "should not usually", which covers rare exceptions such as those identified by Plantdrew. ((intitle)) will pick up the pieces.

We do need DAB pages like T. montana. Writers sometimes assume that readers will know what species they're talking about, and abbreviated names can be ambiguous. Some unique redirects are missing, e.g. P. montanus; anyone who has misremembered that name and follows the searchbox suggestion after typing a few letters and finds themself looking at P. montana will be very badly off.

There is room for things like List of things named after Barack Obama#Biota as either embedded or standalone lists; but for their encyclopaedic value, not as navigational aids.

By chance, I yesterday stumbled across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulgaris and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miserabilis. They're all from 2008, and consensus can change; but I think the results would be the same today. Narky Blert (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Just came across Talk:Tristis, which has some substantial discussion about disambiguating species epithets (input was solicited from several Tree of Life projects, making this likely the most commented on discussion of the issue previously). "arabica" is mentioned there as another epithet that can stand alone (in coffee contexts, along with "robusta"), but a handful of epithets that can stand alone doesn't mean we generally need disambiguation pages for epithets. Plantdrew (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just discovered Melanocephalus, from List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. Most of the links in the left-hand column of that list seem to be to Wiktionary. There may be other epithets in Category:Taxonomy disambiguation pages. Narky Blert (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed there are: Poliocephalus. Narky Blert (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jnestorius and Plantdrew: The 2011 discussions in Talk:Tristis ended inconclusively, but with a suggestion that Tristis be put up for WP:AFD. That AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis, ended in no consensus. I'm thinking of resubmitting it as a test case; with an additional reference to the present discussion, and inviting contributions here. Thoughts? Narky Blert (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(PS - I would of course courtesy-ping the participants in those 2011 discussions and AFD.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert:, I agree it would be good to have a test case at AFD. Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination), whose posting included an accidental hiccough. Narky Blert (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert:. Drat. There's some stuff I'd forgotten about that I wish I had remembered before this test case. A template for adding links to species abbreviations (A. tristis...Z. tristis) to epithet disambiguation pages (Tristis) was deleted. The consequences of that deletion and the value of species epithet disambiguations were discussed. Some "disambiguation" pages no longer disambiguate anything following deletion of the template (e.g. Arenarius), and have fallen off the rader. Other epithet disambiguation pages were converted to redirects to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names following this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria (notes on changes following that discussion documented at User:Oiyarbepsy/Species_abbreviation). Plantdrew (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I like List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names a lot. It's a useful encyclopaedic glossary, and covers the usual variants like -i, -ii, -is and so on. Redirects to it could be useful; and redirects named something like Montana (specific epithet) (tagged as ((R to list)) and ideally also as ((R to anchor))) would fit nicely on a DAB page, because they would point to useful information about the word itself; more than there is in Wiktionary. Retargetting existing DAB pages there would preserve history and the Talk Page. The List page could have a hatnote, saying that it's not meant to be a complete list, and giving instructions on ((intitle)).

It's looking very wintry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination). I suggest letting that discussion take its course. If the consensus is deletion, I would cheerfully adopt the lesser course of blanking and redirection. Narky Blert (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Going off at a slight tangent, there are 2,141 dabs like T. montana. Checking the first, A. abbreviata, a search reveals two missing candidates: Acanthodaphne and Acacia. Filling the gaps by hand would be very tedious but I wonder if there is scope for a bot job. Certes (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: There is currently a Request for Comment at Talk:Vita concerning Josephus' "Vita" (book) and whether or not Vita (Josephus Flavius) would qualify for an entry on the "Vita" Disambiguation page. Those who are interested in voicing an opinion about this entry may do so there, in order to help build a consensus, one way or the other.Davidbena (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games) § RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"? --В²C ☎ 23:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: User:Narky Blert and I disagree as to which should be used for Seba. The discussion started in User talk:Narky Blert#Seba, wandered over to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 March 4#Right forum and now here.

IMO, the latter is correct for obvious given names, such as Seba, Jean-Claude, and hndis for anything longer, for example John I, Thomas Thompson. This appears to be the consensus, as Category:Human name disambiguation pages is overwhelmingly populated as I would expect. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

((disambiguation)) has both "given name" and "hndis" parameters. They are presumably intended to handle different cases. Only one person on DAB page Seba has the given name "Seba" – Seba Smith. The other two relevant entries on the page are Sebá and Seba (musician). Both are mononymic professional names; Seba is not the given name of either. The same is true of the 18 or so footballers known professionally as Jorginho, an ((hndis)) page. Narky Blert (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• I say move Seba (surname) to Seba (name) and use it as a landing place for both the given name and the surname. Leave Seba#People to link to Seba (name) and only people known solely as "Seba". That would resolve the given name categorization. I don't think hndis quite fits either—while there are a few people who use Seba mononymously, it's not their full name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Professional names are full names. Edson Arantes do Nascimento, Gordon Sumner and Saul Hudson are redirects. Narky Blert (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers which may be of interest to editors who follow this page. Narky Blert (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

See User talk:Crouch, Swale#Weston, Somerset is it possible to link to a part of a section without a section header? I tried adding ((anchor)) to the redirect but that didn't work. The problem is that there are a number of Westons in the UK but not enough in each county to create a separate section for each so someone searching gets the top of the large list for the UK rather than the part only for Somerset. @Mhockey: who pointed out the problems with the redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, linking to a part of a page can be done with an anchor. If you give an example of the redirect and where it needs to point to, I can try and help. --Gonnym (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Weston, Somerset should point to the part of the Weston DAB page where Weston, Bath, Weston in Gordano and Weston-super-Mare are listed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I see I have to link to the base title and then the qualified title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of redirects. Many of those words need a disambiguation page. For example Whitter redirects to John Greenleaf Whittier but it should be a disambiguation page since there are three persons with this name. Same for Wixey. Starting from this list, I've already did such work at Abey (name), Acres (disambiguation), Adamthwaite, Aakash (disambiguation), Addicott (disambiguation). —  Ark25  (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes: going through these redirects would be an excellent idea! – Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that Acres (surname) already existed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The difference between this list and a random list with redirects is that, for these words, there is for sure at least one person with that name. For many of them the disambiguation note and the disambiguation pages are already created but also for a good number of them, they are not created yet, so it's worth parsing this list.

Thanks, JHunterJ, for the fix. It was my error to create the Acres (disambiguation) page. That was because the hatnote at Acre didn't mention "Acres". —  Ark25  (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that there are multiple people sharing a surname doesn't mean an existing redirect from that surname is incorrect. The redirect target could be the primary target of the term. BD2412 T 22:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  True. Classic examples: da Vinci, Linnaeus. We even use shared surnames as biography article titles, such as Morrissey. Certes (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

True. Yet, there are a lot of disambiguation pages missing, like for example at

• Adegboye - All pages with titles containing Adegboye
• Aiyegbusi - All pages with titles containing Aiyegbusi

Or the primary target is simply missing the disambiguation note

• Agoro - Agoro (surname)

—  Ark25  (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Here the list is reduced to the elements that need disambiguation pages (or name pages) for sure (only the letter "A" at the moment but I will add more). —  Ark25  (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of articles about various places. Many of them need a disambiguation page, like for example Arthurton and Wookey. (Later edit: and Here is a list of the items that need a disambiguation page for sure) —  Ark25  (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ark25, isn't the list meant to be at User:Ark25/To-do/Disambiguations-EN3? As far as I can see, in quite a few cases there the place is a primary topic, with the other entries listed in a corresponding dab page, or linked via hatnotes. – Uanfala (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Uanfala Yes, sorry, I've posted the wrong list, I fixed it now. The difference between this list and a random list with place names is that, for these words, there is for sure at least one person with that name. For many of them the disambiguation note and the disambiguation pages are already created but also for a good number of them, they are not created yet. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

After a while I've found out that actually it's not that hard to find those that are missing a hatnote. So I reduced the list to those words that for sure need a disambiguation page or at least a hat note. The list is here - User:Ark25/To-do/Disambiguations-EN3a. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you limit the searches to article space. Here is one way:

• All article space titles containing Arthurton

—В²C ☎ 11:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Ark25: Perhaps this may partly illustrate a difficulty in "automatic" identification, but many hatnotes are irregularly formed and do not use one of the standard templates. For example this version of Garforth. In such cases, at least the list may help to spot these to be fixed -- although a manual check is needed before creating a redundant surname page or a likely unnecessary disambiguation page. A second issue is that many if not most of the "hits" returned by an intitle search are unambiguous partial title matches. For example All pages with titles containing Garforth returns mostly unambiguous partial title matches directly associated with the primary topic along with several persons with the surname. The surname holders should be added to the surname page, but by themselves are not a reason to create a Garforth (disambiguation). The only outlier appears to be Garforth Island in Alaska, which can be added to the hatnote. older ≠ wiser 12:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Bkonrad: Yes, in some cases there is a need for a disambiguation page. In other cases there is a need of a surname page. In other (few) cases it is only needed to add a hatnote. And in very few cases the hatnote should be re-written using regular hatnote templates, like for example at Garforth, as you pointed out. But in any case, for all the 401 names listed there, one such action is required. This is very different from a random list of place names, where you would have to do a lot of manual work in order to detect if there is a need to do something about disambiguating any of those names. —  Ark25  (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Ark25:, yes I agree some attention is needed for many of these. Perhaps my point was partly addressing the following section where you are looking to automatically generate disambiguation page. Point is that in nearly all cases, some manual attention is needed when creating such pages, especially with disambiguation pages, to avoid filling them with unambiguous partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 13:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A lot of given names and surnames need disambiguation pages for.

In case anyone is interested to create such pages, I got a list of names here The list was created by processing the names of English footballers and therefore many of those words are actually English-language surnames or English-language given names. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you want these names removed from the list as pages are created? BD2412 T 19:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to help, Dabfix is an invaluable friend but its output does need manual checking and fixing before it's saved. Certes (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

BD2412 Sure, you can remove them if you wish, it will help the others who might want to join this activity. It's better to process them one by one, in order, and to delete the red links too (the names that appear only once and don't need a disambiguation page).

Thanks Certes for the info. —  Ark25  (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I am tempted to say that unambiguous lines should be set aside rather than removed altogether, as articles could be made in the future that render them ambiguous. Very few human surnames are truly unique. BD2412 T 20:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

BD2412 Thats true but in many cases it will take many years until that will be the case. So I think it's better to remove them, and after processing the whole list, to restore the original list. There is also a nice script that can help to remove the non-red items from the list. Also, I think the list should be rebuilt to include more persons than just English footballers names.—  Ark25  (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• It really is tempting to start creating name lists for all these titles, but it might actually be of more immediate benefit to the encyclopedia if they aren't created. See, for most of these names there are a small number of articles, typically between two and five. Anyone who types the name into the search box will be presented with search results neatly showing these articles, with small extracts from the ledes that will help them identify the person they're looking for. A name list – if done well with birth and death years and good descriptors – is a small improvement on that, but it will become an impediment in the long run as new articles about other people with the same name get created, without – as so often happens – the name list getting expanded. There's no such problem with the search results, which are always up to date. – Uanfala (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Uanfala True, but the same thing can apply to many place names too. On the other hand, placing the template ((intitle)) at the end of the disambiguation page can help to make a search (e.g. Bigden). —  Ark25  (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't want dabs for surnames with only one notable person such as Janet Bewley-Cathie-Wardell-Yerburgh (unless the surname has other meanings covered in articles, which might be unlikely for a redlink.) Certes (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A surname with only one person should just be a redirect tagged w/ ((R from surname)).—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: The tradeoff is that for some names, it generates too many irrelevant partial phrase results if the point was to find a person. Im actually not sure if the main objective to names lists is to 1) find a specific person 2) learn about random people with the name.—Bagumba (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

((R from surname))'s are just as harmful. As for the (in my experience rare) case when there's interference from partial title matches, then absolutely, a dab page is a good thing. And yes, Ark25, my reasoning extends to all dab pages, that's why I generally try to create new dab pages only over redirects, in situations with primary topics, or when the search results are unhelpful. – Uanfala (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba I think it's totally unproductive to create redirects like Almaer -> Simon Almaer. Say for example Boam redirects to Stuart Boam - and then the name Boam will not appear in such a list like I've created, since it would not be a red link. It will be harder for the editors to discover that Boam can/should become a disambiguation page (there are 4 articles about people with the surname). Later edit: I've found an example: Achampong is a redirect but it should be a disambiguation page.

