Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

top/common ordering as a matter of style vs. navigation efficiency

I've noticed a few cases recently where MOS:DABCOMMON formatting was a bit of an issue:

• Talk:IPA#clickstreams data - whether to sort items by reader interest etc
• Talk:Charlotte#post-move - whether to include some items and whether to make a section heading for the top list
• Talk:Cell#common section at the top + Talk:Cell (biology)#Requested move 13 July 2024 - whether to include more than one item in the top list, whether the formatting of the top section affected the clickthrough rates etc
• Talk:King Charles#followup to move discussion - whether a volume of clicks inside the first section is readers missing the single-item common list above
• Talk:The Sun (disambiguation)#followup to move discussion - whether the top link inside the sentence was good enough

Several of the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 44 have been about ordering, too. The search of talk page archives here brings up a lot of discussions on ordering as well. Maybe we need to ponder this matter more coherently.

It seems to me that we should move the part of the style guideline that affects the top of a disambiguation page into the main guideline here, because this doesn't seem to be a matter of just style per se, rather it might be making a significant impact on ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily. --Joy (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that advantage of having a common uses group at the top is always clear-cut. It can result in slowing navigation if readers jump to the relevant section expecting to find the specific item listed there only to have to look back up to the top. This is similar to what can happen with a primary topic as well and raises question of whether such entries should be duplicated within the appropriate section as well as at the top. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we should actually list the common items in both places. If the list is already relatively long, duplicating a couple of popular items shouldn't lengthen it unreasonably, and we hopefully catch most of those cases. --Joy (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That and also with relatively short pages, it may be unnecessary or even counter-productive to try to pull out a couple. older ≠ wiser 17:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Because of so much possible variety, we'd have to test on specific examples. For example, is it 1 common 20 uncommon, or 2 : 20, or 1 : 10, or 3 : 10, and then the varying levels of how common each of the common ones is, etc. --Joy (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like we found a case of such a relatively short page - at Deadlock, most of the common entries were in Other uses, and @Zxcvbnm removed them. --Joy (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems reasonable as two of the duplicates were in "Other uses" section and the third was in weakly coherent "Politics and law" section that had only remaining entry merged into other uses. It's a bit odd that impasse remains duplicated in the see also section. older ≠ wiser 11:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, at King Charles, adding a duplicate listing in the appropriate section immediately below the top listing looks to have been helpful to at least half the readers who missed the top listing before, per two monthly measurements afterwards. --Joy (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization of a disambiguation page title with both all-caps and lowercase senses

I seem to recall that there is a rule that if a disambiguation page has both all-caps and lowercase senses, then the title of the page should be at the lowercase title, if that is available. In particular, I am thinking of LOR (for which many Lor senses exist). Lor currently redirects to LOR. I am not asking for a page move here, but for where the rule on this can be found. If there is no rule on this, where should one be put? BD2412 T 01:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is two of the bullets under WP:DABNAME:

• A word is preferred to an abbreviation, for example Arm (disambiguation) over ARM.
• The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives.

Those can sometimes be contradictory, but it's probably best to hash those out on a case-by-case basis. Station1 (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The real question here is do we have to account for this merge in the first place? If you see distinct usage patterns based on capitalization, and if it would make navigation more efficient if the reader didn't have to wade through both lists together, they should simply be split up, as this guideline is not actually consistently applied in the first place, cf. Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 56#WP:DABCOMBINE not actually with organic consensus in the acronym space.

In my browser, I have to do PgDn twice already to browse that list, so if that can be two lists of Lor and LOR and if these would be more straightforward, that would actually make more sense. The idea of merging is valid where we believe there's a huge amount of traffic of people e.g. typing in "lor" but wanting "LOR". If these could be served with a link to LOR visible on the first page without scrolling, that seems better than forcing the readers to go through two pages of a more complex list on every visit. And, it would become measurable, we could see in the statistics how many readers needed to do that. --Joy (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

... as this guideline is not actually consistently applied in the first place ...: It is a guideline, until it is modifed or removed. Until then, it's unclear if other examples are WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:IAR.—Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the WP:DABCOMBINE guideline is only useful if it actually makes sense. The current text is just too broad:

Terms that differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks. These should almost always share a disambiguation page.

This just says 'terms', but it doesn't have to be that generic: for example, Mediawiki forces us to combine arm and Arm, but it doesn't force us to combine Arm and ARM. If we have 9 known meanings of Arm, 3 known meanings of both Arm/arm and ARM not because of laziness in typing (company, software, language), and 34 known meanings of ARM, it's neither trivial nor obvious to just advise these almost always need to be one list of 46 items, and we should not guide people towards that solution in such strong terms.

This guideline sounds like it was written only for short, more trivial use cases, and I sincerely doubt that anybody ever checked if it was actually battle-tested by analyzing its outcomes. We should change it to be less strong. --Joy (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Joy: I have seen much longer "merged" pages, and would be concerned that some people searching for "LOR" will not bother to capitalize when typing the letters into the search box. BD2412 T 17:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

In the case of long pages, that can be handled by adding, for example, "LOR (disambiguation)" to See Also, or even adding it as a hatnote if See Also is really far down the page. Even with merged pages I think it's easier for readers to find what they're looking for if the Lors and LORs are split into separate sections. Station1 (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning up INCDAB

I've been going through Category:Disambiguation pages with (qualified) titles and cleaned up all the straight-forward cases, but I am not sure if my "solution" for the past few incdabs were going to far (and that I should self-revert them). Specifically, I created {{anchor}}s in list sections within articles (which are neither dab pages nor lists, as mentioned in WP:INCDAB) where the former incdabs now redirect.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X_Factor_(Russian_TV_series)&redirect=no
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_(French_TV_series)&oldid=1245182870
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_(Korea)&oldid=1245184372

The navigational/dab value is still intact, but I figure there might be problems with Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links down the line. Opinions? – sgeureka ^t•c 14:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Additional comment I figure, at least in the case of Ministry of foreign affairs#Lists of current ministries of foreign affairs, one could add {{setindex}} at the bottom of the list section and leave it to run-by editors to fix incoming bad links. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding confusing or astonishing readers

WP:D says in the lead:

[An important aspect to disambiguation is] ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be.

I'd like to compare that to WP:CONS, which says:

The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible.

Using that kind of a standard, I'd say we should make it an explicit aim of disambiguation (or more generally, navigation) to make sure we confuse or astonish as few readers as possible.

This would be aimed at helping balance the two major primary topic criteria and in general reinforce the idea of double-checking whether there is a primary topic at all. So, for example,

• if there's very popular topics for a term, but they don't necessarily have long-term significance, we remind people to ponder if the average reader would be confused or astonished to see us 'push' one of these popular topics rather than present the ambiguity

Conversely,

• if there's no particularly popular topics, but there are topics of long-term significance, we remind people to ponder if the average reader would be confused or astonished to see us 'promote' one of these significant topics rather than present the ambiguity

Often times in requested move discussions I notice people can be keen to just pick a topic as primary and be done with it, regardless of whether we have a sound analysis of the big picture - whether we can actually tell how big is the advantage of the most popular/important topic over the others. Too often we're just spitballing it, deciding based on personal biases. The guideline should do more to try to counteract that.

The current guideline text covers reader confusion and astonishment in a few places, notably:

To be clear, it is not our goal to astonish our readers, and the topic that comes first to mind indeed often is suitable as the primary topic. Anne Hathaway, as one of countless examples, takes the reader to the modern-day American movie star's page, not to the article on the wife of William Shakespeare. But in no case do "what comes first to mind" or "what is astonishing" have much bearing, either positive or negative, on which topic, if any, actually is the primary topic.

I don't think this final sentence is actually helpful or leading to good navigation outcomes - leaving things open like that is not a good guideline. --Joy (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Location of self-reference tool templates {{srt}}, {{look from}}, {{intitle}}

These templates help a lot with cutting down on non-essential WP:PARTIAL matches, but it's not really clear WHERE in the See also section they should appear. I always put them at the top because that's how I saw them first in Draw#See also about 15 years ago. But in recent times, I tend to see them (70%) as the very last thing in the See also section, below other XXX (disambiguation) and alternative-spellings. Is there a good reason to do it one way or the other, or deliberately leave it to the editor? – sgeureka ^t•c 12:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sgeureka: I would put them first, using the guideline at MOS:DABSEEALSO. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

followup to how page views can change between having and not having a primary topic or primary redirect

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 56#a change in page views between primary topic and primary redirect got archived, but I keep finding more of these examples:

• Talk:Jump drive - went from 4k views/month to almost nothing after being turned into a primary redirect
• Talk:Tuk#post-move - went from less than ~200 views/month to consistently over, spiking at ~350

--Joy (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC) --Joy (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor insists on adding references and external links to the disambiguation page Ionex

User:MolecularPilot has added references and external links to the disambiguation page Ionex, and has readded them following my removal of them. It has been explained to this editor that these are forbidden on disambiguation pages, but the editor persists. Will someone please explain this point of policy to them in a way that will cause them to conform their conduct to policy? I am beginning to fear that a topic ban may be necessary. BD2412 T 01:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 Hi! I'm so sorry. What happens: I added new content with references, reporter undid them. I wanted to add the content back without references (as they are in the article) but I'm in mobile now so it was a bit tricky so I undid the reporters undo and then I removed the references. I think they might just have seen the undo notification and not checked the page history for what I did. MolecularPilot 01:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I accept this explanation, given the difficulties that sometimes arise with editing on a mobile device. BD2412 T 01:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Nutshell

Moved from user talk:The Mountain of Eden

 – The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I undid your edit to the nutshell but accidentally hit the return key before typing an edit summary! The problem is that "disambiguation" occurs in a variety of ways, not only via disambiguation pages, but also by hatnotes and "see also" links in articles. Your rewrite suggested that the topic is limited solely to disambiguation pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think "see also" sections are used for disambiguation purposes. They are used for making links to related articles.
• While hatnotes can be used for disambiguation purposes, they are only good when the number of possible links is very limited (2 or 3 at the most)
• Most importantly: I don't think that the existence of hat notes invalidates the proposed text "Disambiguation pages serve as navigation guides that allow a reader to quickly find the article that best fits what they had in mind in cases when the search term could reasonably apply to more than one article."

The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not adequately provide a nutshell of what disambiguation is. This guideline page is about much more than disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. We can modify the proposed text to say "Disambiguation pages and hatnotes serve as navigation guides ..." -- The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that there was any actual problem with the current text. older ≠ wiser 21:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the existing text of the nutshell is that it starts out with "It is necessary ....". Since that is the very first sentence, the pronoun "it" is ambiguous. That's why I rewrote the nutshell. —The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there some stylistic prohibition about this on Wikipedia? It seems a fairly common imperative construction using a dummy pronoun. Is there evidence readers are finding this construction ambiguous? older ≠ wiser 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Why use a dummy pronoun when it can easily be written out? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes writing it out is not an improvement. And if there is no actual problem, then what the is need to fix anything.older ≠ wiser 22:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing the dummy pronoun makes it less colloquial. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Still don't see that there is any problem that needs fixing.older ≠ wiser 00:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think the proposed text is worse than the existing text? If so, how? —The Mountain of Eden (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The question to start with is to specify precisely what is it that you are trying to "fix" aside from a possible stylistic weakness and gain consensus that this is actually a problem. Then discussions about solutions can be more fruitful. older ≠ wiser 10:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already stated what I'm trying to fix (eliminate the use of the dummy pronoun). In your opinion, it's not broke, and you are entitled to hold that opinion. So now the question is even though you don't think the existing text is broken, is the new proposed text worse than the existing text, and if it is worse, why? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It provides an incomplete summary of the page. And your suggestion for making it more complete would be more unwieldy and less efficient than the current text. older ≠ wiser 14:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are saying that the fix of the additional words "and hatnotes" to give "Disambiguation pages and hatnotes serve as navigation guides ..." makes the proposed text a good summary.

