Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:55, 14 October 2009

• WT:WPDIS
• WT:WPDAB

For discussion related to disambiguation on Misplaced Pages but not to the project, please see the Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation (general disambiguation) or the Manual of Style (specific style questions).

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Suggestions go where?

I'm not at all clear from your project page if there is a place where new disam pages can be requested - it doesn't seem to be the bot page. For example Woodall needs one. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You can do it. Just check out WP:MOSDAB to make sure it's following the manual of style. Feel free to come back or to my talk if you have questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Woodall needs a dab, but I've added a two-pronged hatnote. PamD (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you wanted to, there are plenty of articles from which to create a Woodall (surname) page. And once you created that, then you could move the hamlet article and make Woodall a dab page. If you wanted to... <resisting some form of smiley>--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I can do it, but I'm not going to. There are people, places, Woodall numbers & all sorts, so it seems to me a full page is needed. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to Woodall, South Yorkshire, and turned Woodall into a dab page. People, unless their name is just "Woodall" without any surname/given name, don't technically go into the page. However, as ShelfSkewed suggested, you can have a Woodall (surname) entry. --Tesscass (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to redirects on disambigs

I have seen this done a lot and thought it was okay to do, so I was wondering, is this not allowed or something? Like would it be okay to list the character Detective Frank Harris (the name redirects to the discussion about him on Cool World) on the Frank Harris (disambiguation)? Certainly in cases like this it is standard to list the real human beings first, which is why when I added him I listed him last. Real people or subjects with articles should take precidence, but since a redirect is also a blue link and it helps people find information, wouldn't it also be helpful? I have read the WP pages about disambiguation and haven't come across anything referencing this positively or negatively so I am not sure.

The reason I think this is useful is that there are also many 'List of characters in' pages where characters have their own subsections and linking to these names (which subsequently direct to those sections) will help people find information about people with those names. Having an entire article to yourself is grounds for more prominently listing a name on a disambig, but are these the only people who may be listed on it? This seems awkward since in some cases (mainly with fictional characters) you have cases where there is flipflopping between the char having an entire article about them to them being moved to a list, so it seems to save work and be more helpful to navigation to list the name on the page regardless. I thought it would be good if more experienced editors could clarify their thoughts on this and whether or not policy reflects on the issue. If I'm missing something that's cool, but if not then would be be possible to clarify this issue in the description? Tyciol (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in such cases you can certainly list the character on the disambiguation page. This is covered at WP:MOSDAB.--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Where redirecting may be appropriate suggests that redirects be used "to link to a specific section of an article only if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic", or "when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article." That is not the case here. Detective Frank Harris is not another name for Cool World, nor is there a section in that article titled "Detective Frank Harris". When the term is just mentioned in the article, it is suggested that piping be used instead, thus: *Detective Frank Harris, a fictional character in the film '']'' In fairness, there are some editors who find this restriction on the use of redirects too restrictive and who would have no problem with the Detective Frank Harris redirect. I think a relevant criterion might be, Is it likely that the topic Detective Frank Harris is sufficiently notable that it could possibly support a future separate article? If so, use the redirect; if not, not. But that's just my opinion. --ShelfSkewed Talk 16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely with ShelfSkewed. older ≠ wiser 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• While it's not exactly the case, he's one of the leads in the film and listed prominently in the character section. The reason he doesn't have his section is probably because like most movies, the character biographies and descriptions have been incorporated into the plot description. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to excise them. I see your point though, it does make sense to link directly to Cool World. While there were additional developments beyond the movie (video game, comic) it seems that what's happened to date hasn't been notable enough and there hasn't been any recent work with him. Tyciol (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Maupin

Just calling your attention to this page. Seems to me there's all kinds of WP:MOSDAB violations going on here. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagged it with {{disambig-cleanup}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

... and bagged. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rule for redirects from character names to disambig pages

We have a lot of redirects from the name of a character to the disambig page for the media in which the character occurs. For example, Alexander Conklin redirects to The Bourne Identity; Blade (Street Fighter character) (and several alternative forms) redirects to Street Fighter: The Movie; E.K. Hornbeck redirects to Inherit the Wind. These raise our disambig load, and so, pursuant to the discussion of this problem at Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Redirects from character names to media names, I propose the following rule to deal with these redirects:

Character names should redirect to a "list of characters" page for the media in question if one exists, and otherwise should redirect to the page for the earliest media produced in which the character was substantially developed.