Uanfala I agree that your point is valid and it is based solid arguments yet I'm still inclined to favor the creation of disambiguation pages instead of not creating them. Search results might be a bit cryptic or boring for many readers. Example: if you search for "Boam", the articles about the four persons with the surname are mixed between others. Regular users wont's search for intitle:"Boam". I wonder if this topic was discussed before, maybe anyone tried to reflect it in the rules? —  Ark25  (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ark25: Is your concern for when new bios with surname Boam are created after the intitial creation of a redirect, when only 1 relevant bio existed? That case exists for lots of redirects, not just names of people. Could a bot detect this and generate a report? People are usually already categorized, and redirects can be detected also.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ark25 and Uanfala: There shouldn't be intial concerns with dabs or name lists that are complete. Maintenance of adding newly created items is a valid concern. Can a bot help?—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't have anything at the moment. I don't think there can possibly exist a robust tool to track down all missing entries from dab pages, but many of the common specific cases can be tracked. The Dabfix tool used to do just that (see WP:DABMISSING), but the report it generates hasn't been updated for a year now. – Uanfala (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Name list vs dab Subtle point per MOS:DABNAME: a namelist (or anthroponymy page) is not a disambiguation page.—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not a subtle point; that's a critical point. Anthroponymy articles are not disambiguation pages. Name-holders are usually partial-title matches. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Home backup#Background reading -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• A general observation, a bare listing of names (as many of the recently created pages are) is IMO significantly less helpful than a non-existent page where someone looking for a term will get the search engine results which includes some lines of context. A bare list of terms is just bad (both in terms of usability and WP:MOSDAB (as well as whatever style guide might apply for surnames and given names). older ≠ wiser 15:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  They should not be bare listings. Not unlike a dab, each entry should contain dates and a description (WP:APOENTRIES).—Bagumba (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have doubts about the usefulness of lists of name-holders on given-name pages, but I think surname pages are useful even when they are just a list of name-holders, with dates where known and brief annotations. In many fields someone will sometimes be referred to by surname only "Xyz's famous goal" or "Xyz's earlier studies on the topic". A list of people with surname "Xyz" will help the reader to find the person they are looking for, even if they don't have the forename or initials. Anyone creating (or NPP reviewing, or AfC accepting, or otherwise encountering) a new(ish) biographical article should search on the surname, and create a surname page entry, a redirect, a "persons with the name" entry on a dab page, a hatnote, or whatever other navigational tool is needed to get the reader from surname to article. It may be that a search on the surname reveals that there are already several articles for people with that surname: time to create a surname page (or a list of name-holders as part of a dab page if one already exists).— Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: It's not very easy for me to detect such redirects - I have to do a part of the job manually (see the topic bellow) but it should be quite easy for those who maintain the server to detect a lot of such redirects, with a script like this:

• Get a list of names
• Keep only the words that are redirects. For each word, do the following:

(Say for example the word is Botica)

• If the page where it redirects is not a disambiguation page and it doesn't have a hatnote AND
• The word is found into the title of more than one article about people

THEN for sure a disambiguation page should be created - or at least a hatnote should be added, in case a disambiguation page already exists.

I think it's quite easy for the administrators to create such a script - and it would detect a lot of pages that have to be created. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, anthroponymy list articles are not disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is possible to create some intelligent scripts on the server side, or even for the client side, for automatic generation of surname and given name pages. Say for example you want to create a surname page for Byas (surname), and then such a script will generate the following text:

• David Byas (born 1963), English first-class cricketer
• Don Byas (1912–1972), American jazz tenor saxophonist, most associated with bebop
• Rick Byas (born 1950), former American football defensive back in the National Football League

Also for checking if there are new entries that could be added to a surname page. For example, such a script would suggest adding Mo Agoro and Ismaïl Ouro-Agoro to the Agoro (surname) page.

Is there any chance for developing such scripts to be considered? Was such an idea ever discussed? —  Ark25  (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Dabfix generates such text for disambiguation pages. If you wish to produce a surname page rather than a dab then its output requires simple and methodical modification. Certes (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks! I think dabfix can be further improved, to generate shorter text like "Australian rules footballer" instead of "former Australian rules footballer who played with.." (for David Wearne). Or at least to add an option to create shorter text like this. Also it can be improved in order be able to extract the relevant text from pages like Joseph Wearne and Lorraine Wearne. Does dabfix have a talk page or a project page? —  Ark25  (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The output from Dabfix can certainly be improved in many cases, as it just takes the possibly verbose description from the lede. It seems unlikely that Dabfix itself will be enhanced, as creating surname pages is not its main purpose and its author now edits only occasionally. It's still an order of magnitude faster and more accurate than building the page manually. Certes (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The anthroponymy project has its own talk page. Surname lists are not disambiguation pages. Please use it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Page creation

Can we reach a broad consensus as to what circumstances justify creating which type of page? In particular, are there cases when we should not create a page, perhaps because search does the job better? Perhaps we can create a guide like this, where X is the surname, ⇒ is a redirect and → is a wikilink.

• X has no clear primary topic
  • Multiple meanings, all surnames: create a surname page titled X
  • Multiple meanings, not all surnames: create a disambiguation page titled X
• X has a clear primary topic, an article called PT
  • No other meanings: redirect X⇒PT
  • One other meaning: redirect X⇒PT; hatnote PT→other meaning
  • Multiple other meanings, all surnames: redirect X⇒PT; create X (surname); hatnote PT→X (surname)
  • Multiple other meanings, not all surnames: redirect X⇒PT; create X (disambiguation); hatnote PT→dab

All of those suggestions are up are for discussion and should be modified at the editor's discretion in individual cases. In particular, we should decide when it is better not to create a page. Certes (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This decision tree seems just about right to me. As a case study of where things can get messy, consider Bongani. It had been created as a stub for a settlement in the Western Cape of South Africa. This was later redirected to Knysna, a larger town that apparently includes Bongani. When it was redirected, the reason indicated it was mentioned in the Knysna article. However, that article no longer mentions Bongani. As such, does it make sense to add a redirect hatnote to the article? Or should Bongani (given name) instead be moved over the redirect? older ≠ wiser 15:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we just move Bongani (given name). Google shows a Bongani sports field in the right place but I can find nothing else relevant. Bongani, Western Cape was created by a sock. Dumping the reader in the middle of South Africa with no clue as to how to proceed does not seem helpful. Certes (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Main point though is that editorial discretion is needed when looking at redirects. It is not a safe assumption that simply because a redirect exists that the target is the primary topic for the term. older ≠ wiser 16:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps for completeness "Multiple meanings, not all surnames: create a disambiguation page titled X" and "Multiple other meanings, not all surnames: redirect X⇒PT; create X (disambiguation); hatnote PT→dab" should each have a sub-bullet: "If there are a large number of surname-holders, consider also creating a separate "X (surname)" " ? PamD 16:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Tweak and expand the multiple meanings:
  • Multiple meanings, not all surnames, short surname list: create a disambiguation page titled X
  • Multiple meanings, not all surnames, long surname list: create a disambiguation page titled X and a surname list article titled X (surname)
  • Multiple other meanings, not all surnames, short surname list: redirect X⇒PT; create X (disambiguation); hatnote PT→dab
  • Multiple other meanings, not all surnames, long surname list: redirect X⇒PT; create X (disambiguation) and X (surname); hatnote PT→dab
• -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with all of that, though I'm hoping not to find any long lists of surnames. Do we think that every title corresponding to a surname should have a page, or are there cases when it would be better to boldly do nothing? Certes (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  As I mentioned earlier, a bare listing of names is worse than search results, which at least provide some lines of context. I've no objection to creating lists of surname-holders, but they fall under the purview of the Anthroponymy project and should follow applicable guidelines for such pages. The disambiguation project is affected only to the extent disambiguation might be needed (either through standalone dab pages or through hatnotes -- or where efforts might result in addition of a lot of unambiguous partial title matches to disambiguation pages). older ≠ wiser 21:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I hope there is no plan to produce a bare listing of names. Any list should follow a format like that illustrated for Byas above, sandwiched between a header and footer appropriate to either surname list or a dab. The question is whether that is always better than a redlink. Certes (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think that as far as we (rather than them) are concerned, lists of people with the name are simply PTM-only dab pages (well, at least for given names, though to not a small extent for surnames as well). Boldly doing nothing seems like the best approach here. Though if we are to compile lists of people as a navigational aid, then that makes sense where the number of people is not very small – say, create a surname index if the people don't fit on the first page of the search results? – Uanfala (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What order should entries be on a disambiguation page? (Or within a section, if multiple sections.) It seems that alphabetical, or historical (earlier ones first) or some such might be used? Or just the order that they were added? Gah4 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

By whatever order is most helpful to readers of that particular page. Suggested ordering is at the guideline at MOS:DABORDER. - Station1 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that is the one I was looking for. Gah4 (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, name lists can contain infobox templates like ((infobox surname)) like for example this page: Valen (surname). But some disambiguation pages can contain name lists too and they are part of categories named Category:Human name disambiguation pages or Category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists or Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists, so they are a mix between disambiguation and name lists pages. And then, my question is the following: is it ok to use ((infobox surname)) and ((infobox given name)) into such pages? For example at Valentini or Valentinian. —  Ark25  (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No. By the time it's useful to add the infobox, it's useful to split the surname list article from the disambiguation non-article page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that I have time to add the infobox but I don't have time to split the article. Until someone will do the split, I think it's better to have the information inside the disambiguatino page. It's a temporary state anyways, until someone will do the split, so I guess it shouldn't be a big deal. —  Ark25  (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not better. Disambiguation pages aren't articles. There's no problem with leaving the Infobox out of the disambiguation page, and that shouldn't be a big deal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

DAB pages should not include templates such as ((infobox surname)) per MOS:DABICON. They hinder navigation. If there is enough about a name to justify an infobox, split it out. It doesn't take long. Narky Blert (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

We need some sort of explanatory supplement on the use of pageviews in evaluating primary topics. At the moment the relevant section simply links to the tools and says the views are relevant, but there are many pitfalls in interpreting them, and they are not always obvious. I think we're being a bid bald in letting new editors find out about the limitations the way we have all done – by learning from our mistakes over countless RM discussions.

We need to provide some sort of guidance, but that would be too fine-grained for this page, so a separate explanatory supplement might be the way to go. I've got a first draft at Wikipedia:Pageviews and primary topics. This could definitely do with expansion, or at least more eyes on it. Please join in! – Uanfala (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of disagreement as to when, how, or whether to use pageviews in various RMs. Guidelines should reflect consensus, and I don't think there is any on exactly how to interpret pageviews in every circumstance. We can try to come up with something, but unless there's strong agreement that it really does reflect widespread consensus, it should remain an essay, at least for now. Station1 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, disagreement in individual RMs comes at least in part from the way pageviews are always mixed in with other considerations. If we take them in isolation, I think we should be able to move towards some greater clarity, if not consensus. It's not about do's and dont's, but about things to bear in mind when looking at pageview data. What the tools show and what they don't, what the limitations are, etc. – Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. With that in mind, I've made some changes along those lines. Station1 (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty useful reference guide. I've added massviews (great for comparing between disambiguated entries) and made some refinements to it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC to clarify our stance on titles which form part of a numbered series whose meaning is not inherently apparent, and whether we should disambiguate for the purpose of clarity even when not strictly necessary. An example would be Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) (as there is no other notable "Symphony No. 104"), which is already covered by WP:MUSICSERIES, but this RfC would explore the application of this principle to other domains, such as sequentially numbered legislation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a small example of a larger problem. I just searched for the name Tiphaine, an historical character referenced in a book I am reading. There are lots and lots of real people named Tiphaine out there, as I found in my searches. Wikipedia, however, redefines the name, without any explanation, and opens a Tiffany disambiguation page. Users should at least be told why this is happening. Merry medievalist (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Merry medievalist: Good spot. I've created a new dab Tiphaine. Certes (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I have created Mahmud I (disambiguation) and Mahmud II (disambiguation), and tagged them for the moment with ((disambiguation)). What is the more appropriate tag here - ((disambiguation|hndis)) or ((disambiguation|tndis))? And how should the ((DEFAULTSORT)) be structured? Henry II uses ((human name disambiguation|Henry 02)) but most similar articles don't give any clue as to sorting. Leschnei (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

hndis here, I think. The sequence suffix is still part of the "name", not a title. Default sort should follow that 02 example (WP:SORTKEY). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with JHJ: hndis. IMO, tndis is only right when a title precedes the personal name. (Cases where a title follows the name are rare, and more of a grey area.) I also agree about the sortkey; I suspect there are many DAB pages ending in a Roman numeral where no-one has thought to add one. Narky Blert (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed the templates to ((human name disambiguation|Mahmud 01)) (and 02). And yes, most of the DAB pages that I looked at, that end with Roman numerals, have no sortkey. Leschnei (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It is fortunate that the Roman numerals up to 38 are in alphabetical order apart from 9, 19 and 29. Certes (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

In theory, we could create a sortkey just for name-plus-Roman numeral combinations. There must be a few hundred of them. BD2412 T 16:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I notice there are now three different women in WP with the same name (Michelle King). The articles have hatnotes on them but maybe there should be a DAB page listing all three? MurielMary (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Some editors do like to create dab pages as soon as there are three articles, but I think the current hatnote is short enough that a dab page would just be an unnecessary extra step for anyone wanting the other two articles. The guideline suggests creating a dab page after a hatnote would take up more than one line on most screens. Station1 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

We would also require a dab if there were no primary topic. However, in this case I think we are right to keep the TV writer at the base name. Certes (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I've also just added the three of them to the surname page at King (surname). PamD 07:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

General guidance is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_page_or_hatnotes?, which is consistent with what people have already stated.—Bagumba (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is National Trust listed as an example in WP:DABCONCEPT? That article is about a specific organisation in the UK. National trust, on the other hand, is closer to being a broad-concept article, but is actually just a list. I suggest we delete that specific example, as the other two will do. ― Hebsen (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed. The lowercase version was the one intended. BD2412 T 20:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I and User:Vmavanti are in conflict over the latter's edit of Mach and my reversion thereof. I have copied over the argument from my talk page here for others' comments since we are obviously deadlocked:

Why did you revert my edit?
Vmavanti (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

((ping|Vmavanti)) You removed all of the organization (scrambled order of entries, deleted sections) and deleted at least one valid entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't delete the organization. I organized it. Did you see the the dismabig barnstar I have? That wasn't a "Gee, you're so nice" Award or "Thanks for agreeing with me" Award. It was for actual work. A lot of work in a short amount of time. You need to have better reasons if you are going to revert an entire page of edits. For one thing, what do you have against alphabetical headers? I hope you are not one of those "deleting is bad" editors, because I have done editing in the real world which isn't nearly as squeamish or arbitrary about the delete key.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Huuh? You got rid of five sections and put the entries in no discernible order. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Aha, I see what you did there. You put six entries in alphabetical order by disambiguation. That makes no sense whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I also have a disambiguator's barnstar (in 2012). There's a policy, guideline or essay somewhere that states you shouldn't try to "pull rank" in disagreements. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That essay is conveniently targeted by WP:PULLRANK. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

WTF? You don't know the difference between policy and an essay? You accuse me of "pulling rank" because I demonstrate my experience? You are against listing headers alphabetically and you say alphabetical order "makes no sense whatsoever?" You say I used "no discernable order" when obviously there was? You think it's OK to create categories with only two or three items? Where in the world are you getting these nutty ideas? You seem to be making up your own rules as you go along. You can fix your ridiculous methods by restoring my edits. You're in a deep enough hole already. You don't know what you're doing.
Vmavanti (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you a native speaker of English?
Vmavanti (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

From the MOS: "Long disambiguation pages should be grouped into subject sections, and even subsections as necessary, as described below. These sections (and any subsections) should typically be in alphabetical order"
Vmavanti (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Curb your insults, per WP:No personal attacks. Why would you question my mastery of English (and what would it matter anyway)? I am a professional editor/proofreader. In fact, my English is obviously better than yours, since you have shown that you don't understand what sections are. For example, the "(surname)" in Mach (surname) is not a section. Sections are what you call categories. And you deleted most of those, so that pretty much invalidates your entire MOS argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I didn't say "pull rank". I said "try to". I believe I have considerably more experience than you: nearly 100K more edits, and 2806 pages created to your 0(?). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You did not address my points. Instead you call them insults. They are not insults. You did not answer my question: Is English your native language? Please address all the points I have made.
Vmavanti (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't know what sections are? I quoted from the documentation about alphabetical order and you act like you have never heard of such a thing. What does it matter that English is not your native language? Because you are on the English Wikipedia which requires precise and exact use of English. The way you respond to my questions suggests something is getting lost in translation. I suggest you stay away from disambig pages.
Vmavanti (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This page is full of people telling you that you are doing things wrong. Why is that?
Vmavanti (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Right. So "nutty ideas" and "ridiculous methods" aren't insulting? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this? Answer the points I have made. That's what we are supposed to be talking about. Specifics. Stop acting insulted and address my points. If you want civility, you can start by answering questions and addressing the matters at hand.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved editor: this (current) version is much more helpful for the reader than this (A-Z) version. That's what matters. PamD 07:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Vmavanti:: you "irrevocably agree[d] to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" (the text over "Publish changes"), and "Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited and redistributed". (WP:5P3). You made a bold edit, it was reverted, and now it's being discussed, but being discussed does not entail one editor demanding that the others answer their questions to their satisfaction. Clarityfiend stated the reasons for the revert: you removed the section headings, and the article is long enough to use section headings. Section headings are different than disambiguating qualifiers. The sections should be in alphabetical order (which I've done). I do align with some of your removals, as some of the section headers weren't as useful; I made that change in a separate edit for ease of reverting in case another editor disagrees. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  The insinuation (I'm being generous here) is that I treated the article as my own. Have you read my User Page? You should. It explains my view on that subject. What I can say now is that I disagree with the accusation, veiled or no. When I see a person dodging questions, it usually means something fishy is going on. My instinct on that is close to certainty. I disagree that it's wrong to expect my questions to be answered, because TALK is the foundation of Wikipedia. Hence, TALK pages exist for every article and every contributor, and TALK involves questions and answers. If my questions were unrelated to Wikipedia, you might have a point. But they were relevant and unanswered questions, beginning with the most pertinent: Is English your native language? Far from being an insult, it is fundamental to someone involved in writing and editing. Another question: Why revert an an entire page of edits when you disagree with only some of them? Why not change some a little at a time instead, commenting on each one? Another question: Why were those particular edits considered unacceptable? And more: Why do you say my edits had "no order whatsoever"? What do you have against alphabetical order? Why is having headers arranged alphabetically a bad idea? What is your response to my quotation from the documentation? That's all off the top of my head. Not to mention this person's bad attitude and frequent errors which others have addressed on the person's Talk page. That a person doesn't like this process of education, learning, correction, editing, is one thing. But this process is certainly consistent with the rules and with forming a consensus, or at least having a civil discussion. Refusing to answering questions is improper when those questions pertain directly to the subject at hand. I have also grown impatient of uninvolved "editors" magically appearing to "save" or "speak for" another. This isn't the U.S. Congress. People can and should speak for themselves. If they can't defend their edits with good reasons, they should change them. If they can't defend themselves verbally in a proper way, they shouldn't contribute to Wikipedia. Many people consider facts offensive and truth inconvenient. Being told by this person "my behavior is unacceptable" is so wrong, so contrary to progress and ordinary decency, that I need my computer to calculate the ways. And it certainly is offensive. So if we're going down that road, let's be fair and equal about it. I would like to see people stop using "You offend me" as a tactic, and I would like to others avoid falling for it and rushing to their defense because they think they smell victimization. That this person's username has "clarity" in it is the biggest irony of all, because this user's posts were full of distortion and fog. I have trouble deciphering the syntax. The user would be happier and more helpful editing on the user's native language Wikipedia.
  Vmavanti (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Your tone ("and I'm being generous here") does not support a collaborative approach to editing and so far is the only thing uncivil I've seen in this discussion. I won't be doing homework to participate in it; I do not need to research your user page to comment on your approach here. If your user page indicates a more positive approach to the project, I'd expect to see it in your other interactions. Your confidence in your own insticts does not reflect my confidence in them. Your initial question was answered, you didn't like it, and so you launched into an uncivil tirade demanding satisfaction and admiring your barnstar. Rather than dodging questions, you seem intent on dodging answers. I too have confidence in my instincts on how this interaction will play out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Organizing by subject area is acceptable per MOS:DABORG.—Bagumba (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with User:PamD. The subsectioned version is better, and the page should be kept that way. BD2412 T 14:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  An essay is an opinion, NOT policy. Everyone is free to ignore essays. Now, why is it unproductive to have a dab page with many headers and with many categories that contain only two or three items? As opposed to, as occasionally happens, no headers or categories at all? Other than the fact that it's against the rules and against the MOS? Because the eye is stopped by changes in style, format, indents, and so on. People scan internet pages and read them quickly. They want information fast. They want what they want. They don't want their eyes to be stopped by you. Generally, the internet isn't the place for long form writing or depth. It's for brevity and speed. Less is better. People understood this in the 1990s when the internet first began to reach out its tentacles. There were design principles and certain ways of presenting information that were preferable to others, and people were interested in learning these subjects. It's a superficial, breezy approach to look at a web page and think, "Oh, look, bold titles" and think that it makes everything all better. Because it doesn't. I encourage everyone who wants to work on dab pages, or any web page for that matter, to dig into this subject and think carefully about it. Avoid impulsivity and the emotion that goes with it. Avoid Twitter and everything that goes with it. Go slow, think things through, talk things over, as though you had all the time in the world. No one's getting paid here. It's a volunteer job. We have time to get it right.
  Vmavanti (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  That may be your opinion about headers. I agree with others that it is in fact easier for readers to scan a page that is thoughtfully separated into sections. While is it true that A LOT of extremely short sections is of as little benefit as a single long list, when a list consists of more that a half dozen or so, some grouping is helpful. older ≠ wiser 14:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I guess I may be seen as unqualified to comemnt here on account of the fact that I can't boast of having received any dab barnstars, but I'll chip in to agree with almost everyone above that the structured version is much easier to navigate. Vmavanti, if a list is broken down into n sections each having p entries, then the longest path a reader could take to the desired article should normally be n+p (for a user who reads all the section headings, chooses the appropriate one and then browses through the entries in this particular section). If this were a flat list, then that number becomes np (the user will have to go through all entries on the page). In most realistic cases, np is a larger number than n+p. – Uanfala (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I too agree that the structured version is easier to navigate. I find that pages or sections with more than about 6 or 8 entries are difficult to take in. If I could think of a good way of splitting the 10 entries in the "Other uses" section in two, I would do so.

On the other hand, sections with only one or two entries are almost always too small. The headings break up the page, again making it difficult to take in. Narky Blert (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Widening "Computing" to "Science and technology" would allow about three "Other uses" to be moved up, at the cost of obscuring the computing entries. I think the current page is a good compromise between the two previous versions, having neither too many small sections nor too many entries in one section. Certes (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

What should be done with cases like Newton/List of places called Newton in the United Kingdom, Kingston/List of places called Kingston, Fairview/List of places called Fairview in the United States, Bristol (disambiguation)/List of places called Bristol and Tarbert (disambiguation)/Tarbert? In the 1st 3 cases the SIA doesn't contain any other information other than what a DAB would have so I'd suggest merging them and the problem is that the places aren't included on the main DAB meaning readers need to make 2 clicks to find a full match (though a few of the largest are included on the main Kingston DAB page) and I don't see the need to split the DAB pages even if they're long. We split of names (eg Newton (surname) since most people there are not likely to be called that in a generic content but we include 1 (Isaac Newton) who is on the main DAB which makes sense since readers who only know part of the name aren't going to be too surprised if it takes them 2 clicks to find the person. In the case of Bristol the DAB page does include several non place topics and as noted does include some content so I'm fine with that being separate. In the case of Tarbert the only uses are place names so it might be better to just merge the DAB into the SIA. If a DAB page only relates to place names and content can be added about the name in general then it seems reasonable to include such content even though DAB pages otherwise generally aren't supposed to contain such content. There was discussion in 2008 at Talk:Tarbert @Ben MacDui:. I added the Gigha one though maybe it should just be a redirect since although it has an entry in the Gazetteer for Scotland and GeoNames it seems to just be a farm. Interestingly like with User:Certes/misdirected links#Surnames @Certes: I fixed 54 links that were intended for a specific Tarbert rather than the name in general. There are 13 mainspace links (ignoring the one on the DAB) left for the name its self. Obviously WP is not a dictionary so we usually assume readers are looking for a specific place rather than the name in general especially since the name origin should be included in the specific article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Newton has no primary topic and is correctly a dab. Putting the UK places on the dab would be logical but unwieldy, and we'd have to discard the likes of Newton, Dorset which are permitted in a list but not a dab. The current arrangement seems to be a good compromise. Although arranged slightly differently, I would make similar comments about Kingston and Fairview.

For Bristol, we have correctly identified a primary topic. The "list" is a SIA and is significantly duplicated in the main dab. Some pruning of the overlap might be useful, and we might hatnote the SIA directly from Bristol. There is a risk of mistakenly linking to the base name when some other Bristol was intended. I don't know how many such mislinks other editors have fixed but my personal tally is only 14, so it isn't in my top 50 at User:Certes/misdirected links#Places.

Tarbert is unusual in that a list occupies the base name. What primary topic has been identified? If the geographical feature, we'd have a primary redirect to Isthmus, so it must be the place name as a word, which seems odd. I'd put the dab at the base name and have the etymology at Tarbert (placename) without duplicating its list of places. Certes (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

One of my bugbears is Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia. I don't think I've ever looked at one which didn't have at least one bad link-in, and often several. I cannot for the life of me why Russia should be different from every other country on the planet and use SIAs rather than DABs. All such places do is share the same name, there's no other connection. (I find no fault with List of places named after Vladimir Lenin, which is a valid encylopaedic topic.) I couldn't easily find and example, but I've seen DAB pages which listed several dozen places in Iran, and they worked perfectly well. The silliest case I saw was a two-entry DAB page, one of which was Placename, Russia. The contents of that SIA were one village and a see-also to Placename (disambiguation). Narky Blert (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

One of the DAB pages with lots of Iranian placenames on it is Mahmudabad. It may not be easy to find what you want at once, but it's the commonness of the name which causes the problem, not that well-laid-out DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as Newton, Kingston and Fairview go I'd suggest simply merging back to the "main" DAB page since as noted none have content otherwise (though Fairview does have a small amount) note for example that Newton, Dorset can be included on the DAB page as long as a blue link is provided which List of United Kingdom locations: Newton#Newton would do. As far as I can see the only reason for the split is that there are so many but that doesn't appear to be needed or standard since its better to have all the entries in one place (since as noted many are called just "Newton" alone so should be on the DAB page to) so I'd suggest simply merging those 3 back to the main DAB. Otherwise are we going to end up with list of songs called X and list of films called X. The only other cases I can think of are lists of islands called X in Scotland, namely List of islands called Eilean Dubh, List of islands called Eilean Glas, List of islands called Garbh Eilean, List of islands called Linga and List of islands called Oronsay. I don't think these are necessary either since again we either duplicate the entries or require readers to make 2 clicks. Bristol is maybe a bit different since that list does include more content in its own right. With Tarbert maybe we should just redirect the "DAB page" to the SIA or maybe just call the SIA a DAB but relax the rule on generally not having content on DAB pages. Maybe we should allow content to be added about placenames in general on a "Places" section of a DAB and then if there's enough content it can be moved to an article in its own right (without moving the entries from the DAB) Springfield/Springfield (toponym) seems like a good example to follow but since as noted there isn't anything else (such as films, people etc) we could probably just keep the SIA/DAB at the base name for Tarbert. An example where it might be wise to split and list the entries is maybe Bury where there are also non geographical meanings such as burial and the surname. In this case we could just all the places like Canterbury and Great Hallingbury etc as well as the 4 places called "Bury" and Bury St Edmunds and New Bury but I would only do this if there are a significant number of places that shouldn't otherwise be on the DAB, for example the 4 places simply called "Bury" still belong on the DAB and Bury St Edmunds is probably often enough called simply "Bury" to keep it so the only one that could be removed is New Bury. This was discussed with Talk:Freston, Suffolk where it was noted (somewhere) that if Freston (surname) was created the people would be removed from the Freston DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO New Bury is a valid WP:PTM for Bury, and should be at least a see-also; it's a plausible search term. (Until just now, New Bury and Newbury didn't cross-refer to each other. I seem always to be coming across missing crosslinks like that.)

I for one cheerfully leave coordinates by redlinks in placename DABs, whatever the MOS says. They're helpful to readers (including me; I've used them to sort out DABlink problems). Ditto with ((ill)) links. Narky Blert (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think this is correct, even though its unlikely to be called "Bury" in a generic context (1st passage of WP:PTM) the 2nd does appear satisfied in that its the specific part of the name (meaning it wouldn't be included at New (disambiguation)). There is some debate about if they should only be in the see also, if they should be added at the end of the section or otherwise ordered as like full matches. A good example of an exception to the generic rule is Newcastle v Hull where Newcastle upon Tyne is correctly listed at the Newcastle DAB page but not the Tyne DAB page but Kingston upon Hull is often called "Hull" in a generic context so does also belong on that DAB page to.

I often link to the List of United Kingdom locations pages on DAB pages if the place doesn't exist. Maybe we should have maps on DAB pages like ceb:Stapleford and a bot to create DAB pages with them. While I realize that we probably wouldn't get consensus to create an article for every OS settlement with a bot since some probably shouldn't have standalone articles, we might be able to get consensus to create DAB pages and maybe we should also automatically do this with the "Places" section on DAB pages and DAB pages with only places? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I like maps on appropriate DAB pages, which are allowed by MOS:DABICON. Czech WP is keen on them - compare Březová and cs:Březová for ease of searching. Very few of the English equivalents have them - there's more likely to be a list of unhelpfully-piped links with every other placename on the page bluelinked for a near-WP:SEAOFBLUE. Narky Blert (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We should do nothing (except improve the current articles). I specifically created the first three examples in order to remove a very large number of entries from cluttered hard-to-navigate disambiguation pages, and to allow freedom to include redlinks which would otherwise be deleted. Reversing my creations and incorporating these long lists into the disambiguation pages would not improve those pages. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if we should have some tag such as a hidden category for "alternative to disambiguation" pages whose incoming links are usually wrong and need to be disambiguated. I keep informal lists in a user subpage but a more complete and accessible system might be beneficial. Certes (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This, IMO, is the biggest problem with naming "alternative to disambiguation" list pages as if they aren't lists. Pages with titles whose incoming links are usually wrong and need to be disambiguated should be disambiguation pages (and formatted as such, because the formatting is there for reader navigation). If a group has things they like to make lists of (and I'm a big list-maker myself), title the things "List of ..." so that incoming links aren't usually wrong. If we end up redirecting "Foo Mountain" (or "Tropical Storm Foo" or "USS Foo") to "List of [whatevers] named Foo" because there's nothing other than [whatevers] ambiguous with "Foo [whatever]", at least we can distiguish things that link to "Foo [whatever]" from things that link directly to "List of [whatevers] named Foo". A category for "List redirects that have ambiguous titles" could then be placed on those redirects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I like "List of Foos"-type articles provided that "Foo" doesn't redirect to them; because that's just a way to accumulate bad links with no easy means of finding them. An editor has to make the conscious decision to link to the list to conceal a DABbing problem, as was done by abusing the (disambiguation) qualifier here. (I found that horror only by chance, because there were three everyday links to DAB pages in the same article.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, that IP did add an edit summary of "Incorrect link". Certes (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I found it unclear whether they thought they were correcting or creating one. Narky Blert (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why these are needed, we don't list things by that they're called (WP:NOTDIC) and while Newton, Kingston and Fairview are long DAB pages they aren't anywhere near to being unnavigable. WP:LONGDAB deals with what to do in this case and while is does make it slightly easier to find other uses it means people looking for on the the topics moved onto the list needs 2 clicks which seems far more inconvenient than just having 1 DAB page. Certes yes this is what got me thinking since I saw User:Certes/misdirected links#Surnames and thought to fix links to the Tarbert SIA. As far as I can see there are 3 options, (1) when all the topics on the "DAB" are place names in which case we could place a page at the base name like we have at Tarbert which gives information on the name its self and could feature such a template that can add it to a list or category of such pages that need the incoming links checking to see if they need pointing to a specific article (likely most of the links as in the Tarbert case). (2) when there are non geographical topics as well and thus we have a "Places" section, in this section information on the name its self could be included, this relaxes the rule that disambiguation pages generally don't have such information. If the information is too excessive we could (3) move it to an article dealing with the toponym such as Springfield (toponym) which doesn't list most of the places that as such are still on the Springfield DAB page. One thing to consider with these is if the information actually applies to all the places listed on the SI or section for example although the isthmus origin probably applies to all the Scottish and Irish places it probably doesn't apply to Tarbert, Ontario which is probably named after one of the others. I think for this reason information about place named in general in SIAs or DAB pages should generally be discouraged since its better to add it to the individual place's articles instead. Another thing to consider is if a place name SIA can be the primary topic in the event that there are other uses, for example if an album and film turn up later called Tarbert, could the place name SIA stay at the base name with the other uses at Tarbert (disambiguation)? I'd actually usually go with what Certes said above (by having the DAB at the base name with the SIA not listing the individual places) if this happens but given the information on the Tarbert SIA isn't excessive it doesn't make it difficult to find an individual place so its fine for now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think because other editing groups like to have lists of things that include red links and encyclopedic information (coordinates, song lengths, etc.) for whatever they're listing, and if those things get put in the dab, the dab editors clean it out. That's my understanding of the secret origins of SIAs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd add references and external links to the secret reasons. Narky Blert (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale mentions surnames, and there are certainly parallels. Many surnames are what we might call honorary primary topics. For example, Schoenberg, Braun and Burgers are about the surnames, but almost everyone who lands there was looking for Arnold Schoenberg, Braun (company) or Hamburger. Perhaps placename lists have acquired a similar status. Such situations can change: until 2016, AD 1 was the honorary primary topic for 1. Certes (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Schoenberg a honorary primary topic since it is essentially a DAB (it has no actual content), maybe with Braun the DAB page should be at the base name and Burgers should probably redirect to the (general) DAB page. A good example where you might have a honorary primary topic is Kansas City where it redirects to an article about the area in general but any links clearly intended for a specific city can be fixed (as you have been doing). Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps "honorary primary topic" is the wrong term. I mean an article which occupies a base name despite clearly satisfying neither criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, due to being in a group (surnames, years, place SIAs...) which seems to be grandfathered in; particularly one which serves as a dab but is not tagged as such and is therefore attracts erroneous incoming links. Certes (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert:, I think there's an easy way to find things that link to the redirect rather than things that link to the list, and if the redirects are categorized as "List redirects that have ambiguous titles", it'd be easy to identify which redirects to examine. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: First, the redirects would have to be categorised. I estimate that I've added categories to getting on for 10,000 redirects to DAB pages. 24 of my last 500 edits added or corrected such ((R)) tags; 12 of those redirects had no ((R)) tag at all. Looking back at my earlier contributions, 5% of all edits looks a pretty consistent figure. Narky Blert (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

What should we do with Block voting? Perhaps abandon the disambiguation page classification and categorise it as an article? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Just revert to the last good version. From my cursory glance at the various entries, they are distinct enough for there to be no WP:BROADCONCEPT article than can be written here aside from a dictionary definition. Iffy★Chat -- 17:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Iffy. Revert and politely warn the editor about possible conflict of interest editing. The user name of that editor matches the name of the executive director of a group advocating for STAR Voting.—ShelfSkewed Talk 17:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I too agree that there is no broad concept. The trade union block vote in particular was very different to the others (and IMO pretty corrupt). Unions would declare the number of members they wished to affiliate to the Labour Party, and pay a proportionate subscription. There was no necessary relation between that number and the number of card-carrying members; some unions declared more members than they actually had, others fewer. At Congress, each union would cast a single vote, which had the weight of the declared number. Narky Blert (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

While reading Template:Commons category, I ran across the sentence "On disambiguation pages, this template is usually placed at the top of the page.". I've always assumed that this is a sister project that shouldn't be included on DAB pages (WP:DABSISTER). Am I correct? And if so, should this sentence be removed from the template instructions? Leschnei (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This template is usually placed nowhere, with 173 exceptions. ((Wiktionary)) belongs atop a dab because both cover the title's multiple definitions. Commons categories are about one topic, so generally don't belong on dabs. Is there a case for having the template on pages such as Bandwagon, where the commons category matches an article that doesn't exist but might merit the title if it did? Certes (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing a commons link on a dab page, but we do sister link Wiktionary as a matter of course, and at the top of the page. I don't think WP:DABSISTER applies to this (or Wiktionary); it's not creating a dab list entry. I suppose if an ambiguous title has a matching commons category, it could be sister linked, but I'd be inclined to put it in the See also rather than at the top -- I don't have any heartburn over not including it at all or including it at the top though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It just struck me as odd because it made it sound like the template is usually added to DAB pages and because it would go at the top. Leschnei (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Including ((commons category)) seems to offend against MOS:DABICON. (((wikt)) is in a different class because, like an InterWiki link, it points to further disambiguation.) Narky Blert (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the template documentation should be amended to have it at See also, if anywhere. That's where I've seen it used in articles too. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that a Wikipedia search for "The dawning of the day" leads to an entry for a song. I was looking for the novel of the same name, which has an entry. There is no link on the song entry page to the novel, so it would be difficult to find. This seems like a candidate for disambiguation. I haven't been able to figure out how to actually disambiguate an entry, though -- too new, and haven't come across any easy explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucida sidera (talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Hatnote added to The Dawning of the Day. —ShelfSkewed Talk 17:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in Talk:Apple (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 September 2020, which discusses an article mentioned on this page. Certes (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I enhanced the disambiguation template to allow

((Disambiguation|given name|surname|hn=Lisa, Mona))

in addition to the old method:

((Disambiguation|given name|surname))
[[Category:Human name disambiguation pages|Lisa, Mona]]

I didn't make it work with the other synonyms for hn, just hn itself. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Works nicely, I've already used it twice on pages which lacked either the ((dab)) or the ((hndis)) element. Narky Blert (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place at Kyiv (disambiguation) about whether to include a song that is often known, in Ukranian, as "Kyiv Song" or "My Kyiv". The full title is "Yak tebe ne lyubyty, Kyieve miy!" (How can I not love you, my Kyiv?). My inclination is to remove the song because the page is not disambiguating "Kyieve miy" but I would appreciate other opinions on the talk page. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a WP:PTM issue on Migration (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that much of an issue, but see Talk:Migration#PTMs. – Uanfala (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a proposal at Talk:Lafontaine to split the people out of La Fontaine and Lafontaine and create a surname page. Please add comments there. Leschnei (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The page Coronary is not labeled as a disambig page, though it looks like one to me. It's currently listed as WP:SIA, but that doesn't seem to cover it completely. Would like some feedback whether this page is correctly listed or not. Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• The title should probably redirect to Coronary circulation, which seems to be the primary topic based on the multitude of topics that are subtopics of that sense. If there are unrelated meanings (film/album titles, less-used adjective senses), those should be on a separate disambiguation page at a "Coronary (disambiguation)". BD2412 T 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Good point: an artery system, a disease and a heart attack can't really be said to form a useful set. I looked at the SIA's incoming links earlier today. Although I have no medical training, I diagnosed 25 cases of coronary circulation, six myocardial infarctions and a coronary thrombosis before referring the remaining cases with complications to WP Medicine. (I'm currently working through a list of SIAs with many incoming links, "disambiguating" where appropriate.) Certes (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• The present format is the result of this 2015 RfD discussion. I got the impression it was marked as an SIA mostly because it didn't look like a typical dab page (on account of the appearance of PTMs). But it doesn't look like a typical page because it primarily disambiguates an adjective: dab pages that disambiguate adjectives don't quite look like typical dab pages, which disambiguate nouns. Still, the page could do with editing for clarity, and possibly some additions (as Certes's links indicate). – Uanfala (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• There's also the coronary bone in a horse's foot and related uses. Coronary band and line, in Laminitis, Horse markings, Lameness (equine), Equine anatomy, Horse hoof, Quittor, Limbs of the horse, Soring, Sidebone and probably more. The best target may be the glossary-type entry at Equine anatomy#External anatomy, via new redirects Coronary band and Coronary line. That use suggests a DAB page.

There's also a slew of NN-looking bands and albums called Coronary (not to be confused with bands or albums which risk inducing a coronary). I couldn't find anything to justify even a redirect. I couldn't find any film with the exact title in IMDb.

I wondered if "coronary" might be a rare variant of the adjective "coronal", but apparently not. Narky Blert (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

On further thought, it seems to me that "coronary" should probably be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to coronary thrombosis, the usual (and very common) meaning of "coronary" as a noun, with a ((redirect|Coronary|other uses|Coronary (disambiguation)) hatnote. Narky Blert (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This last seems to make the most sense. Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

What exactly does "[suffering] a coronary" mean? The page suggests a myocardial infarction (heart attack), not necessarily from a coronary thrombosis, and I've (perhaps incorrectly) been changing the link in that way. Wiktionary mentions both. Most sources are vague and don't explain the exact ailment. Certes (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Certes' suggestion for a PRIMARYREDIRECT target looks better than mine. The layman's meaning is unspecific. Narky Blert (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Where are we on this? Is this a consensus for redirecting Coronary to Myocardial infarction, or are we still discussing? Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather we leave it as a dab page. I haven't completely followed the discussion above, and I don't know if there is indeed a primary topic, but redirecting to an article will necessitate both a hatnote and an explanatory text in the lead about the term. Given that it's apparently an informal term, I don't think that would be a good idea. – Uanfala (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a dab, or at least is not tagged as such. Certes (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a new merge proposal at Talk:The Runner. Please comment there. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:Typhoon Haishen#SIA or dab? which may also apply to similar pages. Certes (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguated topics (shortcuts WP:FIXDABLINKS) has remained virtually unchanged since 2006. I think it's high time for a rewrite. The current version of this text consists of five paragraphs:

Paragraph #1:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links and repair them.

This is probably the most important part, and the one most in need of rethinking. There are several problems:

1. It's too narrow. Dablinks do not only occur as a result of dab pages getting moved to the primary title (or new dab pages getting created, as the title text suggests), but in a number of other situations including when newly added article text links to a dab page, or when a redirect is retargeted to a dab page. We need to keep the description broad, without singling out any particular specific cases.
2. It's too strict. It says that you should never ever move a dab page to a primary title unless you first fix all incoming links. If we accept the previous point then, the issues here really become moot, but I'm pointing them out at least just for the record:
   1. This is not often followed in practice. My experience is that links almost always tend to get fixed after a move, not before.
   2. This sometimes can't be followed in practice. If there a lot of incoming links (as in the New York case from a few years ago), it will be beyond a single user's capabilities to fix the incoming links.
   3. Forcing people to follow it would be undesirable. If editors know they can't move a page unless they first fix all incoming links, they may avoid making the move altogether if they don't have the time or the inclination to fix those links. This way we end up discouraging people from making one type of improvement to the encyclopedia unless they've concurrently made another type of improvement. This is not reasonable.
   4. Strictly following this rule would often lead to breaking other rules. Incoming links often come from navigational templates (and fixing these is always a priority). If editors fix those links before performing the relevant moves, they'll have to pipe the links via redirects, which goes against the relevant guidelines.
   5. It is not necessary. We've gone a long way since this paragraph was added, and now all dablinks are easily tracked. Members of the project Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links are prompt and effective at fixing those links. If they're not fixed by the mover, they will certainly get fixed by the project's volunteers.

In conclusion, we should definitely have explanatory text about links to dab pages, and we should encourage editors to be mindful of them, but I don't believe we should go as far as to demand it in this narrow way.

Paragraphs #4 is the following:

Ambiguous links are periodically checked and repaired, but even if some ambiguous links remain, one of the primary reasons for making a disambiguation page is so that following such links will still be useful to the reader.

The gist of #4 is kind of what I was aiming at above: dablinks will eventually get solved. But it seems to me the explanation is too woolly (is it really saying that dablinks are useful to the reader?) and can be dropped entirely. I would make the link to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links explicit (rather than piped behind "ambiguous links"), and add a brief, one-sentence introduction to what this project is about.

Paragraph #5:

There is a tool to facilitate ambiguous link repair in the Python Wikipedia Robot. The bot offers to update links to choices listed on the disambiguation page. Do not forget to seek approval on the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval page if doing extensive or fast runs.

This is a relic from the past. I don't know if this bot framework is still relevant here (like the majority of people who will read the guideline, I am not a bot operator), but over the years a number of tools have been developed to help with dablinks, many of them are easy to use scripts or gadgets, and they're all introduced and described at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. If this project is properly introduced in the preceding paragraph, I think this dicussion of bots can simply be dropped.

Paragraphs #3 and #4 are the odd ones out, and that's why I've left them for the end:

When repairing a link, use pipe syntax so that the link does not show the new qualifier. For example, when renaming Topic Name to Topic Name (qualifier), [[Topic Name (qualifier)|Topic Name]] will render as Topic Name just like the original.
A shorter alternative is to use empty pipe syntax, also known as the pipe trick. This allows editors to leave out the piped alternative when editing. For example, typing [[Topic Name (qualifier)| ]] will automatically produce [[Topic Name (qualifier)|Topic Name]]. (See Help:Pipe trick for more information.)

The third paragraph strikes me as overly narrow and probably also completely unnecessary. It's narrow because it's pointing out only one of the many linking conventions that are relevant here. And is it one that really needs pointing out? Probably every person who's ever read (let alone edited) a wikipedia article will know that article text doesn't contain links with visible parenthetical disambiguators. Is it necessary for such an involved project guideline page like this one to suddenly change gear and go into Wikilinks 101? The next paragraph explains the hat trick: this is certainly not known by many and is definitely useful when fixing links, but so are many other tricks and tools. Shouldn't mention of this be moved to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, which is the proper place for describing the practical aspects of fixing links?

I would like to hear some opinions before proposing any particular new version (and certainly wouldn't mind it if someone else writes it). – Uanfala (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Very much agreed on the dictum that the page mover must fix all incoming links to a disambiguation page. I have definitely skipped over closing WP:RMs that would have burdened me with this task (as opposed to burdening the proposer, or a task force), and have said so when I !voted in the discussion rather than close it. Moving the page sometimes requires the admin mop, while cleaning up incoming links does not, so it has that effect of inhibiting improvements to the encyclopedia. Language that gives the onus to the move proposer to suggest how incoming links might be handled would be a better way to go. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moves of disambiguation pages to primary topic titles would need to be updated as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• While I understand its annoying when DAB fixers suddenly find out that there's a DAB page with thousands of links to it I agree with JHunterJ that the closer generally shouldn't feel they're always required to fix all the links. Maybe this should generally be expected with undiscussed moves partly because if there are too many to fix you're self that might be a sign that the move is controversial enough to go through a full RM. Also the point about redirects is already covered namely "or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page". Also if one is following the instructions to the letter about moving it says to fix the links before even moving which seems odd since the qualified title might not exist meaning before the move is completed if "X (qualifier)" is a red link the links will be temporarily broken. I've understood it actually to mean, first move X to X (qualifier), 2nd fix all the links currently linking to X (if possible) and only then (3rd) convert the base name into a DAB (or redirect it to one). I'd note that tools like disambigassist only work once the title is a (or redirect to) a DAB page so if you're using this you can create the DAB and then fix the links, which isn't usually a problem since this usually only takes a few minutes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Something similar has been suggested before by others, but I think some sort of two-stage process for moving disambiguation pages with a significant number of incoming links might be desirable. First the closer can make a determination that there is consensus a disambiguation page should be moved (or perhaps also that a primary topic redirect be altered). The move proposal would be removed from listing on WP:RM and placed into a queue where it would be moved once the incoming links are cleaned up. The pending page move could be listed on WP:DPL to draw attention of experienced dabbers. And FWIW, it may be that WP:NAVNOREDIRECT is guideline that is overly restrictive. I think an exception should be made there to use a redirect in cases where the move has been decided and is only pending cleanup of incoming links. Changing the link on templates must be one of the first steps, as otherwise it is next to impossible to separate out pages that contain a physical link versus those linked through the template. older ≠ wiser 19:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• 1. Yes, it should include retargeting an existing redirect. 2. It should be the proposer's job to ensure that links are fixed either before or soon after the move. We can recommend but shouldn't mandate the exact method. Perhaps we can learn from TFD, where a "change as proposed" close doesn't mean making the requested edit immediately and leaving a mess behind for others to clean up, but leads to a planned and co-ordinated transition to the new situation. Certes (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Most moves are uncontroversial and so are performed without RM discussions. Probably all established editors have made one or another move of this type. I think we may be prone to losing sight of the fact that many of those editors won't have much affinity for the gnoming tasks that we here take for granted. That's why any guidelines that explicitly apportion responsibility for fixing links will probably end up being more often than not honoured in the breach, like they seem to be now. I think the basic wiki approach should work here: have the project page state what the problem is, and then leave it to editors to step up to the task out of their own accord. Whatever the guidelines say, the reality will continue to be that links will get fixed by a variety of editors: some link volunteers specifically interested in fixing links, others – by the people involved in the moves, and still others by the users who come across those links on the articles they edit. – Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Crouch, Swale here. The idea that the page mover should fix links to dab pages is fine as long as it isn't read as a requirement. They are the ones making the breaking changes (whether undiscussed or following a consensus at an WP:RM) to the links and should make a good faith effort to fix the problem. There's no need to add more layers of bureaucracy here when the solution is simple. Iffy★Chat -- 21:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• My opinions of WP:FIXDABLINKS vary between dislike and detestation.

