Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Using redirects

While looking for information on the programming language, I came across Java (which should have a hatnote redirect linking to the article on the programming language, BTW) and got interested in disambiguation. A quick look through discussion archives turns up the Georgia case quite prominently, as well as a slew of biography articles. Something that strikes me in all these cases is that a lot of the disagreements could be kept off the individual article discussion pages and collected in a single location (and in some cases, flat-out settled!) if the "bare name" was always a redirect in these cases. For example, Georgia would (currently) be a redirect to Georgia (disambiguation) and similarly for ambiguous person names, etc. That way, discussion about where Georgia should point could be kept on a single discussion page rather than being spread across the discussion pages for a number of different articles. It would also minimize the disruption caused by people changing the redirect (and reverting it back) since it wouldn't involve renaming any of the actual articles. It wouldn't cause any problems for readers, since the redirect is automatic. Links would continue to work just fine — and in fact there'd be the added benefit of easily identifying which links go to an ambiguous name. It seems like a win-win-win all around. Why isn't this the policy? --Lewis (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Java has a hatnote. I'm not sure what a hatnote redirect is. I don't understand how having the base name always be a redirect will minimize disruptions of people changing the redirect -- if the primary topic is at the base name, there's no redirect to change. I don't think it would necessarily cause any additional problems, but I don't think it would reduce them either, just change their process. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've clarified my point about the hatnote (which is just a personal opinion, unrelated to my other point here so I'll not mention it again) and my point about minimizing disruption is that when a base name is given directly to an article (the "primary usage") and there's dispute over whether that article really is the primary usage, then when bold editors rearrange things to their liking, actual articles get renamed, their associated talk pages get renamed, and there's generally a big mess to clean up afterwards. If the base name is simply a redirect to a particular article (or to a disambiguation page identified with "(disambiguation)" in the title) then when people disagree about the primary usage and boldly make changes, only the content of the redirect changes, and nothing actually moves around. It's easier to revert because it's just a content page, there's no chance that talk pages will get moved improperly, nobody will accidentally do the move incorrectly because they cut-and-paste content, etc.

My point about keeping the discussion in one place is that, using the case of Georgia as an example, the discussion over where Georgia should point is spread across multiple discussion pages, depending on which article was named "Georgia" at the time the discussion was taking place. If Georgia had always just been a redirect to one of the other article pages (or the disambiguation page) then the discussion could've been kept in one place and wouldn't irritate people working on the actual articles. --Lewis (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In line with the above suggestion, I propose the following change to the wording of the page:

Naming the disambiguation page

See also: WP:Article titles

The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself followed by the tag "(disambiguation)", as in Term ABC (disambiguation). If there is no primary topic, then a page should be created at "Term ABC" that redirects to the disambiguation page at "Term ABC (disambiguation)".

When a disambiguation page combines several similar terms, one of them must be selected as the title for the page (with the "(disambiguation)" tag added); the choice should be made in line with the following principles:

• A word is preferred to an abbreviation, for example Arm (disambiguation) over ARM (disambiguation).
• When no word can be formed all capitals is preferred. For example, the disambiguation page for "ddb" is DDB (disambiguation) not "Ddb (disambiguation)".
• English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages.
• Singulars are preferred to plurals.
• The simplest form of the term is preferred to those containing punctuation, diacritics and articles; for example SA (disambiguation) is preferred to S.A. (disambiguation), and Shadow (disambiguation) is preferred to The Shadow (disambiguation).
• The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives.

What do you think? --Lewis (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this would turn current practice on its head and I'm not sure I understand what problem this is supposed to solve. older ≠ wiser 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It solves several problems:

1) Collateral damage caused by improper moves (and reverts) associated with disputes over which article is the primary topic. For example, instead of moving Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation) (over an existing redirect) and Georgia (country) to Georgia (or Georgia (US state) to Georgia), plus all the associated talk pages — and then having to revert it all — all that would happen in such situations is that Georgia would change its redirect destination, and everything else would stay where it is.

1b) It simplifies the process of changing the primary topic in legitimate cases as well.

2) It would give a clear location to hold discussions as to what the primary topic is. This has been a problem for Georgia, as evidenced by the fact that all of the various talk pages for the related articles have a big notice that informs editors where they should hold such discussions.

2b) It would keep such discussions off the talk pages for the articles themselves, which would remove a source of irritation for many editors of those articles.

3) It would take away at least some of the "prestige factor" of having an article at the base name, which would remove some of the tension in these disputes. If none of the articles get to be named with the non-qualified bare name, and it's just a matter of which one the bare name redirects to (for the ease of the readers) then there's less to argue over.

4) It makes it easier to protect against unauthorized changes of the primary topic. Currently this would require protecting an article itself (whichever one has the base name) whereas if the base name were always a redirect, the base name itself could be protected (and thus prevent unauthorized changes) without having to lock down any actual articles. Per JHunterJ's point below, pages can simply be protected against moves without protecting the content, so this is a non-issue. --Lewis (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

None of these may be enormously important considerations, but since I can't come up with a single reason in favor of the status quo, I'd ask why not turn the current practice on its head. It doesn't seem to make much sense to keep it the way it is, at least to me. --Lewis (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I do not think making this change will reduce the collateral damage any; the damage will be relocated to clean ups of the target of the base name redirect, instead of clean ups of the position of the primary topic. Splintered discussions is a problem outside of the realm of disambiguations as well, and won't be cured by this either. The prestige factor will remain, just in which article is the target of the base name. Articles can be protected against moves without having to lock down the actual article. So I still see no reason to turn this on its head and require redirect usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that pages could be protected against moves without having to protect their content; thanks for clarifying that. So that makes point 4 above a non-issue. I still think it's easier to change the target of a redirect (either for legitimate or cleanup purposes) than to move multiple articles, so I stand by points 1 and 1b. I also think organization of the discussion will be helped by this change (points 2 and 2b) because the natural place to discuss a change of redirect target is on the page containing the redirect, whereas there's no clear place to discuss a potential change of primary topic (on the current base name? on the ones that people would like to make the new primary topic?) As for the "prestige factor" I think it's more an issue for biographies, and I'll look for some examples of people arguing over just this point (I came across some in my original research on this issue but I don't recall which articles I looked at.) --Lewis (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What reason is there to keep things the way they are, other than avoiding change? I realize that unnecessary change is bad, and that a case needs to be made to institute this kind of change, but I'm genuinely at a loss as to what the benefits of the current setup are. I've outlined a number of positive benefits to the way I'm suggesting, and you can dispute the merits of them, but I'd genuinely appreciate somebody listing some positive benefits of the current setup as well. --Lewis (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There's the information implicit in the current arrangement (if the dab page ends in (disambiguation), there's a primary topic; if it doesn't, there isn't) and, I suspect, a reduction in the amount of cleaning needed, since only confirmed users can move a page but any editor can retarget a redirect, so when there's no primary target, unconfirmed users can't introduce one (without making a move request) in the current arrangement but could in the new arrangement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That second point is particularly interesting, since you're basically saying that my original point 4 should be reversed rather than just struck out. Since (I'm assuming) the move protection is automatic for unconfirmed users, this provides some default level of protection against unauthorized changes of primary topic, without even having to explicitly set stricter protections. I'm not yet convinced that your first point is all that important, since if there's a primary topic I'm figuring it should be indicated as such on the disambiguation page anyway. What's more, readers would only lose this implicit information if they arrive at the disambiguation page via a link, since if they go to the base name (under the proposed new setup) they would either be immediately redirected to the primary topic or to the disambiguation page, which would inform them of the (non-)existence of a primary topic even more directly. So I'll grant you the revised point 4 as an argument for keeping the status quo, and raise you one additional point in favor of change:

5) Consistent naming is simpler. Disambiguation pages would always be at Term ABC (disambiguation), and individual articles would always be at the most specific disambiguated name. The naming conventions would no longer need to take into account whether there was a primary topic; that would be a matter solely for consideration with respect to the target of the redirect.

