Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

User:JMDGamotia

User:JMDGamotia is mass dab editing with a moderately high error rate per WP:MOSDAB. Several of us have pointed this out on their talk page. There may need some cleanup, and agreement for the editor to improve understanding before continuing at a rate of more than 5 dabs per day. Widefox; talk 22:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User:JMDGamotia please discuss here, as you persist make mass edits with style issues - for example I undid this edit [1] should not use "a" etc for entries with persons per MOS:DABPEOPLE Do not include a, an or the before the description . Same here [2] . This [3] inserts wikiquote which I believe we don't do per not using many templates MOS:DABPIPING / MOS:DABICON. Widefox; talk 12:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ping User:Bkonrad I see on Mortar you undid their edit [4], since then they persisted adding Wikicommons, and repeating unnessesary split [5] which incorrectly breaks the term "partial, differential equations". When reverted by me [6], without discussion it's been rebroken [7]. They're refusing to discuss, seems good faith but WP:CIR. Editor also logs out, so the IP edits belong to them (edit warring adding Wikicommons again). Widefox; talk 13:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I dunno. For the most part the edits amount to annoyances and irritations rather than outright errors. I'm not sure what can be done. There doesn't seem to be enough to pursue any sort of sanctions. older ≠ wiser 19:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

With this many dab pages, refusing to discuss their edits while also slow edit warring at least one of them is a bit much. Take [8], there's many WP:PTM and a bad description for Energy storage. Revert and fix easiest. Widefox; talk 00:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Here [9] they've put Malibu, Baja California in the wrong country, and added another template (this time Wikivoyage). Widefox; talk 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

They're refusing to discuss [10]. Widefox; talk 14:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

How unpleasant. I'd support an ANI based on WP:HERE. Making work for others and refusing to learn not to is sanctionable. —swpb^{T go beyond} 16:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Taking them to ANI might be the only solution. There's been plenty of cases where ANI has sanctioned/blocked editors for continually editing while refusing to engage in any community discussion. That being, said, while many of his changes are against MOS:DAB, I think in some cases, adding a template to a sister project besides wiktionary might be appropriate for a DAB page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think they're WP:HERE apart from the Self-correction and heeding lessons bit. I made errors of this type when I started disambiguating (and still do, though hopefully less often). But I'm grateful when someone points out what I've done wrong and I try to learn from their advice (or, at the very least, politely explain why I disagree). Certes (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with you all. Take Hoagy, they've been singlehandedly editing it for months. It was better before (the wikt link excepted). At the rate of several dabs a day, this is disruptive editing irrespective of HERE.

Sure, I've made similar dab mistakes to begin with, but it appears they're going to plough on regardless. WP:NOTHERE Little or no interest in working collaboratively. From what I can see, they've never interacted with another editor with their almost four year account. Their edit history is atypical...10 minor edits, none for a year, 3 mobile edits, none for a year, then 1st Jan 2017 mass dab editing starts.

I'm leaving this for others now, as I can't do more singlehandedly. Widefox; talk 11:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Pico Agudo

I'd welcome any suggestions to the dispute outlined on this page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• How about doing something useful rather than just continually reverting other editors and forum-shopping to waste their time too? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • To editor Andy Dingley: Drop that tone right now. Boleyn isn't "forum shopping", she's elevating an unresolved dispute to the relevant WikiProject, which is exactly what she should do. I and many others know her to be a respectful and responsible editor; we don't know the same about you. You'd behoove yourself to stick strictly to the content disagreement here. —swpb^{T go beyond} 16:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• All I've seen so far is edit-warring to waste other editor's time, repeatedly prodding and blanking a new page before the ink is dry on it, and gaining no support on the Talk: page, yet continuing despite. Why are they so keen to waste time on the talk: page, when they could have simply addressed the issue itself? Or at the very least, avoiding wasting the time of other editors who might then have been able to do so. A 6k talk: page, dwarfing the content page? This is just playing at bureaucracy because they'd rather do that than anything useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• gaining no support on the Talk: page You may want to check your facts on this. older ≠ wiser 17:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, probably best if you ping me before writing comments like the above. I haven't continually reverted editors, I've left it in a state where it clearly doesn't meet criteria, initiated a discussion informing the relevant Wikiproject, and have made sparing comments at the discussion as I did not want to dominate it in any way or edit war. I have not repeatedly prodded either; I prodded, you removed it, I tried to edit it in line with guidelines, you reverted it, so I did not add it again and initiated a discussion rather than going straight to AfD. I'm also unsure why my one neutrally-worded alert at the one Wikiproject was considered 'forum shopping'. I'm surprised you have written comments like this, it's quite unnecessary. Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

