Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages

List markup in this page

I changed all the sections that mixed HTML and wiki lists to use only HTML. Previously this mix-up caused the parser to incorrectly close all lists when a wiki list ended, rather than just the one defined with wiki markup, causing following bullets to be ill-formed, being outside of any list and appearing to fall off the left margin. It was also an accessibility problem, along with abuse of description list markup for indentation which I replaced with {{block indent}} (see MOS:UBLIST – I know MOS doesn't apply to guideline pages, but accessibility guidelines do). Hairy Dude (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

disambiguated links to songs

OK so @162 etc. is telling me there's a style issue with this sort of an edit.

If we have a redirect for a specific song (to its album), why wouldn't we link that from the disambiguation page?

The converse argument sounds like that sort of a redirect is somehow an inherently bad idea, but we have ~58k of those (transclusions of {{R from song}})...? --Joy (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It may not be an explicitly stated guideline, but the distinction is generally observed and is based on the guidance at MOS:DABREDIR: a song redirect is used only when the redirect is an alternate title or when it points to a dedicated section (usually in an album article) about the song. If we're just pointing to an entry in a track listing, or some other passing mention, the entry links to the performer's or album's article in the description.

This may not seem like a big deal for a single entry on a short dab page like Die Young (disambiguation), but it does provide a useful sorting mechanism and argument solver on longer pages where we might otherwise end up with a random assortment of entries based on whether or not an editor had bothered to create a redirect. —ShelfSkewed Talk 22:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how this is justifiable by MOS:DABREDIR. The Eon example fits far better here than the Switch example, because this redirect helps disambiguate incoming links, at Special:WhatLinksHere/Die Young (Black Sabbath song) there's no less than 15 already in article space. I don't know if there's a clearer indicator of potential than that.

I don't see why a potential dispute on sorting the list between editors would be more important than the scenario where editors encountering an ambiguous reference to the song miss the existence of the proper link and then have to guess the disambiguated name. The former is an issue that may arise, but the latter will definitely arise if we drop the link. Worst case, they may actually not guess it right, and then make a redundant red link, or unlink it, or even pipe the album name in references to the song. --Joy (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that per MOS:DAB, "piping and redirects should generally not be used on disambiguation pages." There are specific instances outlined at WP:DABREDIR where a redirect may be appropriate; this is not one of them.

None of this prevents editors from using the Die Young (Black Sabbath song) redirect in other articles that are not disambiguation pages. 162 etc. (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It is pretty confusing to both allow for primary redirects, while purporting to generally avoid using redirects on disambiguation pages. Primary redirects don't come with helpful visual elements beyond the technical redirect notice, they have no captions to explain them, and yet we find them normal. But another redirect with a caption right next to it, visible before the reader clicks, is not normal. This is not really a coherent guideline. --Joy (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The Eon redirect goes directly to a named, anchored section that provides a substantive definition; this is significantly different from pointing to a track list in which a song is listed. And the way songs without articles are treated is not exceptional. Dab pages also do not use redirects for simple mentions of albums, books, or films in lists within other articles.

And if you want to contrast the problem of differences of opinion among editors about how a song should be listed versus the problem of how editors will disambiguate links, I would say that, in my experience, editors who add songs to dab pages are much more likely to be casual or one-off editors, so it is helpful to have a clear distinction you can explain to head off disputes, while editors who are concerned with disambiguating links are much more likely to be experienced editors who know how to dab a link. —ShelfSkewed Talk 01:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It's true that the section part of that redirect is suboptimal. The rest of the article actually provides quite a bit more information about that topic:

• Infobox says it was released as a single
• Overview section talks of who wrote it, and how it became one of the mainstays in setlists
• Notable covers section mentions a cover 30 years later

All of these are further indicators of potential. I still think there should be a place somewhere along the path to this information where we explicitly link to that disambiguating redirect, because that would make it far more obvious to non-experienced editors where they could start writing an article for it. --Joy (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that individual songs that do not meet WP:NSONG and are unlikely to ever have a standalone article are better to list on disambiguation pages as direct links to the album. This avoids the easter egg element and more clearly marks which songs have some substantial content (i.e., an article) and which are just mentioned in passing or only appear in the track listing. But IMO, systematic campaigns to remove such NOTBROKEN redirects are unconstructive. older ≠ wiser 10:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

First names on a dab page

May I ask for a third option regarding recent edits on Sharr? I believe that in general, people whose dab page name is their first name do not belong on such a dab page, because only people who are widely known by their first name alone are expected to be searched for by first name. FromCzech (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. Quoting WP:D: 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.