Please opine. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please opine here or there? It looks like you've pointed there to here, so I'm going to opine here. Yes, I think the only redirects that should target disambiguation pages are various alternate spellings and misspellings of the ambiguous title, {{R to disambiguation page}} "(disambiguation)" redirects, and {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} redirects. But I wouldn't specify earliest, but rather most likely. So, for instance, a character in The Princess Bride would redirect to the film, not the novel. (I don't know why the film isn't at the base name -- it probably should be, like The Godfather is.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Here, thanks. One of the proposals in the initial discussion was to point it to the page with the best discussion of the character, but on Misplaced Pages that can change very quickly (and the "best discussion" can always be copied over to the earlier work). "Most likely" is subject to dispute, and can change over time as well, as print versions regain popularity or new film versions are made. The earliest version of a work, however, usually has links to all later versions. bd2412 T 05:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "most likely" can change and can be hard to pin down. But it's still better for the reader than "earliest" in those cases where "earliest" isn't the "most likely", especially in those cases where the "earliest" version of a work (a) doesn't have an article yet (b) has only a stub or (c) otherwise doesn't link to all later versions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Another extreme case: would characters in Hamlet (if they didn't have articles of their own) redirect to Hamlet or Ur-Hamlet? Maybe a wording like "most likely, defaulting to earliest if there is no consensus for another choice"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Propaniac (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then I can go along with that. As long as we're not redirecting characters to disambig pages, it's an improvement! bd2412 T 18:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to get a broader response than this, or is this enough for us to be agreed on this as a rule? bd2412 T 23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Colic

Shouldn't Colic be a dab? --67.100.204.226 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It used to be, but it's been article-stubified since then, while keeping a list of types pointing to other articles. It could be stripped back down to a dab page, if there's consensus to do so. You might suggest it at Talk:Colic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

James Caan

Someone recently unilaterally moved James Caan to James Caan (actor) and turned James Caan into a dab page. The move is being disputed. Please comment here: Talk: James Caan (actor)#Requested Move --Tesscass (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Previous move reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead ball

I think this should not be a disambig. All the meanings set forth on the page are examples of roughly the same phenomenon in different sports. bd2412 T 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the page slightly to be more in line with WP:MOSDAB. I think this could go one of two ways:

• Leave the dab page as-is with the pages it links to in place
• Convert the dab page to an article that covers the phenomenon across all sports and delete the pages for the individual sports

—Zach425 /contribs 19:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to support the latter. The "articles" to which this is linked are very short, some of them one-liners, and have no real potential for growth. bd2412 T 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just one minor adjustment if the latter is implemented: Don't delete the other pages--redirect them.--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, redirects make sense (section redirects, even). bd2412 T 21:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've put merge notices on the existing articles, in case anyone involved wants to stir up a rationale for keeping any of them individually. bd2412 T 04:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. bd2412 T 00:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Field day

Field day deserves to be a dab page given the number of hatnotes and the content of the current page. See also the discussion on the talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"Field day" may deserve a dab page, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also deserve a primary topic (an article at the base name and a disambiguation page at Field day (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that any of the possibilities (including the article currently at the primary topic name) could be considered the primary topic. I would bet that most people hear "field day" and think of the idiom first. bd2412 T 04:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. For that reason Field day should be the primary dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

At that point, you're requesting a move of the article currently at the base name to be moved. See WP:RM for that process, since the earlier attempt was reverted (and so not uncontroversial). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Feedback request on the MOS

There's been a complaint that my stating the style guidelines is just me against consensus. If any other project members would like to help explain the old consensus (or help define the new one if it has changed), Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Broad Street Historic District. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Chickadee