To editor Andy Dingley: You're doing yourself no favors here. If there are diffs of Boleyn blanking, let's see them. Otherwise, drop it. Bkonrad is already questioning your facts, and that's not a road you want to go down. Forcing a discussion instead of giving in may be "bureaucracy" to you, but it's how wiki editing works. If you can't get comfortable with that, this may not be the project for you. The only thing we need to hear from you is your case for having the article a certain way, in light of the existing guidelines. If you really want to pursue a behavior complaint, you can take it to ANI, but I don't expect that would go very well. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I converted it to an SIA. If there's no progress on creating these articles then suggest we question the notability of the SIA and see how many valid dab entries there are at that point. Widefox; talk 11:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Piped link as D-link

Your opinion is requested at Talk:Satanic panic#Piped link as disambiguation link. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Links broken on Wikproject page

Clicking on the large blue button "Open Dabfix" under Resources leads to www.hotelsinvienna.org/de/homenet.html.
–Vmavanti (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that it does. @Dispenser: - this problem appears on User:Dispenser/MOS:DAB stats, from which the link transcludes, and appears to affect all http://dispenser.homenet.org/ subpages. bd2412 T 18:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The site has moved. Links there (and on User:Dispenser/Checklinks and User:Dispenser/Checklinks/config/doc) should be read as dispenser.info.tm/... Certes (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the link to that and it seems to be working. Thanks! bd2412 T 19:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Hecke algebra#Proposal to convert this to a set index article

I tried to convert Hecke algebra to an SIA, but was reverted. I have therefore created Talk:Hecke algebra#Proposal to convert this to a set index article, to develop a consensus in favor of this change. Please weigh in on this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Philip Murphy#Requested move 25 November 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

request for a new disambiguation

Hi. I would like to request for a new disambiguation page, but I can't find the right place to ask for it. So I did it here Draft:Tony_Montana_(disambiguation). Thanks for help. 93.185.30.72 (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. PamD 08:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to tag all disambiguation links

Now that we have fewer than 20,000 disambiguation links in the entire project, I propose that we hire a bot to automatically tag all disambiguation links with the {{disambiguation needed}} tag. This would apply to all existing untagged links and all newly created links (although we could wait perhaps a week or ten days to see if new errors get fixed without such intervention). bd2412 T 19:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea if it could be done automatically & accurately (what about intentional dab links?). Would it also be worth putting a note on wikiproject talk pages highlighting the relevant links (eg this for India or this for albums) as this may bring expert eyes to links within a specific sphere of interest?— Rod ^talk

INTDABLINK disambiguation links are not errors (and are easily parseable because the link contains "(disambiguation)"), so would be exempt. It would definitely be useful to notify WikiProjects of pages in their bailiwick containing disambiguation links to be fixed. It might also be useful, if the Wiki-fu can be figured out, to notify the editor who added each link requiring repair. bd2412 T 22:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have now added a note with a project specific link to all projects showing as having more than 10 to do. Several are coming back saying they have dealt with all the ones in their specific area of interest.— Rod ^talk 20:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

