Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

$100 in cash to any editor who can break my record in March.

Disambiguate March 2017 Bonus list

In March of 2012, I challenged myself and set the all-time record as Disambiguation Hall of Fame Bonus list champion (the bonus list includes all disambiguation links from disambiguation pages with four or fewer incoming links). The record I set is 4,936 bonus list links fixed in a single month. Since then no other editor has even come within a thousand fixes of my record. I therefore offer a bounty of one hundred dollars in cash to be awarded to any editor who can beat this feat in the March 2017 disambiguation contest. That comes to about two cents per edit, bearing in mind that the fix must be correct and has to stick. Five years is a long time for an editing record to stand. Let's see what happens. bd2412 T 04:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note: User:Dicklyon has doubled my offer. bd2412 T 00:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  At least. Let's see if incentives help. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Best wishes for being willing to offer a real world incentive to fixing disambiguation links. Links needing disambiguation went a record low of 37,755 on August 14, 2016 and has since crept back up to 48,322. But getting 4936+ dab fixes is an entirely different challenge when there are 48,332 possible fixes now versus ~560,000 when the record was set in 2012. Beating 4936 just won't be possible unless only one editor works on dab links in March. The most fertile ground for disambiguating right now is probably the articles with 2+ dab links seen in Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links/The_Daily_Disambig#Table_3 with roughly (200*5+200*4+600*3+3000*2) 6600 disambiguation links to fix. Most of the dab links for these articles date since the August 2016 low and are likely fairly easy to resolve. But 6600 easy fixes isn't enough to allow multiple editors to compete for a goal of 4937.

If you're willing to put 200 dollars up to incentivize bringing the dab link number back down to where it was last August (or lower), I'd suggest $100 for first place, $50 for second, $25 for third, $15 for fourth and $10 for fifth, not an all or nothing offer for a breaking a record that is no longer realistically breakable. Plantdrew (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, if the $100 threshold is not met, I will pay $80, $40, $20, $10, and $5 to the top 5 disambig fixers, as long as some neutral party will decide who they are and tell me. Winners can email me with how to send payment, such as US cash by mail. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew:, per the Daily Disambig, "On March 1, the Bonus List contained 39,941 links". That's enough links to be fixed for eight people to each fix 4,992 bonus list links. bd2412 T 00:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bonus List headline number (under Table 3 in The Daily Disambig ) bounces around: 35-40k at the start of each month, it then reduces by a couple of hundred a day to 25-30k at the end - when User:DPL bot finds another 10k or so from somewhere or other. I suspect that the running numbers are based only on what it found on the 1st of each month, so they keep on going down until it does a new full sweep and collects the previous month's additions.

4,936 is impressive. I once managed 2,466, but that was in a 34-day month when DPL bot got indigestion. I can manage a steady 2,000+, but doubt if I'll ever nail even 2,500. Narky Blert (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've managed around 2000 fixes at that at WP:DBR/BSA in a month, but sometimes you can do 30 or so of those at once. How do we track how many someone is responsible for? E.g. If I anchor 3 incoming links to #Film to #Film and television wlll this be appropriately recorded? If I have edits until User:Banak (AWB), will those also count? Banak (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Banak: It's all automatically tracked by User:DPL bot, see the leaderboard— Dispenser 02:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Banak: - Both the Main and the Bonus List Leaderboards are here. Narky Blert (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not participating but good luck to those who are entering and thank you T for putting this together. Mikejones675 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I left a note at User talk:Hyperbolick. bd2412 T 02:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ventilator

Hi, was thinking of creating a Ventilator disambiguation page as there are a number of medical conditions that begin with the word ventilator, also a film, please advise if a disambig page is needed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Brexit (disambiguation)

Brexit (disambiguation) has a primary topic and one item a movie (which is a related item), plus related PT items in the see also that are WP:PTM/not solely known as "Brexit". There's only one "Brexit" apart from the related movie which a hatnote can cover, and all the rest can be covered or are covered in the PT. I've left with a cleanup tag. There's a weak case for putting Grexit, Frexit as confused items in the see also, but it just seems to be a magnet for listing Brexit related items. Opinions? Widefox; talk 14:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a hatnote should be enough and this disamb. page would be best deleted. A better place for a list of Brexit-related articles would be a see-also section or navbox at the bottom of Brexit. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brexit (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 00:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Bashir (disambiguation)