While watching recent changes I saw this edit. My initial inclination was to undo the edit as improper for a dab page. Then I noticed that the page had a bird-stub tag. I couldn't very well revert an addition of content when the addition was invited by the stub tag. Shoould the tag be removed? Does the tag refer to additional disambiguations? This set of circumstances may not ever happen again but I would like some feedback on how best to address the issue. If there even IS an issue. Thanks Tiderolls 00:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, if its properly referenced, that info would be suitable for the actual bird page at Tit (bird). The stub tag is also misplaced for a dab page. --Tesscass (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I will message the editor that has added the content as I feel their edits are in good faith. We'll see where it goes from there. In the short term I will remove the stub tag (and leave a message on the dab talk page). If anyone wishes to weigh in, please...the more, the merrier. Thanks Tiderolls 00:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I commented it out (and tweaked the other parts of the page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work JHunterJ. I'm a newbie re: dab pages and I appreciate the help. Tiderolls 00:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD of interest

Possible category discussion of interest to members of the Project is here. Good Ol’factory 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hitomi

Could someone have a look at and maybe improve Hitomi (disambiguation)? I've made a few changes from the previous version, but it's still in pretty poor shape - partially due to my relatively low level of expertise with dabs. Thanks. —Zach425 /contribs 06:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I split it into the dab page and a new Hitomi (given name) page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

New world order

My head's spinning - an editor had created a new dab at New world order (disambiguation), parallel to the existing dab at New World Order; there's an article at New world order which until a moment ago didn't have a link to the dab page. I've over-written the new dab page with a redirect to the old one, but I'm not sure how we treat matters like this where the capitalisation is critical. Anyone else like to have a look? PamD (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question on treatment is. Your current arrangement looks good. There's a discussion on caps-differences going on now at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (precision)#RfC: Should we allow article titles that differ only by capitalisation? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

New world order, New World Order, New world order (disambiguation)

There are still problems identifying and locating articles regarding this set! --Ludvikus (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the best solution is this New World Order arrow New world order (disambiguation) & New world order arrow New world order (disambiguation) --Ludvikus (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

End of copied section (let discussion continue):

As it stands at present New world order is the primary usage of that phrase, and has a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page for other uses (and which currently picks out one major use, conspiracy theory, as worthy of its own specific mention, which is non-standard but could be reasonable if it's a near-primary usage of the version with caps) (and which I've just updated to make it correctly link to the dab page via a redirect). There is no single primary use of New World Order, and that leads to the dab page. That seems OK. What problem do you think is still outstanding, Ludvikus? PamD (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion at Talk:New World Order#This is a DAB page -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

FUI: I made the formal Move proposal here (can you check it out & fix things, if necessary?): Talk:New world order --Ludvikus (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Class 1000

Could someone turn this into a proper dab? Thanks. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with it now? BTW, {{disambig-cleanup}} can be used to request proper dabbing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be descriptions/alphabetizing/sections for different topics? I just came here because I'm always confused when it comes to dabs. There should be a dab-creation guide or a dab MOS. Thanks for the {{dab-cleanup}} tip, I'll use that from now on. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is one: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) --Tesscass (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But in general, descriptions are required only when then link itself isn't enough to direct the reader to the sought page, and ordering it by likelihood of being the article sought. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

World domination

Some people created a hodge-podge for World domination page. Someone from experts in disambig pages, please assist in cleaning up; see its talk page, Talk:World domination#OR tag & Talk:World domination#Prove it - Altenmann >t 20:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Azalea

There are many Azalea articles, but no dab page and my to-do list is full. Anyone else interested in taking that on? Ma_chups 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Orange Bowl

Until Sept 2, 2009, Orange Bowl was the dab page and Orange Bowl (game) covered the game, and Miami Orange Bowl covered the stadium. On Sept. 2 the Orange Bowl (game) was moved (without its history???) to Orange Bowl, the Orange Bowl (game) history is now attached to Orange Bowl (diambiguation), which is the dab page. Did someone mishandle the execution of this? Would it make more sense to the Orange Bowl as the dab page because people may accidentally link to it, not understanding the two different senses of the term? In other words, would it be best if we just undid the Sept 2 change? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused