Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 54

< Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
Latest comment: 2 years ago by DePiep in topic A letter + its usage
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57
Latest comment: 3 years ago122 comments15 people in discussion

This is about disambiguation page entries that look something like that:

The focus of such an entry is a link to an article in a Wikipedia in another language. The community stance so far appears to have been ambiguous. Two years ago, wording prohibiting such entries was added to WP:DABSISTER, as a supposed clarification of the existing guidelines, but in the ensuring discussion it turned out that these guidelines had not been intended to cover such cases in the first place. However, this bit remained in the text, apparently overlooked, until I removed it today [1] (though not without provoking some disagreement).

There were two substantial previous discussions that I know of: in 2018 and in 2019. Opinions were evenly split – of the ten editors who participated in either discussion, five supported the inclusion of interlanguage entries, and five opposed it (though two of these seemed to oppose solely on the grounds that the guidelines were against, and that turned out to not quite have been the case).

Should we have explicit guidelines here? I see three options:

  1. add guidelines supporting the use of interlanguage links (either with explicit text about the conditions of appropriate use, or leaving the details to editors' common sense);
  2. do not add any guidelines either for or against;
  3. add guidelines against the use of interlanguage links.

Interlanguage links are used on over 2,100 dab pages, so if there's a move to deprecate them we'd need a big discussion, and judging from the previous ones it's difficult to see how consensus could form for such an outcome. The realistic options are #1 and #2. I don't have a preference between these two, but I'm definitely against #3, and I would really like to stop seeing interlanguage links removed on sight by the one or two experienced users who seem to do that as a matter of course. – Uanfala (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Sister projects currently says something along the lines of:

Shortcut

Disambiguation entries should not be created for subjects whose only content is on pages of sister projects

This was originally added in 2004, and it appears to have been motivated by people adding dab entries linking to a sister project that was a memorial for victims of 9/11. That's a very different context from the one we're operating in now. It is true that there's almost universal consensus against many types of sister project links – notably for Wikidata, Wikivoyage or Commons, but it is also true that such links are extremely unlikely to be added in the first place, so the need for a specific prohibition is subject to debate. On the other hand, there are types of links to sister project that are acceptable, like certain Wiktionary links, or links to non-English Wikipedias (see the thread immediately above – there may not exist strong consensus for them, but half of those who've commented in the past find them useful).

Should we hold on to this little section? If yes, then it will make sense to expand it with more nuanced text that actually corresponds to current practice. Otherwise, its content can be entirely subsumed under Wikipedia:Disambiguation#External links, which, strangely enough, already has a sentence about Wiktionary links. – Uanfala (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I think there are two questions here: what should be allowed, and how best to express those rules. I don't think we can write the guide until we agree the guidelines.
Do we agree what's allowed?
seems more helpful to our readers than
Non-English wikipedias are special amongst other projects in that we allow articles to link to them: there's even {{Interlanguage link}} to encourage such links. If it's good enough for an article, perhaps it's good enough for a dab. Certes (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages exist when there is more than one topic on English Wikipedia that could have been titled with the title, or that could have been the target of a redirect at the title. Interlanguage links are neither of those things; we don't point English Wikipedia redirects at other Wikipedias (if André Exemple were unambiguous, you wouldn't target it at the French Wikipedia article, but at the English list), and they don't belong on English Wikipedia navigation pages. MOS:DABMENTION applies; if needed, add the interlanguage link to an article (so the English list would be a great place for the interlanguage link); if there's no article appropriate for that, then there's no need for the entry in the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the overarching MOS:DABMENTION applies. Both of Certes's examples are OK: what's not OK is
which is how I interpreted WP:DABSISTER until its recent change. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Does anyone dissent from that view? If not then perhaps we should clarify that an {{ill}} or equivalent is a valid substitute for a redlink but not for a bluelink. Certes (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
We should put the {{ill}} on List of French painters only, and use
on the disambiguation page. Apparently we should also clarify that the blue link referred to here is an internal blue link, since the WP:Blue links covers external links and interlanguage links as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone dissent from that view? I do. I've commented at length in the previous discussion. But in short – erecting high barriers between English and non-English content is not usually in the best interest of readers. More than half of our readers can read in another language, and a substantial proportion of those who don't will be aware of the existence of tools like Google Translate. If a topic is notable by enwiki standards, then it doesn't make a difference whether at this moment the topic happens to have an article of its own here, or it's currently only mentioned within an article, or at the time being it's only got an article in a wikipedia in another language.
One practical consideration is that the enwiki "mention" is more often than not going to be in a list similar to List of French painters, where the content about each painter is exactly the same as would already be included in the dab page entry. Such links are not even as good as useless – a reader will have wasted time clicking on them and then browsing through the target article, only to find out that it doesn't tell her anything that she hasn't already learned from the dab page. Here's one example: if there are two Spanish parishes with the name, arbitrarily removing one of them, just because it doesn't happen to be currently mentioned in an English article, will inadvertently leave a dab page that's worse for readers than if no dab page had existed in the first place. – Uanfala (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
No one's "erecting barriers". We're trying to get readers of English Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia article on the topic that they are seeking. You may as well rail against the Wikipedia editors who just as "arbitrarily" only mention one of two parishes with the name on an English article. Disambiguation pages are not the places to introduce content to the English encyclopedia, but they are there to navigate to topics on the English encyclopedia that could have been the target of a redirect at the title if there were no ambiguity. Keeping it simple helps the readers and their navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Does anyone dissent from that view? was a bit optimistic. We seem to have some editors who feel that an {{ill}} "counts" as a blue link and permits an entry, and others who feel that {{ill}} should never appear in a dab. Perhaps I should have asked: is allowing {{ill}} in lieu of a red link, whilst requiring an accompanying blue link as usual, a reasonable compromise between those two positions? Certes (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree {{ill}} is acceptable in place of a redlink on a disambiguation page. I also agree that WP:DABMENTION should apply. The topic must have *some* indication of notability in English language -- otherwise we might as well create bots to automatically create inter-language links cross-referencing every topic in every language Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 18:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
If it shouldn't appear in a dab, then it shouldn't appear in a dab. The idea that a compromise has to be a "meet in the middle" thing begs the question: which external links are we going to allow to compromise between those who feel that they count and permit an entry and those who feel that they should never appear in a dab? If disambiguation pages aren't disambiguating a thing (the whole web, other encyclopedias), then the disambiguation pages shouldn't disambiguate those things. Keep it simple. The {{ill}} links on the blue-linked article will serve the readership. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
We're not disambiguating the whole web, we're disambiguating existing Wikipedia articles. These are ones that a) exist on a Wikipedia, b) have not yet been created on the English Wikipedia, and c) are notable by the standards of the English Wikipedia. Also, the inclusion of such links on a dab page is always a temporary measure as these articles should all eventually get created. A properly formatted {{ill}} link will automatically hide the interlanguage links and display the enwiki link as soon as the article is created. – Uanfala (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
We're disambiguating existing English Wikipedia articles. Other Wikipedias have their own policies and guidelines (so many not be notable here just because they exist on another encyclopedia; WP:WHYN: "Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject." -- emphasis added), just like other websites determine their own content policies. As soon as an appropriate article is created, an appropriate entry on the disambiguation page can be added, but we don't crystal-ball our disambiguation pages any more than we do our content. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Exactly! Hence criterion c) above. – Uanfala (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
And the easy way to tell that a topic meets that criterion is by requiring MOS:DABMENTION. Which sets up the obvious place to keep the {{ill}} link: on the linked article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
DABMENTION is a very different criterion from WP:N. There is a large number of non-notable topics that meet DABMENTION, and conversely a great many notable ones that are not (yet) mentioned anywhere. – Uanfala (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. So let's stick with it. Link to the (English) articles mentioning the topic (which may or may not be notable enough for an English Wikipedia article of its own), and leave the {{ill}} link on that article. There's no reason for the disambiguation page to try to determine if the not-yet-in-English article meets English notability guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I would add the nuance that we're disambiguating topics covered by articles. For example, Volleyball#Set is a substantial mention which deserves its entry on dab Set, even though we don't have a whole article on the subject. Certes (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

How about the following wording for WP:DABSISTER?

Disambiguation entries are generally not appropriate for topics whose only content is on sister projects like Wikidata or Wikivoyage. Links to Wiktionary may be appropriate in some contexts. Entries may link to an article on a Wikipedia in another language if an article does not yet exist on the English Wikipedia, and if the entry would otherwise pass MOS:DABMENTION; such entries can be formatted with {{interlanguage link}}.

It seems consistent with the views of the majority of participants in this, and previous, discussions, though unfortunately, it can't incorporate the opinions at either end of the spectrum (including mine). The mention of the interlanguage template may seem superfluous, but I think it's good practice (because of the way it will hide the interlanguage link once an English article is created), and it's good to have it explicitly allowed to avoid the potential confusion that may result from editors taking MOS:DABICON to mean that templates are completely banned. – Uanfala (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I propose:

Disambiguation entries are generally not appropriate for topics whose only content is on sister projects like Wikidata, Wikivoyage, or other-language Wikipedias. Links to Wiktionary may be appropriate in some contexts. Other links to sister projects, if needed, should be placed on the encyclopedia articles linked from the disambiguation page.

It seems consistent with the views of the guidelines (including the prohibition against other templates, including {{ill}}), and not just the handful of people who have so far opined here so far. --JHunterJ (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, the guidelines should reflect current best practice, and we shouldn't adapt such best practices to the presumed meaning of the pre-existing text. But even if we stick to narrow textual exegesis, there's nothing in the existing guidelines to support such as strong stance against interlanguage entries. The relevant guidelines at WP:SIS actually encourage the use of links to sister projects, and the text in the dab guidelines that apparently prohibited them was added because of this 2004 thread which was addressing one particular sister project that has been defunct since 2006. It also contradicted long-standing guidelines on Wiktionary links at MOS:DAB. And as for the use of templates, MOS:DABICON has it that they are discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term, and Template:interlanguage link obviously helps in selecting the right article, so there's nothing against its use.
Anyway, at this stage I'm tempted to push forward my own preferred version. How about this then?

Editors working on a disambiguation page are encouraged to check the corresponding disambiguation pages on wikipedias in other languages. This may occasionally help identify eligible topics on the English Wikipedia which would otherwise be difficult to locate. Any articles on other Wikipedias whose topics are notable by the English standards and are not currently covered here, should be linked directly from a disambiguation page entry, preferably using Template:interlanguage link.

– Uanfala (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The second proposal does reflect current best practice, given the role of disambiguation pages (navigating readers to topics in this encyclopedia that could have had the ambiguous title). Put the encyclopedic content (including references, pictures, templates, and off-encyclopedia links) in the articles, and leave the disambiguation page free from the clutter unrelated to its navigational purpose. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
And {{ill}} links obviously don't help in selecting the right article. The description with the link to the English Wikipedia article that mentions the topic (and the {{ill}} link there, if needed) do that job. Take a look at the example image used in that section for an illustration of something that helps beyond the description. Those are rare. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Then Support I was wrongfooted by the discovery now that some editors have imposed a blanket prohibition. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
What's harmful about providing information like external links? Images? Several blue links in the description? Etc., etc.? The answer's the same in each one: they detract from the navigational function of disambiguating ambiguous topics on this encyclopedia. Take a look at most hurricane or ship or mountain set index articles and see if we should simply recant and call them disambiguation pages too again, because "what is wrong and harmful" about them? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree! That's why I believe in an example like the following:
André Exemple [fr], 16th century French painter
the link to the entry in the enwiki list article should be removed as a distraction that doesn't add value to what is already given in the dab page itself, and the sole link should be the one to the substantial article on the other Wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The other Wikipedia should handle the other Wikipedia's navigation. English Wikipedia (the "this encyclopedia" in the comment you're totally agreeing with) handles navigation to English Wikipedia articles. The interlanguage link should be on the English encyclopedia's list article, and the English Wikipedia's navigational page should navigate the reader to that list article. It really is that simple. If the link to the list article doesn't add any value, the entire entry should be removed from the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
At this stage I believe that – one editor's vocal opposition notwithstanding – there is broad support for the compromise proposal ("interlanguage links OK if they meet DABMENTION"). It seems reasonable to update the guidelines now, or are we going to need to escalate to an RfC? – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Not just one; see @Paine Ellsworth:'s contributions on Talk:Arbol again. And not broad either, but a handful. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't see "broad support" at all at this point, nor have I changed my opinion that the guideline is fine as it is. There is no need to overcomplicate dab pages with links to other-language articles. The interlang links in the left sidebar to other-language dab pages should suffice. KISS applies since I've always thought of dab pages as like a "necessary evil" anyway. They need to be kept simple. Hopefully, that's 'nuff said. If not, then yes, an RfC should be the next step, because a small back-and-forth like this is not enough input to make a sweeping, overcomplicating change such as you've proposed. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, JHunterJ, you've managed to find the one other person in the whole encyclopedia who goes around removing interlanguage links. I willl, however, try to avoid canvassing the support of the dozens of editors who do add such links. If an RfC is what's needed to get you two to finally stop removing them, then so be it.
I'm thinking of an RfC that asks for a choice between the three proposals above. JHunterJ, are there any changes you would like to make to yours? Certes, how about the DABMENTION proposal above, are there any changes you would like to make before it's brought to wider discussion? – Uanfala (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Review WP:NPA and WP:AGF first, and then, sure, an WP:RFC sounds good. You portrayed my voice as a lone one, when you knew it wasn't based on the discussion you participated in at Arbol (and then strangely tried to insist the ill links not be added to the article space). Replying to that incorrect statement with the information that you chose to overlook is not canvassing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything strange about my insistence against this gem of a note. Anyway, shall I take it that you're happy with the wording of your proposal? – Uanfala (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
That's a nice misdirection, but we're talking about your instance against ILL link as somehow implying that none of the other entries in the table had corresponding options. I have no objection to the removal of the note if you'll acknowledge that your incorrect inference isn't implied by the addition. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I see a range of views here from "no ILLs" through "ILL is a valid substitute for a red link where a red link would be permitted" to "ILL is a valid substitute for a blue link". I'd favour the second of those positions as the norm, with the third available in the exceptional circumstance of a common meaning with a blatant missing article. A RfC with a wider audience would give some authority to whatever is decided, but we would need to ensure that participants not experienced in disambiguation had sufficient background information, neutrally presented. Certes (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The first view is "put the ILL in the (English) article space and link to that (English) article from the disambiguation page", which is what I'd favor. In the exceptional circumstance of a blatant missing article, still put the ILL on an article that would link to it if it weren't missing, and then link to that (English) article from the disambiguation page. (If there's no suitable article that would link to it, then it's clearly not blatantly missing.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
It's safe to assume that the editor who made this change also agrees that ILLs should not be on disambiguation pages, but I'll avoid naming them since that's been incorrectly implied to be canvassing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Uanfala, you do seem to have a way of expressing your opinion by ignoring the truth. In the first place, just because I haven't been participating in this discussion does not mean I had to be "canvassed" to it. I watch this talk page. In the second place, I do not go "around removing interlanguage links". Maybe I would, however, I haven't had to. Your links at Arbol were the first I've seen in years on a dab page. And I didn't even remove those, someone else did. I do hope you get your facts straight before you start an RfC! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if I have inadvertently mischaracterised your participation: yes, I've only seen your input at Talk:Arbol and I may have overgeneralised. As for the other question – I wasn't implying that any illegitimate canvassing has taken place. However, you should be aware that if you haven't edited a page in years, and show up with a response to a thread (which has been open for weeks) just half an hour after another editor pinged you, it's not completely delusional for others to assume – wrongly or not – that you have replied in response to that ping. – Uanfala (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
It's all good, Uanfala. We've disagreed in the past about various things usually having to do with language subjects. And we've probably disagreed a bit more than we've agreed on anything. I don't mean to be adversarial, but I will say that your ideas are more progressive than mine have been. I generally prefer to stick with Wikipedia's definition of "consensus", and so I like to stick with the status quo, while you seem to like to challenge that status quo in some areas. But it's all good in my book; it's how we build an encyclopedia. Sorry we're in disagreement on this, however I firmly believe that ills have no business anywhere on a dab page except in the sidebar and controlled by Wikidata. To put ills in the page content can only confuse most readers many of whom are already put off by landing on a dab page, which can be confusing in and of itself. So no ills in dab page content; the more I think about it, the more I think it's the right thing to do, that is, adhere to the present wording in the guideline. Only ills to other-language dab pages, never ills to other-language articles. I can't see that as a good thing for readers. Sorry. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft RfC

How about this?

Should interlanguage links be allowed on dab page, and if yes, when? An interlanguage link is here understood to be a link inside a dab entry pointing to an article in a non-English Wikipedia, something like the link in square brackets below:
André Exemple [fr], 16th century French painter

So far, there have been three proposals for amending the relevant guidelines:

(A) Disambiguation entries are generally not appropriate for topics whose only content is on sister projects like Wikidata, Wikivoyage, or other-language Wikipedias. Links to Wiktionary may be appropriate in some contexts. Other links to sister projects, if needed, should be placed on the encyclopedia articles linked from the disambiguation page.

(B) Disambiguation entries are generally not appropriate for topics whose only content is on sister projects like Wikidata or Wikivoyage. Links to Wiktionary may be appropriate in some contexts. Entries may link to an article on a Wikipedia in another language if an article does not yet exist on the English Wikipedia, and if the entry would otherwise pass MOS:DABMENTION; such entries can be formatted with {{interlanguage link}}.

(C) Disambiguation entries are generally not appropriate for topics whose only content is on sister projects like Wikidata or Wikivoyage. Links to Wiktionary may be appropriate in some contexts. Entries may link to an article on a Wikipedia in another language if an article does not yet exist on the English Wikipedia, and if it would otherwise meet the English Wikipedia's standard of notability. Such entries can be formatted with {{interlanguage link}}.