I noticed a couple of non name entries in the SIA Bashir, so moved them to a newly recreated Bashir (disambiguation) (it was a deleted redirect to the SIA, let's not go there ;). According to WP:SIA, the two should be swapped. Opinions? I've dabbed some incoming links to the SIA, but curiously there's a link in {{Libyan Civil War detailed map}} to Bashir (now dabbed to Bashir, Libya [1]) which I've checked does exist as a place (and there's discussion about it at Module_talk:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map/Archive_3 but not in any other part of WP apart from the map. I've left a bluelink to the template to provide a valid blue for the red link entry. Despite the redlink existing, there's no backlink listed at [2] which I presume is caching rather than a bug (as it was listed as a backlink at Bashir. I've purged all the way up Module:Libyan Civil War detailed map Template:Libyan Civil War detailed map Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, no difference, still listed at [3]). Widefox; talk 12:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What according to WP:SIA suggests that the two should be swapped? If the use as a personal or family name is primary, then there is no issue with having the set index at the base name. If that is not primary, then there may be a basis for swapping, but I'd think an RM discussion would be appropriate to determine whether the name is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 13:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have no opinion on what's primary. The wording states a majority and minority at WP:SIANOTDAB "Normally, if there is a choice between pointing the term at the set index page or the disambiguation page, the term should point to the disambiguation page (the broader category). In the rare case where the set index article is considered the primary topic, it may be named with just the term itself, the disambiguation page being called "YYY (disambiguation)"." . As there's three villages (so relatively minor), compared to the SIA, by default I'd have left them as is, but after checking that wording I thought I'd check here. Solving the redlink bluelink was more my concern (I see the backlink caching is now solved). Widefox; talk 13:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Fidei

There are, as far as I can tell, no Wikipedia articles about things called "Fidei" full-stop (except maybe Faith). But there are many pages with titles containing fidei. I was about to cleanup Fidei (it has final punctuation and more than one link per bullet), but it occurred to me that the disambiguation page might not be necessary. Thougts? Cnilep (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggest soft redirect to wikt:fidei (dab with 0 valid entries). Widefox; talk 12:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It's customary for dabs to include organisms where the genus or species name matches, so Asaphocrita fidei would be a valid entry. It might be reasonable to redirect Fidei to that, possibly with an {{intitle|fidei}} in the See also section. Nick Number (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. If the species is the only valid entry, normally the page would redirect there. But I suspect some people would intend to link to the word as word, and {{intitle}} would seem out of place on a content page, even under 'See also'. Maybe {{Wiktionary redirect}}, which includes a search link and a soft redirect to Wiktionary, would be best? Cnilep (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Might be a plausible search term for Fideism Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! With two legitimate articles, I feel confident in cleaning up the page. Cnilep (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just added Fidei defensor as a see also - the sort of thing which a reader who remembered only part of that expression might find useful in a search. It's all about the readers. (Don't get me started on some of the WikiData cops - there's a useful British expression, jobsworth.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I debated whether to add some others, such as Auctorem fidei, to See also. I opted to list just those that 'intitle' wouldn't return, mostly those with fides in the title. I think Fidei defensor is an entirely reasonable addition, though. Cnilep (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yarovoy

Controversial notabilty of several listed persons.Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Kovačica

I'd welcome any additional eyes on this page to avoid getting caught up in edit warring. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Three Fs (disambiguation)

The article Three Fs (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No content WP:A3. None of the three disambiguated terms appear in the articles cited, either as written here or as "three Fs"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Rivers in disambiguation page Aa

I have been responding to a cleanup tag and cleaning up Aa (a disambiguation page). As a result of a requested move (Talk:Aa River#Requested move 28 December 2016), the contents of Aa River (a disambiguation page) were merged into Aa. The article Aa now contains a lengthy list of rivers called "Aa" through which users must wade (sorry), but also a few rivers not called "Aa" in English. I deleted them with an explanation on the Talk page; another editor has reverted the edit with an explanation. I would appreciate an extra opinion. The Talk page section is Talk:AA#Aabach. Furthermore, I wonder if the merge was a good idea. Aa is now very lengthy—the rivers alone occupy one desktop screen—and my inclination would have been to split them out, until I learned that they had only just been merged in! Any advice appreciated. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Commonwealth Stadium

I was hoping this would show up in the article alerts, but it didn't; Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton) has a requested move. 117Avenue (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Romanov

Primary topic discussion initiated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 5#Romanov. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Slave market

Until recently, Slave market was redirect to slavery. It has about 30 incoming links. Now it is a dab page, which does not even list the primary incoming link in the topic list, just in an introductory note.

The terms in the dab list are mostly artistic work titled "The Slave Market".

The Slave Market is currently a redirect to Slave market. I think mixing the term slave market with the proper names The Slave Market is not necessary or useful. I propose returning Slave market to a redirect to slavery and making The Slave Market a dab page for the art topics. The Dali painting is the one item that does fit well, but probably doesn't need be included anyway.