That is an excellent start! bd2412 T 20:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Several projects are reporting issues with the OAuth tool, but lots have tackled dabs within their area of interest.— Rod ^talk 08:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but 20,000 links sounds a bit too many to tag. Do you know roughly the rates at which links to dab are created and being fixed (or just the net difference)? We do seem to be making good progress; most pages with 5+ incoming or 5+ outgoing links are cleared in a day or two and we're down to the "long tail" of odd links. Certes (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, there aren't 20,000 links to tag, because many of these are already tagged (I don't know how many offhand, though). bd2412 T 23:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Update, according to this page, there are 6,942 transclusions of the {{disambiguation needed}} tag. According to the Daily Disambig, there are actually 18,628 disambiguation links to be fixed right now, so that would be about 12,000 new tags, minus whatever number of newly created links would likely be fixed before being tagged. bd2412 T 23:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any issues with the idea, although of course the bot will need to be sophisticated enough to: 1) skip links appearing within hatnotes, templates or tables, and 2) ignore dabs with a high number of incoming links (ideally we want a sensible human to verify that the dab page is not the result of a bad move or redirecting). I don't know whether this tagging would be needed: my impression was that the DPL crowd has been making quite some progress, and if they continue at that pace, soon there won't be any links left for tagging. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe that if all links are tagged, a good number will be fixed in short order by page watchers for those particular pages. Regular disambiguators are, of course, doing a great job, but the War on Error is perpetual. I'm not sure we need to skip dab links in hatnotes, templates, or tables, as long as the disambiguation tag doesn't break the template or table. An error is an error in a template or a table as much as it is in text. bd2412 T 00:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, if the bot needs to figure out whether the tag will break the template then, it will need to be even more sophisticated. – Uanfala (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      • True. We don't need to do everything at once. We can start by tagging all erroneous links in plain text, and see what effect that has. bd2412 T 01:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Errors in templates are important because one simple edit can mend dozens of wikilinks, but they occur in small numbers and we can handle them manually. (Five today, all fixed.) Many dab links are generated by subtemplate calls such as {{Sportsballer|surname=Smith|forename=John}} which are harder for a bot to locate. Certes (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I think he meant disambiguation pages in things like infoboxes (i.e., where the disambiguation link is generated by a parameter in the template, not in the template itself). bd2412 T 01:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Me too: in my example, an article transcludes template "Infobox Someteam roster" which is a list of players, each entry using the Sportsballer subtemplate to create a link to a BLP. We have eight template problems today; someone's done five; I'll look at the other three. Certes (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Trains is having difficulties. I followed Rob's link there and clicked FIX for Locomotive: that page has two links to dab battery but I was only invited to fix one of them. Something may be amiss. Certes (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• One was to battery and the other was to batteries. I've fixed them both. The problem might arise from the second one being through a redirect. bd2412 T 00:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support, with a reminder to the bot developer to take care re the subtleties noted above. And much appreciation to BD for sustained effort on this front, with great results. —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Another benefit to tagging everything is that we will effectively datestamp all remaining links. I don't know how old the oldest untagged links are, but once all the links are tagged, we will at least know which ones postdate the initial effort to tag everything. bd2412 T 01:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I am impressed by what you and others have done! Both in getting from >1 million to less than 20k, and in the notices to WikiProjects. I noticed wt:NRHP#Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject and took care of 5 or so of the 9 ambiguous links in the Wikiproject, and I posted there calling for some others with different expertise to fix one of the remaining ones. Thank you all for your continuing work on this, and nice job with enlisting Wikiprojects in a positive way. Tagging all the disambiguation links seems reasonable now, too, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Good work by project members; well done. On a related level, one tool that was in use to stay on top of new dabs appearing were notifications to those editors who created those links. I haven't seen those notifications in a while (I watch quite a number of user pages). Has this been discontinued? If so, could somebody please point me to some background to this? Schwede66 17:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I just received one of those notifications a few days ago, so I'm pretty sure the tool is still working. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• A quick update on the numbers. According to the Daily Disambig, here are now under 16,500 disambiguation links, so this would currently involve tagging about 9,500 links. bd2412 T 16:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That's great news. I'd say give the wikiprojects a few more days to sort out links in their areas, then tag the remaining links. Certes (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Watchers will help clear this backlog very quickly, and often have the subject knowledge to know which possible link it should be changed to, which is sometimes difficult. Great idea! Boleyn (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Great - from a technical standpoint, what we need to do here is get a list of all links to disambiguation pages from mainspace pages that do not already have a {{disambiguation needed}} tag, then wait about ten days, then re-check that list to see what links from that initial list have been fixed, and then have a bot tag all remaining disambiguation links. bd2412 T 21:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You all know User:DPL bot hasn't been consistently warning users when links are added? And that we're still rewriting things due T142807? And that you are changing the meaning of {{dn}} from "this link is hard to disambiguate" to "Somebody just blindly linked to a page". At least give it a different name like {{dab button}}. — Dispenser 08:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Ideally we'd use something that tools such as Dabfix and DisamAssist recognise as being a DN tag. A compromise might be using an almost-unused alias such as {{Needdab}}. Certes (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I have some disagreement with that interpretation of {{dn}}. Whether something is "hard to disambiguate" is entirely subjective. I definitely have used the tag for purposes other than that - for example, to tag the links on a page with too many disambiguation links, or for a term with too many incoming links. I have also seen fixes that I thought were easy being tagged like this. In any case, the point of the tagging now is that the number of links to be fixed has gotten down to a point where we can use old resources in a new way in approaching them. All that being said, I have no objection to using {{Needdab}} to mark this particular usage. bd2412 T 13:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I made a request about a week ago at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 76#Tag all remaining disambiguation links, but no one has responded. It is probably better if we do this in-house. @R'n'B:, is this something you would be able to do without too much fuss? bd2412 T 19:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Museum of Contemporary Art

