Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Different pages for different meanings of the same word/ phrase

  • Don't quite know where to fit this in but it needs clarification. On the Sunset Strip page there is a link to a nightclub named Trocadero, but the link redirects to Trocadéro, in Spain. I don't know anything about either one, so don't wish to write the nightclub article, nor link to a nonexistent page, but one has an accent and one doesn't. How does one disambiguate this?Doovinator 20:36, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In Wikipedia I found the following instances when page titles had more than one meaning/ association and the problem had been dealt with in the manner described below.

  1. Architecture- inbetween the explanation for architecture as in buildings, there was a paragraph on architecture as related to computer lingo and again there was a continuation of the former meaning. Problem further compounded by use of similar terms in both fields- language, building, etc.,
  2. Calculus- before even explaining what calculus is as generally known[ mathematics related] intro line said that there is something called dental calculus for which one had to go to another page.
  3. Taj Mahal- at the end of a very long article on Tajmahal, the monument, there was a single sentence that said that there is also a blues singer by the same name.

People thus seem to try to
[a]fit in their meaning within the narrative of the first meaning[as in 1]
[b]add it at beginning of page[as in 2]
[c]add it at end of page[as in 3]
This does not seem to be an adequate way to deal with the situation which is likely to arise in many instances. Sometimes it gives an absurd effect. So why not have a system by which we have separate pages that can be named as Calculus[1], [2], Architecture[1], [2] etc., as in a dictionary. This way, we do justice to both -not dilute the effect of the stronger one nor relegate the weaker one to discovery by chance. This is not the same as having two pages on the same topic [ as in New Imperialism:-)]. The formation of a new page with a legitimately different meaning can be vetted by sysops or through vote. In such cases the search or go button can lead to a master page which lists- for eg- Architecture 1 and Architecture 2 giving links to each page. [In architecture the new meaning has long obscured the old one as any search in Google would reveal:-)]You could still do this in one page[ TOC?] but the effect may not be satisfactory- each meaning deserves its own page--KRS 18:59, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


The dental calculus thing is not good. However, in the Taj Mahal and Archiecture cases are valid according to current policy. We do separate if each definition is or deserves to be expanded. Otherwise, the stubs are placed together, or under a large article to eliminate the the prolific occurence of stubs. (See [Disambiguation]]) The policy is that once we can make it over one paragraph (de-stubbed), it can have its own article. Dictionaries can have as many stubs (aka, entries) as it likes, but we are an encyclopedia. Feel free to raise any more concerns. --Menchi 19:43, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disambiguation?
~ender 2003-08-17 13:26:MST
I am aware of the disambiguation technique. Just thought that it would be more professional when you have it like Architecture[1][2], Calculus[1][2], etc., instead of Architecture[ buildings], architecture [computers] calculus[maths] calculus[ dental] and so on. KRS 04:23, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


but then we'd have to remember numbers that have no connection to the subject. -- Tarquin 08:38, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, the idea is not to remember meaning 1 or 2 or 3, but just to type the word without any qualifying phrase which will lead to a master page that lists the different meanings in a serial order according to popularity of usage and also gives links to each detailed page[ The numbering is only for creating unique page names and not for searching or remembering] So you don't have to start any search by prequalifying a word/ phrase or prior knowledge of different usages.

Moreover, it will help in saving some admin time- many people seem to be helping in disambiguation. Even a link from a simple word such as 'English' had to be disambiguated [language vs nationality] by someone in a page I created. It boils down to this- everytime such a word comes in a new page, you have to keep disambiguating it after reading the context[ which is a waste of time and resources]

So for both the user and the altruistic Wikipedian, this approach might prove to be a good thing.---KRS 14:35, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

But the English case isn't the same as stub-collection case. English language and England have complete articles on their own already, so that page is completely disambiguation, not stub-collection. However, it is easier if I could just type [[English (1)|]] instead of [[English language|English]]. --Menchi 14:42, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)
So make a redirect from English (1) to English language. Job done. Martin 21:24, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
No, you don't have to type English[1] or English [language]. You just have to type English which will lead to a master page from which it would be obvious which meaning fits the context among the many listed KRS 14:48, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
How does that differ from the current disambiguation? --Menchi 14:52, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

The disambiguation has to be done everytime the phrase occurs within a particular context and is an automatic redirect[ helped by wikipedians]whereas if you use this master page approach, it wil take care of every single usage of the word- you just have to add meaning to the master page[ in case there are more meanings] you don't have to redirect every page that uses the word to its correct meaningKRS 15:04, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Again, how does that differ from the current disambiguation? Currently, you can link English or pitch and that will link to the disambiguation page. A later editor can insert the shortcut to pitch (music) so readers go directly to the correct page. Your system wouldn't allow the shortcut unless people linked ((pitch [1])) which is pretty ugly. -- Tarquin 22:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi KRS. Do you mean something like Taj Mahal/temp, every meaning is numbered. -wshun 22:38, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just read the disambiguation utility more thoroughly and followed the link to English that Tarquin had given. It seems that such a concept exists, but is not in use much or not correctly used.