Any comments? Should I bring this up anywhere else? It doesn't really fit RFD or AFD. MB 23:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@MB: I've looked at Slave market and Slavery. I think the dab page is useful; it's entirely likely that a reader searching for, say, the Gerome painting might miss off "The". So I think Slave market is OK as it is, although if it was me I'd shorten the introductory sentence further to: A slave market is a place where [[Slavery|slaves]] are bought and sold. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I was looking for analogous examples and found Post and The Post. But it's not quite the same because both are DAB pages. I see your point. But a reader searching for "slave market" is unlikely to add the article "The" and if they correctly don't, they get sent to a DAB instead of directly to the desired article slavery. It seem the present scheme will hinder searches for "slave market" more often than it will help searches for "The Slave Market". MB 13:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Slave market should be redirected back to Slavery, which is the primary topic. The disambiguation should be located at Slave market (disambiguation), where The slave market and The Slave Market should be redirected to. The hatnote at Slavery would have to be updated with a link to the new disambiguation page. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• The clear primary topic of the phrase, "Slave market" is a market where slaves are bought and sold, no matter what other terms share even the exact name and capitalization. Since there was no consensus for the initial change, it has been reverted. bd2412 T 02:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  OK the current version appears to be spamming up the hatnote at slavery with "Slave market" redirects here. For other uses, see Slave market (disambiguation). Is this really optimal? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 04:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to make the hatnote more concise, using Template:Redirect-multi. Is it better now? — Kpalion^(talk) 10:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Better, kinda. Acceptable, no. There could be an infinite number of sub-topics for which slavery was the main topic, you would therefore end up with an infinitely long hatnote. If a subtopic is obscure it doesn't deserve the weight of a hatnote in the prime position of the main topic, instead the main topic should be given the prime position in a disambiguation page. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is now moot. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Coming late to this, as the one who set up the disam page, which was certainly needed. I don't have strong feelings, but slavery actually has no coverage of slave markets, other than several passing mentions of their locations in widely varying times and places. It is unlikely to be much help to someone searching on the term. Some odd remarks made above: "Now it is a dab page, which does not even list the primary incoming link in the topic list, just in an introductory note" - as it should. "Since there was no consensus for the initial change, it has been reverted." - and is there consensus for the reversion? Apparently not. In general, especially where titles of works of visual art are concerned, treating "Foo Term" and "The Foo Term" differently should be avoided. Johnbod (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod, I don't think anyone here disputes the need for a disambiguation page. The only major change is that Slave market now redirects to Slavery (which is clearly the primary topic, even if the term "slave market" is not discussed there at length), while the disambiguation page has been moved to Slave market (disambiguation). Is there anything you are unhappy about in this solution? — Kpalion^(talk) 12:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The bigger picture that is being missed here is that we have no article on the primary topic of "slave market", the significant historical concept of a marketplace where slaves were sold. Our coverage of this concept is minimal and scattered. A stubby article at this title was deleted back in 2005, and no attempt was made thereafter to remediate the situation. I will make an effort at creating a new Slave market article now. bd2412 T 22:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) for deletion - with wider consequences for 2DABS guidance

I have been following Project advice to "Find additional ambiguous terms for 2-DAB pages" and have done so on a number of pages, but where a page is clearly not required at all I have been PRODing them. It seems other editors object to this practice, so I've nominated an example for AfD after a declined PROD.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Café Society: two articles whose titles differ only by case

The two articles Café Society and Café society differ only in a capital-S. Is this wise? I'd prefer to see the former article renamed Café Society (club) which I think would be clearer, but is there a guideline for this?

Secondarily, the title of Café Society (disambiguation) also sports the capital S, which seems a violation of WP:PRIMARY somehow, even though the clear majority of entries in the disambig list itself also have capital S. Seems like the concept should be primary, and incarnations of it secondary, no matter how many there are. Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Who would benefit exactly from the disambiguated title Café Society (club) and how? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:SMALLDETAILS Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot that, as a rule, the general concept should be the primary topic. If the club had a vastly greater number of incoming links than the concept, then keeping the club as the pimary topic would make sense, but this is not the case. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support moving Café Society to Café Society (club). @User:Siuenti, who would benefit is readers, who (at small cost in title length) can more easily distinguish the article, whether on the article page or reading from a list (such as a Wikipedia or Google search results list), either from the Café society article (since small differences in capitalization are liable to being either missed or misunderstood), or from one of the several other entities (films, bands) with the capitalized proper name "Café Society". Herostratus (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support moving Café Society to Café Society (club). I would also support re-naming Café Society (disambiguation) to Café society (disambiguation) (lower case 's') and placing Café Society (club) in the list alphabetically - not as the primary topic at the top of the dab page. Loopy30 (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm also on board with those further suggestions. Herostratus (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed with Kanata

(This is cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirects#Admin assistance needed with Kanata)

Hello,

I need admin assistance to fix up a confused redirect-cum-disambig mess with Kanata. I just changed this from a redirect targeting a town, to a redirect targeting Name of Canada. Imho, it should be a disambig page instead, but that would require a delete to complete. Full details at Talk:Kanata#Redirect target. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done, see here.