Sharr is a list of 6 items, 3 of which are people. It is not getting too long by any stretch of the imagination. The default Google Search output has been 10 much fatter items for the last N decades. The idea that we need to cull entries from a much shorter list is downright preposterous. Are you trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove some sort of a point? --Joy (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The disambiguation page is not an index of all pages that contain the term in question, but only those that the user might have in mind when searching for the term, see first sentence of MOS:DAB. It is absurd for someone to search for a person by first name alone, unless the person is widely known by that name. I don't care at all how many items are on a page and whether it's long or short. FromCzech (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

No, that is absolutely not absurd. We have countless examples of disambiguation lists matching given names and ample statistics proving that readers click through. Some relatively recent egregious examples where this sort of a thing was discussed include Talk:Charlotte and Talk:Julius. I have no idea where you've come up with such a strange belief, or why it's necessary to argue it so forcefully with so little rationale. --Joy (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I just asked for a third opinion here and got it in the form of an edit to the page. I don't know why you're making such a big deal out of it here and why you don't assume good intentions. I don't understand the examples with the names Charlotte and Julius, both these dab pages include separate pages about the names and don't include specific people except where relevant. For me, the discussion is over, everything is resolved. FromCzech (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, I am assuming good faith, but after you censor, edit-war, misquote guidelines and advocate for beliefs not based in any apparent evidence, I think it's fair to ask why.

Those separate pages about the names usually exist to avoid lengthening the main list. It doesn't make sense to make a separate name page to list a handful of items. If we force readers to click again to hop between tiny lists that aren't distinguishable, it doesn't make their navigation more efficient. --Joy (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

BTW, maybe it would help for posterity to mention that we actually know that of a case where we have chosen a primary topic based on editor consensus, yet the reader lookups for the same ambiguous given name are a consistently measurable minority of ~30%.

We should not casually disregard given names as a method of reader navigation and/or a topic of reader interest. --Joy (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I concur that it is proper and appropriate to include the three names on the disambiguation page, particularly given that these are unusual names either as given names or surnames. BD2412 T 19:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with FromCzech. Names are no different from other partial title matches. They clutter the page and get in the way of the search engine, which is a much more complete and up to date tool for readers don't know or can't remember a full name. The {{in title}} is all we need to help those few people. Of course, it's much less important on a short page than a longer one, but even on a short page names can be left out. Station1 (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