What I mean is this- There is a disambiguation page on English, but actually it shouldn't be called a disambiguation page and doesn't need the postscript disambiguation .....blah, blah...It does not look nice, it feels like an excuse. There is usually no ambiguity for the human user only for the AI wikipedia, and if there is, then all the more important not to redirect but give all meanings. A page on English with its different meanings should be a legitimate page and whenever someone creates a link to the word English, it should point out to this master page and not get redirected manually for every unique context. People can take the trouble to choose the correct meaning among the many rather than Wikipedians 'spoon feeding' them the right one.

Probably it can be something like the Englishdisambiguation page without all postscripts in italics, without any automatic redirects, and users can choose the meaning they want

Engl1ish(1)- the people who reside in England
English(2)- the language which originated in..

Or it can be like Taj Mahal/temp by Wshun with neither a one word description nor a detailed one, but one sentence.

Tajmahal(1)- a monumental tomb in India built by the Mughal emperor Shahjahan
Tajmahal(2)- a blues singer

In each detailed/ unique page, the number can be in very small script if it looks ugly. Or if you device a system where you can make the number invisible in each individual page Tajmahal(invisible 1) then that would be excellent.

So you get

1] easy search without prequalification of phrase[ is thus better than a Google search]
2] No absurd mixing of meanings or trivialising important ones
3] easy admin KRS 04:25, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
There should be no disambiguation page and no xxx (yyy). Only xxx and possible subpage of the form xxx(invisible index), with the index generated automatically according to its position in xxx. Readers have to choose the correct meaning by themselves. Is this what you mean? -wshun 04:52, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Exactly!!KRS 05:09, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I can agree with having a disambiguation page that is simply named "English", or "Calculus", etc.; in fact, that's what we have in most cases, except where the meaning of a word (such as Calculus) is overwhelmingly in favor of a specific meaning (that is, it is not very ambiguous).

If you want, you can create a page Calculus (mathematics), so we can use Calculus as a disambiguation page. I fail to see how a numbering scheme will make anything easier on anyone; it'd be hard to decide what order of importance to use, and extremely confusing for editors who had to remember which numbers were which, especially when guessing at what the link should be (as you may know, experienced editors can often make educated guesses about what link to use to get to a desired article; asking them to remember "Calculus (dental)" makes more sense than asking them to remember whether it was "Calculus (3)" or "Calculus (4)". Or do I mis-understand your numbering proposal?)

Finally, some of what you mention - linking to the disambiguation page, instead of "spoon-feeding" the correct page, is precisely what we are trying to avoid. Almost always, the correct meaning is evident from context. If an article is about mathematics, and someone wants to check out the Calculus page, you don't want to divert them to a page which asks them "did you mean the mathematical one or the dental one?"

-- Wapcaplet 04:55, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


An encyclopedia should be objective and should give importance to both meanings of -say a word like calculus - but without diluting the more popular one. If you take the word calculus, obviously everyone will know that it relates to mathematics. But within an article on mathematics, if you get the word calculus and you redirect someone directly to the mathematical calculus, you are controlling the way in which someone gets knowledge- many times one learns by accident[ you might never learn that there is something called dental calculus]. In a dictionary or enclopedia, this is what happens precisely, you might start looking for the meaning/ expalnation for a word and find out things you haven't even dreamed of. Such an occurrence is impossible if you do automatic redirects. Also, who will get to see the disambiguation page at all if you keep redirecting everyone directly to what you think is the correct context?--KRS 05:23, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, provided the article at the unmodified term (Calculus, English, etc.) is the disambiguation page, anyone who searches for those terms (either on Wikipedia or Google or whatnot) is going to get the disambiguation page; they can then select which one they are interested in. When we do disambiguation links like Mercury (element), there is not any redirecting going on; the link is simply being changed to the one which is most appropriate in some context. I can see your point, that since unambiguous links keep the reader on the "straight and narrow path", so to speak, they may discourage some exploration, but the very nature of hyperlinking, to me, overwhelmingly makes up for it. Some have speculated that there may be a "six degrees of separation" kind of principle at work; you can get from any article to any other seeminly unrelated article, just by surfing the hyperlinks.
One of the situations in which disambiguation is most useful, I think, is in disambiguating multiple place-names. In an article about Ireland, for instance, Dublin is probably referring to the capital city, and not to Dublin, Ohio. Asking the viewer to manually disambiguate the link by first going to a Dublin disambiguation page, and then to the page they wanted, seems like an equal or greater amount of presumption about what the viewer wants. I don't know whether viewers would tend to prefer either "spoon-feeding" the related page, or giving them the option to check out Dublin, Ohio after they read about Ireland. Keep in mind that every link we insert into an article makes presumptions about whether the viewer will want to go there. They can always ignore the links. They can always search for "Calculus" to find out what other kinds of calculus there are. I think the system we have now makes the most sense. -- Wapcaplet 15:01, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree to some extent with you, but the assumption now is that a disambiguation page might come inbetween your search, but it could very well come at the beginning. So when I search for 'calculus' or 'Dublin', I would not like the first page I get to say ' This is a disambiguation page... if you have come to this.....'and so on. That would kind of negate the whole concept of an encyclopedia.KRS 16:05, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am confused, then... if someone searches for "calculus", what should they get, if not a disambiguation page, or some other form of result that essentially tells them "there are lots of different kinds of calculus"? -- Wapcaplet 18:20, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I feel that they should get either
a] a page with all the meanings for the word calculus and for detailed explanation, links to separate pages without the disambiguation italics[I typed English and got the four meanings of the word with the disambiguation clause]
or
b] a page with all the explanations when the info is lessKRS 14:17, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think that a link to disambiguation page, or a brief discussion of different meanings at the top is enough. See function, for example. wshun 20:22, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yes but in function, the page is 99% owned by the mathematical function, but ironically the first two explanations are for some other functions. Either expand all meanings or none.