I fail to see your point that "Disambiguation pages and hatnotes" is any more unwieldy than the existing text of "links and disambiguation pages". The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. You object to the current text on a stylistic basis, not on any actual deficiency. I do not think what you propose is any sort of improvement. older ≠ wiser 15:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You have made your point abundantly clear that you don't like the proposed text. Up to now, you have failed to communicate what you think is wrong with the proposed text. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate any actual deficiency in the current text. older ≠ wiser 16:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. I have already pointed out that the existing text uses the dummy pronoun, which is too colloquial. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not an actual defect. older ≠ wiser 17:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it's not a defect. So given that you cannot point to any defects in the proposed text, I will go ahead and put it into the project page. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You've already been reverted by another editor. I suggest that you first gain consensus that there is an actual problem with the current text. Then there perhaps can be some productive discussion about how to address that. older ≠ wiser 18:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with older ≠ wiser on this. The page is about disambiguation generally. In fact, the first two of three bullets start out by mentioning titling and wikilinks. There are several methods of disambiguating topics, including titles, incoming wikilinks, outgoing links not just in hatnotes, although that is most common, but also in the lead or body of articles or See Also sections. The focus of the page is not just hatnotes and dab pages. It might be possible to improve the nutshell, but the focus is not just hatnotes. Station1 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Good points. How about this proposed text?

Disambiguation helps readers quickly find the article that best fits what they had in mind in cases when the search term could reasonably apply to more than one article.

This takes takes out the details of what tools are used for disambiguation, is much shorter and cleaner than the existing nutshell (29 words for the proposed text, 33 words in the existing text), and most importantly (at least for me), takes out the dummy pronoun "it is" that gives the nutshell a colloquial tone. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This is progress. I'd suggest leaving out mention of the reader's mind and also "search term", as the process isn't only about searching -- it is also about ensuring articles are named in a way to minimize ambiguity. How about:

Disambiguation helps readers quickly find a desired article in cases when a term could reasonably apply to more than one article.

older ≠ wiser 19:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Even better !! Only 21 words. -The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Station1 (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the last word be topic rather than article? PamD 05:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's about finding the right article when multiple articles can reasonably apply to a term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This is nice and clear and concise. I agree it applies to articles, not topics. There may be multiple articles with similar titles but different topics: that's what disambiguation is usually about. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Merging dab pages

I couldn't find any guidelines on the process for a possibly contentious disambiguation page merge. Perhaps the process for articles applies: Wikipedia:MERGEPROP?

Discussion is at Talk:Alex Ferguson (disambiguation). Commander Keane (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBTQ topics in Chile#Requested move 24 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ topics in Chile#Requested move 24 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 04:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Merging dab pages

I couldn't find any guidelines on the process for a possibly contentious disambiguation page merge. Perhaps the process for articles applies: Wikipedia:MERGEPROP?

Discussion is at Talk:Alex Ferguson (disambiguation). Commander Keane (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBTQ topics in Chile#Requested move 24 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ topics in Chile#Requested move 24 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 04:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

how reader navigation functions without our navigation elements set up right

Here's an interesting example I stumbled upon:

• All-time monthly page views for "Tivadar" and "Tivadar (given name)"

The village article was effectively set as a primary topic for "Tivadar" since it was created in 2006.

The name article was written in late 2019, and it immediately got some persistent traffic, which is not what I'd expect when it wasn't linked from "Tivadar" itself - a hatnote was missing throughout this period.

In early 2020, someone adds an indirect link to the name by linking Theodore (name) in a Name section, and the traffic at Tivadar seems to start dropping, while the traffic at Tivadar (given name) starts rising, and since 2021 it regularly overtakes the village traffic.

All this time, the list at Theodore (name) was still linking back to the (misplaced) village article, and again there was no hatnote even.

Seems like search engines learned where our navigation was lacking and worked around the problem - at least most of the time. --Joy (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

And in turn, since then the new pattern has emerged: page views with the new layout included. Given name list is at peak volume, while the traffic at the base name fell to its lowest volume ever. --Joy (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I happened to find another example: Libertine did not have a hatnote for Libertine (disambiguation) since this November 2003 edit, which did make a significant dent in how much traffic the latter receives, cf. page views. Yet, some amount of traffic remained consistently, driven by Special:WhatLinksHere/Libertine (disambiguation) as well as other traffic. A look into clickstream archive shows other-search Libertine_(disambiguation) external 10 in January, which is also the anonymization threshold. --Joy (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics

This is a bit of a continuation of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 56#on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics. Reusing the old section name might not be the best as I'm also updating the methodology, but it seems useful to have a few old incoming links keep working :)

In the meantime we've had some fresh examples in this vein, so I wanted to keep tracking this matter.

Because of numerous findings of how search engines take a lot of hints from our navigation and guide user traffic to wherever we hint them to, I have stopped focusing on trying to make sense of every little bit of stats WikiNav generates, because it often compares apples to oranges.

• Talk:Toner
  • primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate as another topic is noticed
    • it consistently exceeds the volume of page views for the presumed primary topic
  • hatnote traffic for it barely visible compared to incoming traffic, somewhat visible comparing outgoing volume, quite visible comparing outgoing ranking
• Talk:Trans
  • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
    • listed first, positive trend, but several more individual topics matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (prefix, Latin) with some popularity and long-term significance
  • clickstreams show less than a third of incoming readers choose the most popular topic, ~60% of identifiable outgoing, ~15% filtered, several topics noticable outgoing
• Talk:Erika (discussion is at Talk:Erika_(song)#Requested_move)
  • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
    • listed in the first section, positive trend, but several more individual topics matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (suffix - surname) with a lot of popularity and long-term significance
  • clickstreams show ~70% of incoming traffic matches the most popular topic, ~80% of identifiable outgoing, but ~37% filtered, and second index noticable outgoing
• Talk:Parana
  • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
    • listed in the second section, second subsection, probably visible on the first screen of desktops, probably requires tapping once and scrolling on mobile
  • page views show a positive trend but no overall advantage over several other topics of obvious significance
  • clickstreams show a scattering of incoming traffic, less than half to the most popular, three more visible; more than half of identifiable outgoing, but 37% filtered
• Talk:Thune (discussion is at Talk:Thune (company))
  • primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate as another topic is noticed
    • hatnote traffic was the first thing visible in WikiNav, then another related topic, but also 38% filtered
  • several more individual topics matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (suffix - surname) with some popularity and long-term significance
• Talk:PVV
  • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
    • foreign abbreviation but found in English-language sources as well, some seasonal
  • one possibly generally relevant topic otherwise, but couldn't measure well because no WP:DABREDIR was in place before the discussion
  • clickstreams show ~62% of incoming viewers went there, and 100% identifiable outgoing, but ~39% filtered
• Talk:Orlando
  • primary redirect in place, proposal was to disambiguate instead
    • numerous internal incoming links to the redirect
    • redirect overall traffic pattern did not quite match destination article, was a better match for hatnote traffic pattern
    • ratio of identified hatnote clicks to redirect views was consistently ~13%
  • numerous individual topics, both mononymous and those matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (prefix - given name) with a lot of popularity and long-term significance
  • after the move, previous primary redirect destination gets a bit less than half of incoming traffic and a bit more than half of identifiable outgoing traffic, but there was ~35% filtered, and a handful of other topics are noticable outgoing
• Talk:ATM (discussion re primary topic was at Talk:ATM (disambiguation)#Requested move 4 November 2024)
  • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
    • common abbreviation (finance), article later actually moved to use it instead of expanded name
    • was linked second in the common section at the top
    • a quarter of identifiable clickstreams went there compared to incoming traffic, with ~5% filtered, and a bit over a half of all identifiable outgoing
  • several other topics with some significance
• Talk:EP (disambiguation)
  • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
    • common abbreviation (music)
    • a bit over a third of identifiable clickstreams went there compared to incoming traffic, ~95% of identifiable outgoing
  • few other topics of readership/significance

--Joy (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Talk:The Dress
  • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
    • another recent RM moved that article as well to a primary topic position for a slightly different title
    • ~15% of identifiable clickstreams went there compared to incoming traffic, and there was traffic in the other direction as well
  • some other topics of readership/significance
• Talk:Montserrat
  • primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate
    • island with near-country status, small but had a major disaster and relief effort in the UK in recent memory
    • thousands of incoming links, contributing to half the incoming traffic
  • eponym and other topics from Spain of substantial readership/significance
  • overall traffic around 55-60 : 40-45 in favor of the island
  • several other topics of readership/significance, including naturally disambiguated classes (biographies)
• Talk:Sloboda
  • primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate
    • a bunch of incoming links contribute half the incoming traffic
    • hatnote sees a lot of traffic
  • some controversy in the discussion, no consensus twice
• Talk:Jennie
  • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
    • recent mononymous use of one spelling of a common given name
    • receives about two thirds of incoming traffic from disambiguation page, though ~37% filtered
• Talk:Suga
  • primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate
    • recent mononymous use popular
    • other uses of the human name with natural disambiguation with arguably more significance
  • hatnote in top 20 but dwarfed by other traffic
  • several contentious discussions, no consensus
• Talk:Cobbler
  • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
    • receives a third of the identified clickstreams
  • one other general topic popular, and some other specific entertainment topics
• Talk:Godric
  • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular as primary redirect
    • receives considerable general interest, but derived works also do
    • receives a third of the identified clickstreams

--Joy (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Talk:Nacho
  • primary redirect in place, proposal was to disambiguate
    • singular of a lowercase plural, but uppercase also a naturally disambiguated name and eponym
  • logarithmic pattern of views of primary redirect and destination didn't match too well, while views of redirect and hatnote seemed to match better
  • two matching topics in the top ten outgoing clickstreams, hatnote views compared to redirect views around a third, some 'other' clickstreams detected
  • ngrams inconclusive
  • after the move the previously redirect destination gets less than half of the interest

--Joy (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

principles for naming

WP:DABNAME was brought up recently in Talk:Joaquín.

Sadly the "Who Wrote That?" extension doesn't work in Wikipedia namespace, but a quick search of the talk page archives indicates this was added after Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 30#Using redirects?

Does this change to the guideline actually have proper consensus? There's some level of organic consensus stemming from the fact nobody reverted it, but that is pretty flimsy :) --Joy (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to WikiBlame, I actually traced this to this August 2008 edit, so the discussion was actually Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 27#Next section requiring work where it's apparently two to three people talking about it. --Joy (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the question is what does this sentence actually have to do with disambiguation:

English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages.

What would be some examples where a foreign spelling is still ambiguous with an English spelling of a term? This seems like a solution in search of a problem, because foreign terms are usually fairly distinct. The idea that there would be ambiguity between different words just seems like a non sequitur here. --Joy (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

We also noticed the contradictory nature of these principles a few months ago in Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 57#Capitalization of a disambiguation page title with both all-caps and lowercase senses. --Joy (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Herding cats

The first entry at Herding cats has as its only blue link, 'Idiom', which seems singularly unhelpful at a D-page. And yet (at least for me) the idiom covered at wikt:herding cats is by far the primary topic here. In the absence of a Wikipedia article by that name, how should this be handled? The current situation seems very unsatisfactory. Mathglot (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd link to the Wiktionary entry as the primary topic if there's nothing explicit against linking to a sister project in policy. I see the fourth entry has no link, and I just removed some terminal punctuation from the first and second entries per WP:DABSTYLE RE sentence fragments. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:DABDICT applies. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

List of Hindi films of xxxx

The known link-breaking nuisance is back, this time as 2A00:23C5:A15:5400:2489:53D:4C68:C30D on List of Hindi films of 1969 and elsewhere. Revert on sight. Narky Blert (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Merely fixing DABlinks will leave behind bad links to name pages such as Dhumal and Mehmood and to PTOPICs such as Krishna and Prince. Narky Blert (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

PS feel free to upgrade my {{uw-vand1}} warning if they keep at it; but they're an IP-hopper, and I suspect a combination of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, WP:IDHT, and assorted other guidelines; so I doubt whether a WP:BLOCK would be of much use. Should they persist, I have an idea for a WP:EF request which would be both concise and precise ({{ping}} me). but it's too soon for that while the problem can be handled manually. Sigh. Narky Blert (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote for Birger Jarl

There's a minor dispute on whether a hatnote for "Birger Magnusson" is needed at the article Birger Jarl. Please comment at Talk:Birger Jarl#Birger Magnusson (link to the part concerning the hatnote). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Francisco Campos

Can someone check my newly created Francisco Campos (disambiguation) for proper format and content? I created it because I found a double hatnote at Francisco Campos, and then found even more possible articles it could be confused with.

