Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	WikiProject Disambiguation
	v • d • e This project page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This talk page is automatically archived. Any sections older than 45 days are automatically archived. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.

Shortcuts: WT:D WT:DAB

Disambiguation
Guideline (talk) Style guide (talk) WikiProject (talk) {{Disambig}} Disambig category Cleanup category CJKV taskforce Suggestions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

Contents 1 How do I find an appropriate disambiguation template ? 2 Template:Otheruses in articles with brackets 3 primary topic clarification - Primary topic in Wikipedia are in all of English? 4 Disambiguation pages with two entries 5 Error on this page - linking to redirects 6 Energy (disambiguation) 7 Disambiguation pages with Commons entries 8 Captain (fictional spaceships) 9 WP:INTDABLINK 10 Incontinence 11 Say What? and Say What 12 Proposal for new disambiguation template 13 Parenthetical clarifiers in article titles 13.1 A proposal 13.2 The wikilawyer argument defeated twice 14 Highlighting most sought disambig entries 15 As I Lay Dying disambig 16 User:Una Smith's end run around current guidelines on primary topic disambiguations 17 Something's not right here 18 Tom or Thomas Brock

[edit] How do I find an appropriate disambiguation template ?

I cannot find any pointers here on how to locate an appropriate template for a disambiguation page. Without that we can't create the page.. the format appears to be Template:Xxxdis.. ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• What about {{disambig}}? --Russ (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• See WP:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The disambig notice Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Otheruses in articles with brackets

The Template Template:Otheruses should not be used in articles with brackets, since you get there only following a already qualified link in another text or a disambiguation page, not by searching. I removed all those cases in the German wikipedia (about 50), but there are much more in the English WP. You can find them by searching for ") (transclusion)" on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Otheruses&limit=5000.

Couldn't that job be done easily by a bot?

--Abe Lincoln (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that articles with brackets should not use {{Otheruses}} on its own, then that's right, since that would normally generate a red link to Foo (tag) (disambiguation). However I suspect most of the cases involve {{Otheruses}} with a parameter, which is acceptable use (though in most cases not necessary). I don't think such hatnotes do any harm, and I don't believe a bot would be capable of identifying the cases where the hatnotes are actually beneficial. The main benefit comes, I think, in cases where the reader has clicked on a link of the form [Foo (something)|Foo] hoping to get to an article on Foo (something else). If there is a (something else) reasonably close semantically to the present (something), then the hatnote makes sense. For example, I use similar templates (otherplaces2/3) at the top of articles like Głęboczek, Greater Poland Voivodeship, because people are likely to get there by clicking on a link that says simply "Głęboczek", and they might think they're going to an article on some other Głęboczek that they happen to know about. In this case the hatnote serves not only as an aid to further navigation, but also a kind of warning that this isn't necessarily what you were looking for.--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then the English WP has a different approach than the German WP regarding this. For instance, if I already am on article Aquarius (constellation), I actually don't really need a hint that there other meanings. I can clearly tell from the expression in the brackets, in this case (constellation). A hint is useful in article Angst, since there are no brackets. I would see it as some kind of information overload. Also, it is not consistent, as Aquarius (astrology) does not have any hint. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we lack the German rigour;) But I think it's a matter of judgement whether any particular article would benefit from a hatnote. Not all readers are so familiar with Wikipedia's ways as to deduce the existence of other articles from the name of one (and those who are familiar know that a dab tag is often added pre-emptively or to conform to some naming convention, like the US city+state rule). And if you've come to a page by clicking a link that you hoped would take you sommewhere slightly different, even if you assume other articles exist, it's nice to have a note right at the top that confirms that and contains a link to the dab page. --Kotniski (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with removing such hatnotes from articles with brackets is that it assumes the parenthetical disambiguation is sufficient to differentiate the subject from all others; however, there are many, many case where a reader coming from a search results page (or from a mistakenly linked page) might not be certain that the subject is the one intended. The parenthetical disambiguation phrases are not intended to precisely define all aspects of the subject, they are simply phrases that capture one major aspect of the subject. This can be particularly problematic for people who may be notable for several reasons, but the parenthetical term usually only reflects one. Whether a hatnote is appropriate in any particular article would be a topic for discussion on the talk page (or perhaps for WP:BRD, if one is so inclined). older ≠ wiser 16:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If I am looking for a special James King, I will find James King, from where I will find the right one. If I get to the wrong one, then the disambiguation is bad and should be improved. If I get to the wrong one somehow else, for instance James King (footballer), than I now that I have to look at James King for other meanings. This can be easier by a hatnote. But then every page with brackets could automatically be supplied with hatnote, that does nothing more than to either remove the brackets or add (disambiguation). I understand your point, but it's just not consistent right. Eventually it's a matter of taste though. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is a lack of consistency. But you make assumptions about how readers navigate which may work OK for experienced editors, but leave those unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Wikipedia naming conventions at a loss. older ≠ wiser 17:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Before driving in a country for the first time, you need to learn whether to drive on the right or left side of the road. In the US drivers who are accustomed to driving on the left are not accommodated, and in the UK they don't accommodate those accustomed to driving on the right. Making assumptions about certain basic knowledge of its users is inherent in any system. The only assumption made by User:Abe Lincoln above is that a reader chancing upon James King (footballer) will realize that this article is about the footballer and not any other James King. If said reader then becomes curious about what other James Kings there may be, surely the only reasonable thing to do, whether one has familiarity with "the peculiarities of Wikipedia naming conventions" or not, is to enter "James King" in the box labeled "Find" and to press "Go" or "Search". I also think it is inaccurate to characterize the Wikipedia convention of providing specific distinguishing information about a particular usage of a name or term in brackets as a "peculiarity" - this method should be familiar to anyone who can read English (language). There is lack of consistency, period. No buts about it. And no excuses either, especially lame excuses about Wikipedia "peculiarities" which are not peculiar at all. We should all be working in unison to eliminate these inconsistencies, one at a time, or with bots when appropriate. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Total consistency is not going to help anyone. There are situations (probably most) where your arguments hold; there are other situations (for example, when the bracketed tag is imperfect - as many of them are - or not immediately comprehensible to all readers) where they don't. This isn't a distinction a bot can make - in any case the superfluous hatnotes are doing no harm. --Kotniski (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my characterization of Wikipedia naming conventions as peculiar. And no amount of Serge's calling such characterization as lame makes them any less peculiar. older ≠ wiser 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] primary topic clarification - Primary topic in Wikipedia are in all of English?

The lead sentence for the primary topic section currently reads:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

There are recent and current disputes at Talk:Nice at Talk:Malice (legal term) respectively which are essentially about whether the "ambiguous term" refers to usage within Wikipedia, or all English usage regardless of whether the term is covered in Wikipedia. For example, the argument is being made against moving the article about the legal usage of Malice to Malice since the primary topic for that term is the emotion, yet there is no article in Wikipedia about that usage (since Wikipedia is not a dictionary). So should that usage even be included in the consideration? I think our guideline needs to be clear on this one way or the other. Essentially, I think we should clarify with one of the following (proposed clarifications noted with underscores in each):

a) When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other Wikipedia topic to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

b) When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other usage of it in the English language (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

I think (a) is correct and (b) is arguably nonsensical, but want to make sure we have consensus before I make the revision. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Since dab pages are intended to disambiguate between wp articles, I see no place for primary topics that are not also articles ... dictionary defs are well covered by using the wiktionary tag. To be even more clear, imho what a word means is quite imaterial for dab purposes; articles with that title, regardless of meaning, is what counts. You have my support for a). Abtract (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a very succinct way to put it. If you have an improvement on the proposed (a) wording to suggest, please do. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "topic covered in Wikipedia" rather than "Wikipedia topic"? But you have my support too.--Kotniski (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Given the recent discussion on a primary topic for Plymouth the latest of many on British cities, I wonder if we should abandon the primary use criteria. Yea, this is a bit cynical, but recent discussions on British cities seem to be saying that primary use is not a consideration. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is cynical. That aside, I think we need to make sure the guideline is adhered to more consistently, and one way to do that is to clarify the guideline, which is what this proposal attempts to do. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think that abandoning the guideline is a mistake, instead these discussions perhaps should not have went the way they did. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the sentence per this discussion as follows:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. When a topic is the primary topic for more than one name the more common should be the title, and the less commmon should redirect to the article.

--Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This invites "divide and conquer" tactics. Among 30 or 50 entries, one entry may be the largest yet not even the majority. Should it be the "primary topic"? I say not, particularly because such an ambiguous title is likely to get a lot of incoming links. Harrisburg is a case in point. --Una Smith (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. I recall on Weymouth, I gave London and Paris as examples of a link that should go to a primary topic (London UK and Paris France, respectively) rather than to a dab page. You argued that even London should be a dab page rather than an article. Do you still feel that way? Because I think that is not a commonly accepted view. With the example of Harrisburg, what are the likely common hits? And what is their frequency? ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer Lar's last question last. First, I will try to explain my view more clearly. It is not as simple as Lar describes. Here goes... Both London and Paris are exemplars of the "primary topic" concept: names so well known globally that those names connote their respective cities for almost everyone. They are primary topics, no question. My point about them is that beside the clear benefits of putting a primary topic at the ambiguous or "base" title, there are costs. I think the costs are underestimated by many Wikipedians. Those costs include the impracticality (I am tempted to say impossibility) of disambiguating incoming links to those articles. How many thousands of links to London are in error, because they actually intend somewhere or something else? At the outset of disambiguating Weymouth, I estimated 10% of the incoming links were wrong. But after all the links were disambiguated, counting the links to Weymouth, Dorset shows that in fact 40% of the incoming links were wrong or not exactly right. For example, there were multiple instances of each of these:

• [[Weymouth]] Beach rather than [[Weymouth Beach]]
• [[Weymouth]], [[Dorset]] rather than [[Weymouth, Dorset]]
• [[Weymouth]], [[Massachusetts]] rather than [[Weymouth, Massachusetts]]