Should we repeat the first two sentences of each proposal (which are more or less common to all), or just single out the bits where they disagree? Any suggestions for making the intro more accessible? – Uanfala (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's present the common text once, above the options, to clarify what is being discussed. I would also replace my poor example by an actual article in another wikipedia. These entries from Umlaut and Latino seem to satisfy (B) and (C) respectively:
– Certes (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
An example for (A), if it can be left undisrupted:
On the disambiguation page:
and on the Antas de Ulla article's list of constituent parishes:
There might be better options for A with the mention in running text in the linked article rather than a list or table. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Better example could come from Sylwester Zawadzki. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, how about the draft below? I've trimmed the proposals (when one of them gets support, it can be reworded to better integrate with the rest of the guidelines' text). I've used just one example, because I thought this would be simpler, though feel free to change that. Maybe it will be best to have a single example with a table presenting graphically what each of the three proposals would do with this example depending on whether DABMENTION is met or not? – Uanfala (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Second draft

Should interlanguage links (Ills) be allowed on disambiguation pages, and if yes, when and where?

An interlanguage link is here understood to be a link inside a dab entry pointing to an article in a non-English Wikipedia, something like the link in square brackets below:

Árbol, Villalba [es], a civil parish in Vilalba, Spain

So far, there have been three proposals for amending the relevant guidelines:

(A)

Entries should not link to an article on a Wikipedia in another language. Such links, if needed, should be placed on the encyclopedia articles linked from the disambiguation page.


 
(B)

Entries may link to an article on a Wikipedia in another language if an article does not yet exist on the English Wikipedia, and if the entry would otherwise pass MOS:DABMENTION; such entries can be formatted with {{interlanguage link}}.

 
(C)

Entries may link to an article on a Wikipedia in another language if an article does not yet exist on the English Wikipedia, and if it would otherwise meet the English Wikipedia's standard of notability. Such entries can be formatted with {{interlanguage link}}.

For the Arbol example entry above, the proposals differ depending on whether the linked English article Vilalba makes a mention of Arbol or not. If it does, then B and C would keep the entry as it is (for C, subject to notability constraints), while A would remove the interlanguage link (and possibly insert it in the mention of Arbol inside Vilalba). If, on the other hand, the Vilalba article has no mention of Arbol, then proposals A and B would remove the whole entry from the disambiguation page, but C would keep it (provided the topic is notable).

Actually, why don't we just drop the long swathes of text and just boil it down to a single question? Something like:

When is it acceptable for an entry on a disambiguation page to have an interlanguage link (assuming an article does not exist on the English Wikipedia)?

a) when the topic meets the notability standards of the English Wikipedia
b) when the English Wikipedia has some content about the topic within another article, and that article is also linked from the dab entry
c) never
This will at most be followed by a single example of what an interlanguage link looks like. How does that sound? Any preferences about the order of the options? – Uanfala (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Or

Should English Wikipedia disambiguation pages link to other-language Wikipedia articles?

  1. Yes, whenever the topic covered by the other-language Wikipedia article would meet the English Wikipedia notability policy, as determined by the disambiguation page editors
  2. Yes, but only when the inter-language link also is used on an English Wikipedia article, with the English article linked in the entry description (per MOS:DABMENTION)
  3. No, the English article linked may include the inter-language link for the benefit of the article readers, but the navigation page should simply navigate the reader to that article
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The second option unnecessarily restricts it to cases where the article itself also uses the interlanguage link. As for the first option: there's no need to clarify that notability would be judged by dab editors (who would otherwise?), and notability is not a policy. As for the third option, I'd prefer the succinct version, but feel free to expand it; however, I don't think this text should try to slip in arguments (it's meant to be neutral), and I feel that the question of whether the linked enwiki article can contain an interlanguage links is kind of beyond the scope of the question. Also, I think it's important to be clear we're talking about links from entries (as opposed to links in the sidebar). – Uanfala (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

How about this?

Is it acceptable for an entry on a disambiguation page to link to an article in a Wikipedia in another language, assuming the corresponding article does not (yet) exist on the English Wikipedia?

a) Yes, but only if the topic meets the notability standards of the English Wikipedia
b) Yes, but only if the English Wikipedia has some content about the topic within another article, and that article is also linked from the disambiguation page entry
c) No

– Uanfala (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
See how unbalanced that is? The second option intentionally restricts it along the lines of the use of red links in disambiguation pages. If you think that somehow the ILL link might be useful in the dab but not in the article (which doesn't make any sense here either), then that would be a fourth option. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Unbalanced, you mean in terms of length? The second option represents the view of Certes, Bkonrad and almost everyone else – maybe they could clarify if their stance about DABMENTION entails that the article should contain a mention of the topic, or must that mention be a literal instance of the interlanguage link? – Uanfala (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
2. and b) are different. We could offer both options, as long as we're clear that it's not a vote which 1/a or 3/c could "win" by splitting support between 2. and b). Perhaps Uanfala should choose a neutral wording for 1/a and JHunterJ for 3/c. We might end up with four options: a), b), 2. and 3. (renamed, obviously). I'd put them in that order, or its reverse, as b) is more liberal than 2. Certes (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
There are some subtleties in responses that aren't well reflected. While I would agree with the use of {{ill}} in dab entries where the English language redlink satisfies WP:DABRL and WP:DABMENTION criteria, I'm less inclined to a more general allowance for hard-coded cross-language links in dab entries. Reason is that the display produced by the template changes depending on whether the English article exists. I like that the English redlink is displayed (assuming it satisfies WP:DABRL) and provides a consistent target for linking for persons cleaning up links to the disambiguation page (yes, in most cases, assuming an article is warranted, I think it is better to link to the redlink or use {{ill}} rather than link to some existing article with a bare mention). And as I think what Certes is referring to, another option is to not provide any explicit guidance for or against at this time. older ≠ wiser 15:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I would have been perfectly happy for us not have any explicit guidelines and instead just leave it to common sense and practice. However, there is one regular dab editor who has been adamant that interlanguage links are haram and who will not stop removing them on sight unless the guidelines change, and that leads to conflicts. I think if we don't agree on the multiple-choice options, we can just chuck them out and instead only ask the basic question Should interlanguage links be allowed in dab entries?". The subtleties of any eventual guidelines could then be forged in the ensuing discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, making it personal again, while being the one editor who adamantly removes ILL links from articles unless all ILL links are added to the article; hypocritical. I find the common sense of "English Wikipedia disambiguation pages disambiguate English Wikipedia ambiguity" to be perfectly happy, and recognize that the disambiguation pages exist only because we can't redirect one title to two articles. We don't create redirects on English Wikipedia to French Wikipedia articles, so it seems to be common sense that we don't include ILL links on disambiguation pages. You disagree, and adamantly, so this RFC is needed. Please stop making it about the editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I would still be happy to have no explicit guidelines. We could add that option, at the risk of providing too many alternatives. However, it would require removing text which can be read as deprecating ILLs, and so would require a consensus. Certes (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The text that deprecates ILLs is the guidance against templates (which most ILLs are) and sister project & external links (which ILLs are). I don't think we want to remove that guidance, so explicit exemptions would be needed if they are to be exempted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Unbalanced, in terms of thoughtfulness and explanatory text. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

Is it acceptable for a disambiguation page entry to link to an article in a Wikipedia in another language? – Uanfala (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Such links are often referred to as interlanguage links, and are typically formatted using a template. A dab page entry may look like the following example from Arbre (where the interlanguage link appears in square brackets):

The assumption is that the corresponding article (Arbre, Ath, in the example above) does not (yet) exist on the English Wikipedia.

The question was discussed immediately above, and previously in threads of 2019 and 2018. – Uanfala (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  • No, the English article linked may include the inter-language link for the benefit of the article readers, but the navigation page should simply navigate the reader to that article. Disambiguation pages exist when there is more than one topic on English Wikipedia that could have been titled with the title, or that could have been the target of a redirect at the title. Interlanguage links are neither of those things; we don't point English Wikipedia redirects at other Wikipedias, and they don't belong on English Wikipedia navigation pages. MOS:DABMENTION applies; if needed, add the interlanguage link to an article; if there's no article appropriate for that, then there's no need for the entry in the disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are not the places to introduce content to the English encyclopedia, but they are there to navigate to topics on the English encyclopedia that could have been the target of a redirect at the title if there were no ambiguity. Keeping it simple helps the readers and their navigation. Other Wikipedias have their own policies and guidelines (so many not be notable here just because they exist on another encyclopedia; WP:WHYN: "Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject." -- emphasis added), just like other websites determine their own content policies. As soon as an appropriate article is created, an appropriate entry on the disambiguation page can be added, but we don't crystal-ball our disambiguation pages any more than we do our content. There's no reason for the disambiguation page (or the disambiguation page editors) to try to determine if the not-yet-in-English article meets English notability guidelines. Put the encyclopedic content (including references, pictures, templates, and off-encyclopedia links) in the articles and leave the disambiguation page free from the clutter unrelated to its navigational purpose, clutter that would detract from that navigational function. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. So long as MOS:DABRED and other criteria are passed, an entry can use {{Interlanguage link}}. This is not against anything in MOS:DAB and it helps the WP:READER. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    It is against MOS:DAB's strictures against external links and templates on disambiguation pages. And please explain how it helps the reader (in a way that any other external link to a reliable source wouldn't, unless you also think external links [and references, images, and the rest of the clutter that also hinders the navigation function] should be permitted too). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    Whether MOS:DAB is against interlanguage links as "external links" is what the linked discussion did not find consensus on. I'd say it is not. It says "Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web." First, the link is not about interlanguage links (Help:Interlanguage links is). Second, interlanguage links disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web. It helps the reader because they are looking for not just some website but a Wikipedia article and that is what an interlanguage link provides. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    And each Wikipedia handles its own policies and guidelines. Something notable on one might not be notable on the other. English Wikipedia disambiguation pages do not disambiguate all Wikipedias, but only English Wikipedia, just like we don't create redirects to other Wikipedias. Interlanguage Wikipedia links are a type of external link. The interlanguage link should be placed in the English Wikipedia article space, and the disambiguation page should link to that mentioning article. Duplicating the interlanguage link on the disambiguation page does not help the reader navigate English Wikipedia; that that's the function of disambiguation pages seems to get forgotten whenever someone wants to add something shiny to it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    Different Wikipedias have broadly similar inclusion criteria, though indeed they can differ a great deal in the details. But nobody here is advocating indiscrimiate linking. The users and supporters of interlanguage links share the assumption that such entries are suitable for topics that would otherwise be inclusion-worthy on a dab page: that's what the other criteria mentioned by the other participants are a reference to. If, for example, WP:DABRED is met, then the topic will have already been judged by other editors to be notable. Personally, I'd prefer if we dispense with such reliance on the contingency of existing links and instead appeal directly to notability, but if both approaches are followed with common sense, the end result isn't likely to be very different.
    As for the idea of removing links from dab pages and instead inserting them into articles – I really can't see how that helps readers. If we agree that fr:Arbre, Ath is a relevant article on the French Wikipedia, and if some of the readers who arrive at the dab page Arbre may be looking for it, what good are we doing by cutting off their access to it and forcing them to click through to an English article that is usually only tenuously related to the topic, and have them dig through its text for that one link buried there that they may need? – Uanfala (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    That makes the common mistake of treating navigation pages as articles. Disambiguation pages exists to solve a technical limitation, that two articles can't have the same title. We can redirect a title to an article; we can't redirect a title to two articles; instead, we create a disambiguation page that lists the possible redirect targets, possibly with their ledes. We don't (and don't need to) include interlanguage links on redirects, and we don't need to include them on disambiguation pages. If an editor feels that the information in French Wikipedia is worth including on English Wikipedia, then they should edit English Wikipedia to include it there. Cluttering the disambiguation page instead because they didn't feel like improving the encyclopedia is counter-productive. It adds confusion and is only useful to readers who can read French (in this case). We are not "cutting off their access" by navigating them to the English Wikipedia article with information about that topic, and if English Wikipedia doesn't have useful information on the topic ("only tenuously related") then there's no English Wikipedia ambiguity to disambiguate. We don't index the World Wide Web, and we don't index sister projects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    I beg to differ that's a "common mistake". "Mistake" as to what arbitrary rule? A redlink on a disambiguation page should indicate (like in any other page) that we acknowledge that we have a missing coverage that might be of interest to the reader. Redlinks on dab pages should be used sparingly, and limiting them only to interwiki links seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Per WP:NOTMANDATORY, we should not force anyone to If [...] feels that the information in French Wikipedia is worth including [...], then they should edit English Wikipedia to include it. I'd rather have a redlink with a short description outlining the topic notability, than a one-sentence substub.
    If and when irresponsible editor(s) clutter a dab page with redlinks, we can discuss that particular situation. But the solution is not a blanket ban to all redlinks. No such user (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    This "arbitrary" rule: "A disambiguation page is a non-article page that lists and links to encyclopedia articles covering topics that could have had the same title. The purpose of disambiguation pages is allowing navigation to the article on the topic being sought. The information on a disambiguation page should be focused on getting the reader to their desired article." WP:DPAGE, emphasis added. And redlinks aren't blanket banned; see MOS:DABRL. No one is being forced to do anything. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, interlanguage links should be permitted at the editor's discretion if other criteria for adding the redlink are passed. Dabs should not become an index to non-English wikipedias but, where a redlink is already present, a [fr] suffix is as relevant and useful as the Wiktionary box and less obtrusive. Certes (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    IMO, the Wiktionary box is less obtrusive, out of the way in the upper right rather than in the middle of an entry, between the red link and the link in the description to the article with information that the reader is seeking (and can read). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, per Certes and Uanfala. While dabs should not be an index to the whole internet on one hand, on the other, we should serve or readers and attempt to present the most of information about the subject/topic that is available. Limiting dab pages to English Wikipedia only looks like an arbitrary restriction to me. No such user (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No, because it is intrusive and that's Wikidata's goal, not ours. For example She's Not Me (Madonna song) once had an article that lasted 3 years.[2] In a hypothetical case that article still exists, why should we a) encourage such creation here, and b) send readers to a foreign-language article for information that is not necessarily correct, reviewed or reliable? Trust me when I say that English Wikipedia is the most reliable Wikipedia. Let's say that you are looking for information about a town called San Pablo in Sonora. Cebuano Wikipedia has many of them listed at ceb:San Pablo. I don't speak Cebuano, but English Wikipedia is sending me there. Am I reading the right page? If I translate those pages as the option appears to do it, am I reading the information I was looking for? Because those articles include information that can be considered trivial if not properly explained or developed. Why not, instead of sending people to trust in automatic translation tools, users translate to English the information available and add it to the most relevant articles, either by creating them or writing it into an existing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbhotch (talk • contribs) 17:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, yes, we shouldn't be linking to the Cebuano Wikipedia (unless the topic is associated with Cebuano culture) – most of the articles there, as on the Swedish Wikipedia, were automatically created by Lsjbot, and even apart from that, a Cebuano link is unlikely to be useful to readers as exceedingly few of them will have knowledge of the language and the automated translation servies out there are unlikely to be as well-developed as for the major languages. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, there won't ever be anything obliging editors to insert links to articles they don't see as reliable (though we wouldn't ever dream of excluding links to sub-par articles if they are on the English wikipedia, would we?). However, for the kinds of topics that are likely to see interlanguage links, the English Wikipedia is positively not the most reliable one. The best place for content on French painters? That's the French Wikipedia, not us. Villages in Bulgaria? Yep, you've guessed it – the Bulgarian wikipedia has tons of reliable content about them, while we only have microstubs with long outdated population stats. Even on abstract topics that are not associated with any particular region, you often find much better articles on the German Wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    Uanfala is right that we should not normally link to Cebuano bot output, and every San Pablo with a dabmention seem to have an English article anyway. However, a hypothetical dab entry would read something like  • San Pablo, Cagayan Valley [ceb], a municipality in Isabela, Cagayan Valley, Philippines, with the English text indicating whether this is the topic the reader seeks. (We actually have an article on that place already.) Certes (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    Which has no navigational benefit over
    with the {{ill}} link correctly placed in Cagayan Valley, but does have the navigational detriment of getting in front of the desired English article link and confusing the reader. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    Two points (regardless the irrelevance of the example, which I won't get into):
    1) The wikidata interwiki link at Cagayan Valley would link to ceb:Cagayan Valley, not ceb:San Pablo, Cagayan Valley (the hypothetical article in the example); it doesn't serve the same purpose at all.
    2) Wikidata won't work as a replacement for a link like umlaut (company) [de]; for the very technical reason that redlink articles don't contain Wikidata interwiki links, so you can't navigate to de:umlaut (Unternehmen) by following umlaut (company). Even if it did (which is a technical improvement that we could request), it would have much worse information scent than having the proper link to the appropriate content right at the DAB entry.
    If you can't see the navigational benefit of having a working link right there in the proper context, over a link to a to different article hidden on a different page in the general-purpose Languages section at the sidebar, I don't trust your advice on navigation principles, no offence intended. Diego (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with Diego Moya's general position but, to be fair, I think it slightly misses one point. The alternative doesn't use sidebar links. Instead, it proposes that we edit Cagayan Valley to ensure that its mention of San Pablo has an ill to ceb:. Then, in the absence of an ill on the dab itself, the reader can follow the blue link to Cagayan Valley, work out which mention of San Pablo on that page is relevant, and follow its ill. Certes (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification, Certes. I think my point still stands: a link to the article at the DAB itself is easier to find (the reader has already found it), it instantly conveys the existence of a full article on the topic (something that omitting the ILL doesn't do), and it doesn't require reading a different article to find out whether or not it includes somewhere a link to the concept the reader intended to learn about in the first place. Diego (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    Hewing to navigating English Wikipedia ambiguity seems pretty easy to understand, even if you disagree with it. I could just as easily say "If someone can't see the benefit of having a working external link right there in the proper context over a link to a Wikipedia article that links to the external site, I don't trust their advice on navigation principles.", yet we stil prohibit external links on disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    Uh, that sounds like moving the goalposts. You said that you saw no navigational benefits of having an interwiki link in the DAB over having the same exact interwiki link at the related article; and that's what I replied to. Diego (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    Uh, it's not. I paralleled your argument, replacing interwiki link with external link, to illustrate the problem with it. External links can be placed in article text, but not in disambiguation pages. Parallelly, IMO, interwiki links can be placed in article text, but not in disambiguation pages. No goalposts have been moved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    I think we're going too far down this slippery slope argument: there's a much greater functional and technical gap separating links to other Wikipedias from external links, than there is between links to other Wikipedias and links to this Wikipedia. However, I think it's still worth pointing out that accepting interlanguage links on dab page would simply harmonise the guidelines on their use (they're already explicitly allowed within article text). Guidance on external links, on the other hand, is already harmonised: these are disallowed both on dab pages, and within article text. – Uanfala (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, articles in other languages that satisfy wp:en inclusion criteria but have no article on wp:en should be pointed from DAB pages, to maximize utility for readers. I oppose the restrictive view that disambiguation pages should be seen merely as a workaround to the technical limitation of having several articles within the same title. That may be a useful guideline for keeping their content clean and focused; but DAB pages primary use in practice is making readers aware of content that explain the meaning(s) of the ambiguous term, and guiding them to it and be able to find the available explanations in Wikipedia space, wherever they may be. It shouldn't matter that much that the meaning is explained in a sister project, moreso when the meaning is not available in English WP. I'll add that IMO, Interwiki links should notbe seen as "external links" with respect to MOS:DABNOLINK, as they point to Wikipedia content (just not English Wikipedia content). We have an established tradition of treating content in other languages as valid en:wiki content, be it interwiki links, WP:OTHERLANG or references in languages other than English; they should not be prioritized, but they are perfectly acceptable and encouraged whenever English content does not exist but they would serve the same purpose. Diego (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
(P.S. it's interesting that JHunterJ's quotation of the guideline -"allowing navigation to the article on the topic being sought"- actually reinforces my point, while I can't find anything at WP:DAB restricting its purpose to English-only WP). Diego (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
So, I can't find anything on any policies and guidelines restricting them to English Wikipedia, so I guess we can go edit other language Wikipedias according to our policies! No, that English Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to English Wikipedia is implicit. Otherwise, English Wikipedia disambiguation pages need to add a slew of entries, to cover all the articles with duplicate titles in all the other Wikipedias, which is absurd. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
That's a strawman, no one has suggested adding all links to all other articles in all other Wikipedias in all cases. This proposal is clearly limited to topics appearing in a DAB which have no article at wp:en but do have one in other languages. Diego (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I often do edit Spanish Wikipedia using the principles of en:wiki guidelines (WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV...) as long as they don't contradict the target wiki own guidelines. You make it sound like something absurd, when in practice I find that they provide quite good advice on how to write encyclopedias. Diego (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Simply throwing out the names of logical fallacies doesn't make them so. Yes, if you say that the English Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines are not implicitly referring to English Wikipedia but instead to all Wikipedias, then indeed the text of the guidelines says that those articles on all Wikipedias should be included on the disambiguation page for the ambiguous title. Pointing out the error in your argument is not a strawman. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, if the topic is associated with foreign language Wikipedia. It is preferable to translate the foreign language Wikipedia article to English, and the DAB page need no longer link directly to it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    That's spot on. A guideline should recommend translating the foreign article, but not require it - ILLs should still be allowed in the interim, or in cases where the target topic does not satisfy the wp:en notability for a stand-alone article but it merits coverage inside the larger article. Diego (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    The guidelines should recommend translating the foreign article, but still allow interlanguage links in the article space in the interim (which, indeed, have never been disallowed). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    Why is it that you are fine with having interlanguage links in the article space but disavow them at DAB page? What makes it acceptable in one context but not the other? Diego (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally yes I'd say, most other wikis are smaller than us but do sometimes have articles that we don't have (normally because they're only relevant to the WP's language) and its somewhat useful. That said maybe it might cause more problems than its worth and maybe bots should see if some of the articles can be translated (though I'm not as keep on seeing bot generated articles from other languages as from reliable sources). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I'm actually persuaded by JHunterJ that the correct placement of inline interwiki links is in an article. However, it is one of those things where on a case by case basis it is not a big deal. On the one hand, if interwiki links are explicitly allowed on disambiguation pages, it is nearly certain that sooner or later some editors will come along who will mechanistically start to (helpfully) add foreign language interwiki links to disambiguation pages. But at the same time, if an editor spots an actual gap in coverage in English wikipedia that has significant coverage in another language, I don't think it is a big deal if they want to add an {{ill}} to a disambiguation page. And by the same token, if another editor comes along and shifts the links such that it goes to an existing English article for related subject with the interwiki link in the article, well that is no big deal either. older ≠ wiser 21:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I think on balance, this helps our readers. Nowadays, browsers like Google Chrome can automatically translate foreign language text, so this structure helps many of our readers obtain the information that they're looking for. (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. I've already commented at length in the discussions leading up to this RfC, but to restate in short: if there is a suitable Wikipedia article to link to on a dab page, then it doesn't matter if it happens to be in another language. About half of the readers of enwiki are native speakers of another language, and many of those for whom English is native are also comfortable using other languages. As for the English monolinguals, there's the wide and easy availability of automated translation online, and even if they don't use those tools, they can often still avail themselves of information athat's not language-specific, like images or locator maps.
    Interlanguage links are widely accepted in articles, and there's nothing inherently different in the context of a dab page that would rule them out. They are also commonly used – there are over 2,000 dab pages with such links, where they've been added by a wide variety of users – so there already is implicit consensus for their use. And I don't believe I've seen positive results from the sporadic efforts to remove them, by either completely excising the entry containing them (which leaves the dab page incomplete), or by displacing the interlanguage link onto an article (which convolutes reader navigation). – Uanfala (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Potential alternative