One issue I haven't attacked yet, is that of primary topic; currently, the person described at Francisco Campos is a Mexican baseball player (b. 1972) which seemed a little surprising; I was kind of expecting to find no primary. So, I went to Google books and searched, and lo and behold, seven of the top ten book results, and all of the top five are about Brazilian jurist Francisco Campos, cabinet minister (multiple offices), and author of the 1937 Constitution, for whom we have no article. So that seems likely to be primary (unless we count sports articles on the web as having equal weight to books, an open question in my mind). I am about to create Francisco Campos (jurist) (or maybe, Francisco Campos (Brazilian jurist), although that seems needlessly long). After I get a stub created and linked from the D-page, any thoughts on what to do about the primary topic issue? Mathglot (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is now released and linked as Francisco Campos (jurist), and I've added it to the D-page, but arguably it should be PRIMARY. Mathglot (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps so, although the ball player is linked in several templates making incoming links a mess to sort out. There perhaps is good case for no primary topic, at least temporarily until there is some better quality page view data with the ball player distinguished from any who might be looking for the jurist. As might be expected, the jurist is primary topic in Portuguese wiki. Even Spanish has the player at Francisco Campos Machado and a disambiguation page at Francisco Campos. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI: Links not from templates can be shown as a single link with this kind of search: Source links. This does not show links from redirects. There is an extension "Source links" available somewhere in WP that provides this in Tools menu on every page. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) (Edited, word "not" was missing. 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC))

Thanks, but I doubt I'd be able to remember that syntax. Also, it would be more useful as the inverse -- that is links to a page that are NOT from a template. Is that possible? (Or maybe I misunderstand -- is that what these links are? older ≠ wiser 14:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was running late and sent the above message without reading it through. The word not was missing. This indeed gives links to a page that are not from a template. See Template:Source links for an example featuring 971 (number) and more information. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Further on primary topic: in the G-Books search, the three search results in the top ten that are *not* about the Brazilian jurist, are: a poet, a CREDHOS human rights official, and an unknown letter writer cited in a book about Mexican crime. That is, neither the baseball player (current primary) nor any of the sporting figures currently on the D-page are in the top ten of the Books search. (I also tried this Scholar search as well, but the results are not helpful, because there are a great many papers authored by scholars with that name. If anyone knows how to exclude author names in Scholar search queries, that would help.) Web search tells a completely different story, with the Mexican athlete prominently displayed (along with a World Bank employee, and a kid who threw a perfect game).

I don't know how to weigh these web results against the very different story we get from the book results, but surely this must be a common pattern: that is, books and academic tomes us show one thing, popular web sites something else; how is such disparity usually dealt with? My bias favors the jurist, but I don't want to upset the apple cart. Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The Books search seems indicative of long-term notability (WP:PT2), while the web results indicate a lack of overwhelming usage (WP:PT1). In this case, it could be justified to take the jurist as the primary topic, since there is no other topic which would satisfy PT1 either. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Those PT1 and 2 links are new to me, thanks. Maybe I should wait a week or so to see if there are any objections, and then move Francisco Campos (jurist) to primary. Or, would it be better to split the difference, say nobody is primary so everybody gets a disambiguation parenthetical, and the one pagename lacking a parenthetical becomes the disambig page? Mathglot (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Given than the evidence for primary is mixed or at the least very unclear, I'd default to putting the dab at the base name. older ≠ wiser 12:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this is the safest course of action. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Name question

I'm thinking about creating a dab page for L'Union, but not sure what the expected name would be. L'Union (disambiguation)? Nobody (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If L'Union has a primary topic, then yes. Otherwise, disambiguate the current page and put the new dab page at L'Union. Iffy★Chat -- 13:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

What did you plan to include? I've added a hatnote pointing to the newspaper, and also added L'Union as a "See also" in Union. That seems enough. PamD 14:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Since L'Union translated means The Union, I would exclude those who are also know under their translated name and just use those that use the french name. L'Union, L'Union (newspaper), L'Union Marocaine, L'union Suite, L'Union St Jacques de Montreal v Bélisle, L'Union Saint Jean-Baptist d'Amerique (Woonsocket, Rhode Island), L'Union (french newspaper), L'Union monarchique which would redirect to La Quotidienne. Nobody (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that a disambiguation page isn't meant to include all titles that begin with the term only subjects commonly known by the term. Look at Union: it doesn't include all articles about subjects whose names begin with "Union". Largoplazo (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

For five of the eight I mentioned I know that they are commonly called L'Union. For two it's possible/likely, for one it's unlikely. Nobody (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind it should not be based on your personal knowledge alone, but be supported by usage in reliable sources (preferably attested within the linked articles to address any editors who might later question it). older ≠ wiser 16:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bkonrad@1AmNobody24 I've created a dab page at L'Union (disambiguation); this assumes the commune to be the Primary Topic, and I see no reason to think it isn't. It does seem that we need access from "L'Union" to La Quotidienne, as it's the successor title (but how long did it go on for? No indication in either this poorly-sourced article or the fr.wiki one!), and I've also made a redirect from L'Union monarchique - both should probably have been created long ago.

Creating the dab page gives us the opportunity to include the "look from" links, capitalised and non, which allow access to all those "Partial Title Match" titles which can't be included in the disambiguation page as individual entries unless we have evidence that they are actually also known as "L'Union" (and not just in the way one might call any university "the university" when writing or talking locally).

I defer to BKonrad, an acknowledged disambiguation expert, over disambiguation, so will be interested to hear whether you think this solution is OK!

I had a look at the French dab page fr:L'Union (it's interesting to see their different rules about the appearance of a dab page), and can't see anything there which has a presence in en.wiki and ought to be included in our dab page (eg we don't have an article about the ecoquarter). PamD 18:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley Green#Requested move 15 January 2025

I would appreciate some editors well versed in disambiguation policies/procedures participating in this conversation. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

clickstreams higher than redirect page views?

Maybe someone here could help explain Talk:Ubuntu#philosophy traffic patterns hatnote vs. article text? --Joy (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

They are likely referring to traffic flow using a tool like [WikiNav] which shows the actual path a person takes after reaching a page. It can be helpful in multiple discussions areas as it is can be helpful in determining what a user clicks on after visiting a page. However, it is simply one tool, a single indication of user intention, and must be combined with other tools, data and analysis to be used effectively. For example, in this case, you could use it to see where people are going after they reach the disambiguation page however, it is important to realize that since Ubuntu goes directly to the operating system, we wouldn't expect to see many people first going to the DAB page just to later navigate to the operating system. TiggerJay (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the primer, but I'm generally aware of that :) I'm asking specifically about the difference between topical redirect views and clickstreams in favor of the latter. We usually identify more views than clickstreams, typically also because of anonymization. --Joy (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry I should have read what you also wrote in the RM discussion and didn't realize you were active in that actual linked discussion. Let me take a closer look, and I'll respond on that page. TiggerJay (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Catch all cat for {{One other topic}}

What do people here think about creating a catch all cat for {{One other topic}}. Currently, Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic lists only monthly subcats. Should Category:All disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic be created, in line with Category:All orphaned articles for example? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. There was a massive nomination in Nov 2023 (long story) and I'm going through them at a rate of about 7 a week to avoid overwhelming those who review my PRODs, but apart from that the number of articles is generally small and the current Cat works well. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud Exactly why. If there are only <10 pages in each monthly cat, then it would be easy to look at all the pages if there was an all inclusive cat. This might also support deleting the monthly cats and only keeping a single cat, but I do not know if/should it be done, no comments on it. I say that a All pages cat will be useful, at barely any cost to editors or computing resources. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav: OK, I'm not objecting, so long as the current monthly categories are still available. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course the monthly cats will be available, thanks for your comments! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONEOTHER vs. WP:REDHAT

Jovan Ilić (disambiguation) was nominated for deletion (by @Shhhnotsoloud) because it was redundant at the time, but the link is red, which is frowned upon in hatnotes. So there's no 'proper' way to honor WP:DABRED and WP:ONEOTHER at the same time.

Can we modify the guideline to be less restrictive on disambiguation pages where all the items presently listed are based on mentions?

Since these topics aren't necessarily as significant as the topic with the article, it doesn't matter if their navigation isn't particularly fast - which would be the reason for these links to be in the hatnote. IOW it doesn't matter that we slightly inconvenience a reader who's looking for these other topics by having them click twice instead of once.

Whereas, having a disambiguation page in this case allows for unambiguous red links to be seeded, without cluttering the hatnote, and would be more inviting for editors to write these articles where there is potential. --Joy (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime I noticed that this wasn't really great about potential because a third entry had been removed before because it wasn't formatted well. So in this specific case this issue may no longer apply if we keep the third entry. We can still fix the guidelines to accomodate other cases, though. --Joy (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an {{ill}} link to another wikipedia is enough to justify a dab page entry. Consider: if his name wasn't shared by anyone else in en.wiki, and, as here, there was no appropriate redirect target, his name would not be redirected. A dab page is just a multi-value redirect. It is not appropriate for him to be on our dab page, because there is no article in English wikipedia where the reader can learn anything about him. PamD 12:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Nono, that's not the point of the question here, sorry, this became too convoluted for its own good. It's down to two entries now. Please consider the question above in those circumstances :) --Joy (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see. How about creating a redirect from the bishop to the list which includes him? Then that redirect can be included in the hatnote. If the article ever gets created, the hatnote will still be valid. If anyone who creates the future article about the Bishop is worried about getting credit as first editor there is a process which can be done to sort that out. Redirects are useful (and if the sourcing in the target list is sound, the redirect can be categorised too, so he appears in whatever bishop-related categories are appropriate). PamD 16:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

What was wrong with "For the bishop, see Eparchy of Niš"? But I'm completely happy with declining a PROD to include a third entry of an ILL, as you did here . There have been editors who don't like ILL links on disambiguation pages but I'm OK with them. The disambiguation page does need to be formatted as one with a primary topic though. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I used to think I like redirects for this purpose, tagged with {{R with possibilities}}, but they seem to be too opaque for the average editor as I rarely ever see them get expanded. A red link is actually more straightforward to get someone to start a new article. --Joy (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

As a dab with only two entries, one of which is the primary topic, it need not exist so the original PROD was correct.

My "I'm not sure" thought turns out to be policy: See WP:DABSISTER where it is clear that the Serbian geographer had no place on the dab page without a blue link, not just the subscript blue link to Serbian wiki in the {{ILL}} link.

Going back to the original question, a link in the hatnote can either be to the relevant article (Eparchy of Niš as suggested by Shhhnotsoloud) or could use a newly-created redirect Jovan Ilić (bishop) to lead to that article until such time as an article on the bishop is written. PamD 20:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

At present, I think a hatnote linking to Eparchy of Niš would be best. I honestly think the practice of creating redirects to articles that do little more than mention a topic are actually counterproductive in that they can mask where an article is needed. I mean, if you have an article where a sub-topic is treated in some detail and could potentially even be spun out into a standalone article, then a redirect is completely valid. But to redirect a reader to some other tangentially connected article where the topic is barely mentioned, is that really helpful? Or is it more just a matter of 'prettifying' the dab listing so the entries all look similar regardless of what the target is? older ≠ wiser 20:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a bit of a conflict between the standard disambiguation guideline and the standard red link guideline, because leaving things out to avoid cluttering navigation can be counterproductive to helping the encyclopedia grow.

For example, in this case we have a generic Serbian name "Jovan Ilić" - a literal translation would be e.g. John Ellison (amusingly enough, that's also a presumed primary topic and two people in the hatnote). The average English reader can benefit from knowing that there's some ambiguity there. We already clutter the article top with a hatnote, it's only a question what do we put there. There's no talk of an unwieldy list of 50 entries of dubious notability, where it's imperative that we don't let it get out of hand. So it seems more helpful to seed a good red link. --Joy (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

DAB page

I'm not sure whether this needs a DAB page (or if so how to create it), but there seem to be a number of Greccos. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=Grecco&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&searchToken=bvq8kgdow5mt9dhgejcjj8p5b 2603:7000:2101:AA00:88BA:663B:6EAA:13F4 (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. See Grecco (surname). PamD 19:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:88BA:663B:6EAA:13F4 (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Cyberpunk RPG

Cyberpunk (role-playing game) is a game created in 1998 on which the video game Cyberpunk 2077 is based. GURPS Cyberpunk is a 1990 adaptation of the GURPS RPG system to the cyberpunk genre, noted for its accidental role in the development of computer law. There is a dispute about whether the former article should have a hatnote to the latter. See Talk:Cyberpunk (role-playing game). 2601:642:4F84:1590:1119:A0B1:9F7D:F5D2 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

which example to use for "non-encyclopedic uses of a term"

We have an item saying:

Non-encyclopedic uses of a term are irrelevant for primary topic purposes

This sentence used to be followed by:

for instance, Twice is about a Korean pop band, despite the existence of the common English word "twice", as the latter is not a topic suitable for an encyclopedic article.