But the town and the mountains that are only sometimes known as Sharr somehow don't create clutter and don't come in the way of the search engine? --Joy (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep all three names - yes, we could create Sharr (given name) for two entries, and make a link to it from the dab page - but why do so? The librarian with the surname needs to be here: if there were no other meanings of "Sharr" we would have a redirect to them; if there were no other meanings except for another "Someone Sharr", we would create a surname page; with the current mix of entries, simply including the people in the dab page is the best solution. I've split them into a separate section per MOS:DAB and for clarity. PamD 07:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why does the librarian need to be there? He was never known as "Sharr", nor were the other two. We could as easily create Sharr (name) for all 3 people, but there's no reason to create name pages unless there's something encyclopedic to say about the name itself. Station1 (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  But there's reason to create toponymy pages that say nothing encyclopedic about the toponym itself? --Joy (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Probably not, but do you have an example in mind? Station1 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  This one! More generally, this line of argument is just so weirdly prejudiced against human names. We link to a town that is only sometimes called Sharr, but more commonly something completely different, apparently. We link to a mountain that is consistently called Sharr or Šar mountain (not just Sharr). A cheese that is consistently called the Sharr or Šar cheese (not just Sharr). There's only evidence of ambiguity and natural disambiguation here. Exactly like with the human names. --Joy (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  If you're asking whether this dab page needs to exist at all, I would tend to agree that all the entries seem like partial title matches, possibly excepting the town. Station1 (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  I wouldn't think of deleting it as the list seems more concise than search engine output, so probably a tad more efficient. Ironically, we don't have actual reader behavior research to back either of those positions up, either. But at least they're not as glaringly inconsistent as an arbitrary removal of some forms of natural ambiguity. --Joy (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Station1 People are referred to by their surname alone in many contexts, so we need to provide access by surname. "X developed Sharr's system of cataloguing", "Y's victory was in a class with Sharr's spectacular defeat of Bloggs in the 1921 final", "Z studied under Sharr at the Sorbonne" etc. In some cases the forename or initial will have been mentioned elsewhere in the reader's source, but the reader's photocopy, snippet view, or screenshot doesn't include that mention; other times the writer will be wrongly assuming that they are writing for an audience who can all identify that particular Sharr. We absolutely need the librarian to be reachable from their surname "Sharr". Given names I'm less concerned about, but Wikipedia has a convention of providing near-complete lists of name-holders, so the reader can reasonably expect to find those two people by their first name, especially if they can't quite remember the surname. PamD 13:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  MOS:DABNAME, discussing names on dab pages, 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 (e.g., Abraham Lincoln on Lincoln). (similar to Joy's quote above but referring to the main list on a dab page - ie "create a separate section for "People") and There are two options for listing name-holders. A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page. For longer lists (of 12 or more entries), and as an alternative for a short list, an anthroponymy list article can be created and linked from the disambiguation page. and goes on to guve examples of both forenames and surnames. PamD 13:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  With exceptions like Beethoven or Churchill, it's uncommon for people to be referred to by surname alone. But for those unusual cases we have the search engine, which, again, is more accurate and up to date. Is every Anna on WP really listed on the Anna (name) page? I recently added a name to the Polanski (surname) page that was missing for 10 years! And there are only 7 Polanskis on WP. Station1 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  Is every Anna on WP really listed on the Anna (name) page?: It potentially could. There is WP:NODEADLINE. —Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't agree that "it's uncommon for people to be referred to by surname alone" (see above), and the search engine can be pretty useless if a surname has other uses, as a placename, given name, common noun, etc. PamD 21:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  If I listen to a podcast on an area I'm not much of an expert on, I often search for people by surname only when their full name was not mentioned. —Bagumba (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  If at any time over the past 10 years someone were looking for an actress named Polanski and relied solely on our surname page they would have been misled into believing we had no article about her. The search engine would have found her, though. Station1 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, but that is simply an argument for always remembering to include See also {{in title}} on navigation elements, to help those readers. Readers are unlikely to stop looking things up just because Wikipedia is not complete. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Referring to wife of Prince William on WP:D pages

Hello,

As someone who has edited multiple disambiguation (dab) pages tangentially on the British royal family, this has been a dilemma I have encountered and would like a written solution to: How do we refer to the wife of the current Prince of Wales on dab pages?

Additional context for readers

1. The article title on William, Prince of Wales's wife is Catherine, Princess of Wales. She was made Princess of Wales by her father-in-law in 2022. However, this appellation has never been the WP:COMMONNAME of William's wife; see this first Ngram.
2. Across dab pages, I have noticed that current wives of male European royals are referred to by their maiden names, even if this is not their article title. For example, Queen Mary (disambiguation) refers to the wife of Frederik X, King of Denmark as Mary Donaldson, not Queen Mary of Denmark. Similarly, Queen Sophia (disambiguation) refers to the wife of Juan Carlos I, King Emeritus of Spain, as Sophia of Greece and Denmark, not Queen Sofía of Spain.
3. Using the logic of #2, Catherine (Elizabeth) Middleton should be how William's wife is referred to on dab pages. But she has always been more commonly known (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME) as Kate Middleton, even before marrying her royal husband. See this second Ngram.
4. Although William's wife has indicated a preference to be called Catherine, per People and Cosmopolitan, she has never explicitly disavowed being referred to as Kate as far as I know. Indeed, William himself once called his future wife Kate. (Jobson 2024 p. 22)
5. Per this quote from MOS:DABENTRY: Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily. (Emphasis mine) I believe that not using the common name of a subject matter goes against both this guideline and WP:READERSFIRST, even if technically more accurate.
6. This issue has also arisen in the world outside of Wikipedia. The BBC apologized to William's wife for calling her Kate Middleton.

P.S. Given that William's father is touring the United States, as well as the fact that his 15th wedding anniversary is in two days, I anticipate extra reader interest in his wife in the next few days. Therefore, any insight would be greatly appreciated as soon as possible. Thank you,

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The disambiguation page should reflect whatever the article title is. If there is some concern about how an article is titled, that is a topic for discussion at that article's talk page (or in this case, perhaps at WP:NCROY). The example mentioned of Mary Donaldson vs. Queen Mary of Denmark is IMO incorrect -- the dab should use the actual article title. Similarly for the others. There might be a case for using a redirect when adding to a list of surname-holders (e.g. Donaldson). older ≠ wiser 10:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This would all be so much easier if you just pointed us to the specific page and the specific phrasing you're talking about. :) --Joy (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, on William and Catherine (disambiguation), I referred to Prince William's wife as Catherine, Princess of Wales. But on Princess of Wales (disambiguation), Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation), and Kate Middleton (disambiguation), I referred to her as Kate Middleton. However, given the above comment from Bkonrad, I will be changing the displayed article links accordingly to Catherine, Princess of Wales. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the idea is to make sure the readers are in the clear as to why navigation is set up the way it is.

In case of Kate Middleton, that is a primary redirect to a topic that is named differently, but that's still what the Kate Middleton (disambiguation) list should lead with. It's surprising for it to lead with another name. The other name should be spelled out, but the reason for that disambiguation page is that name, not the other name.

For Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation), I think the items should likewise lead with and link to any pertinent redirects involving the relevant title. In other words, nobody's at that list looking for a Caroline of Ansbach, rather they're there looking for Caroline, Duchess of Cambridge. --Joy (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

disambiguated links with redirects

OK, so @BarrelProof is telling me in this edit we have another issue like with #disambiguated links to songs.

For context, we previously had a discussion at Talk:What do you know? where I literally said we should move the redirect for the radio programme to a disambiguated title, and there was no problem with that, but afterwards, this sort of an edit removes the link to that disambiguated title (and buries the history).

I don't understand why in this sort of a case the Manual of Style would prevent us from using this perfectly mundane redirect. The first sentence, pointing out the spirit of the rule, says:

piping and redirects should generally not be used on disambiguation pages. This is to make it clear to the reader which topic is the subject of an article title.

But how is it not clear what the subject is in:

What Do You Know? (radio programme), a BBC Radio quiz show that later became Brain of Britain

The topic "What Do You Know?" is a BBC radio programme, and Brain of Britain is also a BBC radio programme, just a later iteration.

The lead section is tiny in the current Brain of Britain article, and the name What Do You Know? appears in the infobox which is right next to the lead section. Both old names, What Do You Know? and Ask Me Another, are described in the first sentence of the first section, right after the lead sentence.

What sort of a reader is going to be unclear or confused about where they've landed after they click What Do You Know? (radio programme)? Where is the astonishment supposed to come from?

With regard to the arguments laid out earlier with the songs, even if we accept the general premise that redirects-with-captions-are-bad-but-primary-redirects-are-somehow-not that I still disagree with, there's still no real risk here of a dozen of these being listed and then newbies having arguments about ordering. --Joy (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The link was apparent in the entry. You left out the link when you sort-of quoted it, and also did not link to the relevant section of the MOS. A more correct quote of my edit result is:

• What Do You Know?, a BBC Radio quiz show that later became Brain of Britain

There is clearly a blue link in that to the Brain of Britain article, which was not apparent in what you wrote. Note that "(radio programme)" was not included, as that would be redundant with the description. Also, the show names are in italics.