As a compromise, I note that soft redirects to interlanguage Wikipedias can be created. So instead of

we could create Arbre, Ath with the {{soft redirect|fr:Arvre (Ath)}} template and link to that English soft redirect on the disambiguation page:

especially in the cases where the mentioning article has scant if any information beyond the {{ill}} link. This has the added benefit of being addressable by the usual WP:RfD process if they aren't English-Wikipedia notable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  • This has some advantages: a redirect may have navigational benefits beyond those for readers of dab pages, and its existence will make it easier for new editors to create the corresponding article. However, soft redirects should generally be used only sparingly, as they obscure the fact that their targets are not on this Wikipedia: for example, if they're linked to, the link will look indistinguishable from a link to an existing local article; there are also reasons to keep red links red. Apart from that, soft redirects won't work if there's more than a single target: for example, there may be two or more relevant Wikipedias to link to, or in addition to the interlanguage link, there may be some relevant material here on the English Wikipedia (which would otherwise get linked from the description on the dab page). Also, soft redirects would increase the maintenance burden: if an interlanguage link is problematic, it can simply be edited out, without resorting to a seven-day formal discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Uanfala. Whilst I do appreciate this well-intentioned proposal, it would confuse readers and might reduce trust that blue links lead directly to relevant articles in English. Multiple languages would also be problematic. Certes (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    • That's the thing with collaboration. There's the ideal (leave the interlanguage links to the article space) and the proposal to move away from the ideal [or reverse the too if you disagree which is ideal], and the suggested compromise, which can't be ideal since it's a compromise. Multiple languages would not be problematic; how many foreign-language articles about a single topic do you need to navigate readers of an English encyclopedia article to? If more than zero, pick one, and its left-hand list of translations will do the rest. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
      I wonder how that would work with "one blue link per line": does a soft redirect count as red or blue? However, that point may be moot: denying our readers access to the non-English article might be less bad than presenting it in a way indistinguishable from English content. Certes (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

After the RfC

I take it that we don't need a formal close of the RfC? There were meaningful arguments on both sides, but with eight editors supporting and three opposing, I believe we've got clear, if not unanimous, consensus in favour. Time to weave a cautious mention of the acceptability of interlanguage links into the guidelines? – Uanfala (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the proposed wordings above (which aren't the only possibilities), I think it's clear that 3/c doesn't have majority support or overwhelmingly better arguments, so interlanguage links should be permitted in some circumstances. However, I don't see a clear consensus for any specific guidance on when they can appear, nor to provide no guidance [sic]. Certes (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the specific conditions under which these links are acceptable weren't discussed in the RfC. I think the guidelines should state that such links are OK in some circumstances, but leave it to editors to use common sense and judgement of context to decide for themselves what these circumstances are. Any greater detail than that will probably belong on a separate, essay-style, page anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Asura

Latest comment: 3 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

Not sure where to go with this - Asura has been moved to Asura (Hinduism) without any discussion (that I can find) and Asura is now a redirect to Asura (disambiguation). I'm not sure if the move(s) should be reverted or the DAB page moved to Asura. Leschnei (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The dab now has 1245 incoming links from article space alone, which suggests that the move needs discussion rather than boldly dumping the cleanup on us. The new situation is WP:MALPLACED, so Something Must Be Done. What to do depends whether there's a primary topic. Asura (Buddhism) has 2082 incoming links, which seems sufficient to stop anything else such as Asura (Hinduism) being primary. I would say move Asura (disambiguation) → Asura and fix the links to dab. 90% of them will be about Hinduism, but it probably needs an expert in Asura rather than disambiguation to work out which 90%. Certes (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Leschnei and Certes: Sorry I'm new, that's why, I was unaware such problem might occur, but I think, I've directly redirected the Asura page to Asura (Hinduism) and therffore the links linking it, as per I remember. May be I've done some mistake. But you can directly redirect the Asura page to Asura (Hinduism). Also, I was thinking that there was no need to discuss for this move, as it was non-controversial edit, I think. Thinking of my previous edita, I splitted moved many pages, where I started the discussion, But these discussions were not so responsive, which led me think this time, no one will have issue, (which really no one do), but only thing is problem occured which I think is from my end. Of course, more than 90% are related to Hinduism only, as the article is for hHindu point of views on asura, which is different from Buddhist, which also already exist. I've edited the title naming as per guidelines, which will differ it from Buddhist one.JaMongKut (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leschnei and Certes: Yeah, that is also right that Asura(Hinduism) should not be primary. But, that was not my point while editing, it was I think my careless mistake. But I support your view too. I will then try to fix this by linking it to specific, but will need some time. Help from anybody else, who knows about asuras, is also welcoming to do this work faster.JaMongKut (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Do I have to go and change the link in every article or there's any other alternative method, which will benefit the time ?JaMongKut (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@JaMongKut: An argument can be made that the Hinduism page is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC given the larger number of page views that it receives. Given that this was an undiscussed move, I'll move the pages back with no prejudice if you decide that an WP:RM is worthwhile for you to start. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A RM might reveal a few points that we've not considered. For example, do mentions such as this refer to both Buddhist and Hindu Asura collectively, and do they share enough common features for a broad-concept article? (Related articles such as Ahura may also be relevant.) If consensus is found for a move, a RM might also attract helpers with the knowledge to fix the links. I would probably support the move but I still think it's controversial enough to discuss. Certes (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Certes and Bagumba: I was earlie`r thinking the same that the Asura article should be one for Both the religious viewswoth different sections only. But as they both were very long, I thought it will be beneficial to keep them as it is. Yeah they share too many common feature to be a broad concept article,, in fact it is the same concept sshared by the two religions, like many other concepts as these two religions do. When I started my work of the links which for some articles, I've already changed, there were many articles which require combined link of the concept of Asura, rather than of the views of the religion.
My RM was also worthwhile, as it was to distinguish between the two article. As the Asura article was from a Hindu point oof view, rather than all inlusive concept article. Hence the titile seems to be of both ideologies. Hence to differentiate it from the Buddhist one, which was earlier there in the format. The views count was also from this fact, as some links which I changed were requiring Buddhist article really, but they were linked here, because editors thinking that it was a common one, sharing buddhist views too. Hence, for all the above reasons, I think my move was worthwhile.
The redirect problem, as I told earlier was just a careless mistake( I think ot was because there exist one more page named as Asuras which I think I redirected to Hindu article instead.). I was otherwise also redirecting it to Hinduism only. But I like the idea of @Certes: if not prefering. Hence, I also started the work for changing links. But as you mention point of page views is worthy for prefering, about that what I think I've already shared above.JaMongKut (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
JaMongKut: My RM was also worthwhile ...: To be clear, you directly moved the page, you did not initiate a WP:RM. That's OK. If it gets contested, like it was, that's when you must submit an RM if you still believe a move is best. ... it was to distinguish between the two article: It's not always necessary to distinguish the articles if WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies (which it conceivably may not here). Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@JaMongKut: Check my veiws on Talk:Asura .245CMR.•👥📜 16:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leschnei, Certes, Bagumba, and 245CMR: I really don't know what you mean by submit a RM. I might require more time to make myself familiar with different Wikipedia terms. Could you please explain, what you mean by it? Also, we cannot call it primary based on the views as, when I were checking links to the Page, more than 50% of the links require a broad-concept or a common article of Asura and not of any specific religions, few, around 10% were requiring Buddhist article. So, as I already stated in above articles, this article was benefitted beacuse editors thinking it of a Broad-concept article,(not their mistake because reading the name of the article(i.e. only "Asura" also suggest that it might be an broad-concept article). What I think at last, instead of moving it to a Hindu article or keeping it as it is, we should convert that page as a broad-concept article, by adding some Buddhist information. Which will deliberately satisfy the need of a Broad concept article, which is much more required. Please respond, will it be a good idea?
@245CMR: As per I searched, I got many Buddhist Japanese books on Asura and various other books too. Also, I think this point is not proper. For views, I've already discussed, please read above.JaMongKut (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
JaMongKut: Sorry about that. To "submit an RM", see WP:RM#CM for instructions on requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. As for only changing the content of the page, I am not familiar with the subject. If you are unsure, I suggest making a proposal for you content changes at Talk:Asura. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@JaMongKut: Out of the top books, most of them were about Asura of Hindu concepts and only one book was related to Buddhist poetry. .245CMR.•👥📜 08:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Hinduism and WP:WikiProject Buddhism may be able to advise whether a single article covering Asura in both (all?) religions would be useful and, if so, whether it should be the primary topic with the title Asura. Certes (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bagumba: ThankYou for your information and support. I find myself quite familiar with the topic, so can I can edit it without a proposal ? As the discussion is already discussed here. Other editor's help is also quite expected for editing. JaMongKut (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

JaMongKut: Be bold at your discretion. Good luck. —Bagumba (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Thank You So Much.JaMongKut (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@245CMR: I think that google search results might be personalized, based on our earlier interests. Also, I think they might differ based on different geographical locations.JaMongKut (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@JaMongKut: Wait before you change anything. Are you planning to merge Asura (Buddhism) to Asura. If no, then I support removing Asura to Asura (Hinduism), but Asura should be redirected to it as per primary. .245CMR.•👥📜 14:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No I'm not merging the two. Instead I'm converting it into a broad-concept article as per above discussion, including the points of both religius views. I think it was earlier also an broad-concept article, but was changed to Hindu, because of many edits, in course of time, by seeing page history. JaMongKut (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@JaMongKut: No, I don't think it will help as Buddhism has already a separate article. .245CMR.•👥📜 15:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

BBC (sexual slang)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:BBC (disambiguation)#BBC as a porn/sexual term – apparently the entry to for the sexual term keeps getting censored off the disambiguation page, despite there being an ideal article section to point to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sadie Thompson articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone. I need some help figuring out what to do with disambiguating Sadie Thompson, Sadie Thompson Inn, Sadie Thompson (opera), and Sadie Thompson (musical). I personally think there is no primary subject, and the Sadie Thompson should be moved to Sadie Thompson (film), but that page is currently a redirect and I can't move the film there. Thoughts?4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: Post a request at WP:RMTR#Uncontroversial technical requests to move Sadie Thompson to Sadie Thompson (film), and include a link to this discussion. The rationale should be WP:NOPRIMARY. If the move is made, create a DAB page at the basename and WP:FIXDABLINKS. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the inlinks are wrong; they usually are in cases like this.
The pageview analysis is little help. Because there is neither hatnote nor DAB page, it's impossible to tell how many people found themselves reading about the 1928 film when they were actually looking for something else. Your article on the musical is too new to appear in that analysis, even for its new-page bounce. There's also the 1953 film Miss Sadie Thompson, which I consider a full-title match for DAB purposes; someone looking for the film which starred Rita Hayworth might forget the precise title. The two films should be hatnoted to each other. Readers might also be looking for the heroine in the distinctly well-known "Rain" (short story) itself or in Rain (1932 film) (starring Joan Crawford), which should be see-alsos on a DAB page.
If you would like further help, {{ping}} me. Narky Blert (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much! That was very helpful. I went ahead and put in a request.4meter4 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Piute Spring

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Piute Spring previously included one blue link (Piute Spring (San Bernardino County, California)) and five orphan red links with GNIS references. I have redirected the page to Piute Spring (San Bernardino County, California), but kept the red links - commented out. It seems that Piute Spring (San Bernardino County, California) should be moved to Piute Spring as the primary topic. I wanted to get opinions here before listing it at WP:RM#TR to make sure that it wouldn't be controversial. Leschnei (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

None of the redlinks has any inlinks, and none is mentioned in the bluelinked targets which you commented out. I see no objection to your proposal. IMO Piute Spring (San Bernardino County, California) should be kept as a redirect to the basename to avoid breaking links, tagged as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Narky Blert (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Narky Blert. Leschnei (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Bohemian

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm contemplating a WP:RM, in which Bohemian would become a DAB page at that basename. However, I can't make my mind up as to where the existing page should be moved. Neither Bohemians nor Bohemian people would do; both are still ambiguous. Suggestions would be welcome.