Discussion at Talk:School of Languages#Is this page helpful?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:School of Languages#Is this page helpful?. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

An invitation to participate in the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)

Hi there! I wanted to let you know that the Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.

You are invited to join the discussions taking place on these 5 themes here on Wikipedia (you can also use the Meta Strategy portal to locate and participate in discussions outside of English Wikipedia). This round of discussions will end on June 12th. You can discuss as many themes as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.

Here are the five themes and links to their information/discussion pages here on English Wikipedia. Each also has a page on Meta-Wiki (follow the link in the previous paragraph!) with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:

• Healthy, Inclusive Communities
• The Augmented Age
• A Truly Global Movement
• The Most Respected Source of Knowledge
• Engaging in the Knowledge Ecosystem

On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, see the locations of discussions about them across numerous projects and languages, and learn how to participate.

Thanks for reading, and I hope to see you there! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Bill Potts

There is an active WP:RFC at Talk:Bill Potts. The issue is whether or not Bill Potts should have a "See also" to William Potts (disambiguation). I have posted my opinion, at the foot of what has become a long and heated discussion. Input from other members of this WikiProject might be helpful. Narky Blert (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories as entries?

I thought I'd seen a guideline on this somewhere once, but haven't found anything when looking ntoday. Is an entry such as

• Category:Tintin books

appropriate? --NapoliRoma (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Faculty of Humanities for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Faculty of Humanities is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Humanities until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

WikiProject Disambiguation might be interested in this AfD because the subject is a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mass edits to dabs

User:Rrostrom has been alphabetically sorting dabs (against MOSDAB), together with removing valid entries and other issues per WP:MOSDAB. There may need to be some cleanup of all the dabs they've edited (suggest undo them all). Out of the last few, they were better before, so I've undone the last three. I'd rather more editors get involved for consensus. Fixed MPU, EPR, FZS. Regards Widefox; talk 12:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Taymyr (Icebreaker)

Hi all, Today I came across the (double) page Taymyr (icebreaker). It has the same content as on Taymyr (disambiguation). Shouldn't the icebreakerpage be a redirect to taymyr? Have a nice day! QZanden (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The first is a list of ships with the same name, and the See also sections links to the Taymyr (disambiguation) page. Follow the template in the talk page to understand what is a "list of ships" disambiguation page. --Robertiki (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Searching directly for disambiguation pages

In a thread in RFD WP:Redirects_for_discussion#Grand Cote (disambiguation), user:Thryduulf and user:Richardcavell assert that people do search directly for disambiguation pages. That is to say, some users deliberately type into the search box "Fubar (disambiguation)", or type "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fubar (disambiguation)" into their browser. I'm not suggesting my fellow editors are wrong, but is there a way of telling that users actually do? Is there a way of tracing hits to a disambiguation page to see if they derive from a direct search? Or an easy way of counting page views of orphan disambiguation pages (which must therefore have been viewed from a direct search?) I ask because searching directly seems - to me - like an unlikely thing to do. If I want to know what "Fubar" means I type in Fubar, and I either get an article on the only use; an article on the primary topic with a hatnote to other uses or to Fubar (disambiguation); or I get an article called Fubar which is itself a disambiguation page. Perhaps I'm missing something? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I know it is not possible to know how a person arrived at a particular page. When I search for a page with "(disambiguation)" in the title it is because I know or suspect that what I am looking for is not the primary topic but I don't know what the page is called. For example the other day I came across a reference to a Botanist called "Guinea" with no note about a first name or even an initial. I know that they are not going to be the primary topic given the country and coin at least are going to have stronger claims to that, and I don't know whether they were the only botanist with this surname, so I went directly to Guinea (disambiguation) where I knew I could find a link to the article I wanted without wasting time and bandwidth (I was using my phone at the time) on an article I know I didn't want. From discussions over the years at RfD I know that I'm not the only person to do this. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• I don't manually write out "(disambiguation)" but sometimes write enough like " (" or " (d" to get it in the dropdown suggestions and pick it there, for example when looking for a film without knowing the year. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• If Grand Cote (disambiguation) is kept, it will not have any inbound internal links, so any hits it has will be from people directly searching for it. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • They'll probably be for people directly searching for it, but they could be coming from external links (which are unlikely but not impossible). Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• I don't deliberately look for (disambiguation) pages, but I do type things like "Fubar (" into the searchbar to see what might turn up - and not only in English Wiki. It can be a good way of narrowing down searches; and of picking up WP:PRIMARYTOPIC pages which don't link to existing (disambiguation) pages but should - it happens :-(