I was going to make an additional point about the names of articles being more stable over time — which is true — but that's not particularly useful, since people can just link to Georgia (disambiguation) under the current setup anyway if they want to immunize their links from the possibility of Georgia getting a different primary topic, and it doesn't matter whether it's the actual disambiguation page at that name (as I'm proposing) or a redirect to it (as it is currently) so it's not an important point. --Lewis (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't see the advantages you claim for the proposal. #1 presumes that editors would simply change the target of the redirect, however if history is any indication, it is far more likely that pages would be moved. Editors with a vested POV tend to want their preferred article at the base name -- having Georgia be a redirect to either the country or the state would likely be just as unacceptable since the title of the articles do not reflect their preference. #1b, I'm not sure I understand -- are you suggesting that a primary topic would not have the base name and would only be indicated by a redirect? That is a much bigger change than only this guideline -- it would affect several other naming conventions, for instance, WP:UCN as well as other aspects of WP:Article titles. I'm sure there are other guidelines this would impact as well. #2 As with the mistaken assumptions about #1, this assumes that editors would bother to pay attention to such details. For example, editors wanting either the country or the state to be at the base name would still be just as likely to propose and discuss moves on the respective talk pages. #2b, see response to #2. #3, see response to #1 -- not allowing the article title for a primary topic to have the undisambiguated title is a much bigger change than only this one guideline. #5, the current convention is consistent. Primary topics are at the undisambiguated title. Disambiguation pages are at the disambiguated title except when there is a primary topic. That the rule includes an qualification does not mean it is inconsistent. older ≠ wiser 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding moves vs. changes of redirect target (#1), history isn't a good indicator here because historically, the only way to change the primary topic has been to move/rename articles. I'm proposing a new way that wouldn't involve moves at all, and while some editors would presumably use the old methods, this would hopefully diminish over time. Regarding #1b, I am indeed suggesting that the primary topic not be given the base name, and if you think it would be helpful to raise the topic on those other pages, I'd be happy to do so and bring in more input. Regarding #2 I think history is again not helpful here, since there historically hasn't been a single place where such discussions could be held, except by explicit convention. If (in situations where disambiguation is needed) the base name is always a redirect, then it is the obvious place to hold discussions over where its target should be. It's the only page that would need to change when the primary topic changed, and so there'd be no reason to discuss it anywhere else (except perhaps to make people aware of the proposal.) Anyone who was mistaken about where the discussion should be held (perhaps because they were accustomed to the old way) could easily be pointed at the correct location, and I believe they would find the reasoning acceptable ("You're talking about changing the redirect target on page Term ABC.. go discuss it there.") As for #3, you actually seem to be agreeing with the point, since you acknowledge that there's some significance to the primary topic having the base name. If that significance goes away, so does at least some of the reason for argument between parties to a dispute as to what topic is primary. As for #5, it clearly is inconsistent, but I don't mean to say it's logically inconsistent or incoherent or anything like that. I just mean that sometimes it's one way, and sometimes it's another way. Always being the same way is more consistent. --Lewis (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

History is a good indication of the issues involved and the types of editors who get passionate about such things -- and I respectfully suggest that your proposal would likely have little or no bearing on the actions of such editors. Editors who think that the country named Georgia is the primary topic would very likely not be satisfied only with having Georgia be a redirect to the country. I think the proposal is well-intentioned, but perhaps naive. I see no compelling reason to change the status quo, which actually functions quite well with the exception of a handful emotionally charged topics (such as Georgia, America, Tyre, Cork). One might hope that editors using "old methods" would diminish over time, but again history does not provide much basis for hope of zebras changing their stripes. If an editor expects their article to be located at the base name, they are unlikely to be satisfied with a redirect. For #2, the discussion will typically ALWAYS take place on the talk page of the page an editor want moved, regardless of whether some other editors might think there is a more logical place for such discussions to take place. With your method, there would need to be an entirely new mechanism invented to facilitate such discussions. Since no pages would actually be moved, WP:RM would be of no use. WP:RFD is a relatively isolated backwater of Wikipedia. Your approach to #3 is rather unintuitive, since the basic principle of page naming at Wikipedia has always been to use the most familiar name. Your proposal stands this on end and suggests that primary topics would NOT be located at the common name, but at a disambiguated title. I would not support this and I very much doubt this would garner very much support from other editors. By your proposal, the article on the prime minister of the UK could not be at Gordon Brown because there are other articles about people with that name. Similarly, the article on the largest city in England could not be at London because there are many other ambiguous article titles. And so on. Do you really think such a proposal is going to have widespread support? Your approach to #5 would merely introduce a different variety of what you see as inconsistency -- sometime the base name would redirect to an article (which most everyone would expect to be located at the title of the redirect) and sometimes would redirect to a disambiguation page. I don't see any clear advantage. older ≠ wiser 20:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My point about history not helping here is that there's nothing to compare to. It's like arguing that electric cars will never sell very well, because historically most people have bought ones powered by internal combustion. The only way (adhering to policy, at least) to change the primary topic, historically, has been to move pages around — so of course history will show that people have done it by moving pages around. Most of the rest of your position seems (to me) to amount to "that's the way it has always been done, so that's the way we should keep doing it." With the exception of the revised #4 (default prohibition against unconfirmed editors moving pages makes protecting primary topics simpler, under the current setup) I haven't seen any other reasonable (IMHO) arguments in favor of the status quo. However, I also clearly haven't managed to convince anyone that my reasons are worth the trouble of changing policy, either — and that's really the important point here. So I'll drop the issue until I can come up with a better line of argument, or unless somebody else chimes in to say they support the kind of change I'm proposing.

I do want to make one last point about #3 though, which I see as the heart of the whole issue. You've made it pretty clear that you agree with my point about the base name granting some measure of importance to the primary topic — although you seem to be of the opinion that the relationship is a good one that should be preserved, whereas it's precisely what I wanted to eliminate. I don't think the PM of the UK should have an article named "Gordon Brown" nor do I think the capital should have an article named "London" — precisely because there are other (noteworthy) uses of those names. Making it such that all articles with ambiguous names (even the primary topic) require disambiguation would put them all on more equal footing. Looking at Georgia it's clear that this "prestige factor" is the primary cause of all the argument over what article should be named what. I think my proposal would go a good way toward eliminating much of that tension.. but you seem to think that it's a bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (because the "prestige factor" is — according to you(?) — appropriate in the uncontentious cases, and might be better thought of as the "common-sense factor" in those situations) and in any event isn't feasible because people won't change their behavior. Does that summary seem about right to you? Thanks for all your thought and discussion on this; I regret that I seem to have been unable to sway your opinion, but I'm glad you heard me out. --Lewis (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your summary uses biased terms such as prestige factor and measure of importance as well as some use of scare quotes. The point is that from the very earliest stages of Wikipedia, naming of articles has followed the principle of using the common name. Your proposal appears to discard that principle whenever there is the least indication of ambiguity. I think such an approach (assuming that there could ever be consensus for it) would involve far more disruption and inconvenience for readers than the supposed problem it proposes to solve. Regarding history, your analogy is not really apt. Your hope is that the logic of your proposal will somehow compel editors to stop behaving badly about issues that for whatever reasons seem to arouse inordinate passions. One can always hope, but the track record is really not very promising. older ≠ wiser 21:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to irritate or insult you, though unless I'm reading your tone incorrectly it seems that's what I am in fact doing. I'm sorry. I was aware of the biased nature of "prestige factor" and that's why I offered "common-sense factor" as an alternative that I thought you'd find more appropriate to your own position. I meant the quotes to indicate that I'm referring to the phrases themselves, not as scare quotes. I think my analogy to history is apt, because your argument was (and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding it) that editors have historically dealt with disputes over primary topics by moving pages, and so they would continue to do so. My rebuttal is that there hasn't really ever been an alternative to moving pages, so the fact that people have behaved that way in the past doesn't tell us much. Your point about disruption and inconvenience is well-taken, and that's why I'm not going to push the issue. I think perhaps if I had been around here years ago before the current policy had become entrenched, I might have stood more of a chance of making a difference, but as it stands now I not only need to show that the way I'm suggesting is better (which I am still absolutely convinced it is) but that it is so much better that it justifies changing thousands upon thousands of pages and redirects (which I certainly have not shown.) --Lewis (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken. I was only trying to be clear that your summary was not exactly how I would summarize things. Regarding history, it is not only about moving pages, but about where the discussions take place. Granted, IF (and that's one humongous hypothetical if) it were accepted that every ambiguous title would require that the undisambiguated title be a redirect to either the primary topic (with a fully disambiguated title) or a disambiguation page named with suffix of "(disambiguation)", then it is possible that might relieve some contentions. But because the expectation of using the common name is in many ways a fundamental principle for naming conventions on Wikipedia, it is difficult to imagine how Wikipedia would operate were such a fundamental principle of naming articles modified. Any beneficial effect from the proposal seems at best a hopeful optimism. older ≠ wiser 22:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Mess Hall

have released an album called "for the birds", however I'm unsure how to use disambiguation with For the birds as The Frames have already brought out an album called For the Birds. How should i go about naming The Mess Hall's, "For the birds" album article? Wiki ian 06:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

For the Birds (The Mess Hall album). Cheers! --ShelfSkewed Talk 06:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Given names

Was there any discussion about listing in the given name pages?

For some time I remember the following practice: to list only persons which are commonly known solely by a given name. For example, the page John includes Pope John I, but not John Lennon. Was there formalized somewhere? If not I would like to start a discussion, because this is so in well-watched pages, such as John or Igor, but not so in many other pages.

The same problem is with pages about given names. They are not disambig pages, but many of them contain a section, like, "List of famous people with given name Nnnnn".

An additional issue to consider is that the name is really rare, then listing such people may have some sense.

I am inviting Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy to join this discussion, to set a common style. There are thousands given names, and we better have them in order. - Altenmann >t 20:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted a related question in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#First_names, but got no response. I guess it must be decided here. Mukadderat (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a separate given name article (or list) and disambig page, then the name-holders are not listed on the disambig page. If there isn't a separate disambig page, then name-holders can be listed on the disambig page at the bottom (after the ambiguous articles but before a "See also" section) -- until that list gets long enough and an editor decides to split it off to a name (list) article. Once there is a separate article, the name holders may or may not be listed there; it depends on the consensus at the individual name article talk. But at that point it's separate from the disambiguation project. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Background reading -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but this does not answer my question. The major issue: there are thousands of given name pages, disambig or not, and it is reasonable to have a common policy. If there is an exception, then it may be handled in the article talk page. I would dread to start thousand similar talks in thousand talk pages. - Altenmann >t 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It provides as best an answer as can be given from the disambiguation project. Since the name-list articles are not disambiguation pages, if an anthroponymy-wide guideline is needed, the anthroponymy project consensus can determine it. Even then, of course, the consensus at any given page might still disagree if the consensus is that disagreeing is useful to the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you haven't read my question carefully. It is equally related to both projects, and you didn't andser it. Do you want me to cut and paste it here or oyou care to re-read from the top yourself? I an not asking where to list first names. - Altenmann >t 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement isn't illiteracy. I read your question, disagreed with your assumption, and explained why. And still answered your question. You can re-read it yourself if you like, but I'll take another pass at it:

1. Name articles aren't disambiguation pages, so the anthroponymy project is the proper place to try to form a new consensus (and not here). Dab editors who are also interested in the anthroponymy sister project (not sub-project) can be expected to see it there.
2. Forcing consistency on the thousands of pages isn't necessarily reasonable. It might be useful, but it might also be a waste of time, and the decision left where it is today: with each article.
3. Be civil.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Chosen?

I did a search for an article to help me understand how Jews came to be referred to as "The Chosen", only to be directed to a disambiguation page containg decent sized list on several films and other disambiguations of the term (most actually related to Jews as being considered "The Chosen", yet no actual article on the central question: Why are Jews referred to as "The Chosen"?

Has no article yet been created adressing that central definition? 70.49.69.185 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Search for "jews chosen" in WP and you get the following pages:

Jews as a chosen people, Chosen people (disambiguation), Chosen people

These might help (and might indicate that The Chosen DAB page might benefit from a see also link to one of the above).

Incidentally, Chosen people is currently being considered for deletion.

-- EdJogg (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I linked Chosen people (disambiguation) from The Chosen. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ordinary English usage

In many cases there is an ordinary English usage for a term. The specific example that leads me to make this comment is the damages disambiguation page. When I first looked at the page it started with a "Film and television" section; buried lower down was section "Law" with "Property damage", and "Other" with "Water damage". The article did have a link to the Wiktionary article.

In the case of a word like "damage" with a clear and common meaning in everyday English, that meaning should dominate a 2009 film and a band called "Damage"; a routine link to Wiktionary is not enough to inform a reader not familiar with the term of the meaning (a fortiori, it should not be assumed that readers use English as their main language, or that they live in a typical Western culture). A definition of the word (even if this is really a dictionary definition; an exception to the guideline discouraging such definitions should apply to disambiguation) should head the article, and meanings which are just variants of normal English should appear here; in the case of damage, "Water damage", "Property damage", "Fire damage" are applications of the normal meaning, not truly independent terms, and should be grouped with the main definition.

The article as I found it is at [1]; I left it as at [2], though I don't claim my version to be perfect or definitive. [In the particular case of damage I added a brief clarification of the distinction between damage and damages which isn't directly relevant to my point here, though it does clearly belong where it is (there are many cases of misuse like "the earthquake caused damages to a building and a bridge", presumably mainly by non-native speakers of English).]

I suggest that the guidelines on disambiguation pages be modified to cover this, very common, situation. Pol098 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points. I can tell you now that you will get some resistance from other editors who insist that the layout of a disambiguation page or the determination of a primary topic is nothing but a popularity contest, and that whatever the largest number of readers are looking for should take priority. I don't subscribe to that view. Disambiguation pages may not be articles, but they are part of the content of the encyclopedia and they should serve to inform readers, not just send them on their way elsewhere as quickly as possible.

In most cases, I would think that if we have an encyclopedia article about a topic as a common noun, that should be featured before uses of the same title as a proper noun, which are usually derivatives of the common meaning.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is not (as you note) a dictionary, and I don't think disambiguation pages should be filled up with dictionary definitions. Many disambig pages do contain a brief definition of the most common use of a term along with a Wiktionary link, and I have no problem with that, but we should resist the temptation to start adding extensive lexicographic content to these pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Russ. Re your popularity contest point: I don't see that as a problem at all. In, I think, the overwhelming majority of cases the normal English use is by far the commonest; in an exceptional case where this is not so, then I don't see any problem with leading with the commonest, not the usual English, usage. My point is not to disagree with the popularity contest; rather, quite a lot of disambiguation pages don't make any mention at all of the common use, although it should be there, and at the top. In my example of damage, there was mention of "Property damage" and "Water damage" (rightly not at the top), but no mention of the bare word damage itself, which does belong, and at the top.

If there is an encyclopedia article about a topic as a common noun, that should simply be a link on a disambiguation page, and the first link in almost all cases (i.e., if it is the commonest use). However, in many cases there is not a separate article; in such cases my suggestion is not to write a comprehensive dictionary article on the word, but to have a briefish definition which will usually be a single sentence. In my damage example I said "In ordinary English usage, damage is physical harm or breakage to something", which I think is enough; the mention of ordinary English usage might prompt someone who wants to go further to a d(W)ictionary. In the very particular case of damage(s), the frequent misuse and misunderstanding of damage/damages prompted me to add another 3 lines, but this should not normally be necessary.

My "before" and "after" versions of the "damages" page illustrate quite well what I mean, I think. Pol098 (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To expand a bit: by and large, any word that's in a dictionary (without starting with a capital letter) is an ordinary English word. Where a word, which is a normal but not all that common English word, is more commonly used in a different context, the English use should not come first. For example, Voyager is arguably more commonly used to refer to a variety of other things rather than just an ordinary traveller; so these definitions should come first, but there should be a section which I think should be "Ordinary English usage" rather than "Other" or "Travel" with a brief dictionary-type definition. Indeed, looking at the Voyager entry, I find no mention at all of the ordinary meaning (which I will add, so it will be there if you look and nobody reverts) ; it should be there, even though it's not very commonly used. The ordinary word Voyager is arguably more frequent than USS Voyager (SP-361), a US Navy motorboat. Pol098 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And that "ordinary English dictionary definition" (or usage, as you call it) should not be added. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and your new entry does not disambiguate an ambiguous Wikipedia article. To R'n'B's comment, and spinning it back the other way, determination of primary topic is indeed nothing but seeing which topic is used primarily -- I'm not sure why you cast this as a "popularity contest". Disambiguation pages are not articles and there is no reason to try and dilute their navigational function by forcing them to also repeat the information that is in articles. If the information is not in articles, then it should be added to an article or it should remain outside of the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I picked the "popularity contest" word from R'n'B's contribution; it means nothing but seeing which topic is used primarily, and seems fine to me; entries should be in order of frequency of use, whether or not the usual use is the commonest. Taking, say, damage: the purpose of a disambiguation page should be to briefly list as many uses as possible. The page will be accessed by someone who needs to know which of several possible articles (s)he should go to to find the information required. If there were no disambiguation page there would be no need for an entry for the word damage, it is a dictionary definition. However if we have a page with title Damage, it seems perverse to exclude the most common use of the word because of a rigid no-dictionary-definition guideline; the word damage has ambiguity, but we are listing as many uses we can find except the commonest (and most likely) one. [If the dictionary use is not the most common, it shouldn't be at the top, but should still be listed.] In most cases a brief dictionary definition is comparable in length to a typical disambiguation entry; it absolutely shouldn't be a full dictionary discussion. I do get the impression that you (JHunterJ) are trying to enforce rules as rules, rather than consider the merits of the case.

To use the same example as I've been using, if you tell me that you've got "damage" at your house, the Damage disambiguation page would offer me (before I edited it) Damage (2009 film), Damage (novel), Damage (band) ... you get the idea. So you might have a DVD, a book, a visit from a band, .... There is genuine ambiguity, but not all possible cases have been included: you might also have been visited by a marauding elephant (and this sort of damage is the most likely one). I maintain that the disambiguation page should give me, as far as possible, all possible resolutions of the ambiguity, without having to write an encyclopaedia page for the usual meaning of damage, which doesn't merit it. Pol098 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain the merits of the rules, rather than trying to enforce edits that contradict them without consensus. In this case, the guidelines are clear, which makes them appear rigid to editors who disagree with them. An ambiguous Wikipedia article about the most common usage of "damage" should be listed first on the dab page. A dictionary definition should be available through a link to a dictionary -- Wiktionary, in this case. Damages might be listed high on the damage dab page; the current version with its clunky "ordinary dictionary defintion" section though is less useful and unnecessary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am firmly of the position that an encyclopedia is not a dictionary, and a user should not expect to be able to find information in an encyclopedia about every single definition that is in a dictionary. Which seems to be what you are arguing for: that wherever there exists information in Wiktionary that is not in Wikipedia because it is not itself an encyclopedic topic, we should provide a link to Wiktionary to save the user from some immense imagined burden that comes from realizing Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this or that. You can say, "Oh, it should only be for 'common' definitions that aren't covered in Wikipedia," but to set a standard for which definitions are common and which aren't would be really arbitrary. Propaniac (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you don't know the definition of a word in common English usage, such as "damage," aren't you likely to know you should be looking it up in a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia anyway? By "common English usage," aren't you implying "a word that everybody knows the meaning of"? Propaniac (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ordinary English usage - Wiktionary ref?

Following my comments on the need to include ordinary English use in the previous section, an alternative might be to modify the Wiktionary link, which at the moment is not very prominent, instead of adding a definition. There is a smallish and not very prominent box reading "Look up <word> in Wiktionary, the free dictionary" on the right-hand side. Maybe, instead of the approach I described in the previous section, the {{wiktionary}} template should be modified, perhaps to add prominent text at the beginning of the article "<word> is used in normal English usage; click here to see definitions and notes on usage in Wiktionary, the free dictionary". If this interferes with existing use of the template, a new, more prominent, template could be written for disambiguation pages. Pol098 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of my recent addition to WP:PT regarding unique, initial-use proper nouns

I propose appending the following to the end of WP:PT regarding unique, initial-use proper nouns:

Occasionally there may be cases where two or more articles would bear precisely the same title but none are the primary topic using the above criteria. If it's not otherwise clear whether X is a primary topic for T, then the decision is sometimes swung in X's favor by the fact that X is the original use of the name T. For example, if there is a novel, followed by a play derived from that novel, a film derived from that play, and a musical derived from that film — all bearing the same title and with none much more sought — the novel shall be the primary topic. In the case of non-derivative works — proper nouns specifically created by blending multiple words together into a unique word (Clannad) or as a portmanteau (Microsoft), creating a new word derived from another (Dracula) or an entirely new word (Jabberwocky), or using a truly unique cluster of words (An American in Paris) resulting in derivative works or an amalgamation of other proper nouns (Goldwyn Pictures) — the initial creative use and popularization of the title shall be the primary topic when the creative initial use of the term is crystal clear.

₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 23:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Initial discussion

I decided to "be bold" and make what I believe is a fair addition to the section "Is there a primary topic?" regarding unique, initial-use proper nouns (ref) as a result of the discussion in progress here. The argument is that if there is an arbitrary notable group that starts using a devised name (let's say "The Dog" history), as opposed to a word (Dog), they would be the primary topic (as in June 2004, this was) — but if after their public spotlight wanes, another iteration is discovered or comes along dubbed "more important" or arguably "more popular" by search results or article hits such as The Dog (Goya), one of two things "should" happen:

• The "newer", "more popular", and/or "more important" group should replace the first one, which would be demoted to a hatnote DAB link, or—
• In the case of similar or undecided popularity, they should both be relegated to a DAB article

Making such changes would be a completely responsible thing to do ... for the inevitable situation that more than one person will have the idea to put the article "The" before a noun and name their artistic outlet as such. However: A small group of editors seeing "no strong reason why one article should be favored over the other" (as is the case of Clannad, compared to Clannad (visual novel)) happens by somehow not knowing that the "initial-use creator" (the band) invented a brand new word out of thin air, popularized it, and was the first to be notable, then the initial writers of the anime stuff came along contemporaneously 34 years after the first group in the world to use the word "Clannad" (with all their accumulated acclaim and influence on today's music) and decided to also use the name (a trademark) due to a misunderstanding that it was a "word", rather than in fact a unique "proper noun".

While it's true that "there are no absolute rules for determining primary topics", there are guidelines for what determines a primary topic. However, in all my searching in WP policies, I haven't found anything that directly refers what to do about unique proper nouns: specifically the type that people/groups/companies establish & popularize as "initial use" trademarks. With the article Dracula that used to be in October 2001 erroneously labeled directly synonymous with Vlad Tepes, truly though we know Bram Stoker derived that name from multiple legends including Vlad's, but that derivation is where the unique, initial-use proper noun attributed to Stoker originated — explaining why the article is what it is today, and not simply one of many links on the corresponding DAB page. There is clear precedence *in practice* for what has been done in cases like this, but up to now we're lacking Policy precedence. The very closest thing that's almost relevant enough is WP:Naming conventions (films)#From other topics, but still nothing in WP policy that sufficiently addresses most general forms of newly-created proper nouns. As a result, I made this addition (which I first checked WT:DAB and anywhere else I could search in policies, wikitalk pages, ...with no joy), and added a circumstance that I believe is fair and can be verified to date with many pre-existing primary-source articles (that are NOT DAB).

The action that started this whole mess was also the act of "being bold" here, but the change made in that case was imprudent to the spirit of what makes a "primary topic" what it is in an encyclopedia. My goal here then is to set in writing a precedence that thus far has only been spoken and in practice, but now would streamline any decisions that will arise in the future regarding this particular type of "primary topic". ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 05:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with your premise - the primary topic (if any) should be the one readers are most likely to be looking for, not the one that historically took that name first.--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski, and, CelticWonder, please do not mark additions to the guidelines or to the talk pages as minor edits. See WP:MINOR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. FYI: it wasn't intentional, as my default user preference is to mark edits minor as 98% of mine are. I won't make that mistake this time. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 05:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very much sure you're missing my point. There's a difference with why Microsoft has the primary topic compared to why Apple, Inc. didn't displace Apple as the primary topic (and there's likely a better example than Apple, but still my point remains). If I created a novel->movie->franchise called "Microsoft" about tiny, fluffy bunnies, and it quickly became popular in populous China (as in over a recent course of a year amassed more "fans" than users of Microsoft's software), does that mean it should bump the corporate wiki page — because by your reasoning it was merely just a happy coincidence that I "took" the name, as though "Microsoft" was simply some common word in the dictionary? If I wrote a play that became an instant Broadway hit and then world renown called "Shakespeare" about some Native American rebellion involving shaking spears led by someone named "William", should it displace the article about a man because he's been dead for almost 400 years? CERTAINLY NOT. The same could also go for really any music group (such as Clannad). Does their current "popularity" (or comparative lack thereof) on the Internet require pushing them into the past because something else of a different genre with the same (albeit tm infringing) name came along? I'm actually surprised there was never a Trademark Infringement case opened up against the writers of the novel.

I am determined to set a precedence here, so I will replace it back on the project page as a non-minor update this time, as I am certain it indeed caters to a specific as-yet unaddressed scenario. If you feel so strongly that it should NOT be there, I suggest you open an Admin discussion about whether it should or should not be officially amended to policy. Thanks. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 05:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works - if you want to substantially change the guidance, it's up to you to show there's support for your change. For the moment it's 2:1 against, so please wait for support to crystallize before trying to add it again.--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also do not support the addition. older ≠ wiser 10:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to assume that primary topic status is a badge of honor that is be conferred on the deserving article. It is mainly a navigational construct that should follow the evolution of the language, not by following every twist and turn, but tracing reasonably significant changes. That is independent of the origin, trademarked or not. I do not support the addition either. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

...not in the least actually, and I have posed very valid, detailed reasons for my assertions. I'm addressing an issue regarding precisely what I described, leading to the following discussion. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, then. Sometimes these Primary Topic discussions seem to go that way and I get a bit exhausted. I'll join the discussion below. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Derivative names

CelticWonder appears to be getting to the issue of derivative uses. This has come up before in Requested Move discussions. When the normal criteria of "most searched for" don't apply, some editors go to derivation. I don't agree with overturning the current consensus regarding the most-sought topic being the primary topic, but when the most-sought topic is unclear, derivation can be a legitimate criterion. It might be useful to add a short paragraph such as:

Occasionally there may be cases where two or more articles would bear precisely the same title but none are the primary topic using the above criteria. If some of those titles are derived from an original use, the original use might be the primary topic. For example, if there is a novel, a play derived from that novel, a film derived from that play, and a musical derived from that film -- all bearing the same title and with none much more sought -- the novel might be the primary topic. Station1 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, as the circumstance for which I am currently fighting for has clear evidence that this is the case regarding the name itself (despite the genre difference). I'm not looking to "overturn" anything regarding policy, only to clarify what to do in this more unique circumstance. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying something "might be" doesn't help us much - it equally might not be. Perhaps we want to say that if it's not otherwise clear whether X is a primary topic for T, then the decision is sometimes swung in X's favour by the fact that X is the original use of the name T. But I suspect that even that might be controversial (for example, it implies that British towns take some kind of precedence over the American towns that are named after them).--Kotniski (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski's suggestion, but I'll attempt to address your example: the article for Lancaster says right at the top that it is "usually derived from Lancaster, Lancashire, in England, ..." as an implied precedence. Is there any WP policy that says the "Lancaster" note should be there? Hence my suggested amendment. But in this case we notice the huge amount of cities with that now common name. However, how many cities named Danzig are there? Yet there are notable topics with the EXACT same name that are on a secondary dab page.

Even still, names of towns would fall under a different category of proper noun, just as the proper or surname of a person would. This is why technically if someone with the exact name William Shakespeare later became "more popular/notable" than the author, the original article could be replaced with a dab reflecting both persons. However, the more concise category I was attempting to cater to is once again "unique, initial-use words". A new example I found so far is Dumbo, which also refers to Dumbo (air-sea rescue), but it's clear again where the new word itself came from originally, so the Disney movie is the primary topic. Obviously one may argue that ALL words & proper nouns were unique at one time, hence my further explanation "[as a result of] blending, portmanteau...", etc. as my final version had previously reflected.

A revised proposal: Occasionally there may be cases where two or more articles would bear precisely the same title but none are the primary topic using the above criteria. If it's not otherwise clear whether X is a primary topic for T, then the decision is sometimes swung in X's favor by the fact that X is the original use of the name T. For example, if there is a novel, followed by a play derived from that novel, a film derived from that play, and a musical derived from that film — all bearing the same title and with none much more sought — the novel shall be the primary topic. In the case of non-derivative works — proper nouns specifically created by blending multiple words together into a unique word (Clannad) or as a portmanteau (Microsoft), creating a new word derived from another (Dracula) or an entirely new word (Jabberwocky), or using a truly unique cluster of words (An American in Paris) resulting in derivative works or an amalgamation of other proper nouns (Goldwyn Pictures) — the initial creative use and popularization of the title shall be the primary topic.

I welcome any further suggestions or revisions, and I'm glad to see we're finally addressing this issue. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 19:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest appending something to the effect of: If it is provable beyond all doubt the source of such unique title belongs to a specific entity, it should have the primary topic. — not exactly those words, but something like that? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 23:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see the "original-ness" of the usage to be pertinent. It MIGHT make sense for articles about works derived from a single source - like a book, its movies and stage derivations - but even then, the "best" to me is to direct them to the article that gives them the most information about the general topic. Take Star Trek and Star Wars for example. If the articles are related only in name (I didn't read the whole articles, but Clannad seems to be an example) and there is no clear primary topic between them using the criteria without the new "original-ness" test, the readers are best served by a dab page. Going to the "original" doesn't improve the situation. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although (as has kind of been agreed before, but I don't think ever recorded in the guidance) in the situation where there are exactly two (main) uses of a term, readers are actually served by making one the primary topic, even if it doesn't have the predominance we would normally expect (because the hatnote can take readers directly to the other topic anyway, so 50+x% of readers are benefited while very few are inconvenienced). Perhaps in that situation in particular, considerations like original use might come into the equation.--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(responding to original proposal) If none of the topic are the primary topic by the existing criteria, then there is no primary topic. A "tie-breaker" based on derivation (or any other criterion) isn't needed -- no topic is primary use, so the disambiguation page should go to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But if there are only two usages, then (the theory is that) making either one of them the primary topic will save the users who are looking for that usage the inconvenience of going through an extra page to get there. And the users who are looking for another usage will be no more inconvenienced by going through a hatnote, than they would be by going through a disambiguation page (either way, it's one extra page and one extra click). Even if only 10% of users are looking for the usage at the base name, and 90% are looking for the other usage, you're still inconveniencing only 90% of users instead of inconveniencing 100% of them, although of course it makes more sense to put the 90%-popularity usage at the base name. But if you're following that theory, and trying to decide which usage to put at the base name, and you're unable to find any criteria to suggest that one usage is more popular than the other, it could make sense in that case to use the derivation as a "tie-breaker."

(And I concur with the majority that the derivation is not necessarily relevant when determining a primary topic in other cases. It's as certain as certain can be that the playwright Shakespeare will always be a more popular target than a band or movie named after him, but if someone starts a band and names it after the 17th-century mayor of Ljubljana Jurij Wertatsch, for example, and goes on to sell ten million albums under that name, I'm comfortable with naming the band as the primary topic even though the mayor came first.) Propaniac (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're struggling to identify which is more popular and the criteria in place aren't resolving it, a "better" tiebreaker for reducing inconvenience would be outright reliance on the page traffic stats. I don't advocate outright reliance on it in general (although I do advocate usage of the stats in general, which detractors view as the same thing when the other criteria are unknown), but if we need a tiebreak for pages with only two options, then the option that gets greater than 50% of the recent hits should "win". We can now debate the mathematical definition of "recent". :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please believe me, I've already addressed multiple times why your tie-breaker suggestion hasn't worked in practice so far. In February 2010:

• Danzig had 12,358 hits
• Danzig (band) had 31,181 hits
• Glenn Danzig had 39,671 hits

Danzig is a Polish city. Glenn Danzig's surname is clearly a namesake of that German name of the Polish city, and then his band name was changed to match to avoid tm infringement with his old name. Currently the link Danzig (avg daily hits = 430) points directly to Gdańsk (the city in Poland, with avg daily direct hits = ~600). By your interpretation, clearly Danzig (band) (avg daily hits = 1,100) is more popular, so the article Danzig should be replaced by either Danzig (disambiguation) or Danzig (band) because the band's article is "the option that gets greater than 50% of the recent hits".

My other example: Dracula is "an 1897 novel by Bram Stoker" (as reflected by the primary topic). Why? He CREATED the name himself (a derivation of a foreign word). Count Dracula is then explained to be "a fictional character, the antagonist of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel". We could sufficiently prove that Dracula (1992 film) is the post popular iteration of the franchise, as the IMDB page has the most votes, and simply Googling "Dracula 1897" = 258,000 GHits, "Dracula 1992" = 1,190,000 GHits. Due to it's relative newness and popularity at large, should the '92 film of same name now demote the "primary topic" of Dracula and relegate ALL of it to a DAB simply because when people search "Dracula" they might theoretically be more likely looking for the 1992 film instead of the novel? Well, read for yourself who created the name [ref # 1, 2].

...and then my reason for drawing attention to this lack of policy in the first place: "Clannad" as it stands is not a "Word". Jun Maeda misunderstood it to be an Irish word that meant simply "family" or "clan" [ref], which it is not. "Clannad" actually comes from blending the Irish Gaeilge words Clann As Dobhar, meaning "the family from [Gwee]Dore", which as a result of the act of blending words, makes it a Proper noun not a word just simply "shared" by the anime stuff, but created by the band = SOURCE = Primary Topic.

If it the original creator of the unique, initial-use proper noun is OBVIOUS, the primary topic should belong to that subject. That's how requested moves and such have been decided I would say more than 98% of the time in the past. Put the rule in there to SAY that for a change! ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The tie breaker would only apply (if at all) when the existing criteria fail to yield a primary topic. I am happy enough without a tie breaker, but in response to Propaniac, I suggested the hit count tie breaker would only apply when there were only two ambiguous articles. But to your examples that don't fall under those umbrellas: editors who do not understand WP:PRIMARYTOPIC don't always follow it. Lincoln and EA are other possible examples. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity isn't involved in the discussion I first proposed, you see? Lincoln (a proper or surname) and EA (an inevitable acronym of ANY two words beginning with E and A, as shown on it's dab) wouldn't fall under the category of my suggested amendment concerning "...non-derivative works — proper nouns specifically created by blending multiple words together into a unique word (Clannad) or as a portmanteau (Microsoft), creating a new word derived from another (Dracula) or an entirely new word (Jabberwocky), or using a truly unique cluster of words (An American in Paris) resulting in derivative works or an amalgamation of other proper nouns (Goldwyn Pictures) — the initial creative use and popularization of the title shall be the primary topic." — where it is CRYSTAL CLEAR who the original creator is, which is why Dumbo, Dracula, Clannad, Microsoft, Jabberwocky, Goldwyn, or derivative names specifically using a truly unique cluster of words like An American in Paris, and many others I'm not going to waste more time searching for that are currently the Primary Topic for the precise reason I detailed in my most recent revised proposal above. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My initial response holds here: there's no need for separate guidelines for derivative works from the guidelines for non-derivative works. The primary topic (if any) would be the primary topic whether or not the title in question was one used by a derivative work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, use one of my examples then. Let's replace Dracula (currently about a novel) with Dracula (1992 film) or Dracula (disambiguation), as both of these actions would be okay under WP:PT as it is currently written. Explain to me using WP policy why this is not okay (not counting "consensus", please, as consensus *mysteriously* always leans in the direction as I described it, in such cases). ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 22:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dracula got 3 times the pageviews last month compared to Dracula (1992 film), so that's not a good example. But you may be right that Dracula does not get more views than all the other uses combined as shown on the dab page. That's the main reason I oppose the recent change that requires a primary topic to be more sought than all other uses combined (it used to read more sought than any other topic). Station1 (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What comes up when you type "Dracula" in the search box? You have to click *through* to the disambiguation page, so naturally the main page gets "3 times more pageviews" merely as a result of simple type->search->click first result. So then we look at the GHits which reflects the opposite "popularity". My point remains that the novel, being less "popular" or "sought after" is the primary topic for a reason. That reason is detailed in my proposal. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(It's true one must discount slightly for click-thrus, but they are fewer than 6%, so even accounting for them it's still about triple. But let's not get sidetracked.) Station1 (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(changing my note after reading the page's Talk pages) I !voted to move the disambiguation page to the base name because the character and the novel appeared to prevent there being a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

While you were totally entitled to your view/opinion on the matter, what ended up being the final result? Hmmm, yet if my proposed amendment existed, the discussion wouldn't have even needed to happen in the first place! The response instead would've been "Dracula (novel) inspired all related/unrelated derivative works, and was first unique use of the word. See WP:PT", end of story — and it would be referring to precisely whay I'm suggesting. Frankenstein also reflects the same manner of layout/navigation (PT is the novel). If WP policy reflected the reasoning behind these decisions (see current proposal), I could have avoided months of arguing this point home about the Clannad page being replaced. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hmmm" indeed: editors then disregarded the guidelines, so you're proposed solution is to change the guidelines, because apparently you assume that future editors will not disregard the guidelines? No matter what the guidelines say, discussions at individual pages will happen. No matter what the guidelines say, the discussion at some pages will yield results contrary to them, either because the editors are unaware of the guidelines, or they misunderstand the guidelines, or they misapply the guidelines, or they choose to ignore the guidelines for a particular page. Given that, I (still) see no reason to change the guidelines since they work and work well for the pages that they are applied too, and those pages remain the majority. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Example: Apple. Why did we disregard the guidelines here then? Apple gets 130116 hits, while Apple Inc. gets 232920 hits. We should make Apple a dab right? What's so special about apples? Well, for one thing, the fruit is the initial use of the word. Also, this simple word was the inspiration for all unrelated title derivations listed on Apple (disambiguation). Granted, "apple" is an English word in the dictionary, so it doesn't apply to my amendment. On the other hand, words that are NOT in the dictionary, but important enough to be included in an encyclopedia, were created somewhere. An encyclopedia should reflect where the word came from "as a result of blending, portmanteau", blah blah. I see ultimate reason for why this addition should be implemented. Does any one else based off all factors I mentioned? ...or is anyone ELSE not seeing the logic? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 19:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be blind, but I haven't seen anyone jumping in to say they SEE the logic. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jwy: Snideness aside, *I* am jumping in to say I see the logic. And another on the current MC for Clannad has (as well as the sole opposition who almost "get's it", but still has a lingering illogical hang-up of how WP works). As I didn't imply that everyone else "saw" my logic other than JHunterJ (whom I was directly responding to after his comment "I (still) see no reason to change the guidelines since they work and work well for the pages that they are applied to"), I mostly just fear that so far I somehow haven't been clear enough (which I'm doubting) about the nearly-unanimous minority of articles I'm addressing, or more likely some of the rest of you might not be "getting it" yet, and my question was if someone other than him needed me to provide more clarity. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How many of the hits on Apple Inc. are from readers who tried "apple"? We'd have to set up that arrangement to support your claim that the guidelines were disregarded here -- it's not determinable from the counts available now. See also the Talk:Lincoln discussion where an analogous arrangement was set up and the stats used to inform the discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, respectfully, that's another bad example. For all intents, Lincoln, Lincolnshire *should* be the main article (as in Danzig), however there are SO MANY (just like my explanation about Lancaster above) related derivations that it's a dab list instead (as Abraham wasn't the first to use that name). The AMOUNT of articles would be a factor also — but in cases of, you know, "names" (people, places). As it stands right now, typical results in decisions made regarding the following:

Genre of "word"	Example(s)	Typical outcome	WP policy/guideline
English word (i.e. noun, verb, etc.) with one dominant meaning	Apple, Mummy, One, Teacher, Tree	Word is PT, others on dab
Person/place single proper noun (limited original usage)	Byrne, Danzig, Lima, Mississippi, Tallahassee, Zielinski	Person/place is PT, others on dab	MOS:DABNAME, WP:2DAB
Person/place single proper noun (rampant similar usage, or ambiguous original usage)	Anderson, Barnes, Jackson, Jenkins, Johnson, Lancaster, Lincoln, Lowe, Springfield, Walsh	DAB, original/popular usage at top	MOS:DABNAME, WP:PLACE#Disambiguation
Unique initial-use name/word (original use is obvious)	Batman, Clannad, Dumbo, Dracula, Frankenstein, Goldwyn, Jabberwocky	Original use is primary topic, others on dab (or hatnote then dab)	Today: WP:??? In practice: "Encyclopedic nature"? Past decisions supporting my argument for amendment: 1, 2

...am I wrong? In fact, another valid proposed move: Johnson → Johnson (surname) && Johnson (disambiguation) → Johnson, with the name article being the first on the list ( Done ✗ Undone why, exactly?). Yet the first three rows of my grid are backed by written guidelines, and the fourth is merely the "typical outcome" but therefore should now be declared as such. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 21:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you add another column to the table for the first three rows with links to the corresponding policies? Its news to me that there are policies as such. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can help with that. Here's a start. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 00:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good example, illustrating (again) that determining which topic was "first" is unrelated to determining which topic is most used. The most common use use of "Lincoln" on Wikipedia is the U.S. president, although not by a sufficient margin (apparently) to gain the base name (not all subscribe to my 60/40 belief). See also Boston and Georgia, neither of which go to the first topic. You have some nicely selected data points that happen to support one view. I believ a full selection or even a scientific sampling of the ambiguous WP titles would be less supportive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tru dat — except Boston goes to a major metropolis (just as Melbourne, London, etc.), which is outside the scope of my point again, and Georgia has multiple conflicting uses (ambiguous origin?) as a place name, not a unique, initial-use creation as I've described. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 03:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

50/50 split, or replacement "popularity"?

CelticWonder, no disrespect intended, it seems pretty clear that your goal in all of this is to get a "ruling" that the article about the band called Clannad should be considered the primary topic, regardless of how many users are looking for that topic vs. another unrelated meaning of the term (such as the visual novel), because the band was the first to coin the word. I don't think (certainly could be wrong) you're ever going to convince many people here of that argument. If 75% of users are looking for the novel and 25% of users are looking for the band, it doesn't make sense to send everyone to the band article first, simply because the band originated the name. That does not, in any way at all, mean that the novel is better than the band (personally, I'm sure if I sampled each, I'd like the band way more). It just means that there are a ton of manga fans among Wikipedia's user base. Propaniac (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. But my question is what happens when 50% are looking for the novel and 50% are looking for the band? What happens when 50% are looking for Dracula the novel and 50% are looking for any one of the numerous other things named Dracula? My experience, WP-wide as well as here, is that some editors will argue that derivation is a consideration (I think it should be in the case of Dracula) and others will argue that it shouldn't be. There is no consensus either way in my opinion, so should we let it be argued on each talk page on a case by case basis with no guidance, or should we add something here to the effect that derivation could be a factor to consider in "tie-break" situations? Station1 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Or do we say that it's not a consideration, and that in the 50/50 case, there is no primary topic and the disambiguation page goes to the base name? This is what the guidelines currently say, as I read them. In practice, I doubt there are any 50/50 splits. 50.00000001/49.99999999 maybe, but 50/50 seems very unlikely, and if a tie-break is needed (and I don't think it is), then I think .00000001 is a better one than derivation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Lacking the predominance of one over the other, the dab page is clearly always the best choice. If there are only two terms, then I'd still vote for the dab page. As I've said before, many editors seem to dislike a dab page, especially when it replaces 'their' page. We need to elevate the dab page so that editors are no longer opposed just because it is a dab page. 50-50 splits are the same as 60-40 ones. There is no primary topic. If anything throwing in the derivative argument, especially for place names, is a slap in the face for some countries and clearly biased in the favor of others. So we should avoid that at all costs. While the derivative argument could make sense in some areas, the problems that it causes in others says it is probably best to avoid unless we are going to make specific exceptions and then battle out each one. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside: I think there's a primary topic among two topics once one gets half again as much use as the other (which would be the 60/40 split). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

...except that the emerging popularity of a titular derivative article doesn't suddenly negate or demote the original creation, as is the case in all my examples in the above grid: 1st, 2nd, and 4th rows. My point again is to address the fourth row minority directly. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Propaniac: It seems clear to you (somehow) — unless you look at my tireless explanations, analogies, references, etc. There are very logical reasons for my argument for the policy ADDITION — as in clarification, not change — about a MINORITY of topics. There is clear PRECEDENCE for the decisions have led into one direction in the past (derivation of a term; see ALL my previous comparisons and examples). I'm sick of explaining this. And yes, with Clannad we're talking about something that is nearly 50/50 or 60/40, but using that factor as a "final decision" is not a valid comparison due to the contemporaneous nature of the two different subjects. Derivation of the name itself *should* be the deciding factor therefore, but there is NO policy I can refer to for this unique circumstance. Since it already happens IN PRACTICE, it should be reflected IN POLICY.

The Mummy was used as an example by someone else as a proponent of dab, but it doesn't fit within the confines of what I propose for a great reason (which once again I've already explained): Mummy wasn't INVENTED by ANYONE listed on The Mummy article. Dracula, on the other hand, just like Dumbo, Clannad, Jabberwocky, Frankenstein, were all NEW terms as described above. Original use leading to derivation should take place in WRITING in addition to precedented action. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have said in the past, there is an argument for deciding primary use based on usage in reliable sources. Even if 99% of searches on "Titanic" were for the film (as would likely have been the case if Wikipedia had been around in 1997), we would still consider the ship to be the primary use. Search popularity doesn't capture that; it is too caught up in zeitgeist. Usage in reliable sources does. All of the examples put forward by CelticWonder should be treated as evidence that editors take into account usage in reliable sources when choosing a primary use. "Precedence" is not necessary to explain those examples. Hesperian 03:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to make this change although there are plenty of precedences where an article will point to the originating term there are also plenty of articles where this isn't the case or where the articles simply don't fit within the table for example King Kong makes the character the primary article, Band of Brothers points to a DAB, Diablo points to a DAB and Forrest Gump points to the movie.

In the case of King Kong what article can be considered to have originated the term the 1933 film or the actual character?

In the case of Band of Brothers is it likely that readers are looking for St. Crispin's Day Speech (earliest usage of the term) or is it likely they are looking for the earliest usage of the term which is actually the title of the subject like Nelson's Band of Brothers.

In the case of Diablo why aren't we pointing to the Devil I mean it is clearly what it refers to in Spanish?

In the case of Forrest Gump it points to the movie shouldn't it point to the originating novel?

Proposed policy change/addition is to concise and doesn't take into account various other factors and the fact that it may not even be clear which article has the originating term or what happens if the term doesn't have an originator and separate entities came up with the name on their own then who becomes the originator the entity that came up with the name first, or the entity that came up with the name second but popularised the term, or the entity who has legal trademark over the name?

Note: I am currently in mediation with User:CelticWonder on the topic Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-21/Clannad and may be considered slightly biased (I don't think so but I'm just trying to be open about it). --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My best guesses (since this is kinda the whole point of this proposition):

• King Kong was originally a character in a movie (or comic books in later examples) as opposed to a novel? I mean, the distinction seems kinda silly, but in the cases of Dracula and Frankenstein, there was a novel that included the titular char, so the novel is PT in practice here on WP. Primary topics about characters who originally appeared in something NOT a novel are Batman/Superman/Iron Man/likely any comic book char, Godzilla, King Kong.
• Band of Brothers would fall under a category of "inevitable coupling of dictionary words", so since there were multiple "unique uses" of just the name/phrase, it's a dab. If it was something like Band of Bernoulli Brothers, it'd be entirely different.
• Diablo is kinda like the whole WP:NAD principle. I'm still hoping for a logical response about other common dictionary words like "apple", "mummy", and "one" being primary topics in an encyclopedia instead of a dab. There seems to be no uniform reasoning yet.
• Forrest Gump was created as a novel first, so I believe it should most definitely be the PT as all other same-name works were derivatives of that novel.

...so my proposition for amendment to WP:PT is to give a guideline reference to a *mostly* uniform practice already in place on WP — and while I've requested suggestions on the wording, it also would only apply to a minority of existing articles as detailed at top (which DOES take into account whether there was an "originator" or not in specific contexts). ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 02:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Final comment by proponent

...as I'm officially declaring that I now dgaf. In a book-indexed encyclopedia, issues like this list the first item first, followed chronologically by its derivative uses or works. Understandably, Wikipedia is not paper, but it's still an encyclopedia.

• In the case of an original artistic work with unique historic precedence, I feel it's a disservice to be replaced/overshadowed by a derivative solely because an alternate medium made it more accessible at large later in time.
• In the case of an unique, initial-use name alone: reusing the original name in a different context, or in some cases especially in a related field, unjustly diminishes the uniqueness of the name. In the nearly inevitable case that such a thing may happen as time passes, either due to ignorant arrogance or un/intentional misunderstanding, to detract from the originator is a disservice to their influential creativity. Refs: Trademark distinctiveness, particularly the sections on acquired and maintaining distinctiveness (example, should Band Aid (band) = 21,274 hits displace Band-Aid = 6,206 hits?); and Trademark dilution, considerably when the historical and documented origin of a unique name is obvious and verifiable — or most certainly pointed out in an encyclopedic manner.

As common practice that I've detailed numerous times above dictates the contrary to what is being done in the case of this article (Talk) for example, I've asserted a logical uniformity of this minority of articles falling under the specific criteria expressed here. The addition would have been useful to avoid showing a systemically-biased favoritism in some cases like that one and few others for a-derivative-as-pt over the more suitable unique-original-work-as-pt, regardless of "hit totals" as is being used on such topics instead.

I'm sick of tirelessly laboring this point home with research, facts, and examples/comparisons — and mostly just that I've been doing it all myself with no help from anyone here, even when requested. I don't feel that detractors have expressed any valid reasons why this natural way of doing things shouldn't be clarified — and only in this very concise regard — other than that "consensus rules" or "WP hits/GHits rules". If the typical admins on WP really just get a kick out of their cabalistic way of doing things "as is", then that's one thing. But a casual editor such as myself doesn't want to resort to this (1 → 2 → 3) just to ultimately have my point made clear and then carried out anyway, when a simple reference to a guideline amendment that could easily exist would have avoided all that and any future related conflicts for OTHERS (as in: I was trying to get this put into the guidelines to serve the use of FUTURE editors from laboriously defending this point, not for my own POV advancement). So fuggit... do as you will. I've made my proposition. I believe it's valid and would serve to improve WP. Decide whether something to that effect should be included in policy. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 07:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add the 'see-colon' to all dab templates

WP:dab templates such as Template:About create hatnotes like this one, from Impressionism:

This article is about the art movement. For other uses, see Impressionism (disambiguation).

The essay Wikipedia:Converting to use of see-colon suggests using a colon (:) after "see" in cases like this.

I suggest changing all dab templates to add the 'see-colon'. I will make a preliminary proposal for this in the proper place if there is consensus here. David Spector 14:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any need or advantage to the change. The essay has had only one editor, so it can hardly claim any substantial following among editors. If you;'re serious, you might want to run the invented punctuation style past the regulars at WT:MOS. older ≠ wiser 15:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional input needed at Johnson

CelticWonder has spuriously accused me of conflict of interest here. Other input requested. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:Ebert#Requested move

Users here may be interested in participating in discussion of the move request (to move the dab page to Ebert (disambiguation) and redirect Ebert to Roger Ebert) at Talk:Ebert#Requested move. (There's rather an underrepresentation at the moment of users who have any interest in Wikipedia guidelines, and an overrepresentation of users who wish to make navigation decisions based on which names are most commonly recognized in Europe.) Propaniac (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Courtesy of creating Disambiguation pages

In the last weeks I created lots of disambiguation pages. And I noticed something: an editor can improve his good maners and create the disambiguation pages after creating an article. For example, the second or the third person who created a page with „Dragutin” in the title (let's say that the page was Dragutin Dimitrijević), after creating the page, he/she should look if there exists or it's needed the disambiguation page for Dragutin and Dimitrijević. If the pages exists, he only has to add one or two lines to those disambiguation pages. If not, he will have to create one or two disambiguation pages, that requires 2 or 3 lines each. In either case, it can't take so long. But, if the editors do not behave like that, one day, somebody comes and creates the Dragutin (disambiguation) page, and because it has 20 lines or so, it's very likely he/she will skip adding details to each line. It's exactly my case: I created the Dragutin (disambiguation) page and it looks not so great, because there were too many lines in it, and I created Dragutinović page, and it looks better, because there were only three entries so I had the time to add details to each of them.

Therefore, being a nice editor and creating one or two small disambiguation pages, or at least adding one-two lines to the already existing disambiguation pages can increase the number of needed disambiguation pages and their appearance and usefulness. Of course there should not be any obligation - we are doing voluntary work here - but maybe some "ranking" can be invented for those who prove their advanced good manners - Ark25 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but don't overdo it on creating dab pages for single names. The two you mention are really more name pages than dab pages, because the entries have only one name in common rather than full names (as on John Smith). Very few present-day people would qualify to be on a single-name dab page; only people like Madonna, Pelé, etc. who don't use full names. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know there is a distinction between disambiguation pages and name pages. Can't find a guide for name pages also. Seems there are lots of name pages anyways, containing titles that have only one name in common. I think they are useful though, for example when you forget the full name of a person you want to read about. So, in order for me to learn something today, what should I improve for the Dragutin (disambiguation) and Dragutinović ? I guess Dragutin (disambiguation) should be renamed Dragutin (name) and I should add {{surname}} to both pages ? Thanks - Ark25 (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

One example of the way it should be done is Pauline, which is a dab page, and Pauline (name), which is a page about the name that also has a list of people with the name. Note that the dab page points to the name page, but also has entries for things other than people. You can find the guideline for this here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Given names or surnames. You might also be interested in the information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Let me know if I can be of further help. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! I'll read those pages with attention and I'll come back if I'll have questions Ark25 (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm back. The questions: What would be the best arguments for deleting pages like Dražen, Dragutin (disambiguation), Dragutinović ? Other question: what should I do to bring those 3 pages closer to perfection? For example at the Drazen page, should {{disamb}} and {{given name}} coexist? or better to have only a {{hndis}} ? Also, it looks to me that Dragutin (disambiguation) should be renamed into Dragutin (name). But then, at the Stephen Dragutin of Serbia, the disambiguation note should be changed. Is there an equivalent to {{redirect}} that generates "(name)" instead of "(disambiguation)" ? Thanks - Ark25 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete Dražen. I would group the entries, though -- list the people together, list the places together, etc. The disambig and given name tags can be on the same page, but if there are more than a few people with the given name then a separate page should probably be created. Dražen should not have hndis, though, because that is for pages where an entire name is shared (like John Smith or Mary).

I think Dragutinović looks fine as it is, because it's now marked as a surname page and not a dab page. It doesn't have to have "(name)" in the title.

I would move Dragutin (disambiguation) to Dragutin (name) and possibly ask the admins to delete Dragutin (disambiguation). For the hatnote on Stephen Dragutin of Serbia, the redirect template can take parameters to change what it displays. The documentation for that is here: Template:Redirect#Redirect.

Hope that helps! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. At Dražen I made sections - for places and people. Also moved Dragutin (disambiguation) to Dragutin (name) and asked for deletion for Dragutin (disambiguation). But now, at Dragutin (name), what template should I use? {{disamb}} should be replaced but Dragutin represents both surname (for Dragutin) and given name for the rest. Shall I add both {{surname}} and {{given name}} ? Ark25 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking good! Yes, you can have both surname and given name on the same page on Dragutin (name). When you can, it would also help to add short descriptions of each person in the lists of all these pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now some few observations: at Dragutin (name), having both {{surname}} and {{given name}} in the page doesn't look so great (to me). I don't know how many other pages are in this kind of situation, but if there are many, then I think it is needed for a new single template to be created in order to mix the both of them.

True, not everything looks good. I don't think I'd bother, but you're free to pursue that if you want—you might want to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy since these come under their purview. Whatever you come up with should put the page into both categories (Given names and Surnames).

I checked the Mary page and it doesnt have {{hndis}} as you said it should.

The purpose of "hndis" is to put the page into the category "Human name disambiguation pages". That can also be done by coding "{{disambig|hn}}, or by explicitly adding the category to the page as was done on Mary. {{hndis}} is used for pages that are strictly name disambiguation; Mary also has places, movies, etc. For more info on this, see Template:Disambig.

Also, it looks like the content of John Smith (name) should be moved at John Smith, because John Smith is a name page.

Maybe so. I don't think name pages necessarily have to have the "(name)" qualifier, but I may not be up to date on the current policy on that.

Now, talking about the descriptions, I have to come back to the original discussion - editors with advanced good manners have to create the disambiguation or name pages when there are 2-4 items that make those pages needed. A club of "elite" editors should be created (without any privileges, ofc), and membership must be based on continuously proving the advanced good manners. I am quite sure, there can be identified more criteria to be elite, other than creating dab pages at the right moment. But it's just a suggestion of course. Ark25 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

First, there is a preference for using hatnotes (rather than dab pages) when there are only two items (see here). Using hatnotes is simpler, and I've even seen them used instead of dab pages when there are more than two options.

Second, no Wikipedia editor is required to create things like this, even if it's good manners: we're all volunteers here. (I've even heard rumors that some of us have lives outside of Wikipedia!) If you're interested in pursuing creation of dab pages, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation—that might be as close as you'd get to a club such as you describe. You can add your name to the list of participants and discuss these things with other interested editors. I'm sure you'd be a welcome addition.

Last, policy changes on Wikipedia are done by consensus. For these and any other changes you'd like to see enforced, propose them in a related forum and make your case. Of course, you're free to do those things on your own without making them policy.

Any other questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your patience ! No more questions, that's more than enough and thanks again. Sure, it's volunteer work and things doesn't have to be enforced. I's just an idea about requiring a certain behavior in order to be in an inoffensive group — for those who enjoy useless titles and honors. And no, whoever says there is life outside Wikipedia is a Liar and don't believe them !! :D — Ark25 (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

We've got a move discussion going as to whether Wild Horses (Rolling Stones song) should be at Wild Horses (song) when there are other songs with that title (at least one of which, Wild Horses (Garth Brooks song), has an article). What's the deal here? Are we allowed to have "Article name (qualifier)" and "Article name (more specific qualifier)"? It just seems stupid to me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can have a qualifier and then a more specific qualifier if one entry meets the criteria of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. The logic of the primary usage concept holds even if one topic is already disambiguated. In the case of "Wild Horses", the famous Rolling Stones song gets 30 times the pageviews of the Garth Brooks song, so it makes sense to send most people searching for "Wild Horses song" to where they are overwhelmingly likely to want to be. See a similar discussion at Talk:Independence Day (film)#Requested move 1 and 2. Station1 (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that discussion out. I disagree. The guidance about primary topic does not apply to the disambiguating phrase used to distinguish topics. older ≠ wiser 00:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that incomplete disambiguation is silly (see arguments @ Independence Day discussion; in particular, who appends "(song)" or "(film)" to a search query?). Perhaps a discussion could be started here to decide which way is right once and for all? --Cybercobra (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer who appends "(film)" to a query: In the case of Avatar (film), tens of thousands of readers (there's virtually no other way to get there). And I'm not counting Avatar film, which gets even more searchers. At least 97% of them want the famous film, but they all are redirected to a dab page. Doesn't make sense imo. Station1 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would bet they're only entering the exact page title because they'd been there previously and thus knew what it was; so the exact page title doesn't actually matter in that case because they're just regurgitating it. The argument is whether virgin visitors would be likely to enter it or find it discoverable. IMO, No, they'd likely click the hatnote on Avatar or enter "Avatar film" (which I've conceded should redirect to the recent film), but few would use a parenthetical suffix. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that logic. If someone typed in "Avatar (film)" previously they would know it leads to a dab page, not to the film. So wouldn't they be less likely to repeat their mistake, not more likely? Station1 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We are "allowed" to have "Article name (qualifier)" and "Article name (more specific qualifier)". I disagree with Station1 (and agree with Bkonrad), though -- this is unrelated to the primary topic guidelines. If there's a primary topic, it goes to the base name (with no qualifier). If a qualifier is needed, the disambiguation project specifies that a unique qualifier be added (which is fortunate, because that's the only way it'll work). It would be up to the project of the article topic(s) to further specify or restrict the selection of qualifiers. In this case, for instance, I believe that Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Disambiguation does not explicitly state that (song) and (Garth Brooks song) should not co-exist, while Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Standard disambiguation does more clearly indicate (but not unassailably) that if further disambiguation is needed for two novels, both should then have the author's surname added. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If we agree it's allowed (at least in the case of songs), it seems to me it must be related to primary topic guidelines. Otherwise, how would we decide which article gets titled "Article name (qualifier)" and which gets "Article name (more specific qualifier)"? Station1 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as making ambiguous article unambiguous, it doesn't matter which one (or if neither) gets the "qualifier" and which (or if both) gets the "more specific qualifier". So from the disambiguation project perspective (including primary topic), mu. The project that covers the topic(s) of the ambiguous articles, though, may or may not provide guidelines for formulating their qualifiers, and those (if any) should be followed. But they may or may not apply identically to articles on other topics (which would be covered by other projects' guidelines). That's what I was trying to point out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

template:otheruses4

FYI, {{otheruses4}} has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD

65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging "The Survivors" with "Survivors"

I am not sure why two different dab pages exist, but if I can make the mistake between the two (wondering what happened to half the dab terms), then undoubtedly it could happen with the regular user. I propose we merge them, but I've never really hear about merging dab pages before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dab mergers are handled like article mergers; proposed and (possibly) discussed at the pages' talk pages. In this case, though, the mistake is soothed by linking the two in their "See also" sections. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A See Also in a dab page? That sounds kinda circular. Why not just combine the two; it seems like Survivors and The Survivors" are only separated by the article (grammar term, not the encyclopedia type). There would seem a lot of confusion inherent in having two separate pages that a See Also shouldn't be expected to compensate for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambig pages with zero or one bluelink exact matches

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbre. Is this really what people want to do with dab pages? The arbre page has two articles that could legitimately be written someday, but don't exist now (the Belgian place names), and it has one phrase that could marginally be a hatnote somewhere (the planet in Anathem), but wouldn't make an article on its own (in my estimation). The rest of the entries are all partial matches.

I note that the current text of WP:DISAMBIG is somewhat different from the way I remember it (the wording I remember is something along the lines of the purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers navigate among articles that have the same name). When was this changed, and how much was it discussed? Is this really the outcome people had in mind? If this is what consensus genuinely wants, then OK, but it seems a bit of a stretch to me. --Trovatore (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is essentially the same now as in March 2008 (and maybe long before that, I haven't bothered to check); I'm not aware of any significant changes or discussion of changes in recent memory. The phrasing is slightly different, but the meaning is the same. I'm not entirely sure what your issue is. If you're saying that the Arbre disambiguation page shouldn't list Arbres de la liberté, you're right, and the guideline still supports that, both in that introductory definition ("disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title" -- the article on "arbres de la liberté" could not reasonably be titled just "Arbre", so it does not fall under that definition) and in the section Partial Title Matches ("A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion"). But if you're arguing that it should only list articles that actually HAVE the same title -- meaning that, for example, the Brownie disambiguation page should not list the foodstuff because that article is titled Chocolate brownie instead of Brownie (food) -- that rule would just be ridiculous and detrimental.

In regard specifically to Arbre, my opinion is that it's not the greatest or most useful disambiguation page ever, but the three entries listed are legitimate. Everything under "See Also" should probably be removed as unlikely targets for someone searching on "Arbre." Propaniac (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, could reasonably have the same name' is reasonable, yes; no, I certainly wouldn't exclude chocolate brownie. (Actually I kind of think that ought to be the primary topic for brownie, but that's neither here nor there). My issue is more with disambig pages for which all, or even all but one, the non-partial-match entries are redlinks, with no strong reason to believe that there'll be an article any time soon. That seems to be a "navigational aid" with no clearly relevant place to navigate. In my opinion it would be better for such searches to bring up the search page than this very marginal dab page. --Trovatore (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Alphbetical order

A list of items, especially growing to around six or more, should be listed (by date if especially significant or) in alphabetical order as standard. It doesn't say that on the guidelines. There is no hit for "alphabetical". I want to quote the guideline that says, "Order the list alphabetically rather than how you feel the items are more relevant." Some lists are quite long including disambiguation pages. Is this intentionally missed? ~ R.T.G 18:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)