I have posted some comments about links to the disamb page Museum of Contemporary Art at Talk:Museum of Contemporary Art. Since this page probably gets more views, I will also mention it here. Bascially I think that many links to this disamb page should be to the article on that topic. Any comments from people more familiar with disamb policy would be appreciated. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cry Me a River (1953 song) or Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song)

A discussion as to whether the qualifier form "(YEAR song)" should be used for this song or, with wider implications, for any other song, is currently active at Talk:Cry Me a River (1953 song)#Requested move 27 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A particularly interesting RM

Please comment at Talk:Prince Michael of Yugoslavia (born 1958)#Discussion. Andrewa (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Do You Love Me (disambiguation)#Requested move 29 December 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hate Me! or Hate Me! (Children of Bodom song) and also Hate Me (song) or Hate Me (Blue October song)

A discussion as to whether elements such as accents, diacritics, symbols or punctuation within main title headers obviate the need for qualifiers is currently active at Talk:Hate Me!#Requested move 31 December 2017. The other affected discussion is at Talk:Hate Me (Blue October song)#Requested move 21 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Coey

There are at least 5 people in Wikipedia with surname Coey, this article should not directly redirect to a car company. A disambiguation should be created. MaoGo (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done and incoming links fixed. If someone can add a country of origin for the Larne and Belfast Coeys in a way that doesn't offend anyone's views on Irish affairs, please go ahead. Certes (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --MaoGo (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation page with one item

The DAB page Fueler has only one item. Do we keep this page and wait for more items to be added, or delete it and recreate it if/when needed? Leschnei (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed it by restoring a prior version of the page (when it was a redirect). Schwede66 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes more sense. Should the one item (Fueler (band)) be added? I'm not sure that anyone would think to go to Refueling if they were looking for the band. Leschnei (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Good question; it's not clear cut. Refueling now has a hatnote that tries to deal with it. Other views are welcome. Schwede66 04:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Aren't tank trucks sometimes called fuelers? -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If so, it isn't currently mentioned in the tank trucks article. Leschnei (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And according to Merriam-Webster, fueler is also a type of dragster (the only mention of that on wikipedia is at Top Fuel: not sure how dab-inclusion-worthy this is). – Uanfala (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't generally see any problems with dab pages containing a single "proper" entry as long as they have other links (to wiktionary or in the "see also" section) and as long as these link are likely to be what a reader is looking for. Otherwise, a dab page can be prodded, but I think this is worth the trouble only if we're really better off without that dab page (for example if the search results are more helpful than the dab page). – Uanfala (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation vs. set index

Is it correct to think of set index articles as subsets of disambiguation pages? For example, Robert E. Lee Elementary School is a set index because the names all begin with Robert E. Lee Elementary School whereas Northwest High School (disambiguation) is a DAB because is contains names that are similar but not identical to Northwest High School? By this logic, should Northwestern High School (disambiguation) be a set index article? Leschnei (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that, in these cases, Robert E. Lee Elementary School is a set index because it's mostly a collection of red links, while Northwest High School (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page because it contains mostly blue links. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The set index is an alternative to a disambiguation page. The entries in a set index have something in common other than name. (That page is just for schools; if they ever float the USS Robert E. Lee Elementary School we wouldn't list it there.) A set index can legitimately contain longer descriptions with references that we avoid on disambiguation pages. In many cases, either will do and it's not clear which is better. Many school names quite correctly use a disambiguation page instead. Certes (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you both - that helps. Leschnei (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Communist Party (disambiguation)

I have been cleaning up Communist Party (disambiguation) a bit and I have two questions/opinion requests:

1. It is very difficult to find anything with the current organization. Would it be better to scrap the Maoist vs Bolshevi, etc, format and just organize by country?
2. There are DAB pages for individual countries sprinkled throughout the page. In some cases, the individual items on these country DAB pages are listed separately; in others, not. What's to be done? - replace a country's individual listings with a DAB page if possible? Copy all of the relevant items from the country DAB page? As sub-items of the DAB page?

It seems to me that if the page were re-arranged by country, then every country that has its own DAB page could just have a hatnote leading to that country and no individual listings. That would remove a lot of the clutter from this very long article. Thoughts on (1) or (2) or both? (I'll put a link to this discussion on the talk page of Communist Party (disambiguation) - I came here first because there is no discussion on that talk page.) Leschnei (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to organize that list by country or region. Some of the entries should most likely be removed as they are not ambiguous at all; some don't even refer to parties at all (a central committee, secretariat or politburo are internal organs of a party, rather than other names for a party). — Kpalion^(talk) 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point about the non-ambiguous entries. I'll attack the page one of these days when I feel like having a good slog. Thanks for your input. Leschnei (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Viva Health

Viva Health (disambiguation) has no real primary topic; Viva Health is a redirect to UAB Hospital, and the only page that links to Viva Health is Viva Health (disambiguation). Should Viva Health be moved from a redirect to the disambiguation page? Leschnei (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed; have a look at Viva Health. Schwede66 04:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Lovely. Did you have to make changes to any pages other than Viva Health and Viva Health (disambiguation)? Leschnei (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Schwede66 19:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

United States national football team

United States national football team is attracting unwanted links again. In at least some cases, the culprit is {{ifcs}} (International football competition statistics), which accepts a country name and appends " national football team". That used to work, at least for the United States men's national soccer team, until someone moved that article to make room for the women's team and other forms of football. I can't criticise any of the changes individually, but collectively they cause breakage.

It's a similar problem to one discussed at Template talk:Fb#Dealing with DABs again. Any bright ideas? Certes (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have had enough of this, ahem, stuff. I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Require all templates to have appropriate disambiguation parameters and documentation. bd2412 T 22:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing entries on dab pages: 14,000 to go!

Hey everyone! There are still over 14,000 dab pages with missing entries. To help adding them, you can go to WP:DABMISSING (this is a short section in the project's main page) and follow the links from there. They all use the neat dabfix tool, but you can also work off the report manually, if you prefer. – Uanfala (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hatnote templates at TfD

Possibly relevant are the following TfD discussions about several hatnote templates:

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 18#Template:Redirect3 and Template:About2
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 19#Template:Distinguish2

Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation page of Xong

I am a student of Xong, a Hmong-Mien language of Miao in China. I am trying to change the page Qo Xiong Language to Xong, but I found the disambiguation already existed, while I can't find any reasonalbe link between Xong and Limbu people. Why would this page "Xong" linked to "Limbu people"? If wrong, I suggest to delete the disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 邬山 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Stevey7788 who might know what's going on. All I can say is that glottolog lists Tsong as an alternative name of the Limbu language [11]. – Uanfala (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Links to railway stations

Links to dab have been recently appeared where railway station articles were intended. There is discussion about how to fix the problem at Template talk:Stnlnk. I hope that a new version of the template (also used via redirect {{rws}}) will soon repair those links without the need for manual disambiguation. Certes (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: the template has been changed but may take a while to percolate through the 12,000 pages which transclude it. If you're thinking of mending links on such a page in the next day or two, a purge or null edit may suffice. Certes (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to dab

Is there any guideline on using parenthetical disambiguation on a term that redirects back to the dab-page itself. I don't see the utility in it and opened a discussion. MB 22:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:INCDAB? – Uanfala (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A few sections on WP:DAB cover it, but it's stated explicitly at WP:DABNAME: In addition, when a disambiguation page exists at the ambiguous term, there should also be a redirect to it from the "(disambiguation)" title; in other words, if "Term ABC" is a disambiguation page, a redirect from "Term ABC (disambiguation)" should be created if it does not already exist. This type of redirect is used to indicate any intentional links to the disambiguation page, to distinguish them from accidental or erroneous incoming links that should be disambiguated to the appropriate article.. Other use cases are near the bottom at WP:INTDAB. Basically, it helps readers to know where they're going if the link says Mercury (disambiguation). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:DABNAME is about foo (disambiguation) redirecting to the dab page foo. The discussion linked above is where the parenthetical disambiguator is supposedly a navigation aid, but there is no such article; just a redirect to the dab page. WP:INCDAB seems to be related, and the example there makes sense to me. But I don't see that it parallels the specific case of Cohort (biology). MB 02:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any more specific guidelines than this that are relevant for this redirect. It's possible that similar issues might have been previously discussed here, but apart from that I think it's down to common practice at RfD. Cohort (biology) has a plausible enough disambiguator and there are two or more vaguely relevant meanings listed on the dab page, so this is unlikely to get deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Request: Waking up disambiguation