What I trying to say is that each page seems to have an adhoc solution and there is no standard format to expect. If the disambiguation clause is not visible then it would be good.Can't you have stages of redirects on ordinary pages, is the disambiguation page the only place that this can occur? KRS 14:17, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Heh. Well, almost everything on Wikipedia is ad-hoc. It's just the nature of the beast, I think. I would agree, the disambiguation clause is not very encyclopedic, but I think it should be there, because it helps contributors (and readers who might become contributors) to know that there may be some work to do. It's similar to the other boilerplate text we use for things like stubs, spoilers, and what-not. It's a form of meta-information; it's not really part of the article, but it tells us something about the article. There are probably better ways of implementing such meta-information, but so far this method has worked pretty well. Someday, if there is demand for it, we could maybe have user preferences control whether you see such meta-info, but it's easy enough to ignore it, especially if you are just temporarily looking at a disambiguation page in the process of going to one of the actual articles.

As for function, and ones like it, where a single definition is overwhelmingly assumed, I think one of the reasons we don't have a separate disambiguation page is that it potentially creates a lot more work for those who are doing disambiguation of links. If we had to manually disambiguate all the links that go there, it'd be lots of extra work. Since most of the time, "function" means the mathematical function, it makes sense for the link to go there directly, rather than having a disambiguation page at function, and an article about mathematical functions at mathematical function or some such. The few times when another meaning is intended, we can manually disambiguate them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "stages of redirects"... could you explain?

Having all of the descriptions on a single page often works well for short definitions, but many times a subject becomes important enough (and lengthy enough) to get its own article, at which point we're left with a disambiguation page and a bunch of separate articles.

-- Wapcaplet 20:06, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, the necessity of an intro page is a must for an objective encycopedia. This is precisely why there is a major argument going on in Creationism[ Check it out]. All this is a waste of time and money and energy, not to mention so much untruth/ disinformation. And secondly if we have an intro page, then it should not be like a disambiguation page because of the manual disambiguation problem/ waste of time which you have mentioned now and which I pointed out earlier. KRS 18:27, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I haven't followed the discussion over the Creationism article much; it looks like the problem there is differing perspectives on the meaning of the word. For a situation like that, we'd want to cover each perspective in some way, either within the same article or with several separate articles, if they are warranted (though I'm not interested in getting involved in that debate :-). However, that is not the same as disambiguating between some number of essentially unrelated topics which happen to have the same name (like the various kinds of calculus, or functions, or different meanings of the word "English").

Just to bring this issue back into mainstream discussion, the problems in the Creationism page constitute another set of excellent demonstrations [though for different reasons than the one I had pointed out]for the necessity of a master page concept with all definitions of any word/ phrase. In the above instance there are two sets of ongoing tussles -one between the generic meaning and the specific meaning, another between the historical meaning and the current meaning. I have seen all four viewpoints represented in the past one day, and there is no way in which they can be reconciled in a long article. An essay connecting all these has to necessarily have a structure which should be individual effort at consolidation, albeit from a neutral viewpoint ; and I don't think it is possible for this to happen in a collective effort with inflamed debates(see talk page).Wikipedia should offer a platform for all legitimate meanings- I am just taking at face value the claim to legitimacy of the viewpoints of the different participants--KRS 18:45, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


How is disambiguation a waste of time? I think it's worthwhile to help tidy up links that would otherwise go to a disambiguation page. It makes Wikipedia easier to navigate when links just go where they ought to, rather than taking the reader on an unnecessary detour. -- Wapcaplet 01:22, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

After taking a quick look at creationism I can only say that I prefer not to get involved. If a definition is to provide an overall understanding of what the term, that definition should be broadly based to cover all reasonably possible meanings. That lot has gone ahead and based the definition solely on how the term is understood in a Judaeo-Christian context. That whole article is a tar pit where otherwise reasonable people can get stuck. ☮ Eclecticology 07:41, 2003 Aug 22 (UTC)

From the village pump

I've noticed that there are pages on Wikipedia that are articles that include, sometimes at the top, but usually way down at the bottom, alternative "definitions" of the article name. These pages are not disambiguation pages because the common use of the word is overwhelmingly the one most people would be seeking. Nonetheless, the alternative word use, separated by a 4-dash line, is sometimes completely lost below the main article. Some Wikipedians solve this problem by putting a one line link to the alternative at the very top, but this is a distraction. I've set up a sidebar box under Elm as a proposed alternative for these situations. As long as the alternatives link out (do not expand on page into another article), this would seem to separate the links from the article text while affording them a bit more visibility. Any comments? - Marshman 18:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's fine in IE6, but the whole page is squashed up in Mozilla. It seems to work in both if you put the table in a div. Angela 19:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

<div style="float:right; padding:10px;"><table style="float:right" border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"> <tr> <td>'''Elm''' is also a text-based [[E-mail]] client. See [[Elm email client]]. </td> </tr> </table></div>

Thanks Angela. Someone fixed it so -- Marshman

Move in discussion from my talk page on this subject. I can move it all back later; but better exposure/participation here I think

sorry but the floating sidebar on elm is no good -- most screens are simply not wide enough to support it. -- Tarquin 18:53, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I realize that I have a high resolution screen and therefore will not encounter that problem. But how does the other sidebar on that page not cause an identical problem? The sidebar I suggest (as presented at Elm) is right justified and will expand as far left as needed to accomodate text. Use of <BR> can control that to keep it from filling across screen. - Marshman 19:00, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


it's best to use tables as little as possible; as for the line, I don't really see how right-aligning it is any better. It's only an extra formatting convention we would now have to replicate throughout wikipedia, and it's ugly markup that confuses the novce editor. Simple is best, in my opinion -- Tarquin 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If we do not use table formatting as you suggest, I think a standard <DIV> "right" format with bullets or similar at the top would still be preferable to the current practice of dividing lines and bottom billing for these minor alternatives. Of course a disambiguation page is a better solution, but obviously needs to be used only where there is a clear need to split articles. The problem with the bottom billing once the lead artyicle gets large is that a person looking for the minor word use is not going to scroll down through the text he is not interested in (human nature). - Marshman 19:36, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree that bottom billing is no good, but I think right-align is needless clutter -- Tarquin 19:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
At least in IE6, if you have the standard wikipedia sidebar set to right hand side, it overlays the "disambiguation sidebar", no matter what the window width is. This is very ugly. DrBob 23:22, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
How about this? Why not use colour for a change? CGS 20:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC).
Hmmmm. I can see (in edit) you added gray, but does not look like anything different in my IE6. I'm trying to run a line between having the "secondary" or minor term be right up front (a distraction for most users) and being hidden on the bottom (unnoticeable by the few actually looking for it). At present only top-mounted side-bar box or similar shifted right seems suitable, despite Tarquin objection that this complicates formatting. Eliminating the box simplies formatting a bit, and maybe color is an answer. But shifting right seems necessary to get it separated from main text. - Marshman 22:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The English spelling of grey was used which seems to be accepted by Mozilla but ignored by IE. I changed it to #C0C0C0 which will be recognised by both. This might be a bit too light though. Angela 22:58, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is needless HTML clutter for no good reason. please remove it -- Tarquin 23:14, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Tarquin. Please avoid HTML whenever possible until we have a template system, it makes pages harder to edit for newbies.—Eloquence 00:10, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

At the bottom is not hidden, hence not a problem, as long as it is in the TOC. - Patrick 00:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'd prefer it at the top. It's clear enough why it is there that it is not going to confuse people wanting info on trees. Not all pages that this applies to have a TOC and a quick glimpse at the article would suggest that it is about trees so people aren't going to scroll down just in case there is an unrelated topic at the bottom. I agree with Tarquin and Eloquence about the HTML issue. It's more trouble than it's worth. Angela 00:24, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See also: WikiEN-l: hrs after disambig paragraph?

Pro-Active Disambiguation?

If, in the course of events, you come across two different uses of the same word, both of which are wiki-linked, does it make sense to pro-actively create a disambiguation page? The result would be a disambig page with no unbroken links out of it. This would hide, on the pages with the original links, the fact that the articles for those links do not exist.

-Anthropos 00:59, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
My opinion is that yes, this would be acceptable. And it doesn't need to hide the emptiness of the links, since after the disambiguation page has been made, you can change the links on the original page (or you can contact me and have Robbot do it for you). Andre Engels 09:58, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes perfect sense! -Anthropos 13:26, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Proposed changes to policy

Please see this message for a proposed change/clarification to the policy, specifically the recommendations:

  • Disambiguation pages should link only to pages that actually exist - otherwise, if the subject is worth describing, it should get a brief description on the disambiguation page.
  • Disambiguation pages should only link to pages where there is a substantial risk of confusion with the actual page title.

Please comment here or on the list if you have any objection to these changes.—Eloquence

It seems to me that the first point says that any article not currently written and so linkable is not worthy of being written. I don't think you mean that. I also don't know why we shouldn't add links that we know will get articles at some point. Rmhermen 20:49, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
What I mean is that disambiguation pages serve a very specific purpose: Aggregate links to pages with the same title, but different meanings. Optimally, a visitor should only spend a couple of seconds on a disambig page. Such pages are not really content pages or indices, but very temporary gateways that might also be implemented in a completely different fashion. Their purpose is not helped by having lots of links to articles that might some day be written; in fact, that makes it more difficult to actually find the pages within Wikipedia that you're looking for.
We should of course add links to articles that are worth creating wherever they are on topic. We just shouldn't add them to disambiguation pages -- that's not their purpose. These red links also don't help editors since anyone creating a page with the same title will inevitably have to deal with the disambiguation anyway (i.e. it's virtually impossible to forget adding it to the list).—Eloquence
I disagree. Strongly. If the link is on the disambiguation page, we can change the linking pages to that link. If you do not, we either have to keep them linked to the disambiguation page, or we run the risk of creating several different titles, and later several different pages. These links do serve an important function in my opinion: They show how to disambiguate the meaning, making sure that they're always disambiguated the same. Andre Engels 17:50, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure if Forest (disambiguation) or Arnold are good examples. Crystal_Lake, Stein or Saint George (disambiguation) seem to be closer to the usual way. For the later series, I think it's an advantage that they list places that don't actually have articles yet.
As for TLA it had previously been agreed that they are to be disambiguatated beforehand. I think this is reasonble. There are just too many versions. TLA is three letters (or two), not four.
-- User:Docu

I have used red links on disambiguation pages before, and find them very useful in the following case:

There are 100 links to some page X. 60 of them are in the sense of X (maths). 40 of them are in the sense of X (sociology). The current page on X only deals with the mathematical term. Therefore I move the contents of X to X (maths), and change X into a disambiguation page linking to X (maths) (blue) and X (sociology) (red). Then I change all the inbound links to X to point to the correct page. This seems to work well, so I would prefer it not to be forbidden.

If the problem is that some disambiguation pages are cluttered up with junk, just put the most important target pages at the top, then add a para-break and write "you might conceivably have meant:" and have the junk. That way everyone will be happy: both the target-orientated and those using Wikipedia in a less focused manner. Martin 14:52, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moved here:

You may want to add a link to List_of_people_by_name:_Ti-tle.

I don't think that's a good idea. This moves us further away from the disambiguation purpose and closer to the search index purpose. If people want to know who is named X, they should enter "X" and click "search".—Eloquence

RE: List of people by name: I'm not sure how many pages there are listing people of the same name, but I tend to think that List of people by name isn't used as much as it could. Obviously, it's only recently that it had been expanded [and once there is a way to build them automatically, everyone would want to use it ;-) ].
If you think it will be used anyway, maybe we don't need the link. -- User:Docu
I think disambig pages are the wrong place to advertise it. I've personally never used it even though I know that it exists. If I look for a person I'd rather simply search for that person's name. If I don't know the name, but the profession, the generic list is the wrong place to look. If I'm unsure about the spelling, I usually try Google's spellchecker or check for a redirect. When do you think people should use that list?—Eloquence 13:28, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
If it's incomplete, one wont. In cases where one isn't sure about the exact name .. but one is better served with a working search engine (even better, if one could limit the selection to biographies) and articles like Strauss or John (name) could simply drop the disambiguation notice. -- User:Docu
Lol, just two minutes ago Strauss used to be a short list [1] -- User:Docu

It's not grafitti. Did you follow the link?168... 05:58, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Xxxx (disambiguation) pages and msg:disambig

The folowing is from Talk:Mosaic (disambiguation) about the edit war on this page.

"not required" is not the same as "forbidden". Every disambiguation page with (disambigution) I've seen elsewhere has a disambiguation msg: at the bottom, it seems to be pretty standard to include them. Bryan 03:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Do you guys ever read what you write? msg:disambig states:
This is a disambiguation page; that is, one that points to other pages that might otherwise have the same name. If you followed a link here, you might want to go back and fix that link to point to the appropriate specific page.
Now tell me, did you ever "follow the link here"? If you've seen something somewhere, that doesn't necessarily mean it was correct. Mikkalai 03:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Then the message is probably wrong. We are merely following the convention. See Chicago (disambiguation). -- Taku 03:45, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Quite. Ideally a disambiguation page will be linked to only by Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages (or one of its related equivalents) and not by any other articles, since the idea is to change all the links to a disambiguation page to go straight to the topic they should be going to. So the text of the notice is only meant to be viewed when something goes wrong and a link does go to the disambiguation page instead of where it's supposed to. Bryan 03:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You guys better read A Canticle for Leibowitz. You've lost the idea what disambig page is about and talk about "standard", "convention". Don't you see a contradiction between the two following phrases?
and
  • Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages: If you must link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to a redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)", e.g. America (disambiguation). This helps in distinguishing accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones.
Mikkalai 07:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I urge the "fathers-founders" to resolve the issue.
So far some "Xxxx(disambiguation)" pages contan msg:disambig, some not. May be different message for those? Mikkalai 07:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can't believe you're actually willing to get involved in an edit war over this. Ah well. As far as I'm concerned if it's a disambiguation page it should have {{msg:disambig}} at the bottom; it makes things nice and unambiguous. Bryan 08:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That's exactly what is not: it does create ambiguity, see above.
This is not the matter of my POV, this is a matter of *logical contradiction*, to be resolved. For all I care, you may request to put messages on top, bottom, and in a sidebar, if it will be proven logical. Mikkalai 08:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
if you followed a link here, you might want to go back and fix that link (Emphasis added). I don't see how this introduces a logical contradiction, it's not like all links must be changed. It's not an ideal world. Bryan 08:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
RTFM. Links to "Xxxx(disambiguation)" are intentional. With an exception of a random error; but errors can be anywhere, and you sure will not be going to supply every page with a msg:bug: "If you find a typo on this page, you might want to fix it thank you". Mikkalai 17:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For those who are lazy to read manual: "plain disambig" pages are intended to trap links created without thinking much or not knowing that a word may have several meanings. Hence msg:disambig in them. "Xxxx(disambiguation)" evidently cannot do this. Hence they need another kind, explanatory message. Mikkalai 17:38, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. They just need the disambiguation message without the second sentence. Stewart Adcock 18:13, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Stuart's right. Just think of a good name for an alternative Mediawiki message that doesn't include the bit about fixing the links, and use that on all [[xxx (disambiguation)]] pages. I'd make one, but i can't think what to call it. :) Angela. 20:02, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
I found that message to be useful to me when I got started, and it continues to be a useful reminder to me. If I'm interpreting all of the discussion correctly, it sounds like we need 2 msgs: One without the "fix the link" part for pages whose titles are *explicitly* "Topic (disambiguation)" and one with the 2nd part for pages whose titles are simply "Topic". In the latter case, rather than remove the 2nd sentence, how about "If you followed a link that was redirected to this page, you might want to etc. etc." ? Elf 21:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That's the the whole issue (and still more confusion)! If you followed the link to a page named "XXX (disambiguation)", you better *not* want to etc., etc. And if you followed to the page named simply "XXX", then you do need to see the second sentence. Mikkalai 02:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
One of the nice things about MediaWiki messages is that when you edit them, all the pages using them update without effort. Perhaps the solution is to provide a slightly more extensive explanation of what disambiguation pages are all about, so that readers will be better able to figure out for themselves whether the link they followed needs updating. Bryan 06:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Annoying question: when will the Wikipedia: Disambiguation pages with links page be updated? I'd prefer this were a dynamic page, but even frequent update would be nicer. I find it discouraging when I dab pages and this page doesn't update. Derrick Coetzee 23:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. It would be good if it were automatic, but for now we will just have to continue removing done pages by hand and renewing the list every now and then. I'll try and update more regularly though -- sannse (talk) 22:01, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Languages

Thanks for the update, Sannse. Also, I've noticed that an overwhelming number of ambiguous links (many hundreds, if not thousands) seem to be to languages/nationalities such as Hebrew, German, English, Japanese, French, and so on, including some especially esoteric ones. I covered English the other day, and while I was at it I ran into and corrected a large number of other such links.

So the question is, should we take some proactive effort to remind editors to use "language" after a language link, or to link to countries for nationalities? Or is the process we have now the most desirable one? For that matter, is linking to countries for nationalities the right thing to do?

Derrick Coetzee 03:10, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that linking to countries for nationalities is the right thing. I don't see the value in lots of articles on [[English (nationality)]] and [[French (nationality)]] which would probably be the alternative, and that wouldn't solve the disambiguation problem either. The thing is that this is a classic case where the word is as likely to have one meaning as the other. It's not a case where there is a primary meaning to link to. So I can't see an alternative to the current method of fixing links but if you can think of one I'd be interested to hear it.
Correcting the links does go some way to reminding (or informing) users of the way to link to languages/nationalities - I've had a few people comment that they would do the links the right way in future once they saw me fixing them. But a polite note wouldn't hurt any time you see someone making the mistake too often. On more general terms I'm not sure how you would best remind people. What sort of thing were you thinking of? A general message somewhere? There are lots of these small conventions, its difficult to find a way of getting them known without overloading people with rules.
-- sannse (talk) 16:29, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I'd suggest something more interesting: a software-based approach. Whenever they place links to disambiguation pages on a page and save it, the software can list them and say "you might want to disambiguate these links". Nothing forced, but it'd be handy.
If you think this is a good idea, who would I talk to about it?
Derrick Coetzee 17:57, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think it's a very good idea, but have no idea whether it's feasable. Feature requests can be made at SourceForge or have a look at m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion on Meta. But the developers are generally very busy and are all volunteers with their own pet projects, so new requests are not often taken up. Of course, if you have the ability to work on the feature yourself....
--sannse (talk) 20:05, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Disambig clarification

I'm a little unclear about the different kinds of disambiguation. The page talks about a kind of disambiguation : "Several small articles of just a paragraph or so each can co-exist on a single page, separated by headings."