It is my impression, from my occasional work disambiguating all incoming links to a given article, that the proportion of wrong or inexact links increases with the length of the disambiguation page. Furthermore, when the disambiguation page has been "cut down" to a tidy package, the problem is even worse; I suppose many contributors just give up trying to disambiguate their links. There are some pages (eg Captain) where disambiguating is a nightmare, not because (or not just because) of the number of links but because it is so hard to figure out which is the correct link to use. Now, Lar's last question: With the example of Harrisburg, what are the likely common hits? And what is their frequency? That is hard to answer without first disambiguating the links to Harrisburg, because those links are the combination of links intending Harrisburg PA (per se, not any other article related to Harrisburg PA) and links not intending Harrisburg PA. How many in each category? I don't know, but after disambiguating Weymouth and Harris, I can say the answer is likely to dismay. --Una Smith (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear... you think London should be a dab page? If you do, then there may be little basis for common ground, because I don't think that's a commonly accepted view. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note, in reference to the original example, that disambiguation to Wiktionary is perfectly acceptable, especially for well-known meanings with no hope for an article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to Wiktionary. --Bejnar (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  You may like to re-read that section which does not encourage disambiguating to Wiktionary, but simply adding an initial link "outside" the disambiguation process, which is all about articles with a similar name not definitions. But it's an easy mistake to make. :) Abtract (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages with two entries

Rinku, Hellsing (disambiguation), and Ryuk come to mind. IIRC, the guideline prefers hatnoting when it comes to dabs with really two entries. So does anyone have any suggestions on what to do here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It partly depends on whether either of the two is significantly more well-known than the other. If there is not a primary topic, IMO, a two-topic disambiguation page is preferable to misleadingly implying that one is primary. older ≠ wiser 11:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

All 3 seem justified in different ways: to avoid a dab page for Rinku would mean that it had to point to one or the other, as a Primary Usage, and the Primary Usage seems not to be established. The "See also" to Rinku Town seems worthwhile too. Hellsing (disambiguation)- well, the SA seems again to justify its existence. Ryuk - again, the alternative would be to decide that one or other was a primary usage, and have a complicated "Redirect" hatnote to lead to the other - a dab page seems the tidiest solution. Maybe the "no dab page if only 2 articles" rule is one where WP:IAR needs to be invoked if the result will be a more helpful page for more readers. PamD (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

#1 and #3 look alright as dab pages, but I'd personally get rid of #2 and replace it with hatnotes. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

NB. Someone recently changed the guidelines. Under "Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?", it used to say: "If there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page may be used; an alternative is to set up a redirect from the term to one of the topics, and use disambiguation links only." It now says: "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.". Sam⁵ (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

But WP:HATNOTE still says "When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. It is not necessary to create a separate disambiguation page.". Consistency, anyone? Sam⁵ (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That text on WP:HATNOTE says nothing about primary topic -- if one title is disambiguated and the other is not, that implies one is a primary topic (at least by definition, if not in fact). However, it could be stated more clearly there. And include a link or two to WP:PRIMARY. older ≠ wiser 17:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) What he said. Also, I'm increasingly in favour of adding a dab page where there's any greyness to the issue. I think it helps to reduce the incidence of fighting over the base page by proponents of either of the 2 disambiguated topics. Further, it's much easier to start with each destination disambiguated than to put one at the base page, only to move it later and hence have to revise all the links to the base page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments above of AndrewHowse. Issues like the one concerning the Matthew Williams disambiguation page (See move on 25 November 2008) would not arise if disambiguation had occurred as early as possible. --Bejnar (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In some ways it is worse when there are many entries. Eg Harrisburg and Harrisburg (disambiguation). --Una Smith (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error on this page - linking to redirects

This guideline says:

"To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect – for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages.

This is wrong. We don't link to redirects but to the target article. That's standard practice and guidelines should reflect standard practice. I changed the wording to reflect that reality but I was reverted.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it has never been standard practice to link to target articles rather than redirects. In fact, there's a guideline specifically recommending against editing redirects to point to target articles, WP:R2D. --Muchness (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree -the guideline is IMHO correct. I think it's a useful and increasingly common practice, because it makes clear that one intends to link to the disambiguation page, and that further disambiguation is neither needed nor appropriate. (Contrast this with unintentional links to dab pages, which have a whole WikiProject devoted to fixing them.) See, for example, User:PamD's comment here for a recent example. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're disagreeing with Scott? Because I agree with your argument, and was indirectly trying to make the same point, that there are many contexts (including this one) where intentionally linking to a redirect is preferable. --Muchness (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is wrong. And I hereby protest at another example of MOS legislation being imposed on the wiki. But my time is scarce, I can't be bothered, and so you win. However, some fine day we'll rise up and rid wikipedia of MOS nonsense. Unwatching.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's this "we"? This fine day we managed to rid the MOS of the "Thou shalt not link to redirects" nonsense in a perfectly Wiki way (see WP:BRD and WP:R#NOTBROKEN). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• This decision was only hammered out this month at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping_and_redirects. I'm still not sure I agree that linking to Chrome (browser) instead of Google Chrome (as seen at Chrome) makes sense for the benefit of our readers. I can see how it helps editors, but we're not the primary audience...
• WP:R#NOTBROKEN refers to editing a page just to fix a redirect. It does not apply to how to write a link initially and ideally, which is what we're discussing here.
• Scott is here because of the changes at Barack (disambiguation). There are a few related dab threads
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Dealing_with_dab_pages_that_reference_other_dab_pages
  • Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Barack_.28disambiguation.29
  • Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#When_the_primary_topic.27s_a_redirect...

Informing him of these threads would have been much more useful than biting him. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree that he should have been invited to participate or at least pointed to existing discussions. However, Scott's issue with Barack (disambiguation) has little or nothing to do with the recent discussion regarding Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping_and_redirects. That discussion was primarily concerned with using redirects or piped links for entries in the page. Scott's apparent gripe concerned the deliberate links to other disambiguation pages in the see also section. That practice has been in place for quite a while. older ≠ wiser 20:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Scott's gripe is about the formatting/piping/intentional-link-to-redirect of those links. The "see also" links go to the same targets in both diffs, just the label is changing. Check! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes, that's what I said, isn't it? I don't see how that has any connection to the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping_and_redirects discussion. The practice under discussion there was about something else. older ≠ wiser 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't both discussions about "When should a disambiguation page link to a redirect as opposed to an actual or piped link"? Scott wants the link to go directly from Barack (disambiguation) to Baraka, whereas the people reverting him want the link to target Baraka (disambiguation) (which is a redirect). -- Quiddity (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping_and_redirects was not about deliberately linking to disambiguation pages. It was about linking to redirects in the main listing. Scott objected quite specifically about the practice making intentional links to disambiguation pages use a redirect. I could see how they might be confused, but they are different topics with very different rationales and covered by different parts of the guidelines. I completely agree that intentional links to disambiguation pages should always be to marked form. But for entries in the main listing, I am much more inclined to favor linking directly to the topic rather than a redirect except in certain cases.03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean about the fine distinction of topics. I guess I was suggesting that one might lead to, or have unwittingly led to, the other.

What I'm trying to verbalize, is that there are 3 choices for how to format the link to Baraka at the page Barack (disambiguation):

1.	Baraka (disambiguation)	[[Baraka (disambiguation)]]
2.	Baraka (disambiguation)	[[Baraka]] (disambiguation)
3.	Baraka (disambiguation)	[[Baraka|Baraka (disambiguation)]]

1. leads to a redirect, 2. & 3. do not. I think Scott and I both essentially want either 2 or 3, because purposefully-writing-a-link to send all the readers to a redirect is "less good" in the end, than sending them directly to the actual page's title. Partially because the redirect notice is visually distracting/crufty, partially because it is at odds with the standards elsewhere. Possibly other reasons? (I can't speak for him. I also didn't realize he was a former admin until just now)). (the 4th option is to move the page to the expanded title, but that way windmill-tilting lies...)

I'd been trying to avoid getting into it actually, whilst glancing through the #Piping_and_redirects thread for the last few weeks, but for some obscure biochemical reason I chose this iteration to speak up in. It's a mess of related topics, with a mess of related ramifications, and a mess of subjective stances. All horribly convoluted and intractable. Ahhhh, Wikipedia, how we love thee. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The basic rationale for clearly identifying such intentional links to disambiguation pages can be found at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. The reasoning is that in general there should not be any links to a disambiguation page. Repairing such mistaken links is the raison d'être for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages task force. Using such redirects unambiguously indicates that such links are intentional and do not need to be repaired. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Partially because the redirect notice is visually distracting/crufty, partially because it is at odds with the standards elsewhere." How is it distracting/crufty? If the small-text notice at the top is somehow bad, I believe that the benefit Bkonrad described outweighs it. What standards elsewhere is it at odds with? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The benefit you're describing is for editors - we're not writing an encyclopedia for editors.

It is crufty because it is completely irrelevant to a reader (In this Baraka (disambiguation) case. In the case of Baking soda it is actually useful). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "crufty" means in this context -- but if it is irrelevant to a reader, then why shouldn't the guidance be to the benefit of editors? I'm also not sure what utility is being compared/contrasted by the mention of Baking soda. I'm as yet unaware of any formal guidance to prefer using direct links over redirects or that specifically mentions that redirect messages are to be avoided. older ≠ wiser 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The "decision" (or consensus) existed before this month's discussion. As for "Chrome", a reader who reaches Chrome (disambiguation) clearly didn't enter "Google Chrome" in the search box; if they are looking for Google Chrome, they are doing so by searching for a web browser by the search term "Chrome". In that scenario, Chrome (browser) best fits what the hypothetical reader is thinking. I'm not sure what benefit it gives to the editor, but the redirect is used to benefit the reader. NOTBROKEN was brought up as a counter to Scott's claim of "invariable practice" -- it lists other reasons for linking to redirects besides the reason he was negating with his edit here. And what bite are you talking about? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• It gives benefits to the editor as described at WP:INTDABLINK ("helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages"), thereby removing them from the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links list of items we need to fix.
• "buh-bye" was unhelpful to anyone who reads it.
• I do agree that for the specific Barack example, it is more helpful to readers to have the text "(disambiguation)" either next to, or as part of, the see also links (either of these 2 diffs). What I object to here, is forcing there to be a redirect-notice at the top of the page for the reader (i.e. just an "aesthetic" objection). This is a primary-topic/page-naming-convention issue, mixed with a redirect issue. It makes more sense to me, to move the Baraka article to Baraka (disambiguation), if all of the incoming links point to the second title.
• For Chrome (browser) and Ten (character) etc, I'm not convinced. I believe using the actual article-title name would be clearer for some readers (perhaps "most" readers? I'm not sure).