I removed this after noticing Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 October#Twice was actually closed with No consensus to overturn, defaulting to endorse; closing at this time because the discussion was open for over six weeks, and has now been dormant for a week.

This was now replaced with:

for instance, Inception is about the film, despite the existence of the common English word "inception", as the latter is not a topic suitable for an encyclopedic article.

I think it would be generally less confusing to have an example where a primary topic is not chosen in order to demonstrate this. Perhaps something like "beginning" would be a better example, because there's no primary topic there, as opposed to a soft redirect to wiktionary (or picking any one of those items).

It should also be noted that the status of Inception hasn't been discussed in a long time, and there was a stark difference between Talk:Inception/Archive 1#Requested move in 2010 and Talk:Inception/Archive 3#Requested move in 2011, and possibly a difference now that we have the benefit of hindsight as to why that film should be the primary topic for its title.

TIA. --Joy (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "an example where a primary topic is not chosen" (like beginning) is a good choice. I haven't seen a single person who argues that non-encyclopedic uses of a term should be considered for primary topic purposes advocate for these disambiguation pages to be turned into soft redirects to Wiktionary—they all just say that the word should remain as a disambiguation page, so how exactly would such an example illustrate the point that they are actually irrelevant? Malerisch (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The arguments based on dictionary meanings are implicitly based on WP:DABDICT, and often also WP:DABMENTION. If this example implies that all dictionary meanings are inherently irrelevant, that would mean these guidelines are implicitly contradicting one another. --Joy (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It occured to me to go look for the rationale for this clause in the first place, and I found that this text seems to have been added in July 2024, but I can't find any discussion about it in /Archive 56, so this change doesn't seem to have backing in proper consensus anyway. --Joy (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

To explain a bit better - I think the best argument for the movie Inception being the primary topic is just how often it's found in references from other articles as the meaning of the word "Inception", IOW it has already demonstrably overshadowed the generic meaning of the word when used with the first letter uppercased (and because Mediawiki doesn't distinguish first uppercase from first lowercase in navigation, we have to consider them together). In that case, we have no need to advise against the comparison with the dictionary meaning, because the movie already does quite well in that regard, it doesn't need any such procedural help from the guideline.

The guideline should instead try be helpful in cases where it's less obvious whether a comparison with the dictionary meaning is relevant or not. --Joy (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

New page type 'Navigation page'

You may be interested in the WikiProject discussion at WT:WikiProject Disambiguation#Navigation pages – creating a new page type. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

the "Sofia" exception

I was reviewing the text and noticed this 2015 revision which mentions:

"Sofia" is the first name of countless girls and women throughout history, but as a single term, it most commonly refers to the Bulgarian capital.

However, there was never a proper discussion here or at Talk:Sofia about this. I've started a thread at Talk:Sofia (disambiguation).

We need to find a much better example for this. --Joy (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Consensus to use piped dab links in hatnotes?

This page says:

Correct: {{other uses|Springfield (disambiguation){{!}}Springfield}}

However, I can't find where was the consensus to pipe dab links in hatnotes established. Because to me, it seems unnecessary (and frankly, misleading) because "Springfield" and "Springfield (disambiguation)" may have different contents. In such cases, saying that "For other uses, see Springfield." is misleading. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages: the community has adopted the standard of routing all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. older ≠ wiser 13:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

It also says Correct: {{other uses|Springfield (disambiguation)}}

It depends on the situation, and whether the linked page is the dab page or is a redirect to it. Perhaps "Springfield" is a bad example? Mdewman6 (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

IMHO, it is always correct to use "Foo (disambiguation)" in hatnotes. To use a base name is in all cases misleading, because base names do not imply disambiguation – never, not in any case. Editors should always be very clear and use the "disambiguation" qualifier, visibly, in every hatnote that leads readers to a dab page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

For context, the corresponding discussion is User talk:R'n'B#Regarding RussBot's hatnote task. The bot pipes hatnote dablinks when converting a base name to dab name. Unfortunately, the botop says that piping was the only way to get consensus for the bot, but I do not see any positive side to piping, and there probably was not even a discussion before being added as a guideline here. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Previous discussion found no consensus on this issue and both forms are considered valid. I prefer piping, because revealing the dab's actual title minimises the WP:SURPRISE which is an unfortunate side effect of the necessary WP:INTDAB, but there are many respected editors on each side of the fence. Certes (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Generic and specific

The WP:PARTIAL section misues the terms "generic" and "specific" – see Toponymy#Toponymic structure (or, for a fuller explanation, George R. Stewart's Names on the Globe). In the name North Carolina, the generic would be Carolina and the specific would be North. Zacwill (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, editor Zacwill, for catching that! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Apologies for reverting you, but having read the section again, I've realized that it isn't actually using "generic" and "specific" in their technical toponomastic senses. A "generic" element in this context is one that appears in hundreds or thousands of names (like North), whereas a "specific" element is one that is markedly less widespread (like Carolina). The section was maybe fine as it was, although it could perhaps do with some copyediting. I'd suggest modifying it to:

Placenames often include a generic component and a more specific one, as in North Carolina (where "North" is generic and "Carolina" is specific). Common generic components are compass points, upper/lower, old/new, big/small, etc. It is entirely proper to list such placenames under the specific component (North Carolina is properly listed at Carolina (disambiguation)), but only exceptionally under the generic component: Kingston upon Hull is properly listed at Hull (disambiguation), but we do not expect to see North Carolina at North (disambiguation), just as we do not expect to see Mississippi River at River (disambiguation). Zacwill (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd have said that "Kingston upon Hull" has two specific components. The set of things that are Kingstons and the set of things that are along the Hull are both quite limited. Contrast "Shoreham-by-Sea", which would certainly not be listed at Sea (disambiguation).

That nit about terminology notwithstanding, this seems largely beside the point. Kingston upon Hull should be listed at Hull (disambiguation) because it's commonly called just "Hull". Whether it should be listed at Kingston (disambiguation) is what calls for deeper consideration. Perhaps it should only because "Kingston" is specific, and "Kingston upon Hull" looks like a base name "Kingston" with "upon Hull" as a qualifier, so it would reasonable to expect someone seeing "Kingston upon Hull" to guess that it can be found merely by typing in "Kingston". Largoplazo (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

"Red Stone" move discussion

Talk:Red Stone#Requested move 7 June 2025 is relevant to this guideline. --Joy (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:DAB (disambiguation)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:DAB (disambiguation). How should the hatnote on this page, Wikipedia:Disambiguation, be formatted? —Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

the "Herb" example

The guideline currently says:

This is even more widespread for first names—many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. Herb (disambiguation) does not even list any people named "Herb", but instead links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed.

However, WikiNav at Herb for April shows the hatnote to be the #1 outgoing link in the article, at 733 identifiable clicks last month, which is usually a bad sign. In turn WikiNav at the disambiguation page shows given name and surname links to be #1 and #2 identifiable destinations from there, 267 and 68. So it's obvious that we need to add a direct links to at least the given name to that hatnote.

This example needs to be replaced with a much less misguided one. --Joy (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Joy Interestingly, the WikiNav at Herb for May shows Herb (disambiguation) is only the seventh most common destination after six articles directly related to the culinary plant meaning. In May, only 3.72% of readers navigated to the Herb DAB but in April it was 21.4%. All the other items in the top 10 only varied by 1–3 percentage points in April and May. Was April a fluke? Was some other Herb in the news? Or was May the outlier? Please note, I have no objection to the Lincoln example you have replaced this with. I was just poking around and found this curious. You have a thoughtful way of looking at traffic and clicks data, which I always appreciate in discussions. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I only made the hatnote change on May 28 so that can't be it.

Looking at the last six months of data, looks like April was a bit of an abberation:

clickstream-enwiki-2024-12.tsv:

• Herb Herb_(disambiguation) link 110
• Herb Herbaceous_plant link 103

clickstream-enwiki-2025-01.tsv:

• Herb Herbaceous_plant link 162
• Herb Herb_(disambiguation) link 119

clickstream-enwiki-2025-02.tsv:

• Herb Herbaceous_plant link 136
• Herb Herb_(disambiguation) link 99

clickstream-enwiki-2025-03.tsv:

• Herb Herbaceous_plant link 139
• Herb Herb_(disambiguation) link 75

clickstream-enwiki-2025-04.tsv:

• Herb Herb_(disambiguation) link 733
• Herb Herbaceous_plant link 115

clickstream-enwiki-2025-05.tsv:

• Herb Herbaceous_plant link 134
• Herb Herb_(disambiguation) link 109

Now, this ostensibly weakens the argument, but in reality we just don't know.

I've previously tried to measure the hatnote click incidence against the actual ambiguity, cf. /Archive 56#on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics. The outcome was that most commonly the hatnotes would get a tiny fraction of incoming traffic. Yet, after we'd ponder the issue and decided to change navigation, the results afterwards had a huge spread: sometimes the previously presumed primary topics would start getting a tiny fraction of incoming traffic, sometimes modest, and sometimes a large fraction (yet even in the latter cases we'd rarely have consensus to overturn).

The thing that goes unnoticed here is that a huge majority of the incoming traffic at Herb (and often at any other article) is identifiable as other-empty and other-search (~14k out of ~18k, almost 80%). Because we don't control how readers land at an article, and instead our navigation is pre-processed by search engines, we don't actually see the entire pipeline, entire funnel. At the same time, we can surmise that the search engines necessarily short-circuit around our navigation - they don't want to send the readers to our navigation elements, rather they'll try to send the readers directly to what the reader meant because that's more efficient from their perspective. So we can't know what was the context of any of those clicks, and our statistics don't really translate into "these readers were looking for the word 'herb' and that's why they're here".

So while April was an exception, we don't know why it was an exception - it could have been an organic spike in interest in 'herb' or 'Herb' search traffic looking for biographies, or it could have been some arbitrary portion of that traffic seeping through, one that usually gets short-circuited better by the algorithms. Does this incident then tell us that the term 'Herb' is more or less ambiguous?

BTW, it should be noted that Mediawiki technical restrictions prevent us from measuring the difference between 'herb' and 'Herb'. --Joy (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for digging in! I always wish we had a better way to assess that incoming traffic. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 10:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, it looks like it's only going to get worse, with the AI crawler bots it's all over the place and inherently different (they may ingest all of our content and then produce a lot of it themselves without much new traffic towards us). Monthly page views stats for some generic topics indicate some fairly wild ups and downs, most notably the 2023 crash, which is when ChatGPT got started IIRC. Maybe it's leveling off at this point, but who knows. --Joy (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mario § Requested move 1 July 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mario § Requested move 1 July 2025. -- Joy (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Taskmaster (TV series)#Requested move 13 June 2025

An editor has requested that Taskmaster (TV series) be moved to Taskmaster, which may be of interest to this page. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 2 § Template:WikiProject Disambiguation

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 2 § Template:WikiProject Disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 11:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

R from ambiguous

@1isall:: Needs to point to the actual disambiguation page. I beg to differ. Paradoctor (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a redirect from an ambiguous page name to a page or list that disambiguates it.

Judgement does not seem to be a page that disambiguates the term. Therefore, {{R from ambiguous term}} doesn't apply. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 09:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The template is called "r from ambiguous", not "r from ambiguous except to primary topic". The usage instructions should be updated to include redirects to ambiguous primary topics. Or we need something like {{r from ambiguous term to primary topic}}. Paradoctor (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the key thing to note here is that we don't have an R template that says "this is a primary redirect to a single primary topic" as opposed to one that says "this is a primary redirect to a broad-concept article that implicitly disambiguates it". Maybe we should make one for the latter purpose. --Joy (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Judgment (disambiguation). The disambiguation need is the same whether the primary topic is broad or narrow. Paradoctor (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Want to initiate an RfC on this matter? Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 09:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

For the time being, I'd settle for having the points raised being addressed. Or conceded. Paradoctor (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No, the question here is whether the significance of the meanings described in that list is comparable to the significance of the meanings described in the WP:BCA.

In other words, are the articles about the meanings in mathematical logic, law, ethics etc now more worth navigating readers to, or should these still go through the broad description first?

If there's less value in having the BCA first, then there should be e.g. a WP:RM to move that article to something more specific, like Judgement in informal context, psychology, philosophy and religion, or a proposal for it to be split up, or something like that. Or even the reverse: the mathematics, law, ethics etc topics could each get their own heading in the BCA, to ease navigation to those aspects.

The spelling difference between "judgement" and "judgment" shouldn't dictate how we organize navigation about these topics. --Joy (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

"Other" or "incorrect"?

@Woodensuperman: and I disagree on whether Night Watch (Discworld)Night Watch (Discworld) is an {{r from incorrect disambiguation}} or an {{r from other disambiguation}}. The issue is what "a format that does not follow Wikipedia convention" means. I say disambiguating by franchise does follow convention, it is just more specific than disambiguating by creative work type. Woodensuperman has pointed to WP:BOOKDAB. Paradoctor (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOOKDAB makes no provision for disambiguating by series, we disambiguate by book type first, then add author's name if necessary. Therefore if we are using "Discworld" as a disambiguator, this does not follow convention for the disambiguation of books, and is therefore incorrect. --woodensuperman 12:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

a format (my emphasis) Paradoctor (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and using a book series as a disambiguator is not the correct format when disambiguating books. --woodensuperman 13:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Were I to come across the article, Night Watch (Discworld), I would probably leave it alone and enjoy it. So if I were to come across a redirect with that same title and dab, and it needed to be categorized, I'd sort to the Redirects from other disambiguation cat and move on. I don't think I'd be too perturbed, tho', if another editor were to happen along some time after and re-sort to Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguation. BOOKDAB is a naming convention guideline and therefore is backed by community consensus; however, that to me is less prescriptive and more descriptive, or "guiding". I wouldn't have therefore thought the later reversion and replacement sort to be "correcting my mistake", but merely a fresh and perhaps a "more distinct" choice of cat. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The rcats are not in a subset/superset relation, one excludes the other. If the community says not so, the definitions need to be clarified. Paradoctor (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

? {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}'s cat has been a subcat of {{R from other disambiguation}}'s cat since the former's inception in 2010, so an "incorrect dab" is also an "other dab". What am I missing, editor Paradoctor? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

That detail escaped my attention. I was going by the description.

{{r from other disambiguation}}: This is a redirect from a title with an alternative disambiguation qualifier of the target name. The disambiguation of these page names is not incorrect, incomplete nor unnecessary. For those redirects use {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} or {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} instead. Paradoctor (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I see how the dab "of these page names is not..." is misleading. "Not" should probably be avoided when possible. Since all three of those rcats sort redirects to subcats of "other dab", I have clarified its bullet. At least I hope I have clarified its bullet. If it can be made even clearer let me know. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the issue of "other" vs. "incorrect", though. Paradoctor (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not discount that, nor am I able to agree or disagree. If I read correctly, you consider the redirect an "other", but not an "incorrect" dab, while editor Woodensuperman sees the redirect as both an "other" and, more specifically, an "incorrect" dab. Since I have no opinion either way, I can only thank you both for helping me to see that when I first wrote, The disambiguation of these page names is not incorrect, incomplete ... (etc.), I should have made it more clear. If you want more input on the issue of "other" vs. "incorrect", then we can only hope that more editors will chime in. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I came here for. Paradoctor (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: Daphne (disambiguation)

Can someone with more patience than I have please explain to User:Jacobolus that we do not remove notable subjects from a disambiguation page merely because they get fewer page views. This editor has twice removed the longstanding entry on the page for Daphne (singer) on the grounds of it being the person's name (and assertedly therefore belonging only on the list of people named Daphne), and has similarly suggest to remove Daphne (brig) to a separate page for ships named Daphne. BD2412 T 19:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

You are entirely mischaracterizing our conversation. –jacobolus (t) 19:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Clearly we have different perceptions of the matter. BD2412 T 14:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I do have a question here though: is there some kind of guideline for deciding which, if any, people and fictional characters to include on a 'main' disambiguation page titled "Name" or "Name (disambiguation)", when there is also an article with a title like "Name (given name)"? BD2412 has some inconsistent, personal-preference-based, "I know it when I see it" kind of criteria which I do not really understand and which they will not describe explicitly; this makes it very difficult for me to understand how to make principled improvements. I've been trying my best to make improvements with the explicit goal of satisfying what I thought their preferences would be, and each time they have a new contradictory complaint. –jacobolus (t) 20:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

MOS:DABNAME which says: People who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should be listed in the main disambiguation list of the disambiguation page only if they are frequently referred to simply by the single name. I suppose the "only" could be interpreted that these are not required to be listed there. But I think most DAB long-timers would agree that in most cases the main disambiguation page should include entities commonly known solely by a single name, even where the article title might use their full name. older ≠ wiser 20:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bkonrad, should every fictional character be included in the top level page, under the theory that usually in encyclopedias fictional characters are referred to by their first name? The effect of this seems to me to be undue promotion of fictional characters and performers with a stage name, and undue suppression of people with the name. It doesn't really seem like a supportably fair criterion. –jacobolus (t) 20:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Literally no one is making such an argument for every fictional character. In this case, Daphne Blake from Scooby-Doo is known to the world as "Daphne". BD2412 T 20:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412 All of your arguments about it apply to essentially all fictional characters. You haven't articulated any clear distinguishing criteria other than, basically, "this is what BD2412 prefers'. –jacobolus (t) 20:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The same with Shaggy and Scooby, by the way. BD2412 T 20:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what this comment is getting at. "Shaggy" is a page with 6 entries, and no sub-page called Shaggy (given name). Daphne (given name) has 68 people and 20 fictional characters, only 2 of which you apparently want to promote, but without explaining the criteria for that. –jacobolus (t) 20:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jacobolus, I'm not sure how you got every fictional character [should] be included in the top level page from my comment. Not all characters are commonly known by single name. The respective articles should have verifiable indications that this is the case. older ≠ wiser 20:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't get it from your comment. I'm asking a follow-up, based on conversations with BD2412, who says that because "professionally written sources" refer to people by their last name but characters by their first name, fictional characters with a particular first name should be listed at the "main" disambiguation page, but people with the same first name should not. –jacobolus (t) 20:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if the article and sources both indicate a subject is commonly known by the sole name, then yes, they would be included on the main disambiguation page. There is no presumption anywhere that every fictional character is known by a single name. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

We're discussing characters with full names. It is conventional in encyclopedic writing for most fictional characters to be referred to by their first names in running prose, after being introduced with their full name. (e.g. "the series finds Luke, Leia, and Han facing off against ..." rather than "the series finds Skywalker, Organa, and Solo facing off against ...".) By comparison, it is conventional for people to be referred to by last name. –jacobolus (t) 20:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Typically, when a person or character is commonly known by a single name, the article will contain some indication of this. In cases where there is nothing that gives a clear indication of this, attempts to include that entity on the main disambiguation page can be challenged and then per WP:Verifiability it is up the editor arguing for inclusion to provide sources in the article (not the dab) for the sole name usage. older ≠ wiser 20:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

What kind of evidence is necessary for that. It seems like a difficult thing to verify; you aren't typically going to find reliable secondary sources analyzing whether a fictional character is known by their first name or their full name. But if the "evidence" is just that typical sources use the first name in running prose, then that is true for most fictional characters. To take an arbitrary other example, if you look up Daphne Bridgerton / Basset of Bridgerton in newsaper stories about the show, you'll find usage like "[...] the juicy drama [...] follows beautiful young aristocrat Daphne Bridgerton .... Women like Daphne would have had some control over who they danced with or agreed to court publicly [...]". Does this mean that the character is "commonly known by a single name"? –jacobolus (t) 21:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jacobolus: For the record, I have gone through the sources currently used in the article on the Scooby Doo character, and a majority of those only ever refer to the character as "Daphne", with no reference to a surname at all. Does that not verify to a reasonable degree that the character is primarily (or at least frequently) known mononymously? BD2412 T 00:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

You mean that these sources never say the surname? I find that surprising. When I did a search (in books, academic literature, newspapers, and the web) I found that essentially every reliable source I clicked on which discussed the character per se initially identified the character by the full name. The cases I found without a full name included web forum discussions and very brief episode summaries. I wasn't super scientific about it though. I can try looking again. –jacobolus (t) 00:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jacobolus: See for yourself:

• "What's new, Scooby- Doo? Almost zilch". Los Angeles Times. April 4, 2003. Archived from the original on January 18, 2021. Retrieved November 6, 2020.
• "The Velma Chronicles: Character adds smarts, sensibility to 'Scooby-Doo' production". Las Vegas Sun. 2003-03-05. Archived from the original on March 9, 2021. Retrieved 2020-11-20.
• Vincent, Mal (July 13, 2002). "Scooby Doo, how are you?". The Muncie Star Press. p. 31 – via newspapers.com.
• Breznican, Anthony (June 14, 2002). "Scooby Doo: New film will thrill kids, but not their parents". Red Deer Advocate. p. 33 – via newspapers.com.
• Evanier, Mark. (July 10, 2002). Post Archived May 14, 2006, at the Wayback Machine on "News from Me" blog for Povonline.com. Retrieved March 27, 2006.
• "Cartoon Records for the Kenner Talking Show Projector". cartoonresearch.com. Archived from the original on January 23, 2021. Retrieved 2021-02-23.
• "Scooby-Doo and the Pirate Ghost, Mayflower, Southampton". Bournemouth Echo. 2009-03-20. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
• "SCOOBY-DOO LIVE! MUSICAL MYSTERIES Comes to Houston, 6/1 & 2". Broadway World.com. Archived from the original on April 29, 2021. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
• "Cast announced for Scooby-Doo on stage". Official London Theatre. Archived from the original on November 27, 2020. Retrieved 19 November 2020.
• "Scooby-Doo musical – London cast unmasked". Musical Theatre Review. Archived from the original on November 27, 2020. Retrieved 19 November 2020.
• "Scooby-Doo! and the Lost City of Gold - Cast". MONLOVE. Archived from the original on May 3, 2023. Retrieved May 3, 2023.
• "'Velma': Constance Wu, Sam Richardson & Glenn Howerton Join Mindy Kaling as HBO Max Series Leads". October 6, 2022. Archived from the original on October 6, 2022. Retrieved October 6, 2022.
• Codega, Linda; Graves, Sabina (October 6, 2022). "Mindy Kaling's Scooby-Doo Sleuth Uncovers a Mystery in the Velma Trailer". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on October 6, 2022. Retrieved October 6, 2022.
• "Shaggy Is Black In Mindy Kaling's 'Velma' Series On HBO Max, Sam Richardson To Voice Character". MSN. Archived from the original on October 8, 2022. Retrieved 2022-10-07.
• Kim, Matt (October 6, 2022). "First Look at HBO Max's Velma Is Full of Gore, Butts". IGN. Archived from the original on October 18, 2022. Retrieved October 7, 2022.
• Germain, David (June 13, 2002). "'Scooby' will have viewers barking for more". Potomac News. p. 19 – via newspapers.com.
• "Prinze, Gellar hit red carpet for slasher sequel's premiere". The Wooster Daily Record. July 17, 2025. pp. A5 – via newspapers.com.
• Cross, Greta (April 4, 2025). "Zoinks! Netflix plans live-action 'Scooby-Doo' series". The St. George Daily Spectrum. pp. B8 – via newspapers.com.

I'm not a huge fan of these sources, and I don't think we need a parade of footnotes, but fair enough. Maybe they can be consolidated into one footnote, and we can search for a better source or two? –jacobolus (t) 02:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The first source is The Los Angeles Times, which is generally considered a high-level source throughout Wikipedia. The rest come from an wide variety of media generally considered appropriate for use in Wikipedia. I generally gathered these sources from throughout the article, so most of them support multiple unrelated propositions in the article. It would therefore be rather unwise to consolidate them into a single footnote, because then we would either have to provide all the unrelated sources with each use of that footnote, or duplicate sources across multiple footnotes. These sources are merely representative. There is no limit to sources like these in the world. BD2412 T 03:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the newspaper, and I now believe you that there are plenty of folks referring to "Daphne" without mentioning a full name. I just bet we can find a source that supports this claim while saying something more substantive about the character than a couple sentences along the lines of "Daphne (Rachel Kimsey) moves in a series of deliberately cutesy poses — finger to cheek, hand on hip." As for the footnotes, having 6 in a row in the middle of a sentence seems like Wikipedia:Citation overkill. –jacobolus (t) 04:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

We don't need a source that supports this claim in an academic sense, or even in a particularly substantive sense. The discussion here is about whether there evidence of mononymous, so that it makes sense to include the name on the disambiguation page. This is for the benefit of the reader looking to find this particular subject (which many readers obviously are). BD2412 T 14:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

(ec) :There is also WP:NAMELIST which is similar, but a bit more tersely presented. older ≠ wiser 20:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

There's not super useful guidance for dispute resolution there. It just punts to local consensus. –jacobolus (t) 20:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

That's typically how most of Wikipedia works when there is a disagreement. Very few "rules" are written in such a deterministic manner as to provide precise guidance for every circumstance. older ≠ wiser 20:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but it makes it a challenge when someone insists that this is how things are done or that is not how things are done, but it's not written down anywhere and when I go skimming around other disambiguation pages I find that, to the contrary, that there is great variation and apparently no standard. –jacobolus (t) 20:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

(The) Signature

There are a handful of "The Signature" entries that could be disambiguated and I don't have a strong sense of whether these should be added to the existing Signature (disambiguation) or on a separate page only for "The Signature" entries, either at The Signature (disambiguation) or by demoting The Signature (a film) from being the primary topic. What are the considerations for creating (or not) a separate "The ..." dab page? Page size perhaps? --Jameboy (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, size is one consideration, but I would say the most important consideration is what makes it easiest for most readers to find the article they are looking for. That may vary from case to case. In this particular case, I don't see any articles that would be titled The Signature except for the film and possibly The Signature at MGM Grand, so there doesn't appear to be a need for a separate dab page. A hatnote on The Signature pointing to the hotel and/or Signature (disambiguation) could be appropriate, if not strictly necessary. Station1 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation in the middle of the title, i.e. Gay Street (neighborhood), Baltimore

I came across a handful of neighborhood articles that are disambiguated like Gay Street (neighborhood), Baltimore, with the parenthetical disambiguation right in the middle of the title instead of at the end. The style I would have expected is Gay Street, Baltimore (neighborhood). This is the only one that went through an RM, and quite recently (Talk:Gay Street (neighborhood), Baltimore#Requested move 22 May 2025). It was mentioned that combining comma and parenthetical disambiguation is discouraged but this was rebutted with precedent from Patterson Park (neighborhood), Baltimore and no one seemed to objected to the placement of the parenthetical. A lot of these are in Minneapolis and Baltimore, pointing to local consensus.

Most of these titles have been stable for many years as far as I can tell. I don't think I've ever come across this and I can't find anything saying the parenthetical must go at the end of the title. This came up at here and surprisingly this was the most common form of parenthetical DAB for neighborhoods. Am I missing something?

"X (neighborhood), City" articles

• Gay Street (neighborhood), Baltimore (moved per RM May 2025)
• University (neighborhood), Minneapolis
• Central (neighborhood), Minneapolis (moved Sept 2006)
• Patterson Park (neighborhood), Baltimore
• Near North (neighborhood), Minneapolis
• Pelham Bay (neighborhood), Bronx (the borough, not city, per WP:NYCPLACE)
• Pelham Parkway (neighborhood), Bronx (also per WP:NYCPLACE; moved Dec 2014)
• Longfellow (neighborhood), Minneapolis (moved Sept 2006)
• Marine Park (neighborhood), Brooklyn (also per WP:NYCPLACE, moved Aug 2019)
• Eastside Park (neighborhood), Paterson (moved July 2016)
• University of Maryland (neighborhood), Baltimore

--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Generally, I think you're right per MOS:USPLACE. Gay Street might be a little complicated because there's also an article about the street, titled Gay Street (Baltimore street). Do we have a naming convention for streets, US or otherwise? If so, is there a conflict between the one for places and the one for streets? Possibly we should be distinguishing "Gay Street, Baltimore (street)" from "Gay Street, Baltimore (neighborhood)"? Largoplazo (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I could not find any general guidance. We have WP:NYCPLACE for NYC neighborhoods (use the borough instead of (New York City) to DAB) and highways in the US. I did an in title search for neighborhood and found these and the other examples I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seattle#Is Westlake, Seattle the primary topic for "Westlake, Seattle"?, which led to this. I can understand the need to get creative with Gay Street, and Minneapolis, which I learned has "communities", some of which share names with neighborhoods that are in a different community. But I don't see how the mid-title parenthetical achieves this any better than placing it at the end. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

IMO, it is a stupid convention, but appears to be more or less accepted (although it has been a long time since the last discussion that I can recall, so consensus can change). older ≠ wiser 10:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

When this post came up in my watchlist I was drawn to it because I had just been participating in the discussion at Jacksonville, Florida#Requested move 11 July 2025. There, two people so far have supported the move to JacksonvilleJacksonville on the grounds that the guideline is stupid (one of them having used that word), so you have company. I'd like to find the discussion that led to the creation of that guideline, though, in case it sheds light on the reason(s) for issuing it and makes it appear not so stupid after all. Largoplazo (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not the City, State convention I consider stupid, it is the insertion of a parenthetical disambiguation in the middle of a comma-disambiguated title. That is essentially a Frankenstein's monster conjoining of disparate methods. older ≠ wiser 12:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that's different from what I thought you meant. Still, regardless of the wisdom of the USPLACE example of Callicoon (CDP), New York and Callicoon (town), New York, on that model I'd deduce that we're meant to have Gay Street (street), Baltimore, Maryland and Gay Street (neighborhood), Baltimore, Maryland. Largoplazo (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the mid-title insertion of '(CDP)' and '(neighborhood)' is precisely the sort of stupidity I was referring to. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, I have seen the (CDP) example, and I can see where editors find the "Neighborhood (neighborhood), City" convention as an extension of the guidance for CDPs and counties. . Terminal (DAB) or even natural disambiguation would work well here. I can't speak to local conventions, but Gay Street neighborhood, Baltimore looks good to me. I for one am glad we can leave the states off here, keeping titles shorter, but I can see where it's out of whack with the "City, State" requirement. I don't quite agree, but I'm sympathetic with the view that if Arlington (Jacksonville) is acceptable then why not simply Jacksonville? Anyone know the history of the (CDP) convention? I may look into this later. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 13:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the (CDP) convention was introduced with the original run of Rambot using census data to autogenerate the US placename articles. I don't think there was any discussion prior to what appears to be an arbitrary decision to use that convention. It has been discussed subsequently, but it would take some digging. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I may still look into it. I don’t have the energy for a mass ‘(neighborhood)’ RM but may get there. The CDP convention, being memorialized as it is, requires a bigger discussion. I can understand extending this to neighborhoods but it’s not what I would come up with. Another justification could be to make clear the name is properly “Gay Street” and not “Gay Street, Baltimore” but this is pretty weak. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Ha! I’ve occasionally wanted to call MOS:GEOCOMMA stupid so part of me wants to shake their hand. But it’s not a very persuasive argument. I tend to sit out RMs where I know I’ll feel obligated to invoke this standard. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 13:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

GEOCOMMA is sensible, no different from other uses of comma-delimited words or clauses that add extra information and that could be removed without changing the overall meaning of the sentence, as in "Nolte's daughter, Angelina Jolie, has appeared in ..." or "My car, the one you saw me driving last week, has a manual transmission." Largoplazo (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I find the result awkward and frankly jarring in titles like 2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash. Don't get me started! I understand the argument and pick my battles. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

(and I agree it's mostly sensible.) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

MOS:GEOCOMMA

MOS:GEODUCK

Does this clarify matters? (image, right) Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

So, 2018 Crozet🦆 Virginia🦆 train crash? (I see no emoji for clams, gooey-ducks or otherwise.) Largoplazo (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

As a Washingtonian, this does speak to me! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Including redirects, I see 28 of them. Not all cities, though; some are other places (e.g., Orchard Park (neighborhood), IndianaOrchard Park (neighborhood), Indiana) or redirects (Navy Yard (neighborhood), Washington, D.C.Navy Yard (neighborhood), Washington, D.C.) or both. I don't like them, either; can we just change all of them to postposition? Having medial parenthetical disambiguation is ducking the issue. Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I excluded redirects—which I'm much less concerned about—and only collected US examples to start with when I did my rather clunky search, but I'm not surprised I missed some titles while scrolling down the page. I tend to be rather conservative when it comes to undiscussed page moves. Given the number of pages impacted, and especially given that Gay Street was implemented as the result of an RM one month ago, these probably need an RM… or an RFC confirming the standard is terminal parenthetical? (And if anyone wants to implement MOS:GEODUCK, I'm in! 🦆) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That's just looking at "(neighborhood)," and I only see 11 of those in actual article titles – for neighborhoods in Minneapolis, Baltimore, Bronx, Brooklyn and Paterson (New Jersey). There are similar phenomena in which the parentheses contain other terms, such as 261 with "village)," and 327 with "town),". I don't have a big problem with it. There are 578 with "CDP),". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

And 127 with "community),". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed that this convention is explicitly encouraged in the WP:USPLACE guideline. When identifying a county is not sufficient, it says to "specify the type of local government unit in parentheses before the comma ... e.g., Callicoon (CDP), New York, and Callicoon (town), New York, but not 'Callicoon, New York (CDP)' ". If that guideline should be changed, there should be a discussion on its Talk page. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Investigating judge, and more generally, items related by hypernymy

The page at Investigating judge has recently been changed from a redirect to a two-item disambig page. Setting aside for the moment the issue of two-item dabs vs. mutual hatnotes (let us assume there were three or more), I am mainly concerned about whether a dab page should ever contain two items related by hypernymy.

In this case, the two items are: 1) Examining magistrate (a type of investigating judge in numerous European countries) and 2) Investigating judge (France). In other words, examining magistrate is a hypernym of investigating judge (France). Is this permissible? (Trying to think of a metaphor that's easier to grok, I came up with Bee and Africanized bee, however that is a poor example as it doesn't involve paren-dis or use entirely different wording, but was the best I could do on short notice.)

My gut feel is that the disambig page at Investigating judge is improper in its current state, possibly shouldn't exist at all, but I can't put my finger on why, or what is really appropriate here. Can you help? Secondly, WP:D does not refer to hypernymy anywhere on the page; depending on the outcome of this discussion, perhaps it should? Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Investigating judge should be reverted (or taken to WP:RFD is uncertain). Definitely improper. I'm struggling with what the guidance might say generally about hypernymy, that isn't already covered in some other way by existing guidance on DAB pages, lists, hatnotes, etc. Listing every single felid at Cats (disambiguation) would obviously be wrong but hypernymy–hyponymy isn't the best or only reason why. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I reverted it. Mathglot (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC regarding disambiguation of constituency articles

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC on pre-emptive disambiguation in constituency article titles. older ≠ wiser 16:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

how search engines send us reader traffic

I recently found another case that confirms how changes to our navigation reflect 'unnaturally'.

Up to August, the title "Serdica" was mostly a redirect History of Sofia (2006-2019) and Serdika (2019-2025). I moved out the relevant content into a standalone article in August, so you'd expect some amount of readership from there spilled over. However, this happened:

• Monthly page views of Serdica etc

The traffic at the old destination fell by ~400/month, but the readership at the new destination is higher by ~1250/month. So ~850 views/month appeared seemingly out of the blue, practically the moment we fielded an article for the term rather than a redirect. --Joy (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

How similar do two article titles need to be to warrant a hatnote?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over at Lepidodendron, a new user has been edit warring to add disambiguation hatnote to Lepidoptera . However, I do not think these titles are similar enough to warrant a hatnote. It seems to me about as warranted as adding a hatnote to Dinoflagellate at the top of the Dinosaur article. Can I get a second opinion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps another good question: Why isn't there a discussion with the new user on the talk page? If you try that, then both of you can tell each other your reasons pro and con for the hatnote. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Because you can't reach a consensus with two people? I've been in enough Wikipedia discussions that trying to reach consensus with two people who strongly disagree is pointless, and that you should always seek outside opinion. I've made a note on their talkpage asking them to participate here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Unless someone starts a discussion on the article's talk page:

• They miss out on an opportunity for one of them to persuade the other with no other participation at all, and in a way that isn't happening with dueling edit summaries.
• Other people, including people you solicit on a page like this one, can't join the discussion that hasn't been kicked off.

If that approach is unsuccessful, then go to the next step in the dispute resolution hierarchy. Largoplazo (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hardly anyone watches the Lepidiodendron article other than me, so nobody would bother to respond, which mean that the discussion would probably sit dead for months. This is true of most talkpages related to paleontology. This is why I immediately escalated to a noticeboard discussion, because I at least know people are watching here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It's fine if you disagree with WP's dispute resolution process, which I've found to work wonders sometimes. I'm not sure I see your side of this clearly. You seem to think that titles must be the same or almost the same in order to warrant a hatnote? WP:HATNOTE does not define "similar" for these purposes, so we probably should go with the level of confusion the new user had, which spurred them on to add the hatnote? It seems they may have landed on an astonishing page instead of the page they were looking for? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion is almost always fruitful – even when I think it's not. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

To answer the original question - we use hatnotes for two purposes - ambiguity, like {{other uses}}, and for confusion, like {{distinguish}}. These are similar but not the same. If it's plausible that a substantial chunk of readers would be confused, a hatnote can be warranted.

I happen to agree that it's not very likely that someone would confuse the names that differ in so many consonants after Lepido-, "dendron" and "ptera" are seemingly significantly different in spelling, pronunciation, and meaning. --Joy (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

A trivial primary topic?

RF (disambiguation) says the main topic is

• RF is an abbreviation for radio frequency.

However we are working to sort out the "radio" articles and I think that "radio frequency" is most commonly used as an adjective, not a WP:NOUN. So the statement that RF is an abbreviation is correct but in contexts where RF is used as an abbreviation it is ambiguous. So RF in medicine refers to Radio frequency ablation but in plastics it would Radio frequency welding. I don't think that radio frequency by itself is a proper topic.

We could expand RF (disambiguation) to include other uses, but what do to about that primary topic? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason for that heading is that RF redirects to radio frequency. Would you point that somewhere else? --Joy (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because "radio frequency", in the context of "RF", is an adjective not a WP:NOUN. I think we should move "radio frequency" to "radio frequency technology". Johnjbarton (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

and the term "RF interference" is widely used. Obviously in specialist contexts, that covers a multitude of sins but for most use cases outside the radio industry, that's what it is and that's what most incoming links will expect. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, another example: "RF interference" is an interference, not a frequency. So RF is an abbreviation for an adjective not a concept that should be an article. There are tons of RF things, but no thing called RF. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Dab page, hatnote or neither?

I've just created Metrocar as a redirect to Tyne and Wear Metrocar as that is the overwhelming primary topic for that spacing, however "metro car" is ambiguous. The two word term is not the proper name for anything as far as I've found, but it is used to refer to train cars of multiple different metro systems (usually generically rather than relating to any specific type of train) and the Austin Metro. I don't think that "for trains on metro systems in general, see Rapid transit#Trains, for trains on specific systems follow links from the article about that system" is useful on a dab page or hatnote, and listing every type of train that could be referred to as a metro car would be unwieldy (see Metro#Public transport and note that probably most systems have or have had multiple types of train). However "metrocar" is definitely a plausible search term for people wanting "metro car" in pretty much any of its meanings. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Mississippi

Currently, Mississippi redirects to the U.S. state. However, the river is one of the most important and well-known in North America and might be more internationally recognized than the state itself. Perhaps we should consider turning Mississippi into a disambiguation page and moving the state article to Mississippi (state). ~2025-32122-32 (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, most recently in 2020 at Talk:Mississippi (disambiguation)#Requested move 30 September 2020. Obviously, whatever other input you might get here, any substantive discussion of moving the state article should be on the talk page of that article or with a multi-page move listing at the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Note also Talk:Mississippi (disambiguation)#about the previous move attempt and Talk:Mississippi#clickstreams and redirects. --Joy (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I generally agree with the view expressed in previous discussions, that while both the city and the state are known as "New York", and both the city and the state are known as "Washington", the river is not commonly referred to as just "Mississippi". BD2412 T 19:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The thing is - the nature of this sort of a reference is prescriptive. We don't necessarily know that the average reader searches like that. Hopefully the statistical redirects help a little bit to discern their methods. --Joy (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Mark Twain, author of Life on the Mississippi and Old Times on the Mississippi, would like a word with you. Largoplazo (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

It's clear from context there. He wrote "the Mississippi", which properly redirects to the river. "Life in Mississippi" or "Old Times in Mississippi" would indicate a different subject. Station1 (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that people (like Mark Twain) use "Mississippi" alone to refer to the Mississippi River, undermining your claim that the river is not commonly referred to as just "Mississippi". Largoplazo (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, that is precisely the point -- Twain refers to the river as "the Mississippi" in most cases other than when using some other more colorful term. older ≠ wiser 12:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

how much it matters when a search engine navigation fails us

WikiNav for Mandela Effect (disambiguation) in October '25 shows:

• incoming: 13.5k other-search, 1.5k other-empty, 770 from Mandela effect (false memory), plus another ~1.2k from other smaller sources
• outgoing: 13.1k to Mandela effect, plus another ~1k to other smaller destinations

Seems pretty clear that something is off, and it's not at our end. --Joy (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Likely that Google is underweighing due to Mandela effectMandela effect being a redirect. —Bagumba (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Luigi (disambiguation) § Requested move 30 July 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Luigi (disambiguation) § Requested move 30 July 2025. -- Joy (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

BTW, there's now also Talk:Luigi#post-move.

The outcome in the statistics seems to have been fairly moot. --Joy (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Worth moving?

GBR -> GBR (disambiguation)

GBR will then re-direct to Great British Railways

Most articles in the disambiguation page aren't really referred to that term as much as Great British Railways. Maybe it might be too early as the scheme hasn't been fully established, but it is something that can be considered in the future, hopefully now. The page is over four years old anyway now. Fortek67 (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Heidi

I would like to propose moving the article Heidi to Heidi (novel), since the animated television series Heidi, Girl of the Alps has comparable notability and cultural relevance. ~2025-40709-46 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It would be best if you posted to Talk:Heidi instead. --Joy (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Done, thanks! ~2025-40802-25 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Styling variants

I stumbled upon an oddity:

• Time travel is a primary topic page (lower case t)
• Time Travel is a disambiguation page (upper case T)
• Time Travel (disambiguation) redirects to Time Travel (upper case T)
• Time travel (disambiguation) redirects to Time Travel (lower case t)

Is this reasonable? I guess that the justification could be that "Time Travel" implies the name of a work but "time travel" is the concept? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

That is standard WP:DIFFCAPS procedure. People never type "Time Travel" to refer to the concept, unless they have input a typo. It is far more likely to refer to the title of a work, therefore it is a DAB page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:NAMELIST phrasing

After engaging in the umpteenth discussion about WP:NAMELIST, this time at Weizmann (disambiguation), I went and reviewed the guideline text again. It currently says:

To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it.

There's a few problems with this:

In the case a disambiguation list exists but no separate given name or surname list exists, i.e. with a list tagged {{disambig|given name|surname}}, it could imply that some people should be de-listed altogether. This doesn't usually happen, but what does happen is that the entire list of people is split out. This in turn leads to several bad outcomes:

• we necessarily bury biographies behind another click
• people start thinking of the two lists as separate topics as opposed to an implementation detail
• people start thinking that all the entries in the split-out list are inherently partial title matches
• people stop thinking of the possibility that we should maybe just not have separate lists

Furthermore, it's not really clear what the standard is for reasonably well known by it. The guideline tries to clarify that by continuing with this:

We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is listed only at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article.

The example of one of the best known American presidents tilts the scale here. Most people are not known by their unqualified name.

The guideline can't just cover the e.g. 1% of most popular topics. It has to be helpful for the bland, low-popularity cases, too, which are inherently the vast majority of ambiguous topics in the encyclopedia.

To clarify - this is the comparison of page views of those items:

• Weizmann Institute of Science - 168 views/day
• Chaim Weizmann - 430 views/day
• Ezer Weizman - 172/day
• Martin Weitzman - 23/day

Whereas for the Lincolns we have:

• Abraham Lincoln 16,166 / day
• Harry J. Lincoln 3 / day
• ...and another 4 screenfuls of other Lincolns inbetween those two, including 3,241 / day, 1,999 / day, etc
• ...and a bit of a long tail after Harry too

So not only is Abraham so high up that it bears no resemblence to the Wiezmann situation, Harry is so low that it doesn't match it, either.

Furthermore, using a comparison of 16k and 3 to set a standard is just plain weird, because that's a difference of about four orders of magnitude. If it needs to be said, that's huge.

And it doesn't even help us really discern what to do in the example of the list of Lincolns, let alone elsewhere. --Joy (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

"people start thinking that all the entries in the split-out list are inherently partial title matches" - because they are? DAB pages are meant to resolve ambiguity caused by 100% completely identical names. Someone named "Harry Lincoln" is not confused with "Lincoln". Set list articles of names are intended as navigation guides, but can't be a competing primary topic in a DAB page unless the name itself is notable, nor can the names be competing primary topics if they aren't known mononymously as that name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

No, these pages are not "meant to resolve ambiguity caused by 100% completely identical names". We don't even have to talk about human names in that regard. If this was so, much more fundamental things would be different:

• We would never have WP:PRECISION and WP:DABCOMBINE discuss variations
• WP:RPURPOSE would not include half as many purposes
• We would never have the {{distinguish}} hatnote in over 100,000 pages
• Talk:Courtney Cox (disambiguation)#Requested move 18 March 2023 would never have been decided in favor of a typo redirect

The idea that readers approach the names of topics with anything approaching 100% strictness would be completely detached from the practical reality of Wikipedia.

It's really frustrating trying to reason when there is this big of a disconnect in the premise. Do you see how this is problematic? --Joy (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the main reason disambiguation is required on Wikipedia is precisely because only one article can be located at a specific title. We generally do not include partial title matches. The vast majority of persons are not commonly known solely by their surname alone (let alone by given name alone). The inclusion of such name lists, IMO, has always been a bit of a compromise in that there is some value in providing readers a way to search for people by surname like a directory. Because of the similarity in function with disambiguation pages, these lists are allowed on disambiguation pages, but as the guidance indicates, they may be split off to separate index pages. IMO, given name lists should never appear on dab pages except for those persons such as royalty or performers who are commonly known by their given name alone. But I agree, the criteria for inclusion of any individual or splitting is fuzzy, but I'm not sure how it can be clarified to the satisfaction of all interested parties. older ≠ wiser 12:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the fundamental problem is that we like to think about a narrow scope of disambiguation, one that we organically defined ourselves through editorial consensus rather than a more general consensus of editors and readers, as a solution to reader navigation between article titles.

There is no proof that this is so. Rather, the statistics that we have point to readers coming in through external search engines a whole lot instead. That is, they do not arrive through our disambiguation mechanisms, but pre-filtered. The steady churn of requested moves likewise indicates that the levels of organic consensus are not great, esp. when we discuss titles untouched for two decades and editors are surprised how something is so 'wrong'.

Speaking of which statistics we have - we do not seem to have public statistics about reader navigation through our own search engine, nor do we have overall stats about the disambiguation mechanisms like total views of disambiguation pages compared to other views, or clicks on hatnotes compared to views or other clicks. The clickstream data is anonymized to the extent that it's often too vague to be useful on anything but the most popular pages. There is so much that we don't know within the scope of things we know about, let alone if there's things we don't even think about.

The conclusions that we draw from trying to observe our disambiguation mechanisms in this vacuum are necessarily biased. Judging by the amount of discussions where I've had to correct wrong interpretations of WikiNav output, most of the time our conclusions tend to be simply wrong.