I also search for things like "Fubar ." It's a really good way of locating redlinks which aren't on a DAB page - and either should be there, or should be unified, or should be resolved to a bluelink, or should be unlinked altogether (e.g. because they've failed a WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD or WP:AFD). It's also a good way of finding ME ME ME LOOKIT ME redirects, and turning them into DAB pages or adding hatnotes. Narky Blert (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has certainly around long enough that what the existence of DAB pages is s somewhat well-known concept that gets reported on in media. [4][5][6][7](a user comment, but that shows it's not just writers who know about this)[8][9] It might have been true a decade ago that no one uses deliberately uses disambiguation as redirects, but it's unlikely to be true now. As Narky Blert says, there is a lot of work that we have to do on DABs and redirects to help readers find what they want (before AI and algorithms come in and solve all our problems /s). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Patar knight: I imagine that we're at one on this - It's all about the readers. If a reader can find what they're looking for in 1, 2 or (at most) 3 easy clicks - job done. Jobsworths who think that adhering to the MOS is more important than helping readers, and editors who remove {{dn}} tags because they make a page look ugly (been there), and editors who revert edits so that they point back to DAB pages (reason: "he's notable" (yes, I just got yet another one of those)), drive me up the wall. In all such cases - plot = lost. Narky Blert (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• To editor Shhhnotsoloud: in answer to your question about counting orphan dabs - yes just look at them on the normal pageviews page.
• Thryduulf and Patar knight are right - no doubt folk do use redirects with ".. (disambiguation)" for searching or ways not considered when they were devised (that goes for anything). Whether we should support that by constraining deletion of incorrectly targeted ones is a different matter. These particular cases Grand Cote (disambiguation), Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) seem clear-cut and unrelated.
• In my opinion, the argument that such redirects should be retained even when not targeting a dab is relatively new, and IMHO controvercial and without wide consensus (which on the flip side, has resulted in them not being eligible for speedy deletion).
• This comes from two competing freedoms: 1. freedom to use such redirects (even when incorrectly targeted, say to WP:SIAs or when the target has been deleted) vs freedom from incorrect ones. A quick look at WP:DAB ..provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek. shows the main purpose of disambiguation, which is to support reasonably likely navigation of topics (rather than no doubt useful hacks), typically through a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If readers go out of their way to circumvent that (by navigating against the flow of primarytopic->dab), then they are seemingly advanced users, but they are making an assumption that a redirect is in place for a dab (where there's no primary topic), which is not always valid (I've added several to existing dabs this week). In summary, it's a hack that if useful great, but we shouldn't let it get in the way of the maintenance and freedom from incorrectly targeted ones. (@Thryduulf: @Patar knight:) Widefox; talk 13:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • People searching for "Foo (disambiguation)" will be looking for prominent links to articles associated with the term "Foo", for various possible reasons, and so the key question is whether they will find that at the target. If "Foo (dismabiguation)" is a redirect to a disambiguation page at "Foo" then obviously it's useful and should be kept. If it is a redirect to a set index at List of foos then I think in most cases people using the redirect are going to find the redirect useful. If it is a redirect to Foo which has hatnotes to Foo (bar) and Foo (baz) then again I think, in most cases, this will be a useful redirect. If the target is not a disambig, list or set index and has no hatnotes then in most cases the redirect is not going to be useful. In all cases except the first I've described though there will be exceptions and so speedy deletion is not appropriate, particularly as disambiguation pages might exist at slightly different titles (e.g. "Y and Z (disambiguation)" redirecting to article "Y and Z" might be better pointed to the dab page at "Y & Z") or it might be a hint that a disambiguation page should be created. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    • The issue I have, seems one of practicality. I'd say the above fails "navigation" (not "search") and "reasonably likely topic name". It's not even something core to be considered, but a niche hack. As there's many dabs missing redirects today, there's lower hanging fruit that would help readers now using this hack, before we even consider extending such redirects to SIAs to extend the hack - when SIAs suffer from an incompatible duality of definition as a) somewhat dabby and b) somewhat listy i.e. a) somewhat don't link to them so such "... (disambiguation)" redirects would seem logical to assist in the exceptional valid linking cases per dabs and b) just link to them directly else they're orphans. Simply put, deletions are allowed, and I much prefer to get on assisting navigation and doing a tidy job without being bogged down by niche hacks that have no consensus. I hope you understand my frustration is because I believe disambiguation better assists if we follow KISS. I hope the fundamentals of SIAs are better defined, so then discussing secondary issues like such redirects would be better placed. Widefox; talk 14:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    • To editor Shhhnotsoloud: in answer to your question about knowing how readers have navigated, the HTTP referer logs would say, but they are not accessible to us (plus the caching servers may obscure things anyhow). Widefox; talk 14:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    • There is another downside to going against the flow of the considered PRIMARYTOPIC navigation - going to Foo (disambiguation) first, means missing all the links to topics in Foo that may be called Foo, but aren't on the dab Foo (disambiguation) as they're covered by the primarytopic. That can be quite a lot, especially when there's many WP:PTM or WP:DABCONCEPT. Hacks are great but, by definition, have issues and are unsupported. Widefox; talk 14:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Eh? The primary article should (a) not be covering multiple topics, and (b) should be listed on the disambiguation page, and (c) navigating dab→primary is identical in all respects to navigating dab→non-primary and more efficient than primary→dab→non-primary. Searching for "(disambiguation)" is not a "hack" just because you do not personally use or endorse that particular method of navigation, rather it is a perfectly valid way of finding content you are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Also I object in the strongest possible terms to the notion that making things "tidy" or "simple" is in any way shape or form more important than making it easy for readers to find the page they are looking for. Forcing people to navigate via just one or a small number of approved methods is completely contrary to our primary mission of making knowledge more available. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf All articles have links to different topics, the most pertinent examples (with similar titles) are DABCONCEPTS that were dab pages but now articles. It's an assumption that that a dab page exists, and/or a redirect to one has been created. If it works, great, but it doesn't work for each of these common, policy/guideline based situations:

• no dab i.e. a WP:HATNOTE
  • e.g. WP:TWODABS
• the dab redirect hasn't been created (my guess would be thousands to tens of thousands are missing today - each of those will fail today)
• WP:RELATED - a link may be in a hatnote, the body or a dab (per that wording)
• WP:DABCONCEPTs - e.g. with PTMs
• WP:SIAs
• WP:PTM - dabs are more strict than SIA or DABCONCEPT, so less links are included in dabs

It's a hack for the reasons given previously. Another dab project editor said something like "glomming onto" the redirects (or something similar). I don't think I've ever said if I use it or not, and as I've edited hundreds or thousands of dabs my navigation is probably atypical / irrelevant for others. I challenge those that elevate this above its reality (both utility and level of use) exactly because it is against the consensus of assumed navigation pattern (PRIMARYTOPIC). It's up to those proposing a change to the consensus to justify it. I object in the strongest possible terms to the notion that any one editor has exclusivity in knowing what's best for readers. (it's ironic that I've done more to enable this hack than the average editor). As I believe I'm describing the consensus position, language like "forcing", "approved methods" is a straw man, inflammatory, and doesn't persuade me. There's freedom to and freedom from, and keeping dab pages concise/simple is consensus. Proponents of change should make a case. Consensus is that deletion is allowed in general. Deletion may hinder navigation. My hunch is that a better search implementation is the answer here, rather than navigation. Widefox; talk 12:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing to change disambiguation pages, nor to dictate or presume how people search, nor what is best for individual readers - indeed the exact opposite: People search in many different ways, and all of them are equally valid. It is not up to us, for reasons of simplicity or otherwise, to say that someone searching via a primary topic is doing things any better or any worse than someone who searches in a different way. The simple way to enable people to find the articles they are looking for is to enable the widest range of methods we can - i.e. if there is a page which functions as a disambiguation page for foos then people should be able to find it by searching for foo (disambiguation). If somebody wants to get there via a link on foo, then they should be equally able to. Neither has any impact on the other - if you don't use the (disambiguation) link it's irrelevant to you, but that is not a reason for deletion. If you don't use the link from foo that's irrelevant to you, but that is not a reason for deletion. Deletions like that impose artificial barriers between readers and content, which is the exact opposite of Wikipedia's primary aim. Not all redirects exist, no, but Wikipedia is a work in progress so that is no problem - just create redirects you find missing. "Freedom from" redirects is nonsensical because if you don't use them, they don't impact you. Partial title matches are something different - we don't know with any reasonable certainty what the user is searching for so we can't realistically help them with a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Navigation != Search. (used "search" six times, "navigation" zero). Recentering the issue: these dab redirects were only created so we can indirectly link to dabs. Proposals to expand the scope of those redirects to target SIAs, deleted or changed former dab targets is new as far as I know. It's a maintenance issue and breaks the current utility of them being only for indirect linking to dabs, so IMHO needs some justification due to the increase maintenance ("freedom from" refers to that, as well as readers not being misled by the name which doesn't target a dab. The opposite from nonsensical - my opinion is disambiguation maintenance is quite specialist and widely misunderstood so I'd appreciate more editors doing the low hanging fruit rather than search hacks! (a WP:CHEAP vs WP:COSTLY Redirects are not always needed since they can be a burden because Wikipedia has a very good search facility. - this isn't as clearcut as WP:RDAB, but that illustrates a cost for this topic)). We have dab pages, and SIAs, and others (listed above), what functions as a dab page is quite nebulous, and could include all articles that have PTMs. The only way forward with that, would be a better search. We agree nobody is dictating anything, and would appreciate striking implications above. I fundamentally disagree that equal weight should be put on all navigation (and search I think is outside Disambiguation scope) as it hinders the majority of readers. That consensus is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so consensus is that we do weigh some topics more than others for the reader's benefit. I think it's the crux of the issue. I'd welcome better search, the new links on the right hopefully are a step in the right direction for more choice. I don't think it's healthy to maintain vestigial dab redirects, we've gone from valid speedy deletions to contested - it is just extra maintenance burden without broad consensus for, what I've proved above, is a fallible search hack. Hence my strong disapproval for Wikipedia as a whole (both readers and editors). Widefox; talk 13:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting doing away with primary topics, whatever gave you that impression? Just because something has a primary topic though does not mean that is what everybody is looking for all the time - if I know that I am looking for a minority topic, I want to get there with as few clicks as possible. If I know the title I'll go directly there, if I don't I'll go via the disambiguation page and be one click away rather than loading a potentially long article I have no interest in first. Readers fundamentally don't care whether something is a disambiguation page or a set index - indeed set indexes exist only because the rigid formatting requirements for disambiguation pages don't work in all circumstances. WP:COSTLY is an essay with limited support (indeed much of it is fundamentally wrong). Some redirects are problematic, but (disambiguation) redirects pointing to pages that disambiguate what precedes the parentheses are not examples of such. By saying that not all methods of navigating Wikipedia are equal, you are indeed dictating (or attempting to dictate) that people use those methods which you prefer (everybody always navigates via the primary topic, even if they know that is not what they want) so there is nothing in my comment it would be appropriate for me to strike. Just because the original purpose of (disambiguation) redirects was solely to facilitate internal maintenance does not mean that other emergent uses of them are invalid. Regardless of whether they point to a disambiguation page or not this does not interfere with their original purpose of allowing intentional internal links to disambiguation pages to be distinguished from unintentional ones, so I'm still struggling to understand how this is actually a real world problem. Making an obscure Wikipedia maintenance procedure slightly harder is not a real world problem, particularly when the "problem" is because the real world does not fit the neat boxes some editors would prefer. Yes "what functions as a dab page" is nebulous, indeed it is - but this is because the real world is not black and white, and Wikipedia pages exist in shades of grey. Consensus used to be that these links could be speedily deleted. Consensus has changed such that there is currently no agreement that they should always be deleted. This is not something to be fought against - that we are now starting to consider readers as more important than editors is something to celebrate and encourage. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you concede that it doesn't even work for each of those examples above?! e.g. 1. if it just has a hatnote (and so no dab). It's preposterous to ignore the reality that it fails so much here (and there's no fixing it, as it's per policy), and pass it off as if it's a fully working search/navigation method that we should all support, and that, invertedly, calling that out here is preposterous. It's a hack, and should be acknowledged for what it is. When it works, great. A rough analogy: Looking backwards down a one way street has unreadable signs. (or similarly on the other side of the road). It may get you there quicker on foot, great, but don't expect all the signs to be double sided! It's much more work to put (and maintain) signs for all possible navigation directions/paths Thryduulf, even if nobody is stopping pedestrians (advanced users in this analogy) walking in any direction. The guidelines are clear (PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:NAMB, etc) that we don't put hatnotes on navigation routes that aren't via the considered i.e. primary topic. That's consensus. Widefox; talk 15:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me clarify - this hack doesn't (in a broad sense) help readers. (full details at the RfDs a few months ago)

