Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (November 2005–January 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May–July 2007) Topic: Unencyclopedic (2003) Topic: Trivia (July–October 2007)

RFC on WP:NOTDIRECTORY and notability

Requested formal closure at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Requests_for_comment. Natg 19 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I have also requested that the closer take into account the previous discussion on the matter as well as the manner in which this discussion was brought about into consideration at the closure request linked above. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Should "just the notable ones" (bolded section) be removed from WP:NOTDIRECTORY?

Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith - just the notable ones. Nor should listings such as the white or yellow pages be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information. 02:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This prevents the mass creation of hundreds of thousands of dab pages between non-notable individuals, such as Terry Pearce and Arthur Harley. These dab pages present a number of issues; first, only one link should be included per WP:DABSTYLE, but in many circumstances non-notable people, particularly sportspeople, are mentioned in multiple contexts, all of them equally valid as targets, and thus readers looking for a context different from the one we choose to link to will be left confused and in the wrong location.

Second, these dab pages are unmaintainable; with hundreds of thousands of them they will only rarely be updated after their initial creation, and thus readers looking for a mention of a different Arthur Harley after the dab page is created will struggle to find the mention, as rather than being taken to a list of search results that includes the article they are looking for they will be taken to a dab page that doesn't.

Third, we often don't have enough information to determine whether mentions are of the same people or of different, but using a dab page requires us to make a statement on this and thus has WP:V and WP:OR issues. For example, at Terry Pearce it is not unlikely that the Australian futsal coach and the Australian masters athlete are the same person, but we make the statement that they are different people without any evidence to support this.

These problems are all avoided by maintaining the status quo and instead directing readers to use the search function; it provides a better result for the reader, and it creates far less work for editors. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

However, if the related RfC at MOS:DAB passes, I could support removing the entire sentence on disambiguation pages, as it would no longer be needed to address the issues listed above. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Deferring to the search function is a viable alternative in many cases, but that's not going to happen by changing the dab guidelines: what's at stake here is individual dab entries of a specific, rarely encountered type. This is not going to affect whether the dab page exists in the first place. BilledMammal, if you want to make a change that will have actual effect on the usage of the search function, you can try attacking WP:APONOTE: the rule that allows editors to create lists of people as soon as there are two of them with the same name on Wikipedia. Uanfala (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the problem with Terry Pearce and Arthur Harley? — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, now I see in David Eppstein's comment below: none. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I gave three reasons in the !vote you replied to, and other editors have given other reasons? BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll address them:

1. only one link should be included per WP:DABSTYLE, but in many circumstances non-notable people, particularly sportspeople, are mentioned in multiple contexts, all of them equally valid as targets
   That's a redirect discussion, not a dab one, which can—and should—be had at the appropriate forum, i.e. RfD.
2. readers looking for a mention of a different Arthur Harley after the dab page is created will struggle to find the mention, as rather than being taken to a list of search results that includes the article they are looking for they will be taken to a dab page that doesn't.
   One doesn't exclude the other. I look at dab pages as curated search results. I'm glad they exist; they make sorting through search results a hell of a lot easier. Still, in the odd instances that what I'm looking for is not listed in the dab page, I search for it, and if I do find it, I add it in (so others don't have to).
3. These problems are all avoided by maintaining the status quo and instead directing readers to use the search function; it provides a better result for the reader, and it creates far less work for editors.
   Are you saying search results are better than dab pages in general—and, if so, it'd stand to reason that all dab pages ought to be deleted in favour of the search function—or are you just looking to shift onto the readers the work load of editors? (like so)

  — Guarapiranga ☎ 10:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The first problem is relevant to dabs as well as redirects. The second requires a level of knowledge about how search on Wikipedia works that many readers won't have; they won't know that pressing "enter" produces a different result than clicking "search for pages containing".

And no, search results are only better than dab pages for examples like Terry Pearce, not in general. BilledMammal (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• The first problem is relevant to dabs as well as redirects.
  Once editors decide at RfD which page the contested redirect should point to, if it is contested at all, then where its dab entry should point to is a moot... point.
• The second requires a level of knowledge about how search on Wikipedia works that many readers won't have
  Precisely why the search function does not provide a better result for the reader.
• search results are only better than dab pages for examples like Terry Pearce, not in general
  Are they? Searching for Terry Pearce, even when restricted to mainspace, which requires a level of knowledge about how search on Wikipedia works that many readers won't have, produces 3,719 results. Having Terry Pearce (disambiguation) to help separate the wheat from chaff is a Godsend for me.