I according gave the disambig notice on the page Bharata, but the notice was removed saying the page is not a disambig page. Jay 16:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The disambig notice doesn't really make sense for that sort of page - Bharata doesn't just point to other pages, it actually has the articles on that page. And similarly there is no need to fix links to that page, so that part of the notice makes no sense either. Rather than a disambiguation page Bharata is better thought of as a page containing two articles. IMO it's right not to put any notice on this type of page. If the articles develop and need splitting, then Bharata (or [[Bharata (disambiguation)]]) would need to be a disambiguation page with the relevant notice. -- sannse (talk) 17:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
So a disambig page is one where there is 1 or more links from the page to other pages which are connected by the same title. Hence the Bharata page is not a disambig page, since there is no linking involved although there is "disambiguating" involved. In which case why does the first point of "Types of disambiguation " say "'Several small articles of just a paragraph or so each can co-exist on a single page, separated by headings." Jay 14:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the line from the section of types of disambiguation. Jay 09:44, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's still a type of disambiguation, it's just not a disambiguation page with a notice. Thus, I'd keep the previous wording of the section.
Even if you have a page like Thal, it's conceivable, even helpfull, to link to the page only through redirects named after the likely pages this will split up. -- User:Docu

Can we have a link to an example of type A disambig? --Dupes 13:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Misspellings

"Misspellings can be listed in a separate section 'Common misspellings' or 'see also'."

It seems this is rarely followed. In fact, a revert war at antinomy shows that it is highly controversial. It certainly doesn't appear to have consensus. That's why I removed the sentence. Anthony DiPierro 05:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Antinomy is not a disambiguation page! The "common misspellings" policy is applicable only to disambiguation pages.—Eloquence 05:38, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought Antinomy was "primary topic" disambiguation. However, now that you mention that I guess I've just misread this. How about this? Anthony DiPierro 05:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Links to misspellings should not be added when no other disambiguation takes place."

OK, that is definitely not followed. Forget antimony. Now we're talking about a whole lot of pages. Anthony DiPierro 05:56, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, that is my position. Wikipedia is not a dictionary etc. If there's significant dissent about this, we should probably hold a poll about it.—Eloquence 05:58, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Well, since I agree with it, I guess I won't revert it personally... But I'm starting to wish I never agreed not to revert John Edwards. Anthony DiPierro 06:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, hmm, maybe that one falls under "other disambiguation" though. Anthony DiPierro 06:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Links to common spellings should be included in exactly the same way as if they were disambiguating a page of the same title, as they have always been. If someone goes to Antinomy when they were looking for Antimony, what is wrong with having a link at the end pointing them to the right page? How is this any different from other disambiguations where people are pointed to the right page? This looks like trying to change the policy just to support Anthony's edit war. Is there any support whatsoever for this change? Angela. 21:50, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

This is a Pandora's box. There is a near limitless amount of "possible misspellings" that could be added to almost any article with a short title. Cat is a possible misspelling of CAD. Bart is a possible misspelling of bard. And so on, and so forth. At the very least we should define some criteria for when listing misspellings is allowed, and "only when other disambiguation takes place" seems like a reasonable criterion to avoid cluttering a potentially near limitless set of articles with ugly spelling notices. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a spelling guide, and Wikipedia articles are not search indexes. Such notices should only be added when they are truly helpful, when they cross the line from being helpful to being annoying they should be removed. Having a clear policy here prevents edit wars and endless disputes, because when something is annoying is obviously a matter of taste.—Eloquence 22:02, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

You're accusing eloquence of changing policy to support my edit war? Which edit war would be this be, anyway? Was there even an edit war I was having which this supported which was started before it was changed? anthony 21:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There was no policy that said alternate spellings were not allowed to mentioned on non-disambiguation pages in the past. I don't see why we need one now. Why remove useful information? If there is a dispute over whether a particular link is needed, that can be discussed on the talk page. There is no need for a policy that automatically rules out all of them without taking into account that some of these are going to be highly useful. Angela. 22:10, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
I'd say that in the few cases where misspellings are highly common, they can be easily worked into the article itself ("not to be confused with .."), without violating the proposed policy.—Eloquence
I'd rather it was mentioned at the end rather than in the article itself as it is less intrusive. Angela. 22:19, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
That's the whole point. We forbid listing misspellings in most cases, and in the few situations where a msp is so common that it should definitely be listed, we only allow for an intrusive option, so that there will logically be a negative reaction if the msp is not indeed common enough to justify such an addition.—Eloquence 22:25, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
The whole point is to get a negative reaction? I really can't see what is wrong with having something useful added in a non-intrusive way at the end of an article. It could be in the article itself, but as you said, this is more likely to be opposed, so why not compromise and have it at the end of the page? If it really isn't worthy of being there at all, it should be removed, and if it definitely should be there, it can be in the main article, but for cases like antimony, where it is under dispute, the compromise option can be made. Angela. 22:36, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
Please re-read my longer comment above; my argument is that in many cases, the misspelling list distracts from the content of the article. Without a clear definition we will also argue endlessly about what is and is not acceptable. So we should minimize these listings, by only allowing them when other disambiguation takes place, or, in really important cases, inline in the regular article, where anything that goes beyond what is absolutely necessary will be quickly removed.—Eloquence
So a compromise option is not available? I will not support a policy that prevents spellings being listed at the end as a compromise option when adding it inline is unacceptable, but it is felt by most people the link is needed. Angela. 22:48, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
The inline listing is the compromise option. I will not support the current policy, so it seems that either one is unacceptable per consensus. Want to vote on it?—Eloquence
Arrrgh! No. There are way too many votes going on right now. We need to avoid voter fatigue. I'd rather not have a policy on it at all and let individual articles decide the best course of action. I don't believe it is a situation where one rule can be applied globally. Angela. 10:25, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