To highlight the issue, I recently checked the inlinks. There were 480. 1 related to an Iron Age culture, 12 to Bohemian style, 3 to Romani (including in India), and there were a couple of other sillies. However, 183 related to Bohemianism; and included such selected gems as "a bohemian life of drugs and work as an exotic dancer". "renouncing his bohemian youth" (in an article about a straight American composer!), and "drunken and promiscuous bohemian motorcyclists" (in California). Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The least bad option I can come up with is the non-standard People of Bohemia. Yes, bohemian with a small b means something completely different, and (unlike Wiktionary) we don't consider initial capitals when routing page requests. Certes (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
How about Bohemians (ethnic group)?
Whether or not a reattributed proper adjective loses its capital in English, and how quickly, looks arbitrary. It's Gothic architecture and Gothic novel, but gothic music and goth subculture; there are quotations in those last two articles with capital 'G'. In mathematics, it's Hamiltonian function but abelian function. Narky Blert (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I finally got around to it, Talk:Bohemian#Requested move 24 April 2021. Narky Blert (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Brigadoon

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I ran into an interesting situation working on Brigadoon (disambiguation). The most prominent uses, of course, are the original 1947 musical (the primary) and its adaptations. But there is also the unrelated Brigadoon (The Ancestors album). The issue is that Brigadoon (album) doesn't exist, and there are no articles for any of the cast or film soundtrack recordings that users might be looking for (or any other album using that title, for that matter), but there is what seems like a pretty good list of stage, film, and television soundtrack recordings at Brigadoon#Recordings. So I see three possibilities that I'd appreciate feedback on:

  1. Move Brigadoon (The Ancestors album) to Brigadoon (album) and add a hatnote pointing to Brigadoon#Recordings.
  2. Create Brigadoon (album) as a redirect to Brigadoon#Recordings and add a hatnote to that section pointing to Brigadoon (The Ancestors album).
  3. Create Brigadoon (album) as a redirect to Brigadoon (disambiguation) and note somewhere on that page that the primary-topic article includes a list of cast/soundtrack recordings.

Any thoughts welcome.—ShelfSkewed Talk 17:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@ShelfSkewed: Having only just seen this, I was going to say "Option A" but I see that's the one you chose, so you can rest assured at least one other agrees with you! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This is a continuation of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 54#After the RfC. The RfC established there is rough consensus that interlanguage links are appropriate in some circumstances. We need to update the guidelines, because their current wording (in the footnote) is incompatible with this result.

WP:DABSISTER currently reads:

Disambiguation entries should not be created for topics whose only content is on sister projects. Links to Wiktionary may be appropriate in some contexts.[a]

  1. ^ There is no consensus about exempting links to Wikipedias in other languages from this prohibition (this was discussed in 2018 and in 2019).

How about adding one sentence about interlanguage links and replacing the footnote with a brief explanation like the following?

Disambiguation entries should not be created for topics whose only content is on sister projects. Links to Wiktionary may be appropriate in some contexts. Entries with an interlanguage link pointing to an article in a wikipedia in another language may also be acceptable in some circumstances.[a]

  1. ^ As discussed in 2020. A minimum requirement for such an interlanguage link is that the corresponding English Wikipedia article has not yet been created. There is no agreement on what further constraints are necessary.

Any thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were further agreement to document, but I think that's a fair summary of the current situation. Certes (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I prefer that to the current wording, which I find tiresomely restrictive; I often ignore it (though WP:COMMONSENSE applies). I find {{ill}} links on DAB pages extremely useful. Not only does it speed up DABfixing (less rummaging around to find if an article exists somewhere - especially in non-Roman scripts), but it helps in unifying redlink qualifiers. On the other hand, I've never felt any temptation to link to a SISTER project on a DAB page; except for adding missing {{wikt}} links at the top (per that template's documentation). Narky Blert (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
That looks fair to me. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Generic PTMs

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'd suggest giving Kingston upon Hull as an example (unlike Newcastle upon Tyne) that is listed for its generic part (Hull) as well as its specific (Kingston). Obviously some places like Melton Mowbray have 2 specific parts and some like Golders Green have 2 generic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't easy to think of two-part names where both parts are specific and might be used alone, but Kingston upon Hull is an excellent example. The best I can come up with is Augustus Caesar; usually known as Augustus, but the Caesar of the New Testament. Narky Blert (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Done, given Augustus Caesar redirects to Augustus anyway this example would be confusing and this is a person's name which would probably fall under WP:NAMELIST. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguating people

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Is keeping the article title short a higher priority than keeping the terms in parentheses consistent? I ask in relation to Corey Hart (baseball). For consistency with Corey Hart (singer), shouldn't he be at Corey Hart (baseball player)? I doubt anybody would think that he was a baseball but I'm just pointing out the discrepancy in naming convention. --Jameboy (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are discrepancies as some sports use (sport), others use (sporter) and others use (sport player); we usually try to maintain consistency with whatever the standard practice is for that particular kind of disambiguator. Iffy★Chat -- 13:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This is more of a question for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople). older ≠ wiser 14:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I don't think I've come across that page before, thank you for the pointer. --Jameboy (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
If in doubt, I look at the relevant category the article is in, and follow the general practice there. For example, that Naming conventions page doesn't mention that the preferred qualifiers for judo and karate players are (judoka) and (karateka), as can be seen in Category:Judoka and Category:Karateka. Narky Blert (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Dictionary definition or wikt?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

WP:DABDIC seems to be at odds with MOS:WTLINK. I realize we should "break all rules where it makes sense", but what is the general guidance on dictionary definitions, especially in place of a primary topic?

WP:DABDIC says, A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. Otherwise, [use {{wiktionary}}]

whereas MOS:WTLINK says, When a dictionary definition should be included, rather than writing a text entry, create a cross-link to Wiktionary

I was ready to remove the dictionary definition from the top of Upside Down, thinking {{wiktionary}} is preferred over a non-article primary topic, but was confused after I read the first guideline. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, these discrepancies are a definite problem, but they're a by-product of the way the guidelines are spread acrosss the two pages of WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. We should definitely try to consolidate some of their parts, and in the process sort out situations like this. Now's a good moment to clarify the guidelines for Wiktionary links?
I can tell of my personal approach here: a brief definition at the top of the dab can often be helpful, but a necessary condition is for that definition to be relevant for the majority of entries, otherwise it will be better off as a stand-alone entry (that rules out cases like Pot). Also, the term needs to be one that at least some readers will not be familiar with (no need explaining the meaning of words like give or she), or – if it's a commonly know word – the definition could provide the occasion to link to a relevant article (for example, Faithful could do with a brief addition to the first line that defines the term and links to Faith and Loyalty). – Uanfala (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Great! Yes I think we'd all benefit from a consolidation. So in the case of Upside Down, I'm sure most entries are related in theme to "inverted" or "great disorder". If we had good wikipedia articles for those topics I'd say link them and keep them. However we don't have good wikipedia articles for inverted or disorder (randomness doesn't seem right), I say wiktionary is the answer - remove dictionary definition. Also I think "upside down" is an easily understood word. Finally, note in this case the DAB page is basically listing the two definitions shown at wiktionary almost verbatim. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I have the same personal approach as Uanfala. There's no point in defining a common word or expression ("Upside down means what you think it means"). It's verbiage, and I dislike distractions on DAB pages. I agree that consolidation of the two guidelines would be useful.
I've linked/hatnoted Upside Down and Downside Up to each other. Narky Blert (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback needed with Pink and blue

Latest comment: 3 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion

When I recently searched for "pink and blue", I was very surprised to be taken directly to Pink and Blue, a song by Hannah Diamond (who?). I was expecting to get either a disambig page, or a Wikipedia search result page with an article high up in the search results about the history of how it is that we associate pink with girls, and blue with boys. Turns out, there is no article precisely about that, and no disambig page for the term. I eventually found List of historical sources for pink and blue as gender signifiers, which is not quite what I was looking for, but it's pretty close, and it has some good links which answer the "pink and blue" history question. (Note also that Pink is for girls currently redirects to this List article, but Blue is for boys does not.)

Anyway, imho this song by whatsername cannot be the PRIMARYTOPIC for pink and blue. So I searched around, and just created Pink and blue (disambiguation)[now "Pink and blue"], which I hope will also help stimulate conversation here about whether there's a primary topic for "pink and blue" or not. I think what probably needs to be done, is to rename the song to Pink and Blue (song), and rename the D-page to Pink and blue. If you know how to deal with clickstream files, I'd love to hear where people who search for "pink and blue" usually end up. When you think of "pink and blue", do you think of the song, first? (As a postscript: the disambig page I just created probably needs pruning/reorg/tweaking to get it right, so your help would be appreciated there as well.) Thanks, (please   mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You could move the dab to Pink and blue first per WP:DIFFCAPS, in the same way that Iron maiden and Iron Maiden legitimately describe different topics. (Is there a better example with a dab at the sentence-case name?) Pink and Blue needs some sort of hatnote, once we've decided what it should link to, especially because of the painting. Pink & Blue should probably be merged into the new dab, as there are no articles titled Pink & Blue (qualifier). Certes (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Food and drink is a disambiguation page, that includes Food and Drink as an actual article. That was a fun search! DMacks (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@DMacks: I've no idea what Food and Drink is, but if I wanted to find an article about food and drink pairings (and now I do!), I'd search "food and drink". Alas, strangely, we don't have that article (except for wine and a redirect to a section on beer). Again Wikipedia is missing an important broad scope article and the two separate links to food and drink make me none the wiser. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Dmacks:, yes, it seems quite analogous to that situation, or to others, like Salt and pepper. Btw, shouldn't List of websites about food and drink be there, as well? What about, List of books about food and drink, List of films about food and drink, or List of food and drink magazines? Mathglot (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
These topics aren't of interest to me (other than that I enjoy eating and drinking from time to time), this was just the first of several examples I found of a certain capitalization-situation that Mathglot requested. I agree with Finnusertop and Mathglot that some other articles should be listed there to improve navigation/discoverability of what readers might reasonably want to find by that name. DMacks (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Someone looking for information on the gender associations of those colours might just as well search for Blue and pink. Though it's unclear to me whether that should redirect to the list article, redirect to the Pink and blue dab, or something else. I do think the song is primary for the capitalized Pink and Blue form, per WP:DIFFCAPS. When you think of "pink and blue", do you think of the song, first? Yes. The moment I saw this section title on my watchlist, it started playing in my head. But then, I am an unabashed Hannah Diamond stan. ("whatsername" drove a bit of a stake through my heart. Have you even tried listening to the song? It's so good!) Colin M (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 
A tasty snack, while we're chatting.
@Colin M:, lol; I guess I'll have to update my musical repertoire from the Paleolithic; I promise I'll listen to it! I don't agree about the "just as well search for 'blue and pink' ", though; some word pairs just seem to go in a certain order, for no reason I can see: food and drink (why does drink and food sounds so awkward?), black and white, salt and pepper, washer and dryer, bride and groom (but man and wife). The expression pink and blue is in that category for me; perhaps it's a regional thing, and blue and pink works equally well for you? Since there's no fast and hard rule about this, we should have some more forth and back about it from every and each editor who might be interested, so we can hear the cons and pros of the situation and come up with a solution that large and by represents the majority view. Mathglot (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you're already aware, but there's a word for this phenomenon which I just learned recently: Irreversible binomial. (They even use the same image in the intro!) I do think either order sounds about equally natural to me, but it's the kind of thing where the act of consciously thinking about it can cause you to lose a grasp of your intuition. Colin M (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It's intriguing: the article on Gender reveal party refers to "Team Pink and Team Blue" etc, assuming that all readers will know that pink is associated with female and blue with male, but it's not explicitly stated apart from in a picture caption of a sliced cake. So we have an article on the history of the colour associations, but not on their current situation. There's a gap in the encyclopedia here, where these colour associations in 20th/21st-century US and UK (and where else? I don't know) culture needs to be described and explained. We have Pinkstinks, but no clear description of what it opposes. And the question, for a dab page, is not "When you think of "pink and blue", do you think of the song, first?", but "When a reader searches on "pink and blue" what are they most likely to be looking for?": not always the same thing. PamD 16:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@PamD: Yes, thank you; you're quite right: that is the right way to look at it. That's why in my OP I thought clickstream data could really help, here, if you or anyone is familiar with it. Mathglot (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Plus, the "gap" was my first reaction, too. Not sure what to call it: either a WP:NDESC which nobody would search for, e.g.: Gendered color associations of pink and blue, plus redirects from Pink is for girls and Blue is for boys? Mathglot (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's the clickstream from November 2020 (the month I happen to have lying around) for link from *blue*pink* titles.
Clickstream data
From To Count
List of historical sources for pink and blue as gender signifiers Baby blue 15
List of historical sources for pink and blue as gender signifiers Blue 10
List of historical sources for pink and blue as gender signifiers Color code 28
List of historical sources for pink and blue as gender signifiers Pinkstinks 22
List of historical sources for pink and blue as gender signifiers Pink 19
Pink & Blue Speakerboxxx/The Love Below 11
Pink Girl with the Blues Chinese Burn (song) 10
Pink Suit Blue Day This Island (Eurogliders album) 13
Pink Turns Blue Dark wave 32
Pink Turns Blue Gothic rock 11
Pink Turns Blue Laibach 13
Pink Turns Blue Post-punk 13
Pink Turns to Blue Grant Hart 13
Pink Turns to Blue Hüsker Dü 15
Pink Turns to Blue Turn On the News 10
Pink Turns to Blue Zen Arcade 22
Pink and Blue (Renoir) Charles Ephrussi 10
Pink and Blue (Renoir) Charles Townshend (British Army officer) 11
Pink and Blue (Renoir) Louis Cahen d'Anvers 19
Pink and Blue (Renoir) Pierre-Auguste Renoir 10
Pink and Blue (Renoir) Portrait of Irène Cahen d'Anvers 21
Pink and Blue (Renoir) São Paulo Museum of Art 13
Pink and Blue Hannah Diamond 12
Pink and blue ribbon Infertility 17
Pink and blue ribbon Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day 24
Pink and blue ribbon Pyloric stenosis 11
Pinky Blue Altered Images 23
Pinky Blue Bite (Altered Images album) 95
Pinky Blue Clare Grogan 10
Pinky Blue Happy Birthday (Altered Images album) 45
Pinky Blue I Could Be Happy 25
The Pink Blueprint List of The Pink Panther cartoons 41
The Pink Blueprint The Little Man (The Pink Panther) 26
The Pink Blueprint The Pink Phink 14
Only pairs with 10+ visits appear. Sadly, I don't see anything useful here. Certes (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Me neither. Thanks so much for adding that! Mathglot (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Certes suggested above that Pink & Blue should be merged it. I agree that should be done also; people often use "&" and "and" interchangeably - I don't think the difference is so great as to justify a separate dab page. MB 23:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    @MB and Certes: how would you do this? Would you keep the three dab links from P&B together on the PandB page, and would the first one just be a regular dabentry like the ones already there, or would you lead off with a "Pink & Blue may refer to.." to show that these are ampersand entries, therefore grouped apart from the others? Or some other way? Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    As both dabs are short, I'd add the P&B entries at the end of the main section of PandB, and revise the lead to Pink and blue or Pink & Blue may refer to:. Certes (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    I agree and I've now done that. The trouble is, it now looks very much as if the disambiguation page should be at Pink and Blue (disambiguation) (title case) to match the majority of entries. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Now, off for a plate of eggs
    Added the "or"-clause, as suggested by Certes. Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Primary topic on a dab page

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

How do you determine if a specific article should be the primary topic on a dab page? A recently-joined SPA insists that Edward W. Hardy should be listed as the primary topic on the Edward Hardy dab page, based on Google Search results... I know that this is one method people use to determine the primary topic, but as Edward W. Hardy is really the only Edward Hardy that has been around during the internet era, it seems to me that just going by recent internet searches for the name could skew the result... indeed, I think Edward Arthur Hardy could well have a better claim to the primary topic over the course of history. I thought just listing everyone equally would be the best option (see my edit here), but the SPA editor has reverted it to their preferred option. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Richard3120: It's not a question of "the primary topic on a dab page", but "the primary topic".
At present, Edward Hardy redirects to Edward W. Hardy: two decisions has been made at some point - that he is the primary topic for "Edward Hardy" and that he is more commonly known as "Edward W. Hardy". That being so, the disambiguation page goes at Edward Hardy (disambiguation), and he gets to be listed at the top: that's the layout for a disambiguation page where a primary topic exists.
The alternative scenario would be: a decision that there is no primary topic for "Edward Hardy". The disambiguation page would be at [{Edward Hardy]] (instead of that being a redirect to EWH), and the dab page would be set out as you proposed.
A further alternative would be your suggestion that EAH is the primary topic...
I hope that clarifies somewhat.
Looking at google hits for "Edward Hardy", with the quote marks, suggests that the composer is vanishingly rarely referred to without his middle initial, so is not the primary topic for the name with no middle initial, and we should probably move the disambiguation page to the basic title of Edward Hardy as there is no evidence that he is "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC).
I note also that Edward Arthur Hardy was at the title Edward Hardy from March 2009 until May of this year when it was moved by the same SPA editor. He may well be the primary topic. PamD 23:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks PamD, that's perfectly clear. Note that you say "at present, Edward Hardy redirects to Edward W. Hardy"... that was the same SPA editor who unilaterally moved that redirect a week ago without consensus. I agree that "Edward Hardy" should probably be the dab page instead of "Edward Hardy (disambiguation)". I also note that the article for Edward W. Hardy has been the creation of an editor previously banned for multiple socking on this subject (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maximum023/Archive) which makes me suspicious about this new editor. Richard3120 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
When a term leads to the article on its primary topic, with other meanings listed in a dab, the dab lists that article first and separately. We might call that a "primary topic on a dab page". An example is NYC (disambiguation). The term ("NYC" here) is often the article's title but need not be; here, NYC is a primary redirect to New York City. Certes (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Understood Certes, but if the editor decided unilaterally what the primary topic should be and redirects it as such, that makes this a kind of self-fulfilling dab page. Until ten days ago, "Edward Hardy" directed to the British MP. The editor has moved the MP's name to include his middle name (although there is no evidence that this was his WP:COMMONNAME) simply so that they could free up "Edward Hardy" as a dab page to point to their preferred subject. This is a deliberate manipulation to create a primary topic. Richard3120 (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it does look that way. One option is to revert the move as contested, and invite the SPA to raise a RM. If that supports the move (finding Edward Arthur Hardy not to be primary) then it should also discuss what to do with the vacated title, such as moving the dab or Edward W. Hardy there. Certes (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm considering doing... it's a bit late now where I am to do anything tonight, but I'll look into it tomorrow. Thanks for your advice. Richard3120 (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:RMUM: Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply ... If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. —Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I did that,and the editor reverted it straight away. So WP:RM looks like the way to go. Richard3120 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Richard3120: I see that you've reverted at the disambiguation page, but you have not attempted to move Edward Arthur Hardy back to Edward Hardy. Techincally, the disambiguation page is correct as long as Edward Hardy remains a redirect. —Bagumba (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba: OK, I'll try that first, and see if it stays. Thanks for your advice. Richard3120 (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I've retargetted the redirect Edward Hardy to point to the dab page and set up a move discussion to revert the move of the politician away from that title. The move couldn't just be reverted (at least, not by a simple editor) because of the complex history, and it could be helpful, going forward, to have a formal discussion and agreement. The dab page is currently correctly formatted but (with luck, temporarily) incorrectly titled. PamD 07:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
PamD: In the future, you can make a technical move request at WP:RM#TR and cite that you are contesting the undiscussed move per WP:RMUM. The onus is then on the other party to initiate an RM if they still object.—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Can a title without an article be a primary topic?

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This has been listed at WP:CR asking for a review of the discussion by OP of the RM for Murica (album). WRT Murica, the question raised here is moot because of the outcome of the RM. To the question made in the section heading and a subsequent question about redirects to other Wiki sites (specifically Wictionary)- it appears WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Question asked. Answers given. All done and dusted. (non-admin closure) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


Looking at 'Murica, which is currently just a Wiktionary link. The page title Murica (no apostrophe) redirects there. Murica (album), however, is a page. Should the base title be on the album, or should the arrangement stay as it is? I added a hatnote to the nondisambiguated title in April, which I believe is necessary per dab guidelines. Would like further input. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there's been lots of discussions about Murica and it has redirected to Murcia in Spain, to America, and to Wiktionary over the years, but that was all before Murica (album) was created in June 2020. The album's article probably should have been written right over the Murica redirect as the only topic on WP with that precise title, but since it wasn't, it should be moved to that title now. As to 'Murica with the apostrophe, I'm not sure what to do with that. It is averaging about 5 hits per day, but 4 of those 5 seem to be coming from the Murica redirect, so I would probably just leave it alone with a hatnote pointing to the album. Station1 (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Answer to the question in the heading? Yes. See EA as an example - primary topic for "EA" is Electronic Arts, but it isn't the article title. Does that answer your question? PamD 08:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    I suppose redirects do fall under the way I phrased the question, so point taken. I should say I've just personally never seen a Wiktionary link be a primary topic. I'm not saying it's wrong, though, that's why I'm taking it here and not suggesting an RM. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah, I hadn't looked carefully enough. I see that 'Merica doesn't exist, and 'Merican is an album, while Merica is a genus of sea snails with a hatnote "Not to be confused with Mercia, Murcia, or America.". There is a lengthy history to the Murica redirect. Looks as if a dab page at Murica might be the solution... but I'm the wrong side of the pond to know anything about it really, so I'll leave it to others. Good luck. PamD 10:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
But I see also that Murican and Merican don't exist: I suggest that your solution should include all 8 versions of "with or without apostrophe" x "mer or mur" x "with or without adjectival n", connecting the snails, the two albums and the mention at Names of the United States#Usage by whatever hatnotes, redirects or dab page(s) seem appropriate. PamD 10:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
We have 1664 Redirects to Wiktionary, which I think makes them rare and exceptional. In cases such as Large where the obvious primary topic has no article and doesn't need one, we write out a brief dictionary definition to introduce a dab. However, in this case, the meaning does have an article, so a primary redirect to United States ({{R avoided double redirect|America}}) might be better here. We could consider a {{redirect}} hatnote on United States, but I think 'Murica with the apostrophe is unambiguous. Certes (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
If 'Murica is going to be a redirect, I suggest it should be to Names of the United States#Usage where it is mentioned (possibly bolding it there for clarity, as target of incoming redirect). PamD 13:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds better. That would guide our readers to more relevant information than United States would. Certes (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
'Murica was the subject of two RfDs, in 2017 and 2018, resulting in the current Wiktionary redirect. Station1 (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English vs other languages

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I ran across a DAB for an English phrase, Long Live Death, which lists zero articles by that English name, one article by the German translation, and three by the Spanish translation. I also noticed we have a separate DAB for the Spanish phrase, Viva la Muerte, which list the same three from the English page. I feel these should both funnel to a single DAB, but I'm not sure which. In order to capture both the Spanish and German translations, I would say use the English term. But it feels strange to redirect Viva la Muerte to Long Live Death, when 75% of the entries go by that exact Spanish base name. Thoughts? Leave it as is? Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be redirected to Tatort: Es lebe der Tod. The current status of "Long Live Death" is that it includes one single official translation (Tatort: Es lebe der Tod) and three unofficial translations of Viva la muerte. We don't go a post all the songs titled "Mía" to "Mine", or the "Solas" to "Alone", unless it's the official title (Escape vs Escapar). (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
No I don't think Long Live Death should redirect to Tatort: Es lebe der Tod. Viva la muerte (film) was released in some regions as Long Live Death. older ≠ wiser 21:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The title Tatort: Es lebe der Tod appears to violate WP:NCEPISODE. It should be Es lebe der Tod if unambiguous or Es lebe der Tod (Tatort) if disambiguation is needed - without italics, and with the operative part enclosed between quotes in text (see MOS:ITALICS). Narky Blert (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Long Live Death should not redirect to Es lebe der Tod. A reader looking for the Spanish film or the (probably NN) French film fr:Vive la mort would receive a startling WP:EASTEREGG. Narky Blert (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
It appears the consensus is to leave these two as separate DABs? If so, I can live with that and I'll add a See also link to Long Live Death (disambiguation) on Viva la Muerte. Thanks for the feedback. Hoof Hearted (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
There's also the point that DAB pages are intended to help readers who have half-remembered, misremembered or misspelled a name, not just those who don't know that there is more than one person, film, album, or whatever, with the same name. A DAB page which cleanly helps readers find what they were looking for from their likely search strings is doing its job.
As for WP:PTOPICs and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs which present readers with the wrong article, see WP:BPAT. I could point to any number of ludicrous examples. Narky Blert (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I think the fact that we don't combine DABs like Mía and Mine has more to do with length than logic. The DABs I questioned are very short, which I thought pointed towards combining. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles that redirect to Wiktionary

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

There are 1,670 Wikipedia articles that are simply a redirect to Wiktionary. Should these articles be included on DAB pages? For example, Hobnobbing could be included in the See also section of Hobnob, but the DAB page already includes a Wiktionary link. They seem to have no particular value to the reader but they do appear on DAB pages sometimes. Leschnei (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is no, there is no use including an entry for a soft redirect when a wiktionary definition is already present. However, I wouldn't go through the trouble of removing them if the DAB is reasonably short. (I still would have fixed Hobnob as you did, for MOS:DABEXT.) Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Hoof Hearted. Hobnobbing seemed like a good See also entry until I saw that it was just a Wiktionary link. I've added 'hobnobbing' to the Wiktionary template on Hobnob - seems like a good compromise. Leschnei (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Hoof Hearted's comment and with Leschnei's actions. It's clearer to include all wiktionary links in the wiktionary template, as a very minor example of WP:SURPRISE. Narky Blest (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I also agree with those above. Avoid redundant links on directory pages. BD2412 T 05:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wabaningo

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a proposal at Talk:Wabaningo to change the page from a redirect to a disambiguation page (currently at Wabaningo (disambiguation). Extra eyes would be appreciated. Leschnei (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Should we put dots at the end of disambiguation?

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Here's the example. The whole page doesn't use dots, while "Other uses" section does and it's being inconsistent at that. Searching for "dot" on this article doesn't yield anything. So, what's the consensus? And should it be added to the Wikipedia:Disambiguation? Gotoro (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Trelawney

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I am considering splitting off the people on Trelawney to a surname page (I have rounded up a couple of reasonable references). Given that almost all of the non-fictional people have the surname Trelawny, it makes sense to make Trelawny the surname page - it's currently a redirect to Trelawney. I can never get a handle on when it's OK to change the contents of a DAB/redirect (see previous question!). Can I simply move the people to Trelawny, over-writing the redirect, or are additional steps needed? Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Moving a page#Before moving a page, it appears that requesting a technical move would be appropriate. I'll move this proposal to Talk:Trelawney#WP:Split proposal - July 2021. Please add comments there. Leschnei (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple dabs on New York City Subway stations

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could anyone help and advise on the table containing multiple links to dab pages on New York City Subway stations in the section headed Stations with the same name. Some of these dab pages just include stations on the NY subway but many include links to other things (eg The dab page for Third Avenue includes a band and an album) or articles about other cities (eg Canal Street includes places in the UK, an album and a jazz festival in Norway) - I am not sure how useful this is to readers. I have started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:New York City Subway stations#Stations with the same name and would welcome your comments.— Rod talk 07:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Alila and Alila (disambiguation)

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Okadiputera recently moved Alila to Alila (film), and created a DAB page at Alila (disambiguation) with Alila as a redirect; a good-faith series of edits by a new editor. Clearly the DAB and redirect need to be switched, but I'm not sure of the best way forward. First, was the page move appropriate? Second, since the DAB page has just been created can the contents just be swapped, or does it require an administrator? Leschnei (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If the film is still a primary topic then we should revert the moves (which requires an admin or page mover, as the redirect has been edited). If there is no PT then the current dab is MALPLACED and should be moved to the base name. Do we see a PT here? The editor has retired, denying COI allegations. Certes (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Pageviews Analysis and Google searching would suggest that the hotel is the primary topic. At the least, this is MALPLACED. And thanks for the explanation - that helps. Leschnei (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Leschnei, thank you for the notification. I apologise if the move was done incorrectly. I first decided to create a disambiguation page for the title Alila, to accommodate Alila Hotels and Resorts as one of the other possible topics under that title. After evaluating the article for the film, and considering Wikipedia:Be_bold, I decided to move the film page to a title that better reflected the article's content and the film's degree of notability. I attempted and failed to move Alila (disambiguation), to Alila to reflect these changes, and thought having them linked with a redirect may serve the same purpose. In hindsight, as you have noted, I should have requested help from an admin, and I apologise for not having done that. However, thank you for bringing this up, and I'll learn from this mistake. Okadiputera (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I have the WP:PAGEMOVER privilege, and have done a WP:ROBIN swap to correct the MALPLACED error. Without looking too deeply, I suspect that this is a case where WP:TWODABS applies, and a DAB page is a better idea than a WP:PTOPIC plus a hatnote (see WP:ONEOTHER) - not least because ceb:Alila (suba nga anhianhi sa Etyopiya) is an intermittent river in Ethiopia (obscure but apparently well-sourced), and the WP:PTM sv:Desa Alila is an obscure village in Indonesia (see wikidata:Q29437557).
BTW, @Okadiputera: - well done in doing a move rather than a copy/paste - the former is very easy to repair if needed, the latter creates a mess. Narky Blert (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: thanks for taking care of it. Leschnei (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: @Leschnei: thank you for suggestions and the move! Okadiputera (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Threshold guardian

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This was just created over a redirect. It seems useful, but not really as a dab since there are no ambiguous terms. This should probably be a WP:BCA. Does anyone agree? MB 20:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m guessing there isn’t much reliable source material on the concept in general. Unless that’s incorrect a dab page seems appropriate. In the unlikely event anyone is searching with this term what can we really provide other than a list of specific examples covered on WP? —В²C ☎ 20:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. I've added another entry, and a {{dabconcept}} tag. A quick search for "threshold guardian" suggests that there's enough material on the archetype to sustain at least a section somewhere. (If you've read A Wizard of Earthsea, you'll remember the Master Gatekeeper as a modern example. For an older one, "He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way" (see Adam and Eve#Expulsion from Eden).) Narky Blert Narky Blert (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Acre

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've started a discussion at Talk:Acre (unit)#Page move about a recent page move relevant to disambiguation. Certes (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

We've got a one-sentence section at WP:DAB#Deletion with the following content:

Although disambiguation pages are not articles, a disambiguation page may be listed at Articles for deletion to discuss whether the disambiguation page should be deleted.

I was thinking of adding a mention of WP:G14 and of WP:PROD, but then realised that there was something a little bit off. See, even though the vast majority of dab pages are in the article namespace (and hence their non-speedy deletion is handled just like that of normal articles), there are some in other namespaces, too – the WP and template ones in particular. My assumption is that non-speedy deletion of a dab page in any of those other namespaces should be done in the same way as any other page in that namespace (e.g. template dabs go to WP:TFD, WP dabs go to WP:MFD, and PROD is unavailable). Now, these cases are probably so obscure that we don't need to mention them here, right? But should we at least try to reword that sentence so that it doesn't make the technically incorrect claim that AfD handles all dabs? Is this worth touching on in a footnote? – Uanfala (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the implication here is that this is about dab pages in article space and mentioning other name-spaces is unnecessary WP:CREEP, because, as you said, they are so obscure. MB 18:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
How about the following then?

Disambiguation pages can be listed for discussion at Articles for deletion. For uncontroversial cases, the simpler process of Proposed deletion is also an option. One specific type of unnecessary disambiguation page can be summarily deleted using speedy deletion criterion G14.

I think that pretty much sums it up, though it may need copy-editing. – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I like that. No need to overcomplicate. Narky Blert (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
How about cases where people seek to delete a small dab page in order to move some article over the primary title? Should we make a mention of RM for this scenario? And I'm also wondering if it won't be a good idea to include, maybe in a footnote, a link to the DAB DELSORT, for people who are interested in participating in deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Gestalt

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I invite members of this WikiProject to participate at Talk:Gestalt#Whether to include certain entries. The issue is whether the entries identifiable from this edit should or should not be included on the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Negros Island#Requested move 25 August 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Negros Island#Requested move 25 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing actress as a dab word?

Latest comment: 3 years ago35 comments15 people in discussion

I notice that Tony1 has started moving articles with the disamiguation word actress to actor on mass. Was this discussed somewhere first? Is there some new policy I am not aware of on using actor over actress?4meter4 (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't find such a decision, but here are some recent related discussions:
Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. Looks like there is not agreement in this area. Women can of course use either actor or actress. I think there should be some discussion with community input before continuing this massive change.4meter4 (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Most female actors are still referred to as actresses. It is especially ridiculous to move those from the past who would never in a million years have been referred to or referred to themselves as an actor. There is no consensus for this change and it should be stopped now. I have moved all those moved by Tony1 back to the original title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