Yes, I think this case is very similar to when we link directly to an album for a song instead of linking to a redirect that leads to the album article. Linking to the album is preferred, since it makes it more clear that we are linking to the album rather than the song, as in the example "Switch", a song by Siouxsie & the Banshees from ''[[The Scream (album)|The Scream]]''. Since there is already a relevant discussion section on this page, I don't think it was desirable to open a separate section to dicsuss this. I see that others already replied in that section (and nobody brought up "astonishment"). If you think it is easier for the reader to select the topic if the link is at the beginning, perhaps in this case we could make it:

• Brain of Britain, a BBC Radio quiz show that originated as a show section [in an earlier show] called What Do You Know?

But that would make it less obvious at a glance why it might be called "What Do You Know?".

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

For the reader who is at "What Do You Know?", why would we want to lead with any other information than that? How could that possibly be less surprising than simply showing the term that they looked up?

I don't understand the complaint about separate sections. This use case is clearly distinct from songs and albums, because of what I already wrote about how What Do You Know? is described in the Brain of Britan article. It's not that Brain of Britain is a compilation of a dozen What Do You Know?'s, and there's generally little potential for the latter to each get their own article.

In general, this all strikes me as very bureaucratic. The idea that readers are somehow inherently confused by redirects described by captions is entirely unproven. --Joy (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, then I think we should keep it in the first of the two forms that I suggested. The article is about Brain of Britain. It's good to make it clear to the reader that we're referring them to an article about Brain of Britain. There is no article specifically about the precursor segment show called What Do You Know? [in which Brain of Britain was a segment], and I think it is helpful to readers to show that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

For me, this is kind of six of one/half a dozen of the other; although I prefer BarrelProof's first formulation as more clearly reflecting the state of things regarding where the reader will end up. older ≠ wiser 21:02, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Compared to what redirects do, I still don't see the point in microoptimizing these clarifications. In this case, for example, this redirect from What Do You Know? to Brain of Britain was in place for about 10 years. If we hadn't stumbled upon it recently, it might have stayed like that for who knows how much longer. Throughout this time, readers were ending up at the Brain of Britain page without any prior note or warning, and nobody noticed any issue at all. --Joy (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I made a couple of fact corrections with strike-through and square brackets above. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I don't see that these corrections change the fundamentals - we've been pointing readers there because they're largely the same thing. If this hasn't been wrong all along, it shouldn't be wrong now, and we shouldn't have to twist ourselves into a pretzel to somehow justify it. --Joy (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the correction doesn't change the question at hand; I just wanted to correct my error. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

One way we could address this would be to not just say:

A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if only that section discusses the disambiguated topic. This also suggests that the topic may eventually have its own article.

but instead say:

A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if only that section discusses the disambiguated topic.

A redirect may be used to link a topic that is reasonably expected to be able to eventually have its own article, similar to how a red link could be used (per {{section link| |Red links}}). In such a case, the description should continue to include the name of the linked article to make it clear to readers where they will end up until the new article is written.

That way, we wouldn't have a blanket ban on these sorts of cases, rather we would allow editors to judge cases according to their merit.

• For random non-notable songs, fictional characters, etc, on balance these will not use redirects.
• For topics where a mention is a step towards a prospective standalone article, we seed an unambiguous title where that would happen.