In what circumstances does the guideline apply?

IMO the current wording is overdetailed, legalistic, difficult to understand, and very possibly contains loopholes suitable for WP:WIKILAWYERING. I suggest "any move which affects a DAB page, including the links to it".

When should the fixes be made?

The principle behind fixing links beforehand is to ensure that Wikipedia never contains bad or ambiguous links. (A cynic might argue that WP:TOPICs and WP:SIAs are designed to ensure the opposite.) This is impractical. If links are changed while a RM discussion is underway and the move is not made, those changes will have been pointless WP:NOTBROKEN work. I've been reverted for making NOTBROKEN edits while cleaning up before making a non-controversial move; a double waste of editorial time. The guideline should say that "links are to be repaired as soon as possible" (as a sidenote - ideally, before they turn up in WP:TDD#Today's highlights).

(In 2016, I turned Royal warrant from a redirect into a DAB page, breaking 250-odd links. I should have held off adding the ((dab)) tag until after I'd repaired all the links, to make sure of keeping the page out of TDD. I was collateral damage in the first of my three rangeblocks while partway through, and it appeared in TDD during the hours while I was trying to get it lifted. Heigh-ho.)

Who should make the fixes?

Responsible editors do clear up around their non-controversial moves. For them, the guideline need only provide reassurance that they're doing the right thing.

The same applies to RM closers who see that only a handful of links need to be fixed, and go ahead and do it. That may be a more efficient use of effort than asking the requesting editor to do so and checking that they have.

The current requirement that an RM closer should always fix all links is unfair and unrealistic. Making such a move is an administrative function, based on determining a consensus. It should not be closer's sole responsibility to clear up the resulting mess.

It is also unrealistic to expect the WP:DPL DABfixers to do the heavy lifting. New DABlinks are routinely created at a rate of 400-800 every day, mostly from failure to WP:TESTLINK (which is an aspiration not a requirement) rather than moves. There aren't enough of us to keep up; we're short one or two warm bodies. The number of DABlinks which need to be fixed has steadily drifted out from 7,200 at the beginning of February to 24,800 today (see WP:TDD#Table 1 Column 2). From past experience, I expect (hope) that the number may stabilise in the low to mid 30,000s.

The onus should be firmly placed on the editors who proposed and supported the move. They wanted it, and they know the subject. IMO, RM closers should ping those editors and tell them to get stuck in, and the guideline should require them to do so. That should probably extend to all the participants in a debate; not all losers are sore losers.

Miscellaneous

A link to WP:DPL#Tools and reports would be useful. Narky Blert (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, how about the following text?

Links to disambiguation pages may be intentional (see below), but in many cases they are not. If a link is intended for one or another of the topics being disambiguated, it should be changed to link to the relevant article. The project at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (DPL) keeps track of such links, and it lists a number of tools and practical suggestions for fixing them.
Links previously pointing to an article may suddenly become links to a disambiguation page. This can happen for example when a disambiguation page is created, or moved to a title formerly occupied by an article, or when a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page. Editors involved in such actions are encouraged to make an effort to fix the resulting links. If any remain, they will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL.

All the minute technical stuff is delegated to the DPL help page, and the core bits of the guideline are couched in more general terms. This is a draft text, and as I'm not particularly good at lucid writing, I expect changes will need to be made. The bits at the end reflect what we've been discussing here – the mention of movers being required to fix all links is removed (that we all agree on), and it's replaced with an encouragement directed at everyone. There was some traction behind the idea that nominators of RMs (or more broadly RM participants) could, or should, be involved in the process, but I don't see how this could be explicitly ordained here. Maybe we should add some suggestions to this effect to the RM closing instructions? I'm not sure about the last sentence in the proposed text above: this is meant as some sort of replacement for paragraph #4 in the current version, but I want to know what others think about it. – Uanfala (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I generally think that the editor proposing the move should be the one to fix the links. I don't want to make the language too soft. If you propose to make a page with hundreds of incoming links into a disambiguation page, you should make every reasonable effort to fix the links. If the task is beyond you, you should notify this project for assistance. BD2412 T 20:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm also interested in the opinions of everybody else who's previously commented. JHunterJ, Crouch, Swale, Bkonrad, Certes, Iffy, and Narky Blert, what are your thoughts on the proposed wording? – Uanfala (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with BD2412. If any remain, they will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL might be interpreted as Don't bother tidying up after yourself; we'll happily pick up the litter you leave. It deserves a stronger injunction to leave the encyclopaedia in a consistent state or at least ensure that someone else is doing so. Certes (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think this makes sense, I also would be happy to see something to discourage people to just "leave it for others" per Certes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

An attempt to share the burden:

Intentional links to disambiguation pages should use the "(disambiguation)" title (see below); links to disambiguation pages that are intended for one or another of the topics for the ambiguous title should be changed to link to the appropriate article. The Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (DPL) project tracks such links and lists tools and practical suggestions for fixing them.
Links previously pointing to an article (or to no article) may suddenly become links to a disambiguation page. This can happen, for example, when a disambiguation page is created, when one is moved to a title formerly occupied by an article, or when a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page. The encyclopedia needs to be cleaned up following such actions. For a handful of links, the cleanup can be done by the editors who create such disambiguation pages or propose such moves or redirect changes, or by the administrators who carry them out. For changes with larger impacts, a task force may be needed (and editors proposing such changes and administrators carrying them out should address that). They will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL, but the encyclopedia will be less reader-friendly until then.

And some language at WP:RM and WP:RFD instructing proposers to include a proposal to handle any such large impacts should be added. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) My first thoughts, changes struck or underlined. "Editors involved in such actions - in particular, those who propose or execute such an action - are strongly encouraged to make an every effort to fix the resulting links." Delete the last sentence; it's implicit in the first para, and the guideline shouldn't give any impression that DPL is infested with underemployed WikiGnomes waiting only for the next thousander to appear.

Beginning to look good. Thanks for proposing this, and for putting the work in. I approve of the brevity. Narky Blert (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of a slight diversion, I'm wondering if moves which leave a large mess should be dealt with more like TfD. We could have a three stage process:!

1. closer announces a consensus to move Foo → Foo (bar) and Foo (disambiguation) → Foo but doesn't implement the moves
2. someone, ideally the proposer, amends links to work with either title, selectively replacing links to Foo by Foo (bar)|Foo, which at this stage redirects to Foo
3. the pages actually move, and nothing breaks

This seems preferable to waking up one morning to find a thousand links suddenly broken. Certes (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Second thoughts. (1) "a serious effort" rather than "every effort". Both mean "do something!"; but "serious" is less threatening than "every". We seem to be agreed that the current mandatory element in the guideline has to go. (2) I endorse JHJ's suggestion of prominently advertising any new&improved version of FIXDABLINKS at RM and RFD. Narky Blert (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment. It should also be advertised at WP:MOVE, for the benefit/admonishment/trouting of editors who don't bother with red tape like RM and RFD. Narky Blert (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft wording

Well, I'm thinking of a version like this: (I've incorporated JHunterJ's stylistic improvements, but have kept the beginning two sentence unchanged as I thought they were simpler and so a bit clearer. I've also omitted the mention of redlinks: this is technically correct, but I don't think it's necessary to be precise in this context.)

Links to disambiguation pages may be intentional (see below), but in many cases they are not. If a link to a disambiguation page is intended for one or another of the topics with the ambiguous name, it should be changed to link to the appropriate article. The Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (DPL) project tracks such links and lists tools and practical suggestions for fixing them.
Links previously pointing to an article may suddenly become links to a disambiguation page. This can happen, for example, when a disambiguation page is created, when one is moved to a title formerly occupied by an article, or when a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page.

Here's the tricky bit. What should follow next? We've got either:

A) Using Narky Blert's suggestion, without stacking several intensifiers ("strongly encouraged", "serious effort").

Editors involved in such actions are strongly encouraged to make an effort to fix the resulting links.

B) JHunterJ's proposal

The encyclopedia needs to be cleaned up following such actions. For a handful of links, the cleanup can be done by the editors who create such disambiguation pages or propose such moves or redirect changes, or by the administrators who carry them out. For changes with larger impacts, a task force may be needed (and editors proposing such changes and administrators carrying them out should address that). They will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL, but the encyclopedia will be less reader-friendly until then.

A or B? I don't have a personal preference, and B is certainly a good representation of existing practices and expectations (though I'd reword away from "cleanup"). It all depends on what level of detail we would like the guidelines to contain. Narky Blert, JHunterJ, Certes, Crouch, Swale, BD2412? – Uanfala (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• B while as already noted I understand users should be strongly encouraged if a bold move or redirect change is made, I think this is less so if its done at a RM or RFD meaning that there is essentially community consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• A followed by B. I think both add value: A explains what should be done, then B suggests how to achieve it. Perhaps A could end ...encouraged to ensure that the resulting links are fixed, to emphasise that the editor has responsibility for managing the work but need not make every edit themselves. Certes (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh drats, I had missed a sentence from the original version B that was to the same effect as A. I've inserted it above (in underlined text). – Uanfala (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

    Then I'll plump for B. I slightly prefer A to B's first sentence but I think the preceding text clarifies what cleaning is necessary and why. Certes (talk)

    How about something half-way in length between the two?

    C.

    The resulting links will need to be corrected. For a handful of links, this can be done by the editors who create such disambiguation pages or propose such moves or redirect changes, or by those who carry them out. For changes with larger impacts, a task force may be needed. They will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL, but the encyclopedia will be less reader-friendly until then.

    I would avoid the use of "cleanup" as that typically evokes a different type of actions (like removing vandalism), and because the fixing of the links is just as much "cleanup" as the initial edit that ostensibly resulted in those links getting marked up as dablinks. – Uanfala (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

    If we're going to trim something, let's remove the final sentence, which can be read as making the preceding text optional because we're standing by to pick up the litter if no one else bothers to. Certes (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Aside from a few sentences of content at the top and in one entry, and some footnotes, the page Blue book looks very like a disambig page to me. It just isn't called one, and the formatting isn't quite right. And this is notwithstanding another page entitled, Blue Book (disambiguation) (note: capital-B, capital-B). Blue book has some features of a WP:BCA, but in that case it should follow BCA guidelines, and it doesn't seem to quite fit the examples or lend it itself well to a BCA. And it's definitely not an SIA, either.