There are, of course, some modern female actors who prefer the term "actor" to "actress". If this is the case and is documented to be so then it's fine to use "actor" as a disambiguator. Otherwise we should stick to common English and stay with "actress". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The Manual of Syle states that gender-neutral language should be used "where this can be done with clarity and precision". Tony (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere does it say we shouldn't use gender-specific terms when they are commonly used in the English language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Indeed - this should stop, except where the individuals preferred term can be referenced. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm in favour of using the neutral "actor" where possible. GNL is pretty clear; there is no loss of "clarity and precision" here as the disambiguator is being used to denote the profession of the subject only. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
It is quite clear that this only applies when a term is being used generically (and we would indeed use "actors" instead of "actors and actresses" to refer to all actors generically). There is no indication that it should be used to refer to specific individuals who would be referred to in common English usage with a gendered term. After all, we don't use "they/them/their" instead of "she/her", unless the individual has specified it as a preference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Using "she/her" when gender is not in doubt does not contravene MOS:GNL, it's specifically called out as being okay. However, pointedly using a needlessly gendered term when a neutral one is not only available but widely recognised as an everyday common term clearly is a different story. GNL is not about only using the most common neutral terms where they cause no fuss, it's about using neutral terms whenever possible and this is clearly a case where it's not just possible but simple, concise, and perfectly clear to the lay reader. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 20:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm curious whether there are any other gendered terms that have been commonly used as disambiguators. I was only able to find two example articles, but they're both aberrations: William Morris Davis (congressman) (should be (politician) for consistency with similar articles), and Karen Brown (ballerina) (should be (dancer) for consistency). Colin M (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Competitive awards in acting are typically divided by actor and actress along gender lines. Media and reference works of all kinds typically follow suit. Our categories reflect that. Often professional women in this area who do use the title actor over actress are doing so to make a political statement or commentary on society or gender roles. One could argue that by placing gender neutral titles on those who use the label actress professionally, we are pushing a POV onto those subjects and potentially misrepresenting that person’s politics by placing a label on them that is inherently politicized. I think it’s best we simply disambiguate based on the source material to maintain NPOV and not accidentally misrepresent the subjects of our articles. In other words, if the subject goes by actress use actress. If the subject goes by actor use actor.4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
"businessman" is the common disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, there are quite a few businessmen and businesswomen. Here are the "Foo (barman)" articles beginning with A: quarry:query/58635. Certes (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both. Tony1, I'd be curious to hear your take on this. Do you think we should also move all articles with (businessman) and (businesswoman) disambiguators to instead use (businessperson) in order to comply with MoS? Colin M (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a MOS or other guideline to base this on, but my personal POV is that "businessperson" sounds unnatural and seems to be excessive political correctness. Certes (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Seconded. It's a ridiculous word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Even if it were a good idea to adopt businessperson (it isn't), actress is special because it's a different job from actor. Although the individuals will have strengths and weaknesses, businessmen and businesswomen are essentially interchangeable in the sense that few if any business jobs require a particular gender. However, plenty of roles call specifically for an actress, where no male actor would suffice (unless you're Shakespeare or producing a panto), and vice versa. Certes (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that it would be a mistake to completely remove "actress" from Wikipedia usage. Many now deceased performers referred to themselves as actresses and today it can appear strange if a women begins to refer to herself as an actor rather than an actress unless there are LGBT reasons behind it. Just as we say "ladies and gentlemen", I think we should be permitted to continue to say "actors and actresses". Unless there is overwhelming support against, I would feel more comfortable with our continuing use of actresses.--Ipigott (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Agree with Necrothesp. Actor/actress is more common. Actress should not be replaced without a specific reason in a particular article. MB 18:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
There's no reason to change businessman to business person when referring to a male businessman and likewise with businesswoman. MOS retaining existing styles is great and common mame is pretty good too in favour of not changing every person to business person. Of course, though, in generic terms about people in business, business person is the best choice. We don't need to neuter the English language any further. Masterhatch (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The hierarchy of categories starting with Category:Actors seems consistently to use "Male actors" and "Actresses", and in some cases "Non-binary actors". It seems to have been done consistently - see Category:21st-century English actors for example. I don't know where (whether?) this has been discussed, but it might be useful to link this discussion to that. PamD 07:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @BrownHairedGirl:, the queen of categories, who created Category:21st-century English male actors in 2013 and might be able to point to relevant discussions. PamD 07:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@PamD: Sorry for a slow reply.
As you noted below, there was discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 101#Actresses_categorization. Also several CFDs and an RFC somewhere.
I was pushing to overturn an 8yo poorly-attended CFD decision not to categorise actors by gender. That eventually happened (after overcoming some bizarre procedural obstructionism), and along the way there was some discussion on the secondary issue of what names to use for the gendered categories. I found that frustrating, because the two issues are better addressed separately.
Since this discussion is solely about the language, I don't think that the 2012 discussions are much help. This needs an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Related cases include (god)/(goddess) and (king)/(queen).
To me, (actor) looks unnatural for a female actor, unless it's an expressed preference. For people in the past, it's also anachronistic; as would e.g. saying that Brahms wrote his Academic Festival Overture for the University of Wrocław.
There's also a problem with unisex names, particularly in Indian film. I've seen instances where discovering someone's gender convinced me that this wasn't the person we had an article about. Narky Blert (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree. Masterhatch (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @RoySmith: that's no way to find common conventions:
    1. Each is an example of a single use, not of a policy or style guide. A single use does not clarify policy
    2. all four examples are from the United States, which represents a small minority of the world's English speakers.
    We need a more structured approach to determine common usage. Style guides would be a good start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl that's a fair point about the US vs the rest of the English-speaking world. To which I would respond that The TImes of India, The London Times, The Syndey Morning Herald, and The Toronto Star all use "actress". I would assume all of these publication have internal style guides, so their use of the term in headlines and articles seems like a good indication of what their style guides say. I'm not fundamentally opposed to using "actor" if that's what is in common use outside of Wikipedia, but the onus is on people who want to make the change to demonstrate that it is indeed in common use. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
    To add as other examples, we just had the Emmys last night that use actor/actress distinctions, which are still mirrored as well by the BAFTAs, the European Film Awards, India's Filmfare Awards, etc. I generally agree with the statement that if the person has expressed that they be called actor due to gender preference, that's how we should follow, but otherwise, the industry here is still clearly using these two terms and we should not be progressive on that. --Masem (t) 13:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
    @RoySmith: One swallow does not a summer make.
    It's not true to say that that those newspapers all use "actress". Your evidence shows only that each publication used the term once in their vast output.
    Taking a single example from each publication may be a single example of 1% use rate or of 99% use rate. For that data to be of any use, we would need either big samples or style guide.
    I don't care much either way which term is used. But I am concerned that both sides of this discussion have been marked by a very low quality of evidence, amidst a lot of assertion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
    Of the style guides I could find:
    • The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 5th Edition (2015): "While actor can refer to a woman as well as to a man, actress remains widely used and seems exempt from most objections to grafted feminine endings"
    • The Guardian: "The Guardian’s view is that actress comes into the same category as authoress, comedienne, manageress, 'lady doctor', 'male nurse' and similar obsolete terms that date from a time when professions were largely the preserve of one sex (usually men)."[8]
    • American Library Association: "actor, not actress" [9]
    • BuzzFeed: "Avoid gendered terms like 'actress,' 'editrix,' and 'songstress' outside of direct quotes and titles. [10]
    • BBC: "using the term "actress" (or comedienne) is OK. Actors is fine if describing a mixed group" [11]
    • University of Baltimore doesn't specifically address actor vs actress, but in an example of hyphenation they say, "She is a well-known actress. otherwise: As an actress, she is well known. (no hyphen)", so I'm assuming they're OK with actress. [12]
    • Lafayette College, similarly to U Baltimore, only used as an example of possessives, "actress’s role", and "actress’ spark" [13]
    • Mother Jones: "Actor” is Mother Jones’ house style except when someone identifies as “actress” or it’s important to signal gender, https://www.motherjones.com/media/2020/02/mother-jones-style-guide/
    • Western Michigan University: Instead of: Student actors and actresses will perform "Othello.", Write: Student actors will perform "Othello." [14]
    • Los Angeles Times: I couldn't find a style guide per-se, but this article/essay/editorial seems to lean towards "actor".
    • Associated Press: "We use actor for a man and actress for a woman, but it is acceptable to use actor for a woman if she prefers it." [15]
    • Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "actor ... Default term for male and female members of the acting professions. Retain the gendered term for awards: best actress, best supporting actress" [16]
    • I was able to find an "Editorial Standards" document for Al Jazeera [17], but (surprsingly) not a writing style guide.
    Which looks roughly evenly split on the issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sheik and Sheikh (disambiguation)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just discovered a merge proposal from June 2021 that has seen no action. The discussion is here. Leschnei (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Should the sideber other-language links always lead to disambiguation pages? Death and the Maiden includes a link at the bottom to the same title on Portuguese Wikipedia (pt:Death and the Maiden) - in order to add it to the sidebar, I presume. I intended to move the Portuguese link to the Wikidata disambiguation page instead, but found that pt:Death and the Maiden links to the Polanski film. I searched for 'Death and the Maiden', 'Noite da Vingança', and 'Morte e a Donzela' on Portuguese Wikipedia, but there doesn't seem to be a DAB page. Should the Portuguese link be left on Death and the Maiden as the closest match, or removed because it isn't a DAB page? Leschnei (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

According to the guidelines over at Wikidata, the answer to your question is "yes". Also, the Portuguese article is already connected to the corresponding article about the film here. – Uanfala (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Uanfala, I hadn't seen that guidance page. Leschnei (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

In more detail than I was able to put in an edit summary: WP:INTDABLINK currently includes as correct examples:

{{other uses|Springfield (disambiguation)}}
{{other uses|Springfield (disambiguation){{!}}Springfield}}

The first of these displays the right text, but isn't idiomatic. Actual usage is nearly always {{other uses}}.

The second is a problem because the page on which it appears is almost always named (in this example) Springfield, so it isn't appropriate to say, "for other uses, see Springfield". For a real example see Jargon.

Unless someone has a reason why it's desirable to keep these in the examples, I'm going to replace them with another hatnote template. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I am fairly certain there are instances where there are alternative versions of a name where this formulation is used. I can't put my finger on one offhand. BD2412 T 04:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
If the page listing other uses is called Foo (disambiguation), then the first form above is correct. For example, Jim Kelley has {{other uses|James Kelley (disambiguation)}}. The second form above is incorrect in this case. It would be wrong to write {{other uses|James Kelley (disambiguation){{!}}James Kelley}}, because that would promise the reader a link to James Kelley (an article about one person) whilst actually sending them to the dab James Kelley (disambiguation). The note on the second form should explain that it is not used for dabs called Foo (disambiguation).
If the page listing other uses is called Foo, with a redirect to it from Foo (disambiguation), then either form is acceptable. Personally I prefer the second version, but many good editors use the first. Certes (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
My practice is the same as Certes'.
A pragmatic reason for piping in the second case is that makes it less likely that editors will remove the "unnecessary" link through the (disambiguation) redirect. (I revert if I can, with an ES linking to INTDABLINK.) Narky Blert (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I generally avoid piping the link to hide the "(disambiguation)" but don't usually bother with removing it if another editor puts it in. I think part of the confusion is that the context of this guidance is not completely clear — the only qualification for these examples is "In a hatnote:". It make some difference where the hatnote is placed. On a page named "Springfield" {{other uses}} will result in For other uses, see Springfield (disambiguation). On a page with any name other than "Springfield" you would need to use {{other uses|Springfield (disambiguation)}}. Although even on a page named "Springfield", the latter would still produce the same result (and the guidance here doesn't really need to get down to that level of detail -- so it makes sense to use example that works universally). I don't see any reason to assume that the page on which it appears is almost always named (in this example) Springfield. Such hatnotes can appear on pages with a variety of titles based on factors like homonymy or WP:small details or where similar spellings are collected on single disambiguation page but a primary topic exists for some of the variations (as with the Jim Kelley example. older ≠ wiser 14:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm still not convinced that it's a good example, but it's good enough that I no longer think it's worth the trouble to change it. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Synonym disambiguations and mention

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

What is the practice with regards to disambiguating terms that are synonyms, or considered same as titles for which we have articles? Should the target article have a mention of the term being disambiguated? MOS:DABSYN seems to suggest so, but wanted to get it clarified. (And I believe the case for MOS:DABMENTION is not for synonyms, hence is different). While we were discussing this at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 21#Indian gaming, it was implied that not having a mention at thet target is fine if it is a well-known synonym, and it's a common practice to have such disambiguations. Some examples that came up were Mad pointing to Anger, and Chow and Grub pointing to Food. Jay (Talk) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DABSYN is not giving guidance on whether to list a synonym on a dab page, it is merely talking about how to annotate one (or rather, when doing so is unnecessary). Whether to include a synonym requires using discretion when following MOS:DABENTRY: "the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily." MB 14:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of an item in the body of the dab page implies a statement: that the disambiguation term can refer to that item, and so a core question here is verifiability ("mention" in this context is usually shorthand for "mention with source"). If it's a general English-language synonym (and hence known by all readers), or an alternative spelling/transliteration (and hence obvious to editors in the topic area), then a reference is not necessary, and so there's no need for an explicit mention either. In most cases, however, the statement that "X refers to Y" will not be obvious, and so there will be the need to have a reference for that. It's been customary to have that reference only once: within the article concerned and not on the dab page. That way the dab page is kept lean, the statement is made on a page that's likely to be more accessible to informed scrutiny, and articles are typically expected to list synonyms anyway.
However, there are cases where a non-trivial synonym will not be mentioned in the article. For example, India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi is occasionally referred to as "NaMo". Among the vast literature on the topic, that name is pretty obscure, so listing it explicitly in the article will be giving it undue weight. On the other hand, as far as uses of the term "Namo" are concerned, Narendra Modi is a pretty common referent, so he will need to be listed on the relevant dab page. In this scenario, the dab page should ideally have a reference for that use, but unfortunately that's not operationally sound as some editors tend to remove references on sight. Some common sense compromise will need to be made. – Uanfala (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
In order to enforce the "at least one reference" (either at the target or at the disambig page) to establish Verifiability, can we put that to the guideline, so that editors are aware that the references shouldn't be removed, and editors have a reason to revert any removals, or add a "Citation needed" tag for dubious disambig entries?
For the examples I gave above, grub, chow and mad disambig pages have Wiktionary entries that act as references. For synonymical disambigs that don't have a mention at the target, should we propose a dictionary reference; or will Wiktionary suffice, the only objection being it is a tertiary source? In the ongoing discussion at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 21#Indian gaming, for the case of a proposed disambig from Indian gaming to Gambling in India, the target is a regional title, and would be considered a "non-trivial synonym" disambig. In the absence of a mention at the target, and absence of references, who is responsible to establish that it will be a valid disambig? Jay (Talk) 06:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Are these sufficient Dabs?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Was editing an article that has a Dab page at Mike Munoz. Noticed there is another article at Michael Munoz. The two people at Mike Munoz both are technically "Michael Munoz"es as well. Should it be a dab page for three and no primary? Also for Sam Salter and Samuel Salter. RedPatch (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The present position in both cases with cross-refs through hatnotes and a see-also looks fine to me. Narky Blert (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Only two targets, and one has been changed to a Wiktionary redirect

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

What's the best thing to do with the disambiguation page in this scenario? Take Debility for instance. Debility (medical) was just a dictionary definition and so has been changed to a soft redirect to Wiktionary. So the only definition that still has an article is Debility (astrology). As such, should Debility be redirected to Debility (astrology)? Or Debility (astrology) moved to Debility? I suppose that doing either of these would mean deleting Debility (disambiguation) as no longer pointing to a disambiguation page. Or is it OK to have a disambiguation page listing pages that are Wiktionary redirects like this? And what about disambiguation hatnotes? I can see that in this instance we have a not insignificant number of links to Debility (medical), and moreover I wonder if people are likely to search for "debility" expecting the medical meaning.... — Smjg (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Although none of those links are red, the advice in WP:PRIMARYRED may still be relevant. If so, then the current situation is correct. It seems wrong to make a primary topic of an astrological meaning which Wiktionary doesn't even mention. Certes (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Debility (astrology) is also currently a one-sentence defintion and has no inbound links except this DAB whereas Debility (medical) has 20 inbound links. That suggests the med meaning might actually be primary, or at least that the astrology meaning isn't. DMacks (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my cut'n'paste goof when trying to protect this discussion against future move/redirects, User:Danbloch! DMacks (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Why is Debility (medical) not a redirect to Weakness? BD2412 T 20:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The EL in Debility (astrology) is broken, and the article is therefore unreferenced. Nevertheless, a Google search for "debility astrology" suggests that the idea is complimentary to Dignity (astrology) (a redlink) and has sources. If anyone feels like writing up some pseudoscience, I think there's enough out there to support an article Dignity and debility, with suitable redirects.
I agree with BD2412 that no DAB page is justified, and that both Debility and Debility (medical) should redirect to Weakness. Narky Blert (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
A hatnote at Weakness would suffice for the relatively obscure astrology term. I suspect that should also point to some better developed astrology article. BD2412 T 20:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Essential dignity and Accidental dignity mention debility in the astrological sense. Certes (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
They're both a mess. I would merge both into a single Dignity (astrology) (which would still need better sources), and point Debility (astrology) to that end product. BD2412 T 22:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Matt Walsh (disambiguation)

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Two people that I'm not convinced should be on the page.

____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

They both seem appropriate per MOS:DABMENTION. MB 14:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The first one should definitely stay (he's mentioned 95 times in the linked article). But for the second, the dab page description says much more about him than anything that's in The Daily Wire article, and there's nothing that links to his redlink; I'd get rid of it. Station1 (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
For the second one, the infobox says he is a "key person" at the organization, and the article says he has his own podcast. That is a bit more than is on the dab. Having the entry is useful, for instance, if someone read something he wrote and was trying to find out more about him. I would leave it. MB 23:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I'll get rid of the red linked one right now. He can always be re-added in the future if he's worthy of his own article. Masterhatch (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep both entries: a reader looking for the second one , eg who reads "As Matt Walsh says in his podcast", would be helped by the dab page entry. PamD
Keep both. They satisfy WP:DABMENTION (and I speak as someone who deletes orphan redlinks from DAB pages every day). DAB pages are supposed to make finding information easy, not difficult. The vast majority of readers don't know how to search around an article with the same title as what they're looking for; and it isn't easy even if you do know. Narky Blert (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Did something happen to the rating system?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When I created DABs previously, they were assessed as "disambiguation pages", and showed up as so on my "Pages Created" page. Now they are all showing as unassessed. Did something change? It's not really a big deal, unless the pages have to be assessed again... more importantly it looks ugly on my page [here].--Ortizesp (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Facebook name change

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Following Facebook's name change, some disambiguation folks may want to share thoughts at Talk:Meta, Inc.#Name change. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

On a related topic, we are also seeking a better title for Meta (company), as this minor firm is clearly no longer a primary topic for the term. Certes (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Matsudaira?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Query raised at Talk:Matsudaira clan#Dab? (I looked around for an appropriate template to post on that talk page, but failed to spot one, sorry.) 86.186.155.177 (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I added {{R with possibilities}} to the redirect. You can add further explanation on the TP. MB 15:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks MB (fwiw, I've added a brief remark on the article talk page). 86.186.155.177 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ONEOTHER when the spelling is slightly different?

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Is it a case of WP:ONEOTHER if a disambig page has only two entries (or even only one entry) with the exact match but several entries with a non-exact match? For example, see Dallas Smith (disambiguation). Should such a page exist? VR talk 20:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a case of ONEOTHER. In the case of Dallas Smith, there was a move request back in January to make the singer the primary topic and put the hockey player in a hatnote (per ONEOTHER, but not specifically citing it), and that got a support comment.[18] The clear implication was that the dab page would be deleted. Unfortunately, someone else then changed the RM to keep the dab page but move it to Dallas Smith (disambiguation) and that's how the RM was closed. The dab page could be deleted. Station1 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Station1: just to confirm that the existence of spelling variants like Dallis Smith and Dallas Walker Smythe don't count for "entries" for the purposes of Dallas Smith (disambiguation) being WP:ONEOTHER? I want a confirmation so I can apply this to other similar cases.VR talk 23:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we should automatically remove dab pages like that. It sometimes happens that the entry with that spelling has also been known under this spelling (this occurs often when there's transliteration from other languages involved), so it's not really a case of ONEOTHER. But even if it is, then getting rid of the dab page may not always be desirable, particularly if it's got more than one or two "See also" entries (because then we'd need to move them into a hatnote, and hatnotes should ideally stay short). – Uanfala (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, spelling differences normally don't count for creating a dab page where one would not otherwise exist, especially for only one or two such entries. There might be cases where significant numbers of readers might be looking for another person with an easily confused spelling. "Dallis" is an unusual spelling of the more common "Dallas", and if Dallis Smith was more popular, it could make sense to add him to the hatnote. Some editors would say add him anyway, even if it helps only one reader. I think the combination of the middle name Walker and "Smythe" in the other listing make him much more unlikely to be confused with Dallas Smith. But it's always a matter of judgment as to what helps readers in any particular situation, and I agree nothing should be automatic. Station1 (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think that dab page serves a useful purpose. If it didn't exist, then the ptopic Dallas Smith would require a pileup of three hatnotes at the top. (And yes, I do think it's important that the reader be able to find, say, Dallis Smith from Dallas Smith. I recently had the experience of hearing about a writer named "Eleanor Glynn" in conversation, and wanted to look her up. Fortunately the hatnote on the article Eleanor Glynn made me realize that the name I had actually heard was "Elinor Glyn".) Colin M (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Two interesting points. First, we wouldn't need 3 hatnotes. {{other uses|Dallas Smith (ice hockey)|Dallis Smith|Dallas Walker Smythe}} takes up little more room than the current hatnote pointing to the dab page. And by pointing to the dab page, we put one extra step in the way of readers who don't want Dallas Smith the singer, because most of them probably want the hockey player with the same name, not someone else with a different name. Second, the Elinor Glyn example is the exact opposite of the Dallis Smith example. Unlike Dallis Smith, which is the more unusual spelling and the far less sought article, Elinor is the more unusual spelling but the much more sought article. So it's a good thing there is a hatnote on Eleanor Glynn pointing directly toward Elinor Glyn, and not pointing to a dab page that lists, say, Elinor Glyn plus Eleanor Gwynn and Eleanor Lynn and Elinor Lynn, because that would just get in most people's way. Station1 (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That suggested hatnote doesn't tell the reader when they should be looking at Dallis Smith instead. They may have to scan the ledes of two articles to find out. There isn't room in a hatnote for the thumbnail sketches which DAB pages should contain (except in simple {{about}} cases).
Would you like to sin / With Elinor Glyn / On a tiger skin? / Or would you prefer / To err with her / On some other fur? (I suspect that "Elinor" may have been a fairly common spelling in UK in late C19. As well as the novelist (born 1864), there was my grandmother (born c. 1885).) Narky Blert (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Guidance on where disambiguation ends and white pages begins

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I suspect that this question has arisen before but I can't think of a search term that finds it.