  — Guarapiranga ☎ 12:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we are going to disagree here; I will just note that if there was no dab page, entering "Terry Pearce" in the search bar would produce seven results; six relevant and one not relevant. Damningly, of the six relevant, two aren't currently included in the dab page. BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the search results are often better than an unmaintained dab page. But that's regardless of the type of entries on the page, so it's orthogonal to this discussion. Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Of the two results, one can't be mentioned as it would require having two blue links, and while the other one could my earlier point about these pages being unmaintainable applies. BilledMammal (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Your earlier point about unmaintainability applies to all dab pages, whether they have or don't have entries of the type being discussed here; and for that matter, the point also applies to any other page that may occupy that title. If an article is created about some notable Terry Pearce, then without some additional editing steps, that article will remain inaccessible regardless of whether the title Terry Pearce is occupied by a dab page, an article about a different Terry Pearce, or by a redirect.

can't be mentioned as it would require having two blue links: you made this point earlier, but I don't think it was addressed because the answer is obvious. If a zealous adherence to a style rule can't lead to perfect results for a given entry, then the solution isn't to throw out that entry altogether. If two articles have relevant and useful content about a given entity, then of course you'd link to both. Uanfala (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Am I missing something here? Including non-notable people in DABs seems like it would completely defeat the purpose of NOTDIRECTORY. Not to mention clutter DABs on common names with more and more specific "page" names (we already have to distinguish certain people by profession, birth year, birth month, and birth day, and they're ostensibly "actually notable"). Opening this up to potentially everyone ever mentioned on Wikipedia sounds like a nightmare. JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  A more hellish nightmare would be making everyone ever mentioned on Wikipedia required to be notable. That would make article writing quite difficult for everyone. Huggums537 (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Interestingly, all the Diego and Manuel García's in the dab pages you linked, JoelleJay, are notable people with WP articles to their name. The clutter DABs you refer to are just a reflection of the reality of some names being more popular than others (chiefly amongst sportspeople, it seems). One man's nightmare is another man's dream, I guess. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I was using "clutter" as a verb: as in, more individuals being included in DABs would clutter the DABs even more than they already are with just the notable common-named people. How helpful is a DAB page if a user searching for a particular "Diego Garcia" has to already know his full birthdate to identify which link to follow? If the user doesn't know much about the Diego Garcia they're actually looking for, how will they even recognize the correct article when they do click on it? And that's assuming the person has an article; it gets far more confusing and pointless if it's a redirect to some team list and the user only knows about them from something else they were involved in. JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The two most similar entries are

  • Diego García (footballer, born 19 December 1996), Chilean footballer
  • Diego García (footballer, born 29 December 1996), Uruguayan footballer

  I would expect a reader interested in football to know the nationality, so the dab offers a smooth route to the desired article. To distinguish even more clearly, we could replace footballer by "football defender" and "football midfielder" respectively. Certes (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  But those are entries with articles, which give enough info that the DAB page can adequately distinguish them through, e.g., nationality. What about non-notable people whose DOB, nationality, position, etc. aren't known and the only context is their being mentioned in an article? How can we know that a particular unlinked Manuel Garcia isn't actually the same person as some other one, especially if neither has a page, or if they have other names they are known by that aren't included in the target article?

  Additionally, what makes people with common names inherently more worthy of having a page explicitly describe them than someone with an uncommon name? A trivial mention can mean nothing for some people, while for others it can mean an article title at their name and a descriptive blurb linking to their mention. What's stopping someone from doing SEO here? Even if adding their name to a prose article eventually gets reverted, how many editors are checking for DABs on every single non-notable name they remove? It's not like a redirect where it's apparent that you're removing linked content. How many editors are keeping tabs on DABs and validating that the non-notables are actually still mentioned in their targets? Or even verifying them at all? How is this not ripe for violations of BLPNAME and just BLP in general? JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The reason that this RFC was opened is that it potentially seems to be in conflict with MOS:DABMENTION, which states If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. This was discussed heavily above with no clear consensus or resolution. Natg 19 (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  It also directly conflicts with WP:WHYN: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists) Huggums537 (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Even WHYN contradicts itself, because some lists is a subset of all articles. Thankfully, it's unambiguous in respect of dabs (which, of course, aren't articles). Certes (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support.

  On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

  WP:Notability therefore does not apply to redirects, as long they're used for one of the sanctioned purposes. Nor does it apply to entries on lists or dab pages. List articles must be notable themselves, of course, but not their entries (WP:LISTN):

  One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable

  Thus redirects to non-notable list entries—i.e. {{r to list entry}}—may be created, and may need to be disambiguated in dab pages. Why not? — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, as discussed above in #Recent_correction_to_Simple_Lists. Alternatively, replace those words with "just those on whom Wikipedia has information". The present wording, added without discussion some years ago, if taken at face value would allow the destruction of many useful dab pages and the removal of helpful entries from others. The inclusion of unlinked items in dab pages is already forbidden: every dab page entry must include one blue link. (Breaking my wikibreak to chip in here, will probably not take further part in this debate). PamD 06:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per PamD, Guarapiranga and the previous discussion. In some case it is perfectly correct to include non-notable entries on disambiguation pages because doing so benefits readers, for example when there would be an uncontroversial redirect to a relevant article if the name or term was not ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. scope_creep^Talk 07:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Scope creep: any reason for this oppose? Natg 19 (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    • @Natg 19: Yip. scope_creep^Talk 23:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time because it is unclear what the practical application of this RFC would be. It is far too vaguely written. If the goal is to open the door to endless lists of non-notable people to be added to the encyclopedia, then I strongly oppose this RFC. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  This bit of guidance conflicts with multiple other parts of guidance, and does nothing in the way of prevention of them being created in the first place. (As evidenced by the facts that we have them anyway, so the door is open, yet we currently have no problem with "endless lists". If this bit of contradictory guidance actually were doing anything preventative, we wouldn't see the door already open with having them in the present moment. Huggums537 (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: The practical application of this RFC would be a restoration of the status quo and to resolve a discrepancy between WP:NOT and WP:DABMENTION; a discrepancy that was not discovered until BilledMammal tried using it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Harley (2nd nomination). It would absolutely in no way "open the door to endless lists of non-notable people", rather return the guidance to its rightful place at DABMENTION where it is explained that non-notable people should not be included in disambiguation pages unless they 1) are mentioned in another article and 2) would provide value to the reader. In other words, there would be no disambiguation entries for non-notable people unless that person has encyclopedic significance. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my own and others arguments in the ongoing duplicate discussion, and [but still] suggest this is a malformed RfC since the question being posed did not provide any context whatsoever about the dispute driving the question or any context to the ongoing duplicate discussion. My most convincing argument is WP:WHYN They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists). Huggums537 (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I interpret WHYN's note on DABs to mean that the DAB topic itself does not need to be notable, i.e. there doesn't need to be substantial coverage of the name. JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is a pretty far out and wild interpretation of the guidance considering the fact that it applies directly to disambiguation pages, which can't even exist on their own with a "DAB topic itself" since disambigs require at least two or more topics in order to be created in the first place. Huggums537 (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also, things about your theory get even messier when you realize that section of guidance isn't just talking about "significant coverage". It also has several sections about sourcing, and goes on to talk about how to organize or merge content to avoid article bloat in the last bullet point, and then finally at the last part it says none of this stuff applies to disambigs. How you've managed taking all that out of context and turning just the very last part into "only applies to the DAB topic itself or DAB name" is beyond me. Huggums537 (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  WHYN exempts DABs from having to demonstrate their merit as an article topic, since they aren't articles. The page itself therefore doesn't have to have references or coverage of the DAB topic as a whole, because, like many lists (but specifically excluding those lists that do operate more like standalone articles rather than navigation tools), its purpose is navigational rather than informational and therefore it isn't even expected to have (much) prose. It's not saying anything one way or the other regarding the content in the DAB, so I don't see how WHYN would even apply to this situation. JoelleJay (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've already shared my thoughts about how content is being mentioned in last bullet point, and then we are being told none of those bullet points including the content rules in the last bullet point apply to DABs. Notability is about a page itself deserving an