Making those vestigial redirects deletion controvercial does little but muddy the already murky waters around SIAs, dabs, and as this topic indicates, creates confusion, and forces debate where there was consensus before, so none was needed before, so no, doesn't help editors either as the cost has gone up. Search != navigation. It's essentially offtopic! I personally wouldn't dream of passing off any hack I found useful as something that has costs involved for others to maintain (I'm classifying it as limited consensus at the RfDs). Originally you claimed all the dabs had redirects: they don't. Fact.

As for vestigial redirects now targeting SIAs. Links should go directly as per any list. Orphan lists are a problem, orphan dabs not. They're different by design (according to WP:SIA, which is already murky).

This is a clear conflation of navigation and search. Disambiguation shouldn't be constrained by limitations in the current search, why not propose a search option for all dabs, SIAs, hatnotes (all of which fail in this hack), possibly including BCs and others, and unburden disambiguation? It wouldn't even need missing redirects to function better than this hack. Widefox; talk 15:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"By saying that not all methods of navigating Wikipedia are equal, you are indeed dictating (or attempting to dictate) that people use those methods which you prefer (everybody always navigates via the primary topic, even if they know that is not what they want)" It's not me that says that, it's the guideline at WP:NAMB / WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We also don't consider the most common navigation path Google->WP with hatnotes / maintenance. That's just the consensus. I repeat, all such inflammatory words such as "dictate" are about as welcome and useful as calling admins such for detailing the consensus. Why not start an RfC or gain more opinions?