I have been involved in two debates on how WP:DAB applies, which contradict each other. So I wonder if WP:PARTIAL needs further work?

  • At talk:Canonical#Not a dab page, that the article was not a true disambiguation article since almost all the articles listed were partial matches of the term 'Canonical'. The consensus was to change it to become a broad-concept article.
  • At talk:Star (disambiguation)#Heavy cleanup, there is an ongoing debate about the extent to which the article should (as it does) contain many 'partial match' articles. Even after some heavy spring-cleaning, the article is still enormous and I pity anyone on a mobile (cell-phone) trying to use it to resolve an ambiguous name. These, it seems to me, take the article beyond true disambiguation and into white pages territory – but the counter-argument is that they help readers who aren't quite sure what they want but it involves the word 'star' somewhere. One editor remarked that there is nothing explicit in WP:DAB that disapproves of this practice and indeed the article Mercury (disambiguation) – which is referenced in WP:DAB as a canonical example – includes many partial-match articles.
  • Pinging @Coastside, Clarityfiend, Swpb, and Bkonrad: for info, as they were or are involved in the debates (to check that I have presented the question neutrally)

"Hard cases make bad law" and these two articles are definitely edge cases. It may be that we have to accept that we aren't in the business of writing criminal law, just guidance, and 'good enough' is good enough. Any new comments, advice, proposals? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

the counter-argument is that they help readers who aren't quite sure what they want but it involves the word 'star' somewhere. is a slight misrepresentation. The criteria for inclusion is not whether the title for a Wikipedia article contains the word 'star' -- but whether the topic is known as 'star'. older ≠ wiser 14:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
When I'm not quite sure what I want but it involves the word 'star' somewhere, I use the search box. I can usually narrow it down by adding other terms, e.g. the name of an actor who appeared in Star Something. Experienced readers know not to rely on dabs for finding PTMs. Inexperienced readers don't know what a dab is. Certes (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this discussion, and thanks for the ping. I don't think we're as far apart on this as it may seem. I think we all agree that PTMs don't belong. But Bkonrad is right: if a topic may reasonably be referred to by the ambiguous name alone, then it isn't a PTM, and it belongs on a dab, even if it doesn't take the exact form "Term (disambiguator)". Star polygon was a good example; most people just call that a "star". (Although in that case, we have the redirect Star (polygon) to use.) Ship names with naval prefixes have historically been non-controversial entries as well (although I know you don't agree they should be), or things like "[Name] City". For extremely common words like "Star", there will inevitably be a ton of entries, even with the strictest possible interpretation of the inclusion criterion. One solution to that is judicious use of the typically-avoided WP:DOUBLEDAB, with pages like Star (song) or the existing Star (newspaper). —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 17:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the above, especially the point about the key to disambiguation of a term being that the topic is called that term, e.g., a star polygon is called a star. I think canonical is an interesting case for this because it's an adjective. No topic other than the company is called a canonical, because it's an adjective. Because of that, the term is almost always attached to another noun when defining a topic. That makes almost every instance of canonical as a topic a PTM. It's worth noting that the topic rhetorical doesn't have a dab page. The term redirects to rhetoric. There are lots of topics that could be listed in a dab on rhetorical, such as rhetorical question, rhetorical situation, rhetorical criticism, etc. Each has a different nuance about the word rhetorical. This is similar to the different nuanced variation on the word canonical in phrases that include the word. Yet there is no dab page for things rhetorical. If there were ever a dab for rhetorical, it should only include things called rhetorical. Coastside (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
If there is value in a page that lists a bunch of "rhetorical X" or "canonical X" articles, that's fine, but I think the point is that those pages would not be disambiguation pages, but Broad-concept articles. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 20:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
In some cases, where the topic is an adjective, the broad concept article is just the topic that is the noun form of the adjective. For example, the term bright has a dab page which refers to the topic brightness. Brightness is the broad concept article for the term bright. If there were a dab page for rhetorical (for a few topics on things called rhetorical), it might be reasonable to link to rhetoric on that dab page, as bright links to brightness. Currently rhetorical does this as a redirect since there is no such dab page, i.e., rhetorical redirects to rhetoric. Unfortunately, the topic canon is itself ambiguous, so you can't just link canonical to canon as a broad concept. Coastside (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Seeking input

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are a couple of contentious topics on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages that could really use broader input, since so far they are one-vs.-one:

Thanks! —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 17:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dab vs. content fork

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The page Hilbert algebra is currently tagged as a dab page. It links to two articles which both have a section "Hilbert spaces". These sections contain the same definition. So, this page is not here for disambiguating, but for poorly dealing with a content fork. I have tried to solve the issue by transforming the page into a stub, but I have been reverted twice by the same user. As I have some problems elsewhere with this editor, I do not want to engage an edit war with him. So some external help is needed for deciding whether my version as a stub must be restored, or if the current dab version must be kept. Thanks in advance. D.Lazard (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, your best place for external help relating to this is probably to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Iffy★Chat -- 17:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's being discussed at Talk:Hilbert algebra. – Uanfala (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I created the article, which is standard and neutral. On wikipedia, the OP has so far not explained his problems re von Neumann algebras. Nowhere have they articulated what distinguishes type I and II von Neumann algebras from type IIi von Neumann algebras. In the first case, the easy commutation theorem of John von Neumann, proved in the early 30s, states that  , where   is the conjugate-linear involution and prime denotes commutant. The same commutation theorem holds in the type III case, but the proof of Tomita and Takesaki is inordinately harder. An unbounded positive operator   enters the picture. The 1-parameter unitary group   normalised   and  . I explained on talk:Hilbert algebra, citing the main references, how the two commutation theorems can be proved. But they are poles apart: the later is fiendishly hard while the second takes one page. For the type I and II case, Dixmier, Godement and Dieudonné could use the language of Hilbert algebras for paraphrasing the commutation theorem. That was motivated by its application to the unitary representation theory of unimodular locally compact groups. For the type III case, the proof of the commutation theorem can be summarised without too much difficulty. Sunder's book "An invitation to von Neumann algebras" gives an accessible account, which is self-contained if it's assumed that   is a bounded operator. For the general case, Bratelli & Robinson's is fairly short. Once the commutation theorem has been proved, interpretation in terms of left and right Hilbert algebras is straightforward. Hopefully at some stage the penny will drop about the distinction between type I and II vs type III. The WP:RSs make it clear and the OP has not mentioned them at any stage. In the real academic world, there are usually several choices for how to lecture: one focuses on the type I & II theory followed by Jones index and knot polynomials; the second can be on type II theory, rigidity and non-amenability; a third focuses on type III theory and its applications in low-dimensional quantum field theory. Mathsci (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mathsci: You seem to have overlooked the fact that this is WikiProject Disambiguation, not WikiProject Math. This is not the place to discuss the substance of mathematical concepts. The only thing we are concerned with here is whether the specific term "Hilbert algebra" can refer to one, two, or more distinct topics. If more than one, then disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, it is not. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure I agree with that premise entirely. This concerns Category:von Neumann algebras. Historically User:R.e.b. created a redirect for a single page Tomita–Takesaki theory; that was changed to a disambig when the commutation theorem was created (on R.e.b.'s suggestion). There was no reason to merge the two articles into one. In standard refs, Hilbert algebra should direct to the current commutation theorem; "left Hilbert algebra" and "right Hilbert algebra" should redirect to Tomita–Takesaki theory.
However, from your suggestions and the discussion here, "commutation theorem" might be moved to "commutation theorem (von Neumann)"; then commutation theorem could be made into a disambiguation page for "commutation theorem (von Neumann)" and "commutation theorem (Tomita–Takesaki)". The relevant section could be linked to Tomita–Takesaki theory; making sure there is a section labelled commutation theorem is not hard. Mathsci (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
It might help to know whether these statements are true, false, disputed or just poorly phrased and meaningless.
  1. Left Hilbert algebras and right Hilbert algebras are subtypes of Hilbert algebra. (I suspect the truth may be more subtle and involve the word "homomorphism".)
  2. Hilbert algebras (other than left and right) are associated mainly with commutation theorems (in the von Neumann rather than Tomita–Takesaki sense).
  3. Left (and perhaps right) Hilbert algebras are used mainly in Tomita–Takesaki theory.
If the mathematicians agree on the answers, that should suggest whether the term "Hilbert algebra" is ambiguous and help us decide where best to put the material. Certes (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

New improper use proposal

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Input sought in: Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#New_improper_use_proposal. Thanks fgnievinski (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Categorize Set index articles as disambiguation pages

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Village Pump has a broad proposal to Categorize Set index articles as disambiguation pages. Certes (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Dab help needed for Fantasy Fiction

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I have created a couple of articles that I'm not sure how to disambiguate correctly, so I'm hoping someone with more experience than me with disambiguation can help. There are several magazines named Fantasy, Fantasy Stories, Fantasy Fiction, or Fantasy Magazine. Four are listed at Fantasy (disambiguation)#Periodicals, as follows:

In addition I've just created Fantasy Fiction (1950 magazine), which was titled Fantasy Stories for its second issue. Also note that the 1953 Fantasy Magazine was titled Fantasy Fiction for part of its run, and that there's also a Fantasy Book magazine article, not currently linked from the dab page, and there is will eventually be another magazine titled Fantasy Book, probably at Fantasy Book (1981 magazine); and there is also an article likely to show up soon for Fantasy Tales, yet another magazine. (I can go ahead and create the stubs for these if that will make the resolution of these dabs more straightforward.)

Currently these redirects exist:

This seems a bit haphazard. It's clearly OK for the magazines titled just Fantasy to be in the Fantasy (disambiguation)#Periodicals section. Is that the right place for a magazine titled Fantasy Fiction? If so, does Fantasy Fiction need to redirect there? and should Fantasy fiction be one of the options in that section? And similar questions apply for Fantasy Magazine and Fantasy Stories; should there be separate dab pages for those titles, pointed to from the Fantasy (disambiguation) page? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would depend in part whether people refer to these as just Fantasy in some context. BD2412 T 17:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Only the 1938 and 1946 magazines ever get referred to just as Fantasy. For the rest the full name is always used. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have just created Fantasy Book (1981 magazine) (and updated my note above). There's an article already at Fantasy Book about the 1947 magazine; it has a hatnote saying "This article is about the magazine. For the genre, see Fantasy literature.". Fantasy book takes one to Fantasy literature, with a hatnote pointing back to the 1947 magazine.

Pinging Lennart97, who changed one of the pages I corrected while trying to get this right: Lennart97, do you have an opinion on how this whole mess should be structured? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

In principle, I think Fantasy (disambiguation)#Periodicals should only list magazines that are called "Fantasy" or "Fantasy Magazine" (the latter should be included because "Fantasy Magazine" is a valid search term when looking for a magazine called simply "Fantasy"). Other titles should be solved with hatnotes or separate disambiguation pages. Specific thoughts:
Lennart97 (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that all seems sensible to me. A couple of specific responses:
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I think I've implemented everything discussed above. I don't quite agree with your last point; I think the general concept of the fantasy magazine is a clear primary topic for both "Fantasy magazine" and "Fantasy fiction magazine", and that in cases where the reader is looking for a specific "Fantasy Magazine", the hatnote suffices. I do agree to move Fantasy fiction magazine to simply Fantasy magazine; as far as I can tell those terms are entirely synonymous so we might as well choose the most concise one. Lennart97 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks; looks good so far. OK on making Fantasy magazine the article instead of Fantasy fiction magazine. Are you saying Fantasy Magazine should redirect to Fantasy magazine once that's done, with a hatnote to Fantasy (disambiguation)#Periodicals? I think that would be OK, though if the reader types in the capital M the odds are they're looking for a specific magazine, so taking them straight to the dab section on periodicals seems marginally better to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I've performed the move. No, Fantasy Magazine with capital M should definitely continue to redirect to the dab. To the dab I've added Fantasy magazine for any reader who does end up there while looking for the general term. Lennart97 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that sorts everything out. Thanks for the help! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy to help! If you do encounter more issues in the future, let me know. Lennart97 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Should a "reasonable expectation" be made a requirement for a disambig hatnote?

Latest comment: 2 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

Let's say that I name my band "Joe Biden" and Wikipedia writes an article about it. And someone wants to give my band big time publicity in Wikipedia. This guideline recommends (and supports) them putting a disambig hatnote at the top of the Joe Biden article as follows: "This article is about the president of the United States; for the rock band, see Joe Biden (band)" and nobody has any basis for removing it, and this guideline supports keeping it. There is no other "Joe Biden" article besides my band, and thus no "Joe Biden" disambig page. Is there / should there be guidance against doing this? I actually had this happen in a similar situation. I had to torture an disambig page into existence (and have the hatnote direct to it) to solve it. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

If the band passes the relevant notability guideline, and is the only other topic of that name mentioned in Wikipedia, then a hatnote seems appropriate. It's unfortunate that this may provide a way to game the system, but only by creating an actual band and making it notable rather than just by sneaky editing. Certes (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The real example is where a band gave themselves the same name as that of their musical genre. So when you went to the article on that genre, they had their name at the top, ahead of the lead. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Correction, they named an album the same name as their musical genre.North8000 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree strongly with North8000. Wikipedia has an over-preponderance, a laxity, for hatnotes. So many hatnotes are ugly intrusions into the prime reading zone of a highly notable topic, for the sake of an obscure topic. A root cause is the inadequate titling, over-brief, for highly notable topics.
It is completely normal for commercial things, like bands and books and songs, to be titled in conflict with other things, in an attempt at easy memory recognition of their name. They do it on purpose, and they want things like a hatnotes on Wikipedia.
Many hatnotes would be better converted to listings in the “See also” section at the bottom.. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
See also is for related topics, not for unrelated topics with similar names. So Apple#See also has entries like Rootstock; Apple Inc. is linked in a hatnote instead. Certes (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes. That’s what Wikipedia does. A poor choice. Hatnotes are ugly and annoying. It’s poor style always to begin a story about what the story is not about. For Apple, it would be better to have that base title redirect to Apple (fruit). The title then precisely defines the article, and hatnote justifications go away. Obscure confusable topics go better at the bottom, where only the confused will find them, when they go looking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the confused will look at the bottom. They'll think "I wanted to know about iThings but this article seems to be about fruit", then either search for the right page or give up. A hatnote gives them a one-click route to their destination (or two clicks if there are multiple options needing a dab). Certes (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
My own experience, is that when the page doesn’t match expectations, I naturally go to the “See Also” link in the table of contents.
One common frustration for me is when I find myself at a disambiguated page and realise I need to get to a base page. This requires editing the url, which is a pain on mobile devices.
Another thought is that hatnotes should be very simple eg “not what you wanted?”, and this links to the full list of hatnote-style notes of what you might have wanted, at the bottom of the page, not all at the top of the page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm skeptical about the idea that people are deliberately trying to game the system in this way. There's a major downside to sharing a name with one or more popular topics - you want your band or product or whatever to be at the top of the search results when people google your name. It's probably bad for business when people need to scroll down to find you, or add further keywords to their search query. Colin M (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
If we're looking at the same genre→album hatnote then it was added two years ago by an experienced gnome. The artist has other notable albums and this one's title describes its content. It doesn't look like an attempt at gaming the system or suggest thoughts about Wikipedia in the way that, say, Ø (Disambiguation) does. Certes (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

One that always bothered me was

Not to be confused with Henck Arron.

at the top of Hank Aaron (855 pageviews/month to 243,757 pageviews/month). How many readers does this really help? Too bad COATRACK can't override HATNOTE or ONEOTHER sometimes. IAR? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the two names are confused. That hatnote can probably go, per WP:NAMB. But if someone writes about a notable band/horse/dance also called "Hank Aaron", in an article that would have been titled "Hank Aaron" had that title not already been taken, then we'll need a hatnote to it. Certes (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I think this is what the OP is getting at. That's where I would force a dab page with one other topic (Hank Aaron (band)), even though it violates ONEOTHER. If it causes problems, in such a case I would be moved to start a talk page discussion somewhere. There should be some allowance for extreme cases. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like

"Please consider that disambiguation hatnotes end up in prime real estate on a page and somewhat force the reader to read them. Try to avoid cases where there is no realistic expectation of finding a far more obscure topic when entering a title of a highly prominent topic. For these, avoid "not to be confused with" type entries. For example, at the Polar bear article, do not start with: "not to be be confused with Polar Beer (band)" For these cases, also consider whether a disambiguation page should be created for alternate meanings of the title."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If Polar Beer (band) were the only topic confusable with Polar bear then it probably wouldn't merit a hatnote because of the different spelling. However, it should get a hatnote on Polar Beer. (Presumably in this example there is a primary topic such as a drink, or we would simply have titled the band article "Polar Beer"). As we actually have several topics with similar names, including four bands, we list them on a dab and put that on a hatnote without mentioning any bands above the article. Certes (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

A very closely related topic is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#New improper use proposal. fgnievinski (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to invoke WP:SPAM to propose narrowing the scope as follows:

"Please consider that disambiguation hatnotes end up in prime real estate on a page and somewhat force the reader to read them. In case of a primary topic with only one other topic involving a potentially spamming proper noun (such as a company, product, brand, artist, band, album, song, book, etc.), give preference to a stand-alone disambiguation page."

fgnievinski (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I oppose these suggestions. We should not be forcing readers to go via an unnecessary disambiguation page out of an inherently non-neutral and subjective determination of what "appropriate" topics are for hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Thryduulf. Dabs are a necessary evil when there are too many alternatives for a hatnote at the PT. If we were selling ads and wanted to maximise pageviews then we'd write This term has one alternative meaning. Click here to find out what it is! but I'm proud to say that's not the Wikipedia way. Certes (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What exactly does “associated with” mean?