--Joy (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Many people would think that a song they are fond of ought to have an article. I think it's better to show that the link is leading to an article about an album or an article about an artist. The idea is that a link on a disambguation page should not mislead the reader about what topic they are being directed to. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That is fine, and it's the exact same logic as with red links. If songs are really such a lightning rod, we can specifically list them in the guideline text as an example of things that aren't typically expected to have individual articles. --Joy (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

BTW it might help to replace the song example in the MOS:DABBLUE section if we're supposed to dissuade people from thinking songs are things typically have standalone articles. --Joy (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

We could just add a bottom list entry in that list like this:

A redirect may be used to link a topic that is reasonably expected to be expanded into its own article, similar to how a red link could be used (per § Red links), and with the same consideration of standalone notability. This typically excludes entertainment topics such as songs, where it's better to continue linking the album or the artist.
In any such case where a redirect is linked, the description has to include the name of the linked article, to make it clear to readers where they will end up (until a new article replacing the redirect is written).

--Joy (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I see no value in doing that. We currently have simpler guidance that improves clarity for readers to know whether they are being led to an article that specifically discusses the topic they are looking for or is primarily about a different topic. Providing guidance that is more vague and more complicated to apply and could result in arguments over how notable a hypothetical subject is for future expansion into an article doesn't seem like an improvement. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I literally just showed you a case in this thread where it would improve things. The idea that everything that is covered by redirects is by default without potential, as non-notable as songs, and that annotated redirects are worse than primary redirects, is, frankly, preposterous. If the guideline has to be a tad more complicated to handle practical reality, that's far better than trying to pretend nuance doesn't exist. --Joy (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

What case is that? Are you talking about What Do You Know? (radio programme)? Both myself and Bkonrad (older ≠ wiser) seem to prefer the status quo guidance for that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

So, argumentum ad populum? :D --Joy (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

DABPIPE

This section aims to explain "Piping and redirects are two different mechanisms that allow the displayed text of a link to differ from the title of the page that the link points to."

Having the example feature the same text and the same (ultimate) link destination is the best way to contrast the two methods:

Here is a link: WP:XYZ. This is a piped link leading to Wikipedia:Example

Here is another link: WP:XYZ. This is a redirected link leading to Wikipedia:Example

Station1 feel free to use whatever example you feel is best, but please do not revert based on aspects of an example not central to the point it is trying to make. CapnZapp (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Because piping and redirects are two different mechanisms, both of which we say should generally not be used on dab pages, it's important that we give clear examples of each separately. In articles (not disambiguation pages), we need to pipe "[[Moment (physics)|moment]]" because Moment is not a redirect but we want the word to link to the proper article. It is impossible for Moment to be a redirect. On the other hand, 9/11 is a redirect, so while it is technically possible to pipe "[[September 11 attacks|9/11]]", there's generally no reason to do so, and so using a piped redirect as an example is confusing at best. The point we're making is not that there are two different ways of getting the same result, it's that there are two mechanisms out there that are appropriate for use in different circumstances in articles but that should be avoided on dab pages. The current examples nicely contrast the two different mechanisms we're describing. Station1 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Station1 If you disagree the section is trying to explain what piping and redirecting are, and what separates them, then why does the section start by... explaining what piping and redirecting are?? If you want the section to be about how to use the two techniques, and only that, then please rewrite the section to simply assume the reader already knows how they work in general (possibly referring elsewhere for the explanation) and just need to be told how to use them for disambiguation, which currently is a secondary thought at most. Absent this, the explanation should and must contrast the two techniques against each other to fully do its job. CapnZapp (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Station 1's analysis here. I found that the reverted revision unnecessarily confused matters. older ≠ wiser 10:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I also think having two different pages as examples is helpful. We're not presenting alternative ways to achieve the same result, between which an editor can choose freely according to personal preference; we're presenting two different mechanisms which should be used in different circumstances. The one change I would keep is to describe the title left of the pipe as actual rather than full: piping isn't only for shortening titles by hiding qualifiers. I'd leave out of an article, because piping works with redirects, dabs and other non-article pages too. Certes (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This all seems to stem from the fact that we describe both redirects and piping in the same section. There's not much actual reason for this, as it makes the text unnecessarily convoluted. The use cases are usually pretty distinct, so there's little reason not to try simply covering them in distinct sections. --Joy (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad You are likely looking it from a different angle than me. Try looking at it from the angle of somebody not familiar with pipes and redirects. If we are to explain pipes and redirects, as we currently do, we should contrast the two techniques. Alternatively, we should not explain pipes and redirects. If we then also follow Joy's suggestion and split into two sections, it makes perfect sense to keep the current examples. CapnZapp (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It's already split, please check. --Joy (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Certes We're not presenting alternative ways to achieve the same result, between which an editor can choose freely according to personal preference; we're presenting two different mechanisms which should be used in different circumstances. I don't disagree, except this is far from clear the way the section attempts to introduce and explain piping and redirects as if brand new concepts to the reader. If we explicitly assume the reader already know the basics of piping and redirects (and/or link to our basic help articles on piping and redirects respectively), we can focus on when to use either one for disambiguating purposes. CapnZapp (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Feedback