We think we know what we're doing with all of our editorializing, but we don't. The sooner we disabuse ourselves of this harmful notion, the better. --Joy (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

And just as a tangentially related aside, I just came across Nagele (disambiguation) which is a surname list using disambiguation naming convention. It had been a disambiguation page (and does have a non-person primary topic and at least one non-person partial title match place name), but apparently because it is mostly a list of names, it was recategorized as a surname page. Should this be renamed to Nagele (surname)? Should this page give some guidance about such cases (while not common, they are not exactly unusual either)?

I just boldly moved the page to (surname) as it is clearly marked as a name list rather than a DAB page. I think that policy implies that something only be a dab when there are other non-names to disambiguate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a good illustration of how we just assign too much meaning to details that probably don't affect most readers. That list started by saying it's a surname, and listed the biographies, but then mentioned another use of the Nägele Palace, which is its own topic that was named after the surname of a person called that way.

Fundamentally, the properties of these elements don't really matter as much as the fact that we need to serve e.g. all of these people:

• someone who reads a citation to Nagele in a book and wants to look up who that author was
• a reader who is traveling the Netherlands and comes across a sign saying Nagele and wants to look up that place
• someone walking in Timisoara observing a palace marked Nägele and wants to learn more about that

None of these reader contingents seem terribly more numerous or important than the others, and there's no real value in making it easier or harder for any of these people to navigate. --Joy (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

on people being surprised by disambiguation

I noticed this discussion at Talk:Se7en (disambiguation) where no less than two out of four people in support of the proposal said it was surprising to see that term disambiguated. I thought it was a reference to the movie as well, but what surprised me in turn is that nobody cared for decades.

We have history that goes only one decade back and over 600k views happened in that time. In the more recent low-intensity period, usually over a thousand views each month still.

When we have RM discussions about disambiguation, and see a thousand hatnote clicks a month, that sounds notable. We often discuss much lower volumes in these discussions.

I'm not saying the editors aren't being genuine when they say they are surprised, but the genuine surprise of a handful of us editing enthusiasts (counting myself in!) probably pales in comparison with a lack of a surprise on the part of a huge body of readers.

This reminds me of the many arguments over the years where it wasn't clear why it would be an impediment for readers to have to click once on top of the list to get to the most popular topic. Like at e.g. Talk:AOC (disambiguation). In summary, it really isn't. The average reader uses the Internet through search engines of all sorts, and is very well aware of the concept of the top item being the top item and they just have to follow through by clicking on that.

I think Wikipedia is the one being the odd one out here, by having a concept of a primary topic, encouraged by a rather open-ended guideline.

I can't help but think that this grew organically from how articles start - a volunteer writes something at "Foo", and then it takes extra effort from another volunteer to assess the title precision and decide on "Foo (disambiguator)" or "Foo Natural Disambiguator" etc and then write a list at "Foo".

We don't want this extra effort to be the default because it's an impediment to editors - but it's largely irrelevant to the readers in the long run.

I think we should revise the text of the primary topic guideline to make it so that we only choose one if there's a clear consensus that there's both one by usage and by long-term significance. Only in that sort of a case, where showing a list has a risk of astonishing readers, is the short-circuiting really worth it. In all other borderline cases, we can't really claim the readers will be anywhere close to astonished.

Trying to gauge efficiency of e.g. 45% of clicks being skipped if we promote a borderline topic to primary is just a weird form of micromanagement. It's especially jarring as we don't ever come back to assess the impact of these promotions. We don't track the readers, we don't poll them to verify if they liked the new navigation, we do none of the due diligence. If someone doesn't like it, they have to become a bit of an editor and complain on a talk page. Which may or may not be monitored by the people who !voted for the change.

Having simpler criteria would probably benefit us as a community, by tempering the constant churn of disambiguation-related RMs of unclear value. Simply empowering editors to be bold and disambiguate, while requiring a more sturdy rationale up front in order to pick a primary topic, would probably be a net benefit for the encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, another reason I called this micro'ing is because the same day I had checked on Talk:Luigi#post-move, only to find that the impact of our RMs was not really detectable in our usage statistics. --Joy (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

There’s so much misunderstanding here it’s difficult to address. I suspect that’s why no one else has responded.

For now I’ll just say this. Usage stats are often not affected by RMs because most page views come from direct links from external search engine results. That vast majority of users is served by the external search engines. The purpose of primary topic is to best serve the small minority using WP internal search. But the effects of RMs can be seen, over time, in some cases. Sometimes dramatic effects. See Talk:The Americans#Effect on page view counts and the underlying stats in the subsequent section for a classic example.

Some believe that we should not have primary topics; that all ambiguous titles should be, or redirect to, dab pages. After all, searching for “Paris” on WP internal search would be more like searching on Google if the user was taken to Paris (disambiguation) rather being taken directly to the article about Paris, France.

But if that’s what users want, they can search on Google. Identifying primary topics and naming articles accordingly is a valuable service in itself. Someone may not know that the French city is the most likely sought topic for “Paris” searches. Or an article about a TV series is the most likely desired destination for “The Americans”. Or that a borough in Manchester is the most likely sought topic for Reddish. (I certainly didn’t know that one, and I find it interesting to learn that).

Since the historical significance criteria was added I’ve always thought it was redundant and added unnecessary complexity. After all, any topic with true historical significance should be reflected in page view statistics. Thankfully, the singer-actress was established at Madonna before the historical significance criteria was added here. If a star with that name had risen to such popularity only after PT was modified, they’d probably be relegated to a disambiguated title.

So just having the historical significance criteria in there is bad enough, but I’ve accepted it and even use it in my arguments when applicable. But to make meeting it a requirement for PT? That would be terrible. That would justify disambiguating even Paris, as well as Madonna, and countless other well-established primary topic articles. Strong oppose.

— В²C ☎ 13:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Born2cycle, perhaps you missed Talk:Madonna/Archive 22#Requested move 18 July 2020. The entertainer's article was not always at that title (and it took a LOT of discussions to get there). older ≠ wiser 13:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow! Indeed I did, or forgot. But it still reinforces the strong consensus for primary topic. Surely many searching for the Madonna with “Madonna” might be surprised if not momentarily astonished to land upon an article about the pop star, but that’s no reason to disambiguate it. Per consensus. — В²C ☎ 13:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea why you would say this about Paris and Madonna. Both of the current primary topics there have long-term significance according to our existing criteria, and would not automagically move away from their current destinations just because we would require an examinination of that. Surely if they are in fact primary topics, it would be reasonably easy to demonstrate that they have long-term significance?

Overall, the apparent ease with which you just ended up at this sort of a negative conclusion reinforces the idea that we should have clearer criteria and force people to think about things beyond just !voting.

I haven't seen the discussion about "The Americans" before, and a quick skim indicates it's a whole lot of it, so I'll reserve judgement on that for now. --Joy (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe you're misapplying the Principle of Least Astonishment. If it were correct to apply it here, then person looking for information on Paris, France, would be equally astonished to browse to Paris only to find that it's a disambiguation and they have to click one more time to get the info they're looking for. Conversely, if they're looking for a different Paris, whatever reaction they have to finding an article on Paris, France, topped with a hatnote isn't likely to rise to the level of astonishment, confusion, perplexity. It isn't like an Easter egg link, or like a redirect that points to an article that doesn't, in fact, have any information on the redirected title. It will take them where they want to go. It seems to me that their reaction is more likely "Oh! I see" followed by clicking the disambiguation link. Largoplazo (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

If we can make a reasonable argument that Paris, France is so significant that people would be astonished if they saw a disambiguation page, and the usage also matches, then there is a clear primary topic and I don't really know what you mean. --Joy (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm saying they would be no less astonished than people who aren't looking for the French capital are when they're taken to the article that is about the French capital, see that that's what it's about, and also see the hatnote. To the extent that any of this is astonishing at all ("astonishment" being an overwrought characterization of the reaction people have to disambiguation pages and hatnotes) the suggested change wouldn't be an improvement. It would be replacing astonishment with astonishment.

Have there been floods of messages at the village pump and the teahouse from readers moaning about their astonishment? Largoplazo (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, the key distinction is that in the case of a primary topic, that contingent of people is just too small, and therefore it doesn't matter. I wholeheartedly agree with you that very few people would ever be astonished. Most of the time, nobody cares, and the issues are mundane, niche. We need a standard that works well for those cases. The current one leaves too much to interpretation and encourages senseless loss of volunteer time on flamewars. --Joy (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, change might be needed; however, and this is just a thought: I haven't heard the term "flamewars" for a long time. I respect this revolutionary reference work, this Wikipedia, and have respected it since about 2006 when I first started editing it as an IP. I have found that the building of an encyclopedia largely hinges on "disagreement". That is the origin of much of the improvement that has taken place here. There have been countless times when editors disagreed and were able to eventually come to some meeting of the minds. This situation is one in which there has long been implicit and explicit consensus, which has always been subject to change. In short, disagreement is actually a good thing that has led to this encyclopedia as it exists today. We should never discount the value of arguing editors, even if fire is ignited and ice melts and flows. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Well said! — В²C ☎ 20:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a possibility of healthy disagreements, sure. And then there's a possibility of a very small number of editors anonymously arguing on the internet for sport, without actually helping readers. --Joy (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There are also those who fail to assume good faith. —В²C ☎ 07:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith only goes so far when we have to spend years having to correct the same data misinterpretations over and over again. We should make sure our standards reflect what we've learned and the best current practice, and enable that, not vibe-based disputes. --Joy (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh Joy! you are both correct and a tiny bit incorrigible. WP needs more of you. You seem to think "the key distinction is that in the case of a primary topic, that contingent of people is just too small, and therefore it doesn't matter." Then you go on to say, "there's a possibility of a very small number of editors anonymously arguing on the internet for sport," and they matter very little as well. When building a great reference work, what matters are the five pillars and the struggle to achieve consensus when any disputes arise. My own weakness is that I'm still working on the building of consensus. Many parts of it still mystify me. As a closer I've become fairly adept at recognizing consensus; however, I still fall short when it comes to actually building and achieving it. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses. Fortunately, I've found that when my weakness shows, there's always another editor who comes in and improves my work. And that's really what WP's all about deep down. We let others improve our work, and that's not an easy thing to get used to. I do like your style; I like it as much as I like WP's style. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, that is an issue of context. The encyclopedia is huge and the standards apply to everything, so small amounts of incongruity don't really matter. However, the community of volunteers who maintain that is not huge, and even relatively small amounts of wasted work do matter. --Joy (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

changes in page view patterns between primary redirect and primary topic

This is a followup to these earlier examples:

• Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 56#a change in page views between primary topic and primary redirect
• Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 57#followup to how page views can change between having and not having a primary topic or primary redirect

This time I've observed it at Talk:Telegram (disambiguation)#followup to move discussion. When telegram was moved from being a primary redirect to a section in a larger article, into being a standalone article, the views of the article instantly jumped > 2x, and the views of the statistical redirect in the hatnote - that is, clicks on the hatnote - jumped > 4x.

I theorized before that a section hatnote is not as visible as the top-of-the-article hatnote, because there's less spacing around it, and the surrounding layout is somewhat different (the heading is smaller and has an extra blue edit link). But I don't think this sort of an instant and consistent change of over 100% on this data point can be easily attributed to just this difference in formatting.

It's got to be coming from input pre-filtering. It really feels like we're just indirectly pushing the buttons on the statistical engine / algorithms within Google Search with our navigation changes. It's like our different formatting merely 'competes for its attention' differently. And from this perspective it's hard to say if we're actually doing something well, or if it's just observing some vaguely random effects.

If any Google Search engineers or product owners would ever happen to be seeing this, your input would be most welcome. (If you're not comfortable doing it in a public forum like this, you can also email me through my user page.) --Joy (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

primary topic logic

I am sometimes baffled at how we like to make up our own narratives on the topic of navigation and whether there's a primary topic. I wonder if anyone's ever looked at a comparison of what's conventionally pondered with websites such as ours. Maybe we could try comparing our logic with things like click-through rate, view-through rate, conversion rate, abandonment rate.

That does seem very commercial, though. At the same time, there are some obvious comparisons with the world of economics: our navigation lists and elements are inherently 'selling' their destinations, but we aren't supposed to be actively pushing to create a flagship product, rather, we want to present something like a market portfolio because the encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe. If the market concentration is so high that there's a something like a monopoly, we do acknowledge that with primary topics and redirects. --Joy (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)