article, not content, but your strong pushing for it being about content, not the page is so backwards I see you won't be convinced, so I'm done here. Huggums537 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I said I was done here, but I just realized even the relevant portion I was linking to in WHYN is explaining that what it is talking about is the content of pages, not the page itself: (emphasis added) Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists). The passage defines "these requirements" as being derived from "major content policies", so when it says the "requirements" don't apply to DAB pages, it doesn't matter if you think it is the DAB page itself or not because it must be talking about the same "requirements" that have to do with major content policies. In other words, the passage has just interpreted itself for you (as essentially meaning these major content policies don't apply), so your interpretation is irrelevant and silly. Huggums537 (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  N also says Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them. WP:N presumes DAB pages contain notable topics that need to be disambiguated; since the notability status of entries seems definitional for DABs, and there is not supposed to be any substantive content in them anyway, of course there wouldn't be a reason for WHYN to apply to the DAB page itself. The question then becomes whether removing the "notable ones" language from NOT would impart a different definition on DABs that would conflict with the presumptions of WP:N and require modification of WHYN. JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the question is if the insertion of the disputed material was ever an accurate description the standards in the first place because the language has already been removed twice on that basis. We've moved far beyond what the implications of removal are, you just haven't caught up yet. Huggums537 (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  And yet N has included the "notable" (in the more colloquial sense @Aquillion mentioned) presumption for DAB entries since the RfC for PAGEDECIDE in 2013, indicating the addition to NOT brought it more in line with the prevailing standards. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The specific context of the wording in question is not about lists in general; it is part of a sentence about disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages need a bluelink per entry, with non-trivial information about the listed ambiguous title. But they do not need that title to be independently notable. It should be acceptable to list titles that are not notable enough for their own article but that have nontrivial coverage in some other article, especially if (but not only if) the ambiguous title is redirected to the other article. For instance, to pick a random example, Good Design Awards (disambiguation) currently includes Good Design Award (Chicago Athenaeum), which has currently not been deemed independently notable but instead redirects to Chicago Athenaeum (I have no opinion on its notability). This listing is entirely appropriate, is specifically encouraged by MOS:DABMENTION, and should not be forbidden by bad wording in some random guideline elsewhere than our specific DAB guidance. DABMENTION already prevents the creation of enormous numbers of redlinks on hndis pages. This over-zealous wording cracks down on a non-problem, in the wrong place for guidance on dabs, and by doing so creates more problems than it solves. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding nontrivial coverage in some other article, if that was what WP:DABMENTION required then I wouldn't think we need this sentence, but it isn't - instead, DABMENTION is being interpreted to permit any mention and the removal of this wording would open the door to endless lists of non-notable people. For example, the coverage of every person listed at Terry Pearce is trivial, being just an entry on a list. However, if we also changed DABMENTION from but is discussed within another article to but has nontrivial coverage within another article then I think I could support this change. BilledMammal (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Regardless of your desire to strengthen DABMENTION, here is the wrong place to do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  My point was that your position appears to be based on an incorrect - or at least uncommon - interpretation of the current text of WP:DABMENTION. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've been regularly dealing with disambiguation pages for six years and David Eppstein's understanding is in line with that of everyone else I had seen so far editing in this area (I argue in the other RfC that "non-trivial coverage" is the wrong criterion to have in the guidelines, but in practice, most valid DABMENTION entries will meet it). Uanfala (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Terry Pearce doesn't look like an "endless list" to me... Huggums537 (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood. Terry Pearce is a list of non-notable people, and removing this wording would permit the creation of endless lists like it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think it refers to a metaphorically endless number of short lists. Certes (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Terry Pearce (disambiguation) is completely appropriate content. It does its job as a dab, making clear to anyone who searches for Pearce or makes a link to it that we have no biography on people by that name but we do have two people with similar names and four people with linkable content elsewhere. It is a non-problem that should not be forbidden. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm confused by why you consider it suitable content, as above you say nontrivial coverage within another article is required for a dab entry to be appropriate, but every entry at Terry Pearce only has trivial coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per David Eppstein. WP:DABMENTION covers eligibility in more detail. Technically, it's in conflict with the current wording which slipped quietly into WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is why that sentence of WP:NOT is widely ignored. I agree that we shouldn't include people who only have a bald entry on a list with no significant information, and that the Arthur Harley dab probably shouldn't exist. However, that level of detail is better left to WP:DABMENTION. Disambiguation entries are a second choice when the desired title is already taken. That applies not only to topics notable enough for an article, but also to topics which would have been a redirect to section or similar if their name had been unique. For example, Mint includes a link to Spring green#Mint, aka Mint (color). Would it help our readers to remove this important meaning of "mint", because it doesn't merit a whole article? Certes (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support the wording with the bolded text serves no purpose - the meaning is clear from the section before the hyphen. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Based on discussion here, I have opened a related RfC at MOS:DAB. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, we already have well-supported, widely-used, nuanced dab guidelines that prevent indiscriminate inclusion of non-notable entries on dab pages. No, we can't legislate those away by pushing a simplistic statement into an unrelated project page. And seriously, I thought that much was clear from the above discussion, why are we still here? Uanfala (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support. This is misplaced guidance because disambiguation pages are not lists, "simple" or otherwise. Also, it contradicts WP:DABMENTION. If those want to restrict disambiguation pages to notable people, this is the wrong fight. The place to do that would be at WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ^(talk) 11:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support to allow room for redirects to sections and other such items that are noteworthy even if they are not notable in the Wikipedian inside baseball sense. XOR'easter (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per BilledMammal. My sense is that opening up the door will create many more pages that need to be maintained and have the unintended effect of potentially sending readers to pages where the subject is barely mentioned (as would happen with a redirect). I agree that the search function is often better than a DAB page when a subject could plausibly be redirected to multiple targets. I think that the bolded words here are important to provide the expectation yet flexible enough to recognize the difference between allowing Mint and Spring green#Mint, versus adding non-notable John Smith's. --Enos733 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is very interesting to note that this so called "policy" has had no effect whatsoever on the very page it quotes at John Smith since there are unproven non-notable entries for one Canadian politician, a journalist, and six fictional characters at that DAB. It is huge evidence that this never applied, and the DAB guidance always took precedence. This policy error was just something someone inserted without discussion a long time ago that went unseen because it did not look out of the ordinary until someone finally got around to examine the actual details of it recently. Huggums537 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:D3 says "Don't list every article containing the title", and WP:DAB is clear that disambiguation applies to "potential article titles", which will include alternative names but exclude such things as unremarkable list entries, even if they're redirects. The outcome of indiscriminately allowing disambiguation for anything will be inherently flawed since each entry can only have a single blue link, whereas many or most non-notable topics are mentioned in multiple pages. The current notability threshold is roughly compatible with all this. WP:DABMENTION, on the other hand, is a manual of style guideline that regulates how dab pages should be formatted, it has no bearing on what to include. I also agree with BilledMammal that excessive dabcruft is unmaintainable and of little use to readers when compared with the search function. Avilich (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  These are perfectly reasonable arguments. However, the rules over at D3, WP:DAB, and MOS:DAB say that all the entries must have a blue link, not that all the entries must be notable. These are very different things. If you say, The current notability threshold is roughly compatible with all this., then you might as well be saying it isn't compatible at all since "all must have something blue", and "all must be notable" are not even roughly the same. Huggums537 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  As evidenced by its link, D3 is about article titles – not article content. J947 † ^edits 06:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, now that J947 has brought it up, I've thought about it, and those were not reasonable arguments at all since D3 does say, "Don't list every article containing the title" with a link to WP:PARTIAL it demonstrates the notability standard is completely incorrect since not everything that is notable is allowed per the restrictions that are already in place in our disambiguation guidance. Also, this idea about the DAB guidance somehow being "inherently flawed since each entry can only have a single blue link, whereas many or most non-notable topics are mentioned in multiple pages" is ludicrous since there can