What needs to be done here? (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, Blue book is a valid encyclopedic wikilink target, so it shouldn't be a disambiguation page. Some of the examples might be better duplicated on the disambiguation page, and some might be better moved to the disambiguation (and deleted from the article). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: Thanks for your comment. That would depend on its Notability, which I find doubtful; but that's a separate issue. I've opened Talk:Blue book#Notability to discuss it, and will likely propose it at Afd if there's no clarity from that discussion. Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I agree with JHunterJ. In principle, at least, this is a valid article, that cites the origin of the term, and provides examples. It's not perfect, but it's not deletable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I too agree with JHJ. Narky Blert (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This page seems to be a hybrid of DICDEF and disambiguation page. I don't think there's enough material for a BCA and if there is then it isn't a primary topic and should go somewhere like Blue book (term). The title Blue book should be occupied by a dab; we just need to trim the lead and tidy the entries. Certes (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Certes. As an article, this is problematic, since it mostly collects terms with a very tenuous relationship. BD2412 T 03:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If a page has people with the surname and people with the mononym, should the DAB template be ((disambiguation|hndis|surname)) or is ((disambiguation|hndis)) sufficient? Branquinho is the page that brought this to mind. Leschnei (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd add |surname, to put the page into Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists. Certes (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks, Leschnei (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be used by editors who downplay (that's a generous way of putting it) the second criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so what is the benefit of this shortcut? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It makes these links blue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

We could also create WP:PRIMARYLONGTERMSIGNIFICANCE if you want to balance it out. Iffy★Chat -- 19:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Titles like Friedrich Wilhelm von Rauch (1827-1907), Friedrich Wilhelm von Rauch (1868-1899), and others, have date ranges with hyphens instead of en dashes. For the two Adolf von Rauch's, I debated between a properly-formatted date range vs. date of birth, and finally moved them to Adolf von Rauch (born 1798) and Adolf von Rauch (born 1805) because this seemed to be more in line with WP:NCPDAB. Now I'm noticing more titles with the same issue (the Friedrich Wilhelms, for example), and I want to make sure that I'm not just creating a bigger problem. Was moving Adolf von Rauch (1798-1882) to Adolf von Rauch (born 1798) the correct fix? Leschnei (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, I agree with the application of WP:NCPDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Leschnei (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

For Adolf, we could consider qualifiers such as (paper manufacturer) and (cavalry officer). A reader looking for one of these chaps probably knows his occupation (or other reason for notability) but may not be sure to within seven years when the subject was born. However, I don't think that works for Friedrich as they had similar careers. Certes (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to request a disambiguation set-up for the term "peach fuzz". I recently moved the page previously located at Peach Fuzz (about an English-language manga) to Peach Fuzz (manga), and redirected the original term to Vellus hair. I've now discovered several other articles by the name (Peach Fuzz (album), Peach Fuzz (song)) that weren't previously disambiguated and I don't want to mess this up, so I am asking here. — Goszei (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done — hike395 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I would like guidance on changing a page from one that is a disambiguation page to a Wiki article. Gogyo. As the philosophy is expounded in Japanese Medical and Buddhist text. This page is very different in meaning to Godai Zongqi (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

What should we do with The Undoing? The Undoing (miniseries) is Wikpedia's 13th most viewed article, with 200 times more page views than the album. Although the series is enjoying temporary popularity during its first run, it is hard to argue that the album remains the primary topic for "The Undoing". However, a new dab would barely help readers because the miniseries would still be one click away from its obvious title. Redirect The Undoing (Tim Sköld album) also exists. Any thoughts? Certes (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Two five-year-old albums, sounds like nothing has a claim for long-term significance, sounds like the series is the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The Undoing the album was averaging 15 views per day for the first 90 days of this year,[1] but 262 views per day for the most recent 90 days.[2] About 247 people per day are being inconvenienced. We should move the miniseries to the base title and the album to The Undoing (album). I've already updated the half dozen mainspace incoming wikilinks pointing to The Undoing meant for the album. Station1 (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for both replies. Does anyone with suitable privileges want to go ahead with the moves, or shall I raise a RM? Certes (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I had no qualms about moving it as it's the sort of bold move I would have made with no discussion had I stumbled across it myself. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm stumbling across more of these: Kevin Holland (fighter) v Kevin Holland (views), Joseph Epstein (writer) v Joseph Epstein (views), , The Wilds (TV series) v The Wilds (views), ... None of those clearly usurps the primary topic but a John Quested-style dab may not best serve our readers. How do we best balance passing trends with lasting notability? Certes (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no substitute for editorial judgment on a case by case basis. If it appears likely that a significant majority of readers are going to be looking for one particular topic for a reasonably foreseeable period, say a year, move it and whatever is in its way (after updating incoming wikilinks). It can always be moved back if we're wrong. If you're not sure, create a dab page and check back after a while. Further moves can always be made later on. Station1 (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Interlanguage links currently reads:

Pure disambiguation pages should contain interlanguage links only where a similar problem of disambiguation exists in the target language; that is, they should refer to another disambiguation page, not to one of the many meanings from the list.

I think this needs to be clarified so it's clear the text is about links that appear in the sidebar, and updated to reflect the fact that this is handled at Wikidata now. How about something like this?

A disambiguation page on the English Wikipedia should be connected to the corresponding disambiguation pages in other-language Wikipedias. These will then appear in the left sidebar (see Help:Interlanguage links § Links in the sidebar). Such links are normally handled at Wikidata, which has guidelines for appropriate linking.

This way, we're deferring to the Wikidata project, and so not explicitly leaving any room for the old-style technique of linking from the wikitext at the bottom of the page. Probably worth pointing out that the guidelines at Wikidata are relatively strict – they require the terms disambiguated to be more or less the same, so they will not, for example, allow for linking Cheese (disambiguation) to the hypothetical French Wikipedia page disambiguating the French word for 'cheese'. I think that's sensible, and if in some exceptional circumstance an editor would like to override the Wikidata guidelines, they should do so following WP:IAR, rather than any explicit exemptions in our guidelines.

Whatever the exact text here, I think it will also be a good thing to do something about the section title. "Interlanguage links" is ambiguous, so we should maybe change it to something like "Site links" (matching the Wikidata lingo), or "Sidebar language links". What do others think? I don't see any overriding reason to keep it as it is – I was able to find only three incoming links [3], only one of which is actually used correctly. – Uanfala (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I think that text was intended to refer only to the Languages section of the sidebar. It's not appropriate for ((ill))s in the body of the page which, if permitted, should link to single meanings rather than dabs. Certes (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not happy with losing the language in the first sentence, nor in the header. As it is, it makes it clear that Ills on dab pages should only be to other-language dab pages, not to other-language articles. That is the long-standing community consensus, and I agree with it. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Some deferring to Wikidata would be appropriate, such as:

Pure disambiguation pages should contain interlanguage links only where a similar problem of disambiguation exists in the target language; that is, they should refer to another disambiguation page, not to one of the many meanings from the list. Such links should appear in the left sidebar (see Help:Interlanguage links § Links in the sidebar). These are normally handled at Wikidata, which has guidelines for appropriate linking.

and again, the section header should remain as is. There is no ambiguity IMHO. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The ambiguity is between site links that appear in the sidebar (which is what this section is about), and links from within the text of a dab page entry (which is an issue currently being hashed out in a different thread) – that's the problem with the heading. And the problem with the original text is that it uses an unclear and roundabout way of saying that dabs should have sitelinks to dabs, and not articles. – Uanfala (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

We need to clarify whether the term "interlanguage link" in this context includes ((ill)) and similar or just the languages sidebar entries. I contend that it can't have been intended to include ((ill)), because that would recommend linking to foreign-language dabs via ((ill)), which no one supports. This interpretation neither permits nor deprecates ((ill)) links to foreign-language articles in the body of the page, which are a separate issue. Certes (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The example I gave above clarifies all that, doesn't it? "...should contain interlanguage links only where a similar problem of disambiguation exists in the target language;..." contains the word "only" and disallows ill links in the page content. "Such links should appear in the left sidebar..." and that's clear as a bell as well. No need to make dab pages more confusing than they already inherently are. KISS: keep it simple and succinct. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The stipulation on "interlanguage links" was added in 2003 and is largely unchanged. How can it possibly refer to ((Interlanguage link)), which was created in 2013? The naming is merely a coincidence and an ambiguity. Certes (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Where do you see ambiguity? The guideline applies to interlanguage links whether they are in a template or in a sidebar. An ill is an ill, isn't it? The guideline is a long-term community consensus, and while consensus can change, that consensus should only be altered by a well-visited RfC. I know where you stand, Certes, and as you have probably seen, I strongly disagree that ills should be used in dab page content and link to other-language articles. If readers really want to see an other-language article, they can get to it easily from the enwiki article, or they can click on the Wikidata link in the sidebar of a dab page and get to the other-language article from the other-language dab page. Few readers probably even want to do that, because they have an enwiki article in mind that they want to navigate to from an enwiki dab page. There is no need for ills to other-language articles directly on a dab page entry. That can only cause way more confusion than is already inherent in dab pages and so is and should be disallowed by the guideline, that is, by the presently existing community consensus. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That bit of text in the guideline was added in 2003, long before templates like ((ill)) existed. The Help:Interlanguage links page at that time suggests that even the conceptualization of interlanguage links was at an early stage of development. However, I agree that an RfC with wider discussion is needed to alter such a nugget of wisdom that has come down virtually unchanged since the earliest versions of this guideline. older ≠ wiser 12:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We need an RfC? But there's no substantial change being proposed to the guidelines – just a straightening out of the text, and a mention of Wikidata – I don't think there's been any sort of disagreement in the last 8 years or so that it's Wikidata that handles the interwiki site links. The use of links inside dab page entries, on the other hand, is something we do need an RfC for, but that's a different matter and it's being discussed in another thread above. – Uanfala (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The clarification you propose limits applicability of that line to the language sidebar. While I agree with that, I think the line has come to be interpreted as also applicable to inline links. older ≠ wiser 12:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support replacing as proposed. This is an apparent leftover from the old days, and it has been superseded by the Wikidata convention concerning sidebar links. I don't think that an interpretation involving in-text interwiki links (in the ((ill)) sense) is even possible – the sentence does not make sense at all when read in that manner. No such user (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I would like guidance on changing a page from one that is a disambiguation page to a Wiki article. Gogyo. As the philosophy is expounded in Japanese Medical and Buddhist text. This page is very different in meaning to Godai. Zongqi (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Two options:

Boldly move the disambiguation page to "Gogyo (disambiguation)" and then edit the resulting redirect at "Gogyo" to be the article on the topic you want to write and article on. This should be done only if you feel it would be uncontroversial.

Create the article on the topic you want to write an article on at "Gogyo (medical philosophy)" or some other qualified name, and then start a WP:RM to move the disambiguation from the base name and move the new article to the base name.

--JHunterJ (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou Zongqi (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Archived at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_54#Interlanguage_links_and_links_to_sister_projects.

Taggart was recently moved to Taggart (series), and Taggart is now a disambiguation page. There is already a disambiguation page at Taggart (disambiguation). Would Taggart (series) still be considered the primary target or should the disambiguation page be moved to Taggart (and lots of links fixed)? Leschnei (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the move was discussed, so there may be a case for reverting it. Massviews suggests that it's marginal: 430 daily views for the series, 215 for Samantha Taggart (no necessarily via her surname) and little other interest. If the move does stick then we should move Taggart (disambiguation) to Taggart; there is no value in a second and less comprehensive dab. Certes (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I posted this at the general help desk but today found my way to this page and I see that people are asking questions here, so I hope this is okay to post, because I think it might need DAB experts. I created a new DAB page out of what was previously redirect (to the Pearson InformIT section - which may become a separate article sometime), at Informit, only to discover InformIT (disambiguation). It's complicated by the upper/lower-case thing, and I'm not sure what the best approach to these are. I have also now created Informit (database), so this will creates a third item. What is the best way to treat these options? (I'm thinking perhaps all variations should redirect to one DAB page, and if so should it have "(disambiguation)" after the word or not?) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: You've come to the right place. I've merged the two pages into Informit (your basename) and retargetted InformIT (disambiguation) to it. I've also created the parallel redirect Informit (disambiguation).

Good spot on the duplication BTW. Narky Blert (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, thanks for that, Narky Blert. (And you must have one of the best usernames on this platform, btw!). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages#Duplicate disambiguation pages, where a bot attempts to maintain a list of duplicate dabs. Certes (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Certes, I'll check it out when I have more time and keep an eye on it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I found this page that has been tagged for a decade, but it might need to be deleted or turned into adab [age. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything to dab. I'd just delete it and move Order book (trading) to the title. Station1 (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I merged the two articles. Station1 (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Kraft (disambiguation) page is a bit confusing, or perhaps it is the article names themselves, when it comes to Kraft Foods. Kraft Foods Inc. appears to be the original company that existed from 1923 until a split in 2011/2012, after which it became Mondalez. Kraft Foods, as far as I can make out, only actually existed between 2012 and mid-2015, when it became part of Kraft Heinz. Perhaps this discussion belongs on one or all of those talk pages, but I thought it worth consulting the DAB experts first. It strikes me as a bit analogous to the muddle with the various organisations known as "Anti-Slavery Society", on which I recently did a big clean-up. The problem is that editors just link to the most obvious name (which in that case was the Anti-Slavery Society, in this, Kraft Foods). I haven't done a thorough check, but given that Kraft foods has a LOT more pages linking to it than Kraft Foods Inc., I'm pretty sure that most of those (like a few I've discovered already) actually intend to link to the older company. I'm wondering if there should be a "Kraft Foods (disambiguation)", or else article moves to change the name of each article (followed by dates in parentheses?), or some other idea to help untangle these. Any suggestions or advice? Am I missing something? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

p.s. Kraft Foods should really be renamed Kraft Foods Group, as that was apparently its registered name. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This sort of naming muddle is common with big corporate mergers and acquisitions. For example HP Inc. / Hewlett-Packard / Hewlett Packard Enterprise or the various entities known as Columbia TriStar. older ≠ wiser 16:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What, if anything, is the primary topic of the term "Kraft Foods"? If it's not the 2012–15 version then it might be RM time. Certes (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If you mean the legal entity with that name, yes. For the average Joe, it is the brand name distinct from whichever corporate overlord acquired the name in the latest move of the game played by the 1% moving assets around. older ≠ wiser 17:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point, though we don't have an article on the brand. The redirects could benefit from a review too, with Kraft Foods, Inc. redirecting to Kraft Foods rather than Kraft Foods Inc. as just one example. Certes (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

In Atashi, the DAB template contains 'WIO-1011' as a parameter. I can find anything by searching, but thought I'd check here before removing it. Leschnei (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea, and nor does Google. I've reverted it to ((dab|surname)), as I see several surnames listed but no WIO-1011s. Certes (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Leschnei (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Members of and visitors to this WikiProject are invited to comment on and to contribute to a new WikiProject - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluelink patrol. The founders think that it complements but in no way infringes on any existing WikiProject - and also, that we cannot have got everything right. Narky Blert (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look at Britain/Britain (disambiguation). The DAB page was cut and pasted to Britain (disambiguation) but the talk page which has substantial discussion is still at the base name. It was moved after a small amount of discussion at Talk:Britain#This page should be a redirect to United Kingdom and there was 1 person who agreed and 1 person who didn't appear sure. Given the previous debate on this I think there should have been a full RM rather than just an informal discussion on the DAB. As someone in England I'd expect "Britain" to return the island an "UK" to return the sovereign state but I'm fine with disambiguation. Unlike the US being called "America" which I've commonly heard I didn't have any awareness that "Britain" is sometimes used to refer to the UK until recently. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the cut and paste move. I think the assumption of the redirect was that the primary topic for Britain is the UK. If there were a proper move discussion and consensus supported this position, then I'm OK with that. Although, the situation is not entirely comparable to America. While any usage of the term Britain in current news would almost invariably refer to the UK -- there are many historical entities that might be more a accurate reference. I think in Wikipedia, the term would become a magnet for carelessly made links that should link to one of the other entities rather than the current nation state. older ≠ wiser 18:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the Britain talk page. Thats where this issue should be discussed before changing a redirect that was on that page or even on the UK talk page itself so more can contribute. There is no consensus for this significant change. RWB2020 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There wasn't sufficient consensus for the previous change a new months ago for "this significant change" as you put it, a formal WP:RM is needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear DAB-Experts,

I have a question regarding two German film directors both named Wolfgang Becker. Currently the page of the director born in 1954 is named simply Wolfgang Becker. The director born in 1910 is named Wolfgang Becker (editor) – he was a film editor in the earlier part of his career (1931–1949), before becoming a director in the years 1950–1992. Now while his career as film editor is very significant, he is clearly even more notable as a director, as can be seen from the number of projects on his IMDb page. I have the hunch, that the parentheses (editor) was chosen for him simply to avoid the longer disambiguation Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1910). But this is the choice made in the de-WP, where the two are named de:Wolfgang Becker (Regisseur, 1910) and de:Wolfgang Becker (Regisseur, 1954) – in the de-WP style guide, the "born"-part is left out.

I believe this to be the correct choice. Neither director is significantly more notable than the other, so I propose moving the younger one to Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1954) and to change Wolfgang Becker into a DAB page. As an aside, there are more Wolfgang Beckers notable enough for an en-article, although they currently have none – see the German dab page de:Wolfgang Becker.

Are there any objections to this? And am I right in assuming that the word "born" is always used here in the en-WP when applying this method? Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The 1954 man has 20 times more page views than the 1910 man, twice as many incoming links and dominates search results, though not overwhelmingly. Is there a primary topic? If so then it should be titled Wolfgang Becker, with a hatnote to the other meaning. If not then that title should go to a disambiguation page like this example. Certes (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Certes. I don't thing a compelling case can be made that the younger Wolfgang is the primary topic – certainly not according to the second criteria "long-term significance"; they are about equal on that. And while the page views are different, it isn't as dramatic as your "20 times more" sounds, because they both are at a pretty low base! Yes, Mr. 1954 has more incoming links than Mr. 1910 – but some of these are actually misdirects to the wrong Wolfgang, e.g. Hans Albers, The Last Illusion. Which is another good reason to do a proper DAB on both people. Plus, Mr. 1910 has 22 films or series articles blue-linked to his filmography, while Mr. 1954 has just six. I think the differences are mainly that the younger one is a nearly current director (who might make another film yet), while the other is 15 years dead and has just a one-line biography that could be improved greatly by using German language sources. (I might even be the person to do that!)

The DAB page you link to, does not perfectly match this situation, because the two namesakes don't have the same occupation. I was looking at Paul Wilson for reference, since there are three footballers there, one of which is deceased, while the others are living. So here's my question about the word "born" rephrased: Is it correct that this should always be used, as in the Paul Wilson examples, or would some style guide (that I haven't found yet) prefer Wolfgang Becker (director, 1910–2005) for the deceased one? In the de-WP we just stick with the birth year, no matter if dead or alive.

P.S. Of course I will check and redirect all incoming links on both Wolfgangs after moving their pages, and before creating the DAB page. --Sprachraum (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:NCPDAB, and for cases like this it recommends the format [[Name (qualifier, born YYYY)]]. Examples are Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1858) and Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1914). – Uanfala (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Uanfala, that is the style guide I was looking for. Having read the above, are you happy for me to go down that route? Certes didn't seem entirely convinced yet. --Sprachraum (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to be sure that there was no clear primary topic. I'm now convinced: a two-entry dab looks like the best option, with Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1910) as the new title for the moved article. Certes (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and done it now. Will take a bit of time to move all the links before the creation of the DAB page. --Sprachraum (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia disambiguation has been nominated for merging with Template:Disambiguation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear DAB-experts,

I believe there is a need for a proper disambiguation page for the name Hugh Elliott (and Hugh Elliot with one "t"). Right now the name page with two "t"s is a relink to:

• Sir Hugh Elliott, 3rd Baronet – a British conservationist/ornithologist (1913–1989), who has three hatnotes, leading to:
  • Hugh Elliott (diplomat) – a British diplomat and current UK ambassador to Spain (* ?), who has zero hatnotes, and
  • Hugh Elliott (editor) – an American film editor and musician (* 1964), who has one hatnote to the diplomat above, and finally
  • Hugh Elliot – a British diplomat and colonial governor (1752–1830), who has four hatnotes, including these two not named yet:
    • Hugh Elliot (MP) – a British politician (1848–1932), who has zero hatnotes, and
    • Hugh S. R. Elliot – a British Science writer (1881–930), who has three hatnotes to some of the above.

There could also potentially be articles for Hugh Elliott (footballer) and Hugh Elliott (athlete) in the future, although the later doesn't seem notable enough. Plus some peerage-types floating about on wikidata.

The six existing articles are messy enough, and I would assume the best hatnote for all of them is the Template:Other people or the Template:Similar names.

I would also assume that one uses just one DAB page for both spelling types, since there is also only one DAB page for the name Elliot, while Elliott relinks to that. Where to put the DAB page though? The colonial governor occupies Hugh Elliot, and he may indeed be the primary topic amongst the Hughs with one "t", but I don't think he is much more relevant than the knighted ornithologist, or the current ambassador to Spain. Would you (1) move him to a new page with (parentheses), and then use his page as the DAB page, relinking Hugh Elliott to that? Or would you (2) just use Hugh Elliott as the DAB page, and let the governor keep his seat? Looking at the list of Famous bearers of the surname, it seems the two-t-types are far more common, so I would use method (2) if that is ok with everyone.

P.S. Does one include people like Hugh Elliott Eaglesham and Hugh Elliot Montgomery in the "See also:" section, or does one avoid that, because Elliot is a given name in these cases?

Looking forward to your advice; thanks from --Sprachraum (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi to Certes and Uanfala – since no-one else has answered yet, and you were both helpful with my previous question – do you have a comment on this one? Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Pageviews suggest that Hugh Elliott (diplomat) may be the primary topic for Elliott. However, that might be recentism and incoming links favour the Baronet, so I would create a dab at the base name. We seem to have the right PT for Hugh Elliot, with the governor a clear winner on both pageviews and links. The two other Elliots could go on the new Elliott dab too, with a simple hatnote on Hugh Elliot linking there. Eaglesham and Montgomery had Eliot as a middle name (rather than a barrelled surname) so I don't think they qualify, though they could go in See also if they are likely to cause confusion. Certes (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Certes, that seems to be option 2 as outlined above. So I will do that now.

Hello, disambiguation squad! I noticed that on the Mary Miller disambiguation page, an editor recently divided the entries into Living and Dead sections. Is there any kind of standard or guideline about doing that or not doing that? I don't recall seeing that type of thing before, is why I ask. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It's non-standard and requires maintenance whenever a listed person dies. I've seen a few name dabs divided into ancient and modern people, but that wouldn't be useful here. I don't think a list of 12 is too long to appear undivided. Certes (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've put that page back the way it was. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's highly unusual – I can see only five other dabs that use such sections [4]. Even leaving aside the oddness, I don't think it's very helpful to readers – when searching for someone you've heard or read about, then unless you're following a news item, it's unlikely you'd know for sure if the person is dead or alive. Besides, much of the same information can be conveyed by a chronological, rather than alphabetic, ordering. – Uanfala (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Magnovvig: Hello. It looks like you put back your recent change to the Mary Miller disambiguation page, here, dividing the entries into Living and Dead sections. I don't see how that's helpful, and neither do a couple of other editors who have commented in this section. And it's contrary to the usual practice. I recommend putting the page back the way it was, not divided into Living and Dead. But if you think there's a compelling reason to keep the two sections, feel free to explain it here. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've reverted to previous version, as I agree that living/dead is not helpful, and trimmed some over-detailed annotations. But do we have a guideline or MOS to use in choosing how to organise a name dab page?

A simple list can be

1. A-Z by article title (ie disambiguations A-Z followed by those with middle initials etc. The most common format.
2. Chronological by birthdate - difficult for those without a given date, but helpful to readers as dividing historic from contemporary without the need for updates of living/dead. Less common, but used in many pages.

Sections can be:

1. by theme (arts, politics, etc), though these Mary Miller's don't divide neatly
2. by something chronological like "Born pre/post 1900", though some will still be a guess.

Do we have a consensus as to how long is too long for an undivided list?

Lots to discuss ... unless there's a MOS:HNDIS which I haven't found. PamD 08:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:LONGDAB suggests that Sections with more than ten to twelve entries should usually be divided, so this one is marginal and at the editor's discretion. WP:LONGDAB#People suggests that we divide larger sections by field of notability: arts, science, sport, etc. That makes sense: I don't know when Mary Miller (artistic director) was born but an "Arts" heading would guide me quickly to the right entry. Certes (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I find I can take in ((hndis)) pages with up to 8 entries at a glance, and with only slightly more difficulty if there about 10. Above that, it gets to be a struggle to find what I'm looking for. I like chronological ordering; I dislike chronological separation, it slows down searching if I don't know the dates. I wouldn't find Living/Dead (which is always going to get out of date) useful at all. I especially like separation by field of activity, that really helps searching. Narky Blert (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)