Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages

dynamically refreshed?

Could there be a delimited data page somewhere, and the same process that populates WP:DPM could read the page and populate this one with specific (sorted, updated) info?

   Ling.Nut|Japanese|other info|other info
   Ling.Nut|Chinese|other info|other info

creates a sorted table with Chinese given before Japanese, and various useful info listyed after?--Ling.Nut 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical by term

The list really should be alphabetical by page, not by user. It will make it much easier for people to find out if a specific term is listed if its alphabetical. Also, some people make adopt many terms (I have 9 right now), and that middle column will become very wide. Also, that way the comments can be specific to each page. Simon12 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I added an alphabetical version to see what it looks like. I will admit it may be harder to maintain as entries get added, but I still think it makes it easier to find the information. Simon12 02:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I like yours better too. Deleting mine. --Ling.Nut 02:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Formatting of table contents?

In response to a question from Fisherjsin an edit summary: I dunno how the tables will eventually end up being formatted. As I said on the page, I'm kinda hoping someone will come along and automagically update the link counts -- BUT this raises a question. Some people may not want the link count of their adopted pages sorta hanging out there in public space (tho it's easy to see them anyhow, with only a tiny amount of effort). Two options:

1. Some people may wanna manually update a "Last Update" and give a date.
2. Some poeple may wanna have a single, one-stop page where they can go and see the link count of all their adopted 'shrooms. I prefer this option for myself.
3. It may even be possible -- to add a "update link count y/n" column (tho that's sorta long for a column heading). Then if people put Y (my personal preference, for my own pages), they would not need to update that COMMENTS section; it would be automagically updated with a link count. If they put N, then they would manually update the last date cleaned or whatever.

Am I making sense, or babbling? All comments appreciated. This project subpage is in its infancy, and input is especially valued. --Ling.Nut 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Banner?

Would adding a banner to disambiguation pages declaring that it is adopted by a user be feasible and effective for directing interest in disambiguation repair?

For example it could say "This disambiguation page Football has been adopted by User:Example and User:Example2. Click here to help assist in disambiguation repair, where help is always needed." Or something to that effect. Then people could take ownership for each page by including their name on the talk page on the banner.

To get more participants another banner could say "This disambiguation page "Football" needs to be adopted. Please click here to adopt this page in assisting in disambiguation repair." Then they could come here and adopt a page and include their name on a talk page. Would this be effective or possible? I know there are a lot of disambiguation pages, but all projects start small, and this could help to increase adoption rates and link repair. If this works, then a message can be sent to all of the WikiProject: Disambiguation participants asking them if they want to adopt a page. If you support/oppose this, please respond. If somebody knows how to program the banners to work, could somebody show an example? Just thought I would try and see if this would work or not.--Nehrams2020 07:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This could be a good idea...--Ling.Nut 12:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled across Template:Maintained which looks very similar to what I'm talking about. Is this possible for disambiguation talk pages but in a different format? Nehrams2020 05:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pages for Adoption

Seems like this whole thing of keeping track of the number of links bi-weekly or whatever is just not sustainable. What's the point of this anyhow?--Fisherjs 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of the pages for adoption or the updates on the shroom list? Depending on which, here's a possible answer for both. The point of the pages for adoption is so that repeat offenders can be monitored and hopefully fixed on a frequent basis so that the wikiproject doesn't keep having the same dab pages reappear. The point of the updates is to hopefully encourage people to adopt a page. --Bobblehead 20:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the Pages for adoption and it seems silly to continually update these link counts to encourage users to adopt these particular pages. User:TimBentley just deleted the oldest link counts when doing the most recent update, which was reasonable. But it seems like a better idea might be to just ask users to pick something from the current list here based on whatever floats their boat. --Fisherjs 20:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Originally that section was intended to be automated. I had a brief exchange with Russ and he said it was very doable. But we never got around to it.
• The point of the list on this page.. and its slight difference from the list you mentioned.. was simply to show some dramatic leaps that illustrate the point that after the dab-page link repairs are done, some pages build up links at a very fast rate. With respect to that type of page, then, we're just like mice running on little wheels. We never get anything done.
• I suppose the current system might be replaced with simply historical examples of that sort of phenomena. But that would be a nontrivial alternation of the page format, and I'd wanna discuss/debate/consider for a while first.
• Thanks for the thoughts, all!--Ling.Nut 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oh wait PS -- the other point of that section was to put on display some really primary candidates for adoption. Now that aspect would need to be monitored and updated... but could be done less often; maybe twice a month (?)...thanks!--Ling.Nut 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could just transclude (or link) Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/problems as good adoption candidates. TimBentley (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's a good idea! What about providing historical examples of some large jumps as well, for explanatory purposes...--Ling.Nut 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