Having 3 main discussion forums for disambig matters isn't helping any of this... but that's yet another topic -- Quiddity (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• This was unhelpful to anyone who reads is (and edit summaried "Pah"). "Buh-bye" was an appropriate response to that petulant note of farewell.
• Moving all dabs to (disambiguation) has been discussed before, and opted against. Changing the consensus is certainly possible if you want to reopen it, but not really relevant to the use of the redirects for intentional links to base-name dab pages.
• Again, how would a reader who is clearer with Google Chrome vs. Chrome (browser) have gotten to the Chrome dab page in the first place? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• But you're an admin: You're supposed to be setting a better example. (yes "he started it". how about we just drop it... wasn't that big of a deal at all)
• Moving all dabs to (disambiguation) is relevant if redirects are (widely?) objected to and are being mass-implemented because of a recent guideline/standard change.
• It seems to be the same as changing the link at Mercury for the Bristol Mercury to read Mercury (aircraft engine), and changing the link to Project Mercury to read Mercury (space project). Referring to it as Chrome (browser) is a completely invented and Wikipedia-centric label for a link. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving all dabs to (disambiguation) is relevant if redirects are (widely?) objected to and are being mass-implemented because of a recent guideline/standard change. This is confusing two separate issues. The practice of having intentional links to disambiguation pages use redirects with the (disambiguation) form is not the result of a recent guideline change. That practice has been in place for a very long time now (even if not evenly applied). The practice of linking main entries through redirects is a somewhat more recent development, but is still goes back quite a bit farther than the recent discussion you linked to above. Regarding Google Chrome, I'm inclined to agree with you. older ≠ wiser 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Being an admin does not mean I cannot have a sense of humor. There is nothing wrong with the example set. No personal attacks, etc. Any non-admin is welcome to respond similarly to other such farewells. But if you'll stop making it a big deal, I'll be happy to stop answering your points about it.
• What Bkonrad said.
• I still don't understand how you are proposing to help someone who is looking for an article on a browser and enters "Chrome" in the search box -- obviously they'll reach the page sought by scanning blue links and clicking on Chrome (browser), even if they don't know it's from Google. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• So do you think we should change all those links at Mercury? Change Project Mercury to Mercury (space program), and change Blackburn Mercury to Mercury (British aircraft)? If so, go for it (I'll wait here for you to be reverted); if not, how is changing Google Chrome to Chrome (browser) different? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about links on Mercury, and I'm not familiar with that dab page. Your "So" there is incorrect; one does not lead to the other. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Mercury is the page/word we use as the main example in the introduction at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I think my example is a perfect pattern match, to the "Exact titles are not preferred" stance that we should invent a new label for something that already has an agreed-upon label (the target article's current title).

Pick any of the actual redirects linking to Project Mercury, and explain how it would be more useful to use that on the Mercury disambig page, rather than the exact-page-title.

Then change all of the links at Mercury to follow this "Exact titles are not preferred" concept (it is our example page after all...). It may look "cleaner" to an editor's eye seeing the word "mercury" running down in a straight column as the first word in every item, but it is less accurate (and can reinforce the weight of an improper name), and arguably far less useful to a searching reader. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While that would be one way to approach getting consensus on the Chrome disambiguation page, it's not the only one. I'll continue down the current path rather than be directed down two paths. (If a redirect has undue weight on an improper name, it should probably be RfDed. If it exists, then it gives the appearance of usefulness, and will likely be used by some dab editors.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy (disambiguation)

I would appreciate someone keeping an eye on this page for a while. Abtract (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages with Commons entries

I just happened upon the page Johann Salver. It is a disambiguation page with no article links, just mentions of three people, two of whom may be the same, all (or both) 18th century engravers. It follows these with two links to Commons image galleries of engravings by the various Johann Salvers. Is this a proper use of a disambiguation page? Rklear (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a disambiguation page at all. There was a similar case at Vladimir Sherwood not long ago. This needs to be split into at least two stubs, Johann Salver and Johann Octavian Salver with Johann H. Salver redirecting to the latter unless/until shown to be a separate person. I'll try to do that. (Whether either of these is notable enough for an article is a separate question I'm not sure about.) Station1 (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Captain (fictional spaceships)

I've been banging on fixing links into Captain and noticed that it would be helpful to have a page like Captain (fictional spaceships) to cover myriad books, movies, T.V. shows, and so forth. Unfortunately, every time I take a stab at starting such a page, it comes out pretty snarky. Maybe Han Solo is the [[captain (spacecraft)|captain]] of the M.... would be more like it? Anybody have any feelings on this? Cheers. Haus^Talk 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Those links to Captain are something else; they grow faster than we disambiguate them. The Trouble With Captains...? --Una Smith (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:INTDABLINK

WP:INTDABLINK says to create a redirect "Foo (disambiguation)" to a dab page "Foo" if that redirect does not already exist. Why? --Una Smith (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Found answer above. (Is this a FAQ?) In short, doing this gathers legitimate links to the dab page via a redirect that has a standardized name. These links are easy for editors to recognize and ignore. I read the guideline several times and did not get that point. --Una Smith (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you get it now. English can be effective, but is far from perfect, at conveying concepts, and often fails. If you can word it more clearly, please do. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a bot going around, "fixing" redirects to "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. See for example this diff. --Una Smith (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That example's a redirect, rather than a link in an article, and I think perhaps the bot has got it right. Is it doing the same thing to any links in articles or dab pages? PamD (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixing double redirects may be the correct behavior, but it conflicts with this guideline, which says that to isolate intentional ("correct") links to dab pages the links should go to a companion page with "(disambiguation)" in the title. Hence, Ann Hathaway is a redirect to Anne Hathaway (disambiguation), which is a redirect to Anne Hathaway, which is a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Such double-redirects are considered to be non-functional and should be repaired. When examining what links here for disambiguation pages, redirects are already identified as such and do not need to be fixed. Howver, pages that link to the dab page through a redirect should be repaired. older ≠ wiser 20:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that makes the advice in WP:INTDABLINK pretty much useless. --Una Smith (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Una, you refer to "intentional ("correct") links to dab pages", but Redirects don't count as "links" in that context. If you're looking at "What links here" you can exclude Redirects. If Ann Hathaway redirects directly to Anne Hathaway, and you then look at "What links here" for Anne Hathaway, you can exclude redirects and thus not see the one where the bot has just removed the double redirect. Does that help clarify, I wonder? PamD (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:INTDABLINK needs a rewrite. --Una Smith (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at doing so. PamD (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incontinence

Incontinence is a hard one. There are 3 pages on Wikipedia, but many incoming links to incontinence cannot be changed to any of the 3 and I cannot think how to cast yet another article to cover the most common sense of "incontinence", which is in effect the person needs to wear a diaper, never mind why. Ideas? --Una Smith (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The incoming links could be made interwiki links to Wiktionary instead. Or the dab page could be replaced with a very short dictionary-definition-like article (I know that WP is not a dictionary, but this may be a case where we ignore that rule) that gives a brief description and links to the types of incontinence (with a hatnote to the philosophy). Or the dab page could be moved to Incontinence (disambiguation) and the base name be made into a soft redirect to Wiktionary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes... Or we could make Incontinence (medical) and move most of the incoming links there. Except, that page also would be little more than a dab page. A similar situation exists with Founder. --Una Smith (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Say What? and Say What

I came across a kind of odd situation that I can't quite decide what to do about. There are three articles with variations on the title "Say What". One is Say What, which is a single, and there are two other articles for "Say What?", one being a game, Say What? (game) and the other being an MTV show, Say What?. Should there be a disambiguation page? And if so, should it for all three? Or is a hatnote sufficient for each of the two with the "?" in the title? Thanks in advance for your help. Raven1977 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Say What!, another single by Stevie Ray Vaughan. And there may be a different song with the name by Kovas. Looks like there should be a disambiguation page including all the variants. Personally, I would not consider the LL Cool J single as the primary topic, but I don't know much about popular music. So unless you want to move the current Say What, the dab page would be at Say What (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 22:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on Say What!; I totally missed it. I wouldn't consider that LL Cool J single the primary topic either, so I'm moving the LL Cool J song to Say What (LL Cool J song) and creating Say What as the dab page for all of the above. Thanks for the quick response, Raven1977 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for new disambiguation template

I've spent a lot of time since the summer on cleaning up incoming links to disambiguation pages for broadcast call signs (e.g., KAAN, WFLA, etc.), and I think I've landed on an idea that'll make this easier going forward.

In the spirit of {{geodis}} for place names and {{schooldis}} for educational institutions, I'd like to create a new template called {{callsigndis}}. This template would be used instead of {{disambig}} on disambiguation pages that are exclusively for call signs, and would be coded to include the article in both [[Category:All disambiguation pages]] and a new [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]]. If the dab page has a mix of call signs and general articles (such as at WECC), then the same approach as is used for {{geodis}} would apply — the instruction would be to tag it with both {{disambig}} and [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]], so that it has the general disambiguation page visual at the bottom of the page but still hits the relevant category. There are currently some 2000 pages that would be members of the new category.

The primary benefit is that it would allow for regular comparison between the constituents of the two disambiguation categories. Since call sign pages generally fall within specific alphabetical ranges, that comparison will easily identify new pages that have been created, which can then be retagged, watched by project members, kept clean of incoming links, etc.

This proposal has been up for discussion for a couple of days now at the radio station and television station projects and, while there hasn't been much comment to date, what comment there's been has been supportive. In the meantime, while I don't see any policy problem with this, I wanted to also bring the idea here to the folks who are regularly engaged in disambiguation to get your thoughts. Mlaffs (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parenthetical clarifiers in article titles

I've gotten into a discussion with another editor at Talk:Pop music#Discussion about the correct usage of parenthetical clarifiers in article titles. My position is that they are appended to articles names to distinguish between multiple articles with the same name, the other editor's is that they can be added to any article title, even a primary topic, if they make the title less confusing. I'd appreciate if interested parties familiar with disambiguation naming conventions could offer their opinions here or at the Talk:Pop music discussion. --Muchness (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In theory, I see no reason against using parenthesis for additional precision per WP:PRECISION when necessary. The difficulty is showing that the additional precision is necessary for any reason other than disambiguation. I don't know that that has ever been done. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A three month Pop music RfC consensus decided here that disambiguation was needed generally. I knew also how to implement this consensus in title parentheses. Please reconsider your oppose at the Talk Pop music RM survey. (See my post below.) Milo 10:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I routinely remove unnecessary bracketed disambiguators from articles I Stub-sort. A reader who types in Nutrition and Cancer to look for a journal of that name can't be expected to type Nutrition and Cancer (journal) just because some editor thought the title wasn't clear. The first sentence of the article must explain what the topic is. And in many cases, editors who add unnecessary disambiguators to article titles don't even make a redirect from the undisambiguated form. PamD (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for your input, your responses are in keeping with my understanding of current guidelines and practice. As Born2cycle points out, it's determining when necessary that's the crux of the issue – in practice, I can't think of many (if any) situations where it would be an improvement to add a parenthetical term for purposes other than disambiguating articles sharing the same name. It may be worth looking into explicitly stating somewhere at WP:D or WP:NAME that disambiguators are only necessary for distinguishing between articles with the same title, if adding unnecessary disambiguators is fairly commonplace. --Muchness (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) This is a case of a Pop music RfC consensus for disambiguation, being blocked by Muchness' wikilawyering of WP:D ("same name" is a special case of the WP:D first sentence - see my explanatory post at [1] - find "special case"); plus his jamming of the RfC with a unilateral and unfair competing WP:RM process. This apparently happened because he isn't familiar with the less common types of title disambiguation. I've previously expressed my annoyance with his stubbornly-wrong yet good intent, so let's move on.
I'm a long time editor not previously involved at Pop music, who tried to wind up the three month RfC by summarizing and implementing a disambiguation consensus. Talk:Pop music#RfC: What is the intended subject of this article?. I was just trying to quickly help out a struggling music editor who needed experienced help in closing and implementing a process, but now I wish I'd never gotten involved.
This article's title term fits the WP:D definition of disambiguation: The single term pop music can be associated with the topic of the genre called "pop". But for some people and cultures, "pop" is also associated with the concept of "popular music"; that is, music of many genres having mass media market appeal, including the "pop" genre. As a result, editors filled the Pop music genre article with off-topic text intended for the article Popular music.
The process mess is unfair to the Pop music article, because the RM participants aren't reading the RfC, and so don't understand the ambiguation problem, or know there is a consensus to fix it.
Born2cycle is an example (see my response to him above). He apparently didn't read the RfC, and posted as opposed to the rename – yet he mentioned conditions similar to those the article faces, which I understand as validating a disambiguation title of Pop music (genre).
I request help in cleaning up the unfair process mess. If editors here agree that the Pop music article RfC consensus is getting screwed, that might encourage an admin to pull the plug on the unfair RM that will otherwise pile-on uninformed editors for weeks. Milo 10:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is true that until now I had not read the RfC. Now I have. It has not explained why Pop music needs to be disambiguated from Popular music since the two names are already distinct. Are you arguing that the genre does not have primary usage of the name Pop music? That Pop music is sufficiently likely to mean Popular music rather than the genre to warrant making Pop music a dab page? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The latter, if by "dab page" you inclusively mean an article with a parenthetically disambiguated title, as well as a page with content like Pop music (disambiguation).

The title needs to be disambiguated because the technical distinction you correctly observe is one that many Pop music editors don't know about or don't perceive the way the way encyclopedia techies like ourselves do, and that has led to a persistent slow edit war. See more at my posts below. Milo 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, a "dab page" is defined by its contents, not its name. A "dab page" is essentially a list of references to uses of the name it disambiguates. If the name in question has a primary topic, then the article about that topic is at Name while the dab page is at Name (disambiguation). See Paris and Paris (disambiguation). Alternatively, if an ambiguous name does not have a primary topic, then the dab page is at the name. See Portland, to use another city as an example.

So I'm asking you whether you want to make Pop music a dab page, or are you suggesting that Pop music be moved to Pop music (genre) and that Pop music be a redirect to Pop music (genre)? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a primary topic occupy the ambiguous title, and it has not been shown that Pop music (genre) in fact is the primary topic. On the contrary, the extent of confusion over this point is, to me, convincing evidence that neither Pop music (genre) nor Popular music belongs at the page title Pop music. I think the volume of incoming links to Pop music is a really good reason to move Pop music (disambiguation) to Pop music. --Una Smith (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether any given topic is the primary use of a given name is ultimately a subjetive call determined by consensus. If I'm not mistaken, so far you're the only one coming close to objecting, and even you have only questioned it. You are not arguing that the genre is clearly not the primary topic, are you?

I don't understand why merely a high number of incoming links to a given name indicates that the page at that name should be a dab page. Say 90% or more of those links end up being for the genre; then you will have just about as many incoming links to Pop music (genre) as we have now to Pop music. What would that solve? So unless we also have evidence that a substantial percentage of those incoming links is not for the genre, I don't see the point of moving the page, at least not for that reason. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not merely the high number of incoming links, but also the ambiguous title and the content of the article at that title. Pop music has hardly any text, but a long infobox with navigation, a navbox, and a huge "see also" section. Pop music is a disambiguation page trying to be an article. It reminds me a lot of Captain, before it became a disambiguation page. The disambiguation is not just between pop music and popular music, but within pop music. In disambiguating Joshua Tree, I found a lot of instances of [[Joshua Tree]], [[California]] that needed to be changed to [[Joshua Tree, California]]. Similarly, I expect Pop music has many incoming links in the form of (eg) [[bubblegum]] [[pop music]] that should be changed to [[bubblegum pop music]]. --Una Smith (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

The bottom line appears to be this: at least one editor thinks Pop music needs to be disambiguated. At least one other editor does not. Rather than arguing about it, how about exploring the idea? That can be done in several ways. Two that I find useful are (1) creating or expanding a disambiguation page, and (2) disambiguating incoming links to the article with the (claimed) ambiguous title. Pop music (disambiguation) exists, but arguably needs to be expanded: it lacks the sub-genres and fusion genres and relevant see-also's found on Pop music. Pop music has over 10,000 incoming links: Special:WhatLinksHere/Pop music. Probably those links should be dispersed among the many related pages. How about all of you involved in the RfC have a go at disambiguating those links as if Pop music were a disambiguation page with links? --Una Smith (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

10,000+ links, eh? I notice that Special:WhatLinksHere/Pop music doesn't organize them very well. Maybe sombody in that editing group should request that those pages should get Mediawiki selection tools like the edit log pages. Milo 07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Milo seems to believe Pop music needs to be dabbed, but not for any reason that would be clarified by what you propose, so far as I can tell. That is, if he had a traditional argument - that the genre is not the primary topic; that there is no primary topic - then your proposed exercise would be helpful to ascertain that. But I think he's saying that even if the genre is the primary topic (he's stated that primary usage is irrelevant here) it still needs to be dabbed because of the confusion in meaning between the two terms. No one is protesting the existence of some confusion in meaning, so far as I can tell. The issue seems to be about whether that confusion makes more precision in the title necessary. I have not seen a compelling case for that position. Not here. Not in the RfC. Not at the RM discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for summarizing my position.

The very real problem to solve is a persistent slow edit war at Pop music caused by the ambiguity that you acknowledge. The necessity for conceptual disambiguation to "genre" has been determined by RfC, which it is policy to accept. The specific necessity for parenthetical title disambiguation is determined by the failure of hatnotes and conflicting rewrites to solve the problem in a traditional way. Parenthetical title disambiguation for this situation may be infrequently used, but it is allowed under current WP:D guiderules. See the details in my posts below. Milo 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand Milo's position, and agree with it, up to a point. I agree that "pop music" is ambiguous, and that it would be useful to move the article now at Pop music to Pop music (genre). The page titled Pop music has a huge number of incoming links. The combination of ambiguous title and huge number of incoming links is a nightmare for fixing links unless the page is a disambiguation page. Were it a disambiguation page, Pop music would be far more tractable; in fact, it would be just one more regular item on to-do lists of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Pop music#Discussion Hike395 was concerned that "Pop music (genre)" was too hard to find, and I innocently assured him that "pop music" would continue to redirect to Pop music (genre). I think that would satisfy the most readers/editors in use, as this arrangement would allow both quick access as well as instant education that the most common use of "pop music" is the genre (per RfC).

That does leave the technical problem of dab link servicing. How about using AWB to change all of the 10,000+ links?

If it's really important to make the disambiguation page work, AWB change [[Pop music]] to [[Pop music (disambiguation)|Pop music]] , and [[pop music]] _{(lower case)} to [[Pop music (disambiguation)|pop music]] . This is likely to make editors revolt against the name change intended to calm down the slow edit war, so I don't recommend it.

If the purpose of dab page servicing the links is to make the articles point directly to targets, and if nearly all the links should point to "genre", why not just AWB change all the links from [[Pop music]] to [[Pop music (genre)|Pop music]] , and [[pop music]] _{(lower case)} to [[Pop music (genre)|pop music]] ? Milo 07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Milo, so your argument is that the slow edit war is what makes adding precision to the title necessary per WP:PRECISION. If I understand you correctly you would favor continuing to recognize that the genre is the primary topic for the term, and so Pop music should redirect to the article about the genre at Pop music (genre) (rather than have Pop music be a dab page as Una favors). I'll have to think about that. In general I'm opposed to having A redirect to B when A is clearly the more common name for the topic and B is a dab of it, but I understand that there are special cases and will concede that this might be one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the best solution I can think of which implements the RfC consensus, quiets the slow edit war, and doesn't rile up editors like Hike395, who would object to a redirect of Pop music to Pop music (disambiguation) (or the equivalent page renames). See my comment to Una above about technical solutions to dab link servicing. Milo 07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

←Una, thanks for the research that you and Sssoul did today.
All the useful work you are describing is wasteful to undertake "bottom up", when some other editor will undo or work against it, because s/he has a different "top down" interpretation of the title.
I respectfully disagree with your analysis, analogous to the synt