Now that the "Piping and redirects" section has been split, a bit of feedback:

• The Eon example showcases a right way to do it using a redirect to a section, but the text would probably be more helpful if it spelled out what happens (without the reader having to click the link to find out): Eon (geology) being a redirect to Geologic time scale#eon. Partly because the example shouldn't require interaction to be understandable, partly so that it remains comprehensible even if uninvolved editors rearrange the Geology articles (perhaps un-merging Eon (geology) which once was its own article).
• The other two ("wrong") examples doesn't use redirects. This is likely a result of the example previously being written for a joint section on both redirects and piping - now it kind of makes the reader such as me ask "why does this example suddenly exemplify how these piped links are wrong when we're in a discussion about redirects??"
• The above technique is used when the link is the subject of the line. For description sections, redirects or piped links may be used Probably best to edit out any mention of piped links here; it's already discussed in the section on piping
• While it is much more obvious to guess James Carrey redirects to Jim Carrey than guessing Eon (geology) redirecting to Geologic time scale#eon, it still would be an improvement to state this outright. After all, at any time somebody else named Jim or James Carrey could become notable, and this example would break. If the reader is told James Carrey redirects to Jim Carrey, the example would remain useful even if clicking the link no longer does what the example says it does.

The Dragon Ball example is a good example of an example that actually discusses where any presented links would take the reader, so the examples remain useful to the reader even if they technically break.

As for my original objection, yes, splitting the section makes it much more natural for the respective examples to be unrelated. Specifically because we no longer discuss two different mechanism that [do the same thing] where it stands to reason we would contrast how the two mechanisms accomplish... the same thing, i.e. actually presenting what looks like identical links that lead to identical destinations. That logic gap has now been avoided. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I did some further updates.

But also, which revision were you reading? I actually got rid of the description sections sentence first, so it looks like you're referring to an earlier one. --Joy (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I posted my comment at 09:45, 10 June 2026. The most recent revision at that time would be 15:28, 9 June 2026. Does this clear things up? CapnZapp (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

That revision also didn't have "description sections". Anyway, can you check the latest one? --Joy (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I was looking at the 09:51, 7 June 2026 revision.

• As for the current revision, shouldn't the Eon example showcase redirects and redirects only? First a correct section redirect that discusses the disambiguated topic, then an example which is incorrect because the section redirect doesn't discuss the disambiguated topic, and then a third example only if there's another way of messing up worth showcasing. Including an example with section links is likely more confusing than useful because the reader doesn't yet know the connection to redirects: only when the reader later gets to the DABSECTION section will they learn the MoS tells us to replace a disambig link such as Geologic time scale#Terminology (btw this anchor link is broken!) with a redirect, and with various considerations that will be explained at that later time.
• By the way I feel that Section and anchor points in links should not be visible to the reader (in DABSECTION) isn't sufficiently clear - as I read the MoS it's not that you should read "should not be visible" to mean "better hide it then"; instead I would simply say "Do not use section links (anchor points) in disambiguation links to the subject; use sections links (anchor points) in disambiguation links in the description only if you pipe it to display text similar to the article title", and then discuss the deets.)
• Back to DABREDIR: In the descriptions, per § Items appearing within other articles, redirects may be used; follow the normal Wikipedia:Redirect guideline. First, spelling out exactly what the author mean here would be helpful. But wouldn't it be even more helpful to instead refer the reader to the DABSECTION section, since you are presumably thinking of its second bullet point For links in the description, link to a redirect or use an anchor-point link with piping to display text similar to the article title? (my emphasis)
• I see you made an attempt at having examples explain what they intend to explain. Let me edit them to show how I would have done it.