French looks like an interesting case study. TimBentley (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've modified it as discussed. Is one historical example sufficient? (The wording probably could be improved.) Maybe it should be placed higher. TimBentley (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

<thumbs up>You done good.</thumbs up>

I think the whole page could probably benefit from some touchups etc... the ministrations of a wikifairy might help.. and the wording could definitely be improved throughout the page.. but I do especially dislike the word dump in the new section. Many people won't know what it means; plus it sounds a bit like "trash".

And yes. Maybe that section should be higher.. I dunno, I'll think about it..

So if anyone wants to work on the wording etc., go fo it! I'm gonna add a border..--Ling.Nut 22:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• New border look OK?
• I dunno if more than one example is needed. IOt would be more persuasive, I guess. It depends on how much trouble it would be, plus how cluttered the page would look. I did make a table once.. on the talk page of the link repair project...--Ling.Nut 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a slightly modified version of the table I made.. waddaya think? Put it on the project page, after the French example?

Page         Cleaned (0 Links)  Links 09/09
French        8 August 2006        276
Filipino     21 August 2006         52
Gaelic       30 July 2006           47
German       29 August 2006        125
Hungarian    19 August 2006         62
Rugby        20 August 2006         68
Spanish      12 August 2006        189
Vietnamese   18 August 2006         41

--Ling.Nut 22:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of remaining links on this page?

I'm wondering how people are counting the number of links to "their" dab pages in the table on this page. I ask because the pages I've adopted have numerous links to them from outside article space (Wikipedia talk:, Talk:, User:, User talk:, etc.), and I'm not handling those links because that content isn't really encyclopedic. Are other people fixing links in those spaces, and if not, are they excluding them from the counts of links in the table on this page? --Tkynerd 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I ignore the non-article pages when I edit pages and I ignore them when I update the table. Then again, my row just says "last edit" which is really not useful in any sense, but I've never changed it. I suppose I should say "0 links as of..." as others do to indicate that I've taken care of all disambs in the mainspace.--Fisherjs 10:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing what you do, simply putting "last edit" and the date for my pages. I think in some sense it's more useful to put the number of links, but I was wondering whether I should only count mainspace links if I decided to do that. Sounds like that would be the right approach. Thanks. --Tkynerd 14:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There has been a little variation in the table: at times it showed the count of all articles at the time of updating this project page. The version that has lasted the longest is the one in which people listed the date (and perhaps count) of their last edit.--Ling.Nut 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

adopt Chinese Japanese, Formosa

Hi, I'm taking 6 or more months off from Wikipedia to study for PhD prelims. If anyone wants to adopt Chinese, Japanese (tag team with Dekimasu & Formosa, then that would be a service to WP! Later --Ling.Nut 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Spanish

I have less time to spend on Wikipedia than previously, so I'm throwing Spanish back into the pot. NB, if you're thinking about taking it on: this one builds up really quickly.HeartofaDog 17:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong edit summary

Sorry about my last edit summary. I just keep pasting the same edit summary when I'm repairing links to disambiguation pages, so I just hit Ctrl-V, Enter out of habit. Ntsimp 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not updating?

I have noticed that there are several different pages that are said to be adopted by someone, but they have not been updated in years. I checked to see if they had many links under them, and almost all of them had at least 100 links. I wouldn't want to take anybody off of here, in case they did come back, but it seems unlikely? Should we just not worry about it? Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that if you want, you can add yourself to that page in the Adopted Pages list without removing the other editor's name. Or you can just work on the page without adding yourself to the list, if you prefer. Listing a page under your name in the list is not ownership, and I'm sure most people would be grateful for any assistance with their pages. I know I would. :) --Tkynerd (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem that I see with that is that if people keep adding themselves and then never coming back, then the list of names just would keep getting longer. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but at some point you have to trust editors to do the right thing. For your part, if you're not prepared to keep up with a page somewhat regularly, don't add your name. FWIW, I watch this page and I do see people take themselves off the list from time to time, so it doesn't just grow unchecked. --Tkynerd (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a short question on the absentee's talk page, asking if they are still working on the DAB project, would help. No response within a month or two would indicate to me that they are inactive or MIA. - Canglesea (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)