be multiple entries so it doesn't matter if you can only have one blue link per entry if you are allowed to just add another entry to get another blue link. Huggums537 (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  What does D3 have to do with this discussion (other than stating A disambiguation page is not a search index, which I think actually is highly relevant here)? "Don't list every article containing the title" is specifically about not including all articles that have only part of the DAB page name in their title and aren't expected to ever be referred to by only the DAB title, it has nothing whatsoever to do with restricting entries based on notability. Also, this idea about the DAB guidance somehow being "inherently flawed since each entry can only have a single blue link, whereas many or most non-notable topics are mentioned in multiple pages" is ludicrous since there can be multiple entries so it doesn't matter if you can only have one blue link per entry if you are allowed to just add another entry to get another blue link. What on earth does this even mean? Are you suggesting a single non-notable subject that has multiple valid targets should just be listed separately for each one on the same DAB page?? JoelleJay (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that "Don't list every article containing the title" in D3 really has nothing to do with the discussion, but I didn't bring it up, and the only reason I responded to it is because it links to PARTIAL, which is located in the WP:DABNOT section of the DAB guidance, and my whole point was to draw attention to that section of our DAB guidance to demonstrate that our DAB guidance has all kinds of restrictions limiting the use of notable entries, the most relevant one for this discussion being WP:NAMELIST, but the main point being that lots of DAB guidance allows non notable entries (or restricts notable ones) in perfect conflict with this "just the notable ones" falsehood, including WP:DABMENTION, and MOS:DABMISSPELL that allows a section for common misspellings, which might not be notable. What on earth does this even mean? Are you suggesting a single non-notable subject that has multiple valid targets should just be listed separately for each one on the same DAB page?? No. I never said we should do anything, only that we could, proving that it is in fact possible to do so, just to lay to rest the idea that one blue link per entry is a flaw for non notable entries. It isn't. It's a limitation, not a flaw. The "flaw" is with the limitation of blue links or the argument, not the non notable list. Think about the argument: The outcome of indiscriminately allowing disambiguation for anything will be inherently flawed since each entry can only have a single blue link, whereas many or most non-notable topics are mentioned in multiple pages. The outcome is exactly the same for a notable list since most notable topics are also mentioned in multiple pages, so by that logic a notable list is just as inherently (perhaps more so) "flawed" as the non notable one, so the problem isn't with the non notable or notable list, it is with the person making the argument, or with the limitation on blue links. Huggums537 (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  ? What do you mean by a "notable list"? The whole point of the "inherently flawed" statement you quoted is that, unlike a DAB entry with its own article, it can be difficult to determine where to blue-link an entry that does not have its own article if it's mentioned on multiple pages. We have rules that say there should only be one blue link per DAB entry, including explicitly for non-notable entries: In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink. We do not have guidance remotely suggesting we could have multiple DAB entries for the same subject, that would make no sense at all. JoelleJay (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would have been more helpful for your understanding if I would have said "notable listing" or "notable entry" maybe? What about notable redlink entries, and determining bluelinks for those? The so called flaw is exactly the same just as I said. Huggums537 (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  The outcome of indiscriminately allowing disambiguation for anything will be inherently flawed since each entry can only have a single blue link, whereas many or most non-notable topics are mentioned in multiple pages.

  The outcome is exactly the same for a notable list since most notable topics are also mentioned in multiple pages, so by that logic a notable list is just as inherently (perhaps more so) "flawed" as the non notable one, so the problem isn't with the non notable or notable list, it is with the person making the argument, or with the limitation on blue links. Notable ("articled") entries on a DAB list will never have this issue because the DAB bluelink is always the article on the notable entry. Non-notable ("non-articled") entries, including redlinks, have this issue if they are mentioned on multiple pages. And if this list is not in a DAB page then the problem of "where to link" for non-articled entries does not exist.

  Yes, the issue could be partially solved by allowing multiple blue links, but that would also require the DAB blurb to be a novel synthesis connecting mentions across multiple articles, none of which make the connection themselves, and would violate the long description part of DABNOT. JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is your misunderstanding right here: Non-notable ("non-articled") entries, including redlinks, have this issue if they are mentioned on multiple pages. Notable doesn't equal articled just because Non-notable equals non-articled, especially in the case of DAB entries since redlinks are not even allowed unless they are presumed notable, and link to an article. SEE MOS:DABRED