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

… an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. (WP:COMMONNAME)

Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic.

A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

Does a topic have to be merely “associated with” a term to be the primary topic by historical significance, or does that term actually have to “refer to” the topic? Or must it be a topic likely to be used by a reader searching for that term? Or must it “indicate the subject of the article”?

Case in point: Talk:Ozark_(TV_series)#Requested_move_5_February_2022

I think that a claim on primary topic for a term, regardless of which PT criteria applies, and regardless of whether it’s for a primary redirect or a title, should apply only when the term in question is a name, per the COMMONNAME language above, which actually is used to refer to the claimed primary topic. If the community agrees, then some of the language above should be tightened up because “associated with” and even “refers to” implies much less than that. --В²C ☎ 15:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd reword the end of the quote above more strongly. My first thought was …greater enduring notability and educational value than any other meaning of that term. However, I failed to cover cases such as A, which is correctly about the letter rather than the more common meaning as an indefinite article. Can someone do better? Certes (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Any term commonly used in reliable sources to refer to a subject seems reasonable to consider when it comes to such decisions. That, at least as I understand it, is what "associated with" means. I don't think it's necessary that that term be the subject's name, and there are certainly many cases where Wikipedia articles are the primary topics of terms that aren't. Instead of tightening rules or adding limitations, better results are likely to come from being open to consideration of all relevant, RS-supported possibilities. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you’re right. Do you have any examples of ambiguous terms which are primary redirects and are not names of the primary topics? —В²C ☎ 07:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
If per Ozark you're thinking placenames, there's Bahama, Alaskan, Texan, The Big Easy, Netherland, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
…and Anchorage, to which I regularly correct incoming links. In other fields, we have plenty of musicians (Carpenters, Doors, Eagles…), sports teams (Barbarians, Dolphins, Wolves…) and many more. Certes (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Also Saints, for which Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 17#Saints failed to reach a consensus. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Should a disambiguation page be a primary topic

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

At the top of End time the hatnote states:

"Eschaton" and "Last days" redirect here. For other uses of these terms, see Eschaton (disambiguation) and Last days (disambiguation).

My question is, should a DAB page be the primary topic for another DAB page, or should Eschaton and Last days become DAB pages instead of redirects? Leschnei (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason that those pages redirect to End times is that until a few days ago, it was an article, but was merged to Eschatology. (The merger was apparently done against consensus, which is very odd.) It looks like quite a mess was made that is still being cleaned up. The better question is if Eschatology is now the primary topic for those two redirects or not. BilCat (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The glib answer is that a dab can't be a primary topic because it's not a topic. If any topic (whether or not listed on End time) is primary for Eschaton, then Eschaton should be the title of (or a primary redirect to) that topic. If not, then Eschaton should be a dab (or redirect to a dab which covers meanings of Eschaton amongst similar terms). A primary redirect to Eschatology may be the best solution here, with a hatnote from there to Eschaton (disambiguation). Similarly, Last days (d) is mentioned several times in Eschatology, but Last Days (D) is less clear; it might make a better title for Last days (disambiguation), which is mainly a list of title-case works. Certes (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Jenkins

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Input welcome at Talk:Joseph Jenkins#Primary topic?. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

How common to be sufficiently common for natural disambiguation?

Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

How commonly must a subject be called by a certain term to meet the requirements of NATURAL DISAMBIGUATION? For a specific example, the question has been raised at this active RM: Talk:Bus_(computing)#Requested_move_14_January_2022. —В²C ☎ 00:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, that move was closed no consensus but the larger question remains unanswered. I’ll think about how to add more clarity to this, but some additional input would be helpful. Yes I know we can leave it ambiguous as is, but that just means rolling the local consensus dice at each RM, which leads to inconsistent decisions and confusion. —В²C ☎ 04:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd say more or less equally. Keep in mind that Wikipedia titles are aimed at a generic context and many sources will use a shorter name if its aimed at readers who know what the subject is or otherwise after an initial mention. If there's a debate about if 2 different titles would be preferred even if WP was able to have different articles using the same title then yes the title without the qualifier should be preferred as a tie breaker. We do have Maven (wrestler) instead of Maven Huffman and Bray, Berkshire instead of Bray on Thames for example. As Amakuru said at Talk:Fan (machine)#Natural disambiguation "although this applies readily in cases where there are two or more titles of relatively similar prominence competing, consensus in discussions rarely in my experience takes WP:NATURAL at its face value of allowing natural titles with significantly less usage than the WP:COMMONNAME. Take New York (state) for example. That could easily be New York State, but it isn't. For personal names we almost never use middle names as disambiguators, even though NATURALDIS would suggest we should. It's probably time NATURALDIS was rewritten to reflect the reality that it's only for settling ties, not for allowing considerably less used titles to trump the most common titles". I'd say having a qualifier in the title is better than a less common alternative name generally though as it clearly convoys to readers and editors what the official/common name of the topic is. If its difficult to find a natural qualifier like with Sarah Jane Brown then yes a lower threshold can probably be applied but otherwise generally just for tie breakers. It also otherwise means if natural disambiguation is used it depends on if a topic is primary if a similar article has a term as part of the name rather than an independent modifier, for example in Category:Fusional languages French language has the longer name while Amharic doesn't which is inconsistent, unlike if the former was at French (language). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Just a note about languages: with them, there's an almost overriding preference for natural disambiguation, regardless of usage: we've got e.g. English language even though the use of "English" (when referring to the language) is way more common than the term "English language". Primary topic status matters, of course (in addition to Amharic, there's stuff like Aramaic, Latin and Sanskrit), but the bar is generally higher and we've got a number of cases where X language is the title and X is a redirect to it. – Uanfala (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In general I agree with what Crouch, Swale says above. Natural disambiguation should in general only be used to settle close ties, and the advice to use it for less common names has not been followed for many years. Articles without a good disambiguator are exceptions, which might include Sarah Jane Brown and Association football. And also cases where you can make a natural disambiguator by literally just removing the brackets, which would cover French language and Bizet sheep for example. It seems a bit silly to put brackets in those examples. For all other cases though, there really is no problem whatsoever to using a parenthetical disambiguator, readers expect it and we shouldn't particularly discourage it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed I think we should try to rewrite it more to what you said in the Fan RM about generally only using it to settle ties or when qualifying it would be difficult. Would something like "Natural disambiguation should generally only be used when (1) the alternative is almost as common/good choice as the preferred, or (2) when the choice between a qualified title and a natural one is otherwise debated or (3) when qualifying is difficult or impossible" instead of "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.". Generally otherwise we serve readers and other editors better by having a qualified title. The 1st and 2nd points are similar and perhaps should be merged, the 3rd up to a point would depend on editor consensus on a case by case basis. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Born2cycle and Amakuru: This discussion may belong at Wikipedia talk:Article titles since that's where WP:NATURAL leads but we could also add clarify here. In the 2nd sentence at WP:NATURAL I propose to change "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." to "Natural disambiguation can generally be used where there are titles that are near equal choices (such as French language v French (language)), where its otherwise disputed such is best (like Chinese whispers v Telephone (game)) or where adding a qualifier is difficult or impossible like Sarah Jane Brown where plain Sarah Brown is ambiguous. In general qualified titles are preferred to natural disambiguation if the choice is not near equal even if the title would be understood, thus New York (state) is preferred to New York State and Bray, Berkshire is preferred to Bray on Thames, in particular do not, use obscure or made-up names". I don't mind if all or some of this is in a footnote if this is too long and I welcome any suggestions for better examples. I'll notify Wikipedia talk:Article titles of this proposal. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change – Natural disambiguation is almost always preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, and this has been the standard interpretation of WP:NATURAL for years. Any significant change to that policy requires a proper, widely-advertised RfC, held at the talk page of WP:AT or village pump. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
    That's not an accurate statement of the status quo. The community almost never opts for a less widely used natural disambiguator over the parenthetical common name, except in the limited caaes mentioned above, e.g. Sarah Jane Brown, because no suitable parenthetical can be found. The proposal here, if indeed there is one, is simply to reword the instructions to reflect reality.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think you are in a position to determine what the community does or doesn't do. Even in the recent move request that started this discussion, you will note that roughly half of the participants favoured WP:NATURAL disambiguation, with one even stating that 'natural disambiguation is always preferred'. While that discussion closed as no consensus, this is evidence that the traditional view (as present in AT) is still endorsed by at least a substantial part of the community. In any case, see WP:CONLEVEL. Changing a policy like WP:AT will require a much broader level of discussion than will ever be found here. Open an RfC at the village pump. RGloucester — ☎ 21:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
    RGloucester, this is what WP:NATURAL says: “Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.” No one is trying to change that. We’re just looking for clarification on how commonly must a given subject be called by the name at issue in order to qualify as “also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title”. How do we determine if it’s commonly enough to be preferred over the more common name disambiguated? There are a plethora of examples of titles at parenthetically disambiguated titles despite having alternative non-ambiguous names that could be used as titles, starting with countless bio articles at their First Last names, parenthetically disambiguated, despite having middle names that could be used to make them unique. Sarah Jane Brown, as noted by Amakuru, is an exception to this practice because no suitable disambiguation was available. But it’s not just people articles where parenthetic disambiguation is often preferred over relatively obscure natural disambiguation. Mille (card game), to take a SPECIAL:RANDOM example, could be at Mille card game. Cork (city) could be at Cork City, etc. etc. I think the main concern with using natural disambiguation when the alternative name is not “sufficiently commonly used” (whatever that is) is that it wrongly implies to users that that name is commonly used to refer that subject, when it’s not. That’s misleading. That is, with parenthetic disambiguation, the most common name of the subject remains clear. For example, with Cork (city) we are clearly conveying the name of the city is just Cork. If it were naturally disambiguated at Cork City we would be conveying that Cork City, not just Cork, is it’s most common name; that City is part of its name, much like City is part of the common name for New York City. —-В²C ☎ 03:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    I am not opposed to such a discussion, what I was opposing was Crouch's proposal to modify AT. However, I do not think merely because certain articles are at certain titles, that necessarily means that the community prefers a particular usage 'as a rule'. Wikipedia article titles tend to arise in a haphazard fashion, with individual circumstances at a particular page often coming into play. All the more reason to hold an RfC at the village pump to confirm what the community actually thinks about how we should disambiguate in practice. RGloucester — ☎ 03:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yes indeed this is not a major change, this just clarifies that we should generally only do this for near equal alternatives which is not a major change it just tightens/clarifies not using obscure/made up names to that it should generally only be in near equal choices. At Talk:Fan (machine)#Requested move 3 August 2018 editors pointed out the problems with using natural disambiguation which is significantly less common which was also pointed out at the Bus RM. The advice will still be in place to choose it as a tie breaker but as was noted at the Sarah Brown RM that it wrongly implies she is commonly known by her middle name but as noted that may be an exception as qualifying was difficult. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    On the contrary, any change to WP:AT is major. I don't want to seem rude, but I don't think a group of three editors who have a strong interest in article naming should be coming to independent conclusions about what is a major or minor change to policy, about how to interpret that policy, &c, without seeking community consensus (WP:CONLEVEL). I have already said I oppose such a change. RGloucester — ☎ 13:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    @RGloucester: OK that's a fair point, I'll start a RFC, while the suggestion for not using it in cases like Fan (machine) and Bus (computing) where it is reasonably clear the natural title is significantly less common it will still be encouraged for tie breakers such Chinese whispers and Handa Island where in both of the latter cases it was argued the natural title was actually more common that the qualified one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    Now at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Natural disambiguation RFC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Jorge Costa

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As of last week, there is a dab at Jorge Costa (disambiguation) and at Jorge da Costa (disambiguation). I don't see any reason to have split these up, "da" is not that significant of a difference. Furthermore, there are other problems - one should be at the base name (Jorge da Costa is a redirect to the dab) and the other was left with just the PT and one other entry. I intend to merge them back, which will take several steps. Any comments? MB 01:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Manoj

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We currently have a given name list of nearly 60 names at Manoj and the exact same list + 2 See also entries at Manoj (disambiguation). If the non-human name entries were substantial I'd simply remove the names from the DAB, but that's essentially the entire DAB. I feel like these two lists should be combined to a single list/DAB, but where? Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The dab's name list was copy-pasted from Manoj last July. The court case is a blatant WP:PTM. We could put a hatnote to Manoj Comics atop Manoj, and either delete the dab as WP:ONEOTHER or redirect it there as {{R from disambiguation}}, though the target isn't actually a dab. Certes (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree the court case is a PTM, but felt that might be allowable in a See also section - especially since the Manoj in that case (Manoj Banwala) wasn't listed anywhere else. Still - I would welcome hatnoting these one or two entries in the name of streamlining disambiguation. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The court case is welcome in the See also section of a dab, which is for similar terms. (Mercury has "See also Mercuri".) It's less welcome in the See also section of an article, which is for similar concepts (Gold has "See also Prospecting".) Manoj is an article rather than a dab. Certes (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Maoist Communist Party

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm looking for opinions at Talk:Maoist Communist Party#India. Is it appropriate to list Communist Party of India (Maoist) on that DAB? Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Primary topic

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm unsure whether to move the dab Nazir Ali to Nazir Ali (disambiguation), and redirect Nazir Ali to Michael Nazir-Ali, as it seems to have far more pageviews. However, I'm not very familiar with disambiguation pages, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks! Qwerfjkltalk 10:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you believe one of the people is undoubtedly the primary topic, then you can move the page. Normally, changing an established primary topic is best done via an RM discussion, but there doesn't appear to be much of status quo here (you've just created the dab page, overwriting a redirect left behind from somebody else's recent move of Nazir Ali (cricketer) away from the primary title, and that article appears to have been relatively obscure to begin with). A bold move should be acceptable here.
There are two aspects of a primary topic: long-term significance and usage. Evaluating this can be subjective, but it's worth bearing in mind that you need to move away from the recent context: for example, of the three people named Nazir Ali, only one is alive and active now, so it's inevitable that he'll currently be more prominent in the news.
The other aspect of a primary topic is usage: what readers look for when they search for this particular term. Pageviews are at best an indirect indicator (as only a tiny faction of them come from readers directly searching here, see WP:PPT). If you'd like to directly measure usage, you can use the data from Wikinav: if you plug in the dab page, it will show you how many times each of the links was clicked for the previous month. The dab page was created today, so the next full month with relevant data will be May, and you'll need to wait until early June for that data to become available.
Another relevant concern here is that Nazir-Ali is a different form from Nazir Ali, and WP:SMALLDIFFS becomes relevant (though the exact extent of its relevance is likely to be subject to dispute). – Uanfala (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone have WikiNav results or other clickstream data for Nazir Ali? That would be useful but I can't get the page to work for me. Certes (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

DABRED at Jonas Andersson (politician)

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I can see why the recently created dab page at Jonas Andersson (politician) might be useful, with two Sweden Democrats by that name differing only in their birth dates, however while JA-1989 is blue, JA-1972 is red and has no inlinks, and thus appears to violate MOS:DABRED. I'm thinking the dab page should be deleted, and the move of "Jonas Andersson (politician)" to Jonas Andersson (politician, born 1989) should be undone, but wanted to check my reading of the guidelines here, first. Adding dab creator Marbe166. Mathglot (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've listed the blue politician at Jonas Andersson. If the red one has a WP:DABMENTION then we could add him too, and redirect Jonas Andersson (politician) to Jonas Andersson as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. If not (and it's hard to tell) then we should probably move the blue politician back to Jonas Andersson (politician). Certes (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
See Andersson Cabinet (in the collapsed list of Sweden Democrats). There are two listed. Not sure which is which, or if there is a third. MB 17:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Jonas Andersson i Skellefteå redlinked there is the 1972 man. Jonas Andersson i Linghem, aka Jonas Andersson i Linköping, is the 1989 man in our article. Certes (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

A letter + its usage

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A question about DAB-page ∆. It has no primary topic, allright. Now the character definition link (U+0394 Δ GREEK CAPITAL LETTER DELTA) is number two in the list, while #1 and those below are applications of that letter (like math semantics). Is this right, or may we expect the letter definition be in top? Possibly under subheader like ==Character==, and adding ==Usage==, or by some ordering principle? -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to generalise. Π redirects to Pi (disambiguation), which is probably correct to list the mathematical constant π first. On the other hand, Unicode has U+25B3 △ WHITE UP-POINTING TRIANGLE, so we shouldn't abusing the delta glyph for ∆'s first dab entry of a triangle. I'd say lower triangle's priority in the ∆ dab, possibly even to See also, but assess other cases on their merits rather than taking ∆ as precedent. Certes (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thx. 1. re abuse .. glyph for triangle: First, IMO not an 'abuse' ;-). The "Δ" for "triangle" can belong on this dab-page: not within the formal reach, but quite likely the character is used (by an author, in writing) or seen (by a Reader) as triangle so it's fine to help them out. Instead of frustrating a wikireader for not finding when they expect to find, on a DABpage. So: one !vote to Keep that one on that page.
2. glyph for triangle— interestingly, you are pointing out a third class next to character/glyph definition and semantics: a symbol. Your example "△" redirects to Geometric Shapes (Unicode block). For now, maybe treat symols as "semantics" too. Maybe there are more (given names, ...)?
3. Now to the core: the ordering in a character/glyph DAB page. Incidentally, your link Π to Pi (disambiguation) illustrates nicely: The letter itself is not the primary topic (all fine), but "Π" is mentioned in the lede (not in a ==-section): "Pi, π or Π may also refer to: Pi (letter), a Greek letter". All semantics, used-as, symbols, names even, are below.
My quest for now. About single-character or single-letter/graph articles: we have tenthousands of pages in Category:Redirects from Unicode characters (31,479) + Category:Alphabets (118) + ... Many do have a DAB page. Can I advocate (strive for) a DAB-rule that such pages do have their character definition in top (like Π); while no other rules should be infringed? (To research: edge cases, exceptions &tc.) -DePiep (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_54&oldid=1109732153"