In any case, all of this should be clarified and standardised on this page. I really don't care how we do it, as long as we do it consistently. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 22:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Format for places

For place names where many places share the same name, the use of a bulleted lit approaches the ridiculous. See Washington (disambiguation) for an example. I've tried somthing a little different at Ashland. Does this style make more sense. If there are objections we can revert Ashland to my -1 version. Suggestioins for improvement are welcome (or just edit the page). Comment here or at my talk page, thanks, Lou I 05:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) Talk

Counties should not be listed on the main disambiguation page, see policy. Take a look at Washington (disambiguation) now, it should be much cleaner. I don't like the variant at Ashland because it's now non-obvious where the links lead. I prefer it if readers can learn our various disambiguation techniques by reading the disambiguation pages, so I use a minimum of pipe-links.—Eloquence 06:10, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Eloquence, I do think that Washington looks better. Thanks. When there are a lot of Counties (Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Etc.) I agree with removing them to a separate list. But when there are only one or two I prefer to see them inline. Of course, even two justify a separate (redundant?) disambiguation page. Wouldn't the same argument apply to moving townships off pages like Washington? Lou I 21:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
To a limited extent -- see the policy page. The greater the risk of confusion the more justifiable it is to list the links on the main disambiguation page. Arguably, it is more common to refer to a township with just its short name than to a county.—Eloquence 01:42, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

The film of the book

When a book is adapted into a film should there be one article for the book and one for the film? Sometimes on Wikipedia theres one page for the film and one for the book (Trainspotting (movie) and Trainspotting (novel)). Sometimes there both covered in the same article (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). Is there a policy on this? My own personal view is that they should be in the same article unless theres a very big difference between them (although I admit that thats a very subjective question). Saul Taylor 06:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that. It of course depends on how faithful the film is to the book, and if differences can be addressed without taking over the entire article. — Jor (Talk) 12:31, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It also depends on the length and level of detail. If the article gets longer than 30K, it should be split by book/movie.--Eloquence* 10:06, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
My view is that they should be split, and the commonalities moved to whichever came first, unless one of the pages would be just a stub or less. That's pretty much in agreement with the above, except I think it puts a slightly more objective view. It also addresses more than just differences. For instance, if the book and movie based on it are virtually identical, but the movie contains lots of non-plot-related discussion, I think splitting would be appropriate. anthony (see warning) 12:17, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Top or bottom?

I always thought the disambig message belonged at the top. That is where I typically see it and where I put it when I make a disambiuation page. But today, I came across a page Granada where someone moved the notice to the bottom. I moved it back to the top and left a somewhat imperious edit note about the usual placement. Then, coincidentally, I happened to notice discussion on Truth where someone moved the notice to the bottom and claimed that was the standard. So I thought I had better check it out, since I had not reviewed this page carefully recently and may have made an unwarranted assumption based on all the other disambiguation pages I have noticed.

So I see that currently the policy does indeed state that the {{msg:disambig}} should go at the bottom of a disambiguation article; while a shorter notice can be placed at the beginning of an article about the most prominent meaning of a term.

I saw in the diffs for this page that this change was made relatively recently (around March 2). But I couldn't find any discussion about this. Did I simply miss the discussion? Is this actually recommended practice now (there are so many pages with the notice at the top, I find this hard to believe)? And specifically, even if the {{msg:disambig}} should go at the bottom, in the specific cases of Granada and Truth, since those are short notices in actual articles (rather than disambiguation pages), should the notice be placed at the top. Does it make much of a difference one way or the other? Like I said, I prefer it at the top, but I'm not going to get militant about it. Bkonrad | Talk 19:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think I may be delusional. I am completely confusing the short notice that goes at the top of a normal article that may have other meanings with the {{msg:disambig}} which should go at the bottom. I don't recall seeing that at the top of an article and agree that that should go at the end. And the other type, the short notice, that should go at the top, right? Sorry about the confusion. Bkonrad | Talk 19:37, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question

from village pump

If an article says something like "in the film version of The Wizard of Oz", should the link be disambigged to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz or The Wizard of Oz (1939 movie)? The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is technically what the article is talking about, but most users would probably want The Wizard of Oz (1939 movie). Eurleif 01:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

This one gets my vote; if they wish to pursue the novel, a link will be found on that page.
  • Or leave it as it is and let readers choose which article they prefer to pursue... Formerly the article about the book was on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and all links to The Wizard of Oz lead to the movie article. Seeing as the title of the book has also been shortened in most editions since 1913, and that several wiki links seemed to be referring to the book but sending to the movie page, I thought it necessary to disambig. I may not have done this in the optimal way, though right now I can't think of a better way to disambiguate. --Woggly 13:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_4&oldid=1137409533"