WP:COSTLY is most pertinent in exactly this situation of dab redirects WP:RDAB (although that's only about misspellings). Dab redirects are essentially a reserved word in our namespace so misspellings have no use unlike other redirects. They are part of the navigation interface. As such, any proposed changes should have consensus, rather than relaxing their use IMHO. Having " (disambiguation)" redirects classified as dependent pages - dependent on a dab would simply help clarify the current consensus. Explicitly stating as such somewhere, say in CSD G8 seems useful for both readers to keep their existence consistent, and for editors (per above). I've just CSD G8'd Cyber campaign (disambiguation) as routine uncontroversial maintenance, as I consider it completely uncontroversial as a recent dict def dab redirect (only one meaning) per WP:SNOW. I hope we can agree on that? There's a small backlog of other dab redirects that are less clearcut now that such redirects have recently been contested, which I left at Wikipedia talk:SIA for others to deal with. Widefox; talk 12:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Obituary nominated as RfD

Wikipedia:Obituary and other similar redirects are discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 18#Wikipedia:Obituary, where I invite you to join in. --George Ho (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

France/LaFrance redirects and DAB pages

I have no really good idea to sort this mess. There are two closely associated DAB pages at France (disambiguation) and Lafrance. When you look at their contents, it seems defensible to have two DAB pages; however, there is quite a bit of overlap between the two. Moreover, surely La France and la France (currently redirects to France) should point to the second of that DAB page. Any ideas? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is really an issue. Some overlap between disambiguaiton pages is not necessarily a bad thing. And France is a pretty obvious redirect target for La France. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Chief and Chief (nickname)

I'm not sure we need Chief (nickname) as a separate page since its contents are already listed in Chief (under nicknamed sports competitors and mascots). I feel something should be done, and if not a merge then removing the items from Chief that are in the Chief (nickname). Any comments? MB 22:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy

Hi. I'd like to invite you to Cycle 3 of the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions. This cycle is focused on the challenges identified by the research that was conducted in collaboration with experts, current/potential partners, and current/potential readers of the Wikimedia projects. Every week until the end of July, one challenge will be discussed, so if you're not interested in - say - challenge 1, don't forget to have a look on the page later this month.

If you want to ask a question, ping me or read the FAQ. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

AFAB (disambiguation)

Could someone please look at the edit history for this and see what they think. I added an entry which is a redlink with an incoming link and the blue link it is mentioned on. Another editor disputes that it meets MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION. I have no particular opinion on whether it requires the red link, but definitely meets MOS:DABMENTION. I'm not interested in getting involved in an edit war. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the line should be included, but wouldn't the best solution be to expand discussion of Associação de Futebol Americano do Brasil in the target article? bd2412 T 11:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

We need someone with some Portuguese (or intrepid enough to wade through machine translations). It appears the English articles may inaccurate and/or be badly out of date. From what I can make out of the Portuguese article [10] the AFAB was replaced by the Brazilian Confederation of American Football in 2013. Some other articles have similarly confusing/confused/out-of-date content such as Torneio Touchdown and Cuiabá Arsenal. older ≠ wiser 11:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime, I moved the misplaced dab, dabbed incoming, and tidied up. Widefox; talk 14:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Widefox, Bkonrad and BD2412. Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Guitar pop (disambiguation)

If anyone can contribute to the editing of this page and the discussion at Talk:Guitar pop (disambiguation), I'd be grateful. The clean-up tag was removed but I've restored it and tried to start a discussion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guitar pop (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 16:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Widefox. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Creators requested deletion, so I've requested CSD G6 & G7. Widefox; talk 17:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Move request underway for New York (disambiguation) page and the state page

Hi all

This is a heads up to let you know that there is a requested move, proposing to move the New York (disambiguation) page to New York, and the current New York page to New York (state). Please go to Talk:New York (disambiguation), read through the request and give your thoughts and feedback in the discussion. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Melrose Hu / Jane Wu

The two articles Melrose Hu and Jane Wu need to be hatnote-disambiguated, but I'm not sure what to call them in the hatnotes.

Melrose Hu is about an actress who goes by "Jane Wu" (Wu Jingxuan), and who previously went by "Melrose Hu" (Hu Mengyuan); hence the article name Melrose Hu. Interestingly, she's on IMDB as "Patricia Wu".

Jane Wu is about a different actress with an identical name, both in English and Chinese, Jane Wu (Wu Jingxuan). IMDB lists her as "Jane Wu".

Neither actress has a full date of birth listed, so you can't do the usual "(born 1970)" thing. And both have the same Chinese name, so there's no distinction there.

On top of it, since "Melrose Hu" now goes by "Jane Wu", that article should probably be moved to reflect that, but for the same reasons as above, I'm not sure where to move it. TJRC (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Melrose Hu does have a birthdate listed in Wikidata, though I'm not sure how much to trust that. It's suspiciously similar to the partial birthdate given in Jane Wu's article. Nick Number (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Neo-Renaissance (disambiguation)#Proposal to reformat page

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Neo-Renaissance (disambiguation)#Proposal to reformat page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Orange Crush (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 July 2017

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Orange Crush (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 July 2017. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)