CapnZapp (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

One possibly useful addition would be to showcase a redirect that links to a section, and that section contains an alternative name (i.e. a term in bold). I mean sometimes such alternative bold names appear not up in the lead but in down in a section, and this would be an example that combines "a redirect used to link to a specific section of an article because that section discusses the disambiguated topic" and "the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target section". Can't immediately think of a good example, but they are reasonably prevalent. CapnZapp (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

First off, can you split your comments per topic in the future? It's really hard to answer them in batches like this. --Joy (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand how you're talking about a third example for Eon, when I removed that example already yesterday. How does this lag happen? --Joy (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine responding in a way you prefer, Joy - just tell me what you want (what exactly do you mean by "split per topic"?). As for the third example, no lag. I just remembered there originally being three examples. As for my most recent comment, funnily enough I just had reason to create the Clarence Brown Theater redirect. Not saying I necessarily recommend basing an example off of it; just wanting to illustrate the concept of "a redirect that links not to an alternate name in a lead but to a bolded topic in a section" if anyone happens to think that useful. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I want to be able to reply to your comments without excess complexity. If you post a whole list of issues in a single comment, it's not possible to properly address the whole thing because if I skip some of the 7 issues you mentioned it starts to look like I rudely ignored half of what you said. --Joy (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw the edit about "Eon (cosmic time scale)", but that seems to reorient that paragraph into talking about something else. The original phrasing described the use of redirects to avoid clumsy phrasing around section anchors. Your example describes that use of redirects and juxtaposes that with what I would describe as an off-topic, obviously wrong entry that happens to use redirects. I don't know that the manual of style is the place to tell editors "don't send readers on a wild goose chase". --Joy (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I want to be able to reply to your comments without excess complexity. Tell me what you want, Joy, not what you don't want. Just don't ask me to interleave my comments with yours - when I do that other editors complain and even refactor my comments to remain in chronological order. Also, some editors complain when you make several posts instead of bunching them all together in a single post. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, because I literally told you - one comment per topic. You don't have to interleave anything. The idea that bunching everything together is better does not make any sense to me. --Joy (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The Eon examples are intended to illustrate the redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if only that section discusses the disambiguated topic rule. Two examples are given, both using redirects that link to specific sections. The first one discusses the disambigauted topic (which thus is correct usage) the second does not (which thus is incorrect usage). Feel very welcome to improve the example if you feel it is not as clear as it could be. In particular, what I stated in my edit summary: "feel free to replace my made-up example (second example); perhaps a real existing redirect that an editor could plausibly think would be useful for Eon (but isn't) could be found?" Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding your request for me to post one comment per topic, I now realize what you want out of that - you want to interleave your comments, Joy. Meaning you don't post them chronologically. You post them in-between mine. Please don't ask me to do that.

Now then, let's get back to the matter at hand. If you want to improve the Eon example you are free to do that. Just please understand that the reason I removed/replaced the earlier second example was because I felt it had nothing to do with what was discussed. Geologic time scale#Terminology is not a redirect so why feature it as an example in the Redirects section? I pointed this out already at The other two ("wrong") examples doesn't use redirects. If you can think of a better example that would be great. I think I will now take a step back and possibly come back to see any updates in a while. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The idea that others are going to go through a chronological wall of text instead of subthreads is optimistic at best.

So the premise is that we don't want redirects by default / in general, but then describe scenarios where we actually do. A topic mentioned in another article could be linked through an anchor link, but it doesn't have to be that ugly, it can be done using a redirect despite the general advice not to use them. --Joy (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)