Taping "Waking up" redirects to Sleep, yet there are songs, books and tours that could be disambiguated. Thank you in advance. --MaoGo (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a redirect to Waking Up (disambiguation) at the top of Sleep but it is not seen by a reader who is redirected from Waking up to the "Awakening" section. I've added a hatnote at the section. WP:IAR if need be - it helps the reader. PamD 13:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry. I got it now. It still confusing, maybe Waking up should redirect directly to Waking Up. --MaoGo (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Tea Party

A page move has been requested for Tea Party, which is within the scope of this project. Interested editors may wish to see the discussion at Talk:Tea Party. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Cleaned-up item sticking in Clean-up Category

Anyone know why Wikipedia:Templates — clean-up tag removed on 11 Feb 18 by User:Codename Lisa — is stubbornly sticking in Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup from November 2017 ? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That's because the last line in that page is Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup from November 2017. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can't work out if that category is still there because of an error, or because it was added manually in the first place. Anyway, I've deleted it manually now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Run

Is the dab page Run too long? I think its length hinders readers getting quickly to what they are looking for. Would it benefit from, for example, moving Song entries to Run (song)? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's shorter than St. Mary's Church then it's not too long. Certainly not worth splitting it into malplaced offshoot dab pages. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A digression, but St. Mary's Church isn't really a dab page, is it? It's a list of churches (or similar) called St. Mary's (or similar): by definition a set index article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think many people would support the idea of splitting into a title that does not have a natural disambiguator. But is Run really too long? It looks as straightforward to navigate with the ToC as any other dab page. The songs section is lengthy though – so that could possibly be split into subsections, or reorganised away from an alphabetical order? – Uanfala (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice idea - how about organising the songs by decades? PamD 14:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, in most many dictionaries "run" has more definitions than any other word. Not that DABs are dictionary pages, but still. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess, in the long run, it's good as it is. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Alex Ross

I'd like to suggest that Alex Ross be a dab page. I don't believe the comic-book writer is any more or less well-known than any of the other Alex Rosses listed at Alex Ross (disambiguation), especially the New Yorker music critic. Does concensus need to be gained here, or on the Alex Ross Talk page? Thanks. — Hugh (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The proper way is to start a formal RM discussion at the article's talk page, see WP:RM#CM. If you do that, make sure that in the discussion you start, you explicitly propose both the move of Alex Ross to Alex Ross (artist) (or some similarly disambiguated title) and of Alex Ross (disambiguation) to Alex Ross. For really straightforward cases (and this isn't it), you can use WP:RMT. – Uanfala (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Thanks. I've done this on the Talk page, as suggested. — Hugh (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Amtrak stations

There are several new wikilinks to station dabs today, especially in Templates with disambiguation links. These may result from recent template changes which are being discussed at Template talk:Amtrak stations#Unnamed first parameter. Certes (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Areal

Areal is a redirect to the dab page Area (disambiguation), which includes:

Area, Areas, or Areal may also refer to:

. . .

• Areal, Rio de Janeiro, a municipality in Brazil

. . .

• Areal feature in linguistics

Does this makes sense? I don't think these two Areal entries belong on this page. I suspect Areal should redirect to Areal feature, with a hatnote for the stub Areal, Rio de Janeiro.

I'd be bold and just make the edits, but it's been this way since 2005, so I wonder if I'm overlooking something. TJRC (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

wikt:areal says "Of or pertaining to an area." Redirecting to Area (disambiguation) makes sense to me but maybe it should include wikt:areal in the Wiktionary box. We also have Areal density (computer storage) and Areal velocity. Maybe they should remain off Area (disambiguation) but redirecting Areal to one term starting with that word would seem a little odd to me when that term is probably rarely called "Areal" alone. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'd redirect to the placename with a hatnote to the dab page and possibly the linguistics term. Adjectives are lower use as search terms, and everything except the placename is a partial title match. Or as second choice make Areal into a dab page. PamD 06:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Given the surnames found below, clearly a dab page is needed (I couldn't search properly earlier as was on phone!) PamD 08:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There's also these two:

• António Areal (1934—1978), Portuguese painter
• Sofia Areal (born 1960), Portuguese painter, António Areal's daughter

— Kpalion^(talk) 07:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on those findings, I made a dab page at Areal and created appropriate Areal (disambiguation). No such user (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @No such user: - looks good. PamD 08:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Areal dab page makes sense, but why create Areal (disambiguation)? -- Fyrael (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages and WP:INTDAB. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's My Boy (TV series)

A disambiguating uncertainty has developed due to the fact that three TV series – Two British and one American – have used this title. The discussion is currently active at Talk:That's My Boy (UK TV series)#Requested move 23 March 2018.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Michael Granger or Michael Granger (actor)

Another disambiguating uncertainty revolves around the main title header Michael Granger (actor) even though he is the sole "Michael Granger" with a Wikipedia entry. The discussion is at Talk:Michael Granger (actor)#Requested move 31 March 2018.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Is further disambiguation required when there are other works with the same title but they do not have articles?

Would anyone like to join in at Talk:Good Behaviour (Keane novel)#Requested move 20 March 2018? --woodensuperman 11:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC) ☺☺☺☺ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.116.237.152 (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ted/Edward/Theodore

I recently created Theodore T. Ellis, and found that Theodore Ellis was a redirect to Ted Ellis, a dab page. I've changed it so that Theodore Ellis is now the main dab page, and it includes the "Ted Ellis" names. Ted Ellis now redirects there. Almost as soon as I did it I decided it was the wrong answer, but I don't know what the right answer is. Both "Theodore" and "Edward" are commonly abbreviated to "Ted". I looked at a few other common surnames (Smith, Jones, Johnson) to see how it was handled there and found nothing to go by; "Theodore" is not a common name. Should all three forms of the name redirect to a single page? Or should we have three dab pages, which seems a little annoying to the reader? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for merging dab pages in similar situations, as the names and nicknames are often applied to different persons in all sorts of haphazard fashions. I don't mind too much about the exact name of the dab page, but when in doubt it would best be a "canonic" form of the name.
In this case, your Theodore seems to be the only notable name-bearer among Teds and Edwards (this one notwithstanding), so I'd tentatively redirect Theodore Ellis there, and leave Ted Ellis redirect to Edward Ellis, which would include Theodore T. Ellis as a "see also". But there really isn't a single best way to resolve it. No such user (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Leader of the House/Leader of Government Business

So as I was cleaning up disambig links I ran across some links to Leader of the House, both on pages for topics that have nothing to do with any of the topics listed at the DAB page (Sylvia Lim and Dinesh Sharma) and that got me wondering if it might be good for Leader of the House/Leader of Government Business to have a broad-concept article to serve as the primary topic. Unfortunately, I know Fuck All^TM about politics, so I neither have the expertise to write the article nor to even know if this article would be a good idea. What should be done? Should this be a BCA? Should I/someone else pose the question to WikiProject Politics? --gupdoo3  3oodpug 01:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. My initial reaction was BCA, but the term can mean a number of things from Premier of the Cayman Islands to secretarial dogsbody, so perhaps the page is about the words rather than the topic. There are also sections such as Parliament of Singapore#Leader of the House which could usefully be linked. Certes (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've retargetted Leader of the House (India) to the same place, after fixing incoming links where possible. The remaining links relate to state leaders, and thus used to lead to the wrong article. If a BCA appears then that will give them a good destination; if not then they should probably be unlinked. Certes (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Advice please

Ped- is currently tagged as a disambiguation page for clean-up. It isn't strictly a disambiguation page (it's a list article about things beginning Ped-). Similarly, Pedo is tagged as an SIA. It isn't really (it's also a list with a couple of other bits). Apart from merging these 2 together, what should be done about them? Are they valid list articles, in which case which category is appropriate? Cryo is the same sort of thing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Given the lack of feedback, I have converted the 2 dab pages into regular articles, and removed the disambiguation tags, and removed the disambiguation project tags from all 3 articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Diana

A requested move which includes a disambiguation page is being discussed at Talk:Diana (mythology)#Requested move 12 April 2018. Certes (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of Template:WikiProject Disambiguation

It says in the instructions:

Place this on already existing talk pages of relevant articles:

{{WikiProject Disambiguation}}

Please do not use to create talk pages that otherwise have no content.

The latter part of this guidance seems to be widely ignored. Assuming it is still valid, I bring it the attention of fellow project members. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Guilty as charged; I frequently disregard that instruction. If somebody can tell me the rationale for that instruction I may promise to abide in future. Schwede66 09:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Template is also added by a bot, like here: Talk:Richard Ashley. LittleWink (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pour (disambiguation)

Cover of the Belgian newspaper Pour

I have proposed deletion of Pour (disambiguation), which is currently a redirect to Pour. That page is not a disambiguation page; it is a soft redirect to Wiktionary.

If you object to the deletion for any reason, you may remove the {{Proposed deletion}} template. Cnilep (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There probably ought to be some way to access Pour point from "pour", but even after skimming the first 500 hits on a search for "pour" I can't find the surname, acronym, etc to justify the dab page (which existed previously as in this version). If it existed, then "See also"s to "Titles starting with" and "Titles containing" would both be useful. But as things stand, I reluctantly don't see that the dab page at Pour can be justified. Hoping to see someone else disagreeing! PamD 07:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look on Wikidata, you'll find that three other languages have disambiguation pages for pour. The German dab page lists two bios where "Pour" is part of a double-barrel surname. The Czech dab page lists three people with the surname Pour. The French dab page has a river Pour (spelled "Pur" in English so no good) and a magazine Pour. So there should be plenty of scope for an English dab page. Schwede66 08:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Dabfix and I have had a go in User:Certes/sandbox. However, I suspect that some of the people called Foo Bar Pour may not qualify because Foo is the surname and Pour merely a second given name after the main given name Bar. I also expect that Pour Lui is called Pour as rarely as Meat Loaf is called Meat. Dabfix tentatively suggested several other entries, but all are PTMs. Certes (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Throw a few redlinks in covering people from other language wikis who may meet the English WP notability criteria, plus the Belgian newspaper, and there's more than enough for a dab page. By the way, I removed the PROD for procedural reasons as redirects can't be prodded. Schwede66 09:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: Looks good! But why did Kour Pour not crop up in the first 500 hits of a search for "Pour"? I don't understand Wikipedia's search system. PamD 20:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I've boldly replaced Pour by a dab. I can't find any information about the magazine in enwiki apart from a brief mention in Front de la Jeunesse (Belgium), but please add it and any other interlanguage links if appropriate. Feel free to delete any inappropriate entries, especially if I've done the Iranian equivalent of listing Dick Van Dyke as a meaning of "Van". Certes (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The double barrelled names seem more PTM to me (at least some don't mention the name in their articles as well), so I've put them in the see also as PTMs. Widefox; talk 17:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Links to dab in See also

Cotys IX#See also links to Cotys. This link to dab seems useful but violates MOS:ALSO, even if diverted via Cotys (disambiguation). What should we do in such cases? Certes (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

See also links are discretionary. I have no problem with an WP:INTDABLINK pointer to the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 19:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Should this article count as a disambiguation page?

Physical effect --MaoGo (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. I've boldly gone ahead. — Certes (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Amazon common uses

If someone could please add their two cents at Talk:Amazon about whether Amazon (company) belongs in most common uses at top of page, that would be great. I doubt that I'm going to come to consensus with this other editor. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Wind(s) of Change

Interested editors may wish to see the ongoing move discussion at Talk:Wind of Change, which is within the scope of this project. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Switch Flight Risk (disambiguation) and Flight risk

Flight Risk is an album by The Jacka, the disambiguation page is currently at Flight Risk (disambiguation), and Flight risk redirects to the disambiguation page. Would it make sense to flip that around; make Flight risk the disambiguation page and redirect Flight Risk (disambiguation) to it?

It's certainly WP:MALPLACED. An RfD says there's no primary topic, so we should flip them around, which needs an admin or a WP:RMTR request). Certes (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Certes. I've placed a request at WP:RMTR. Leschnei (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Motorcyclists

Articles on bikers are disambiguated with different qualifiers such as Adam Roberts (motorcycle racer) but Adolf Weil (motorcyclist). After a useful discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling#Article title qualifiers, I think we should move them all to (motorcyclist). Do you think this needs further discussion and, if so, where? Obviously a separate RM for each article would be overkill, and it's not obvious where to put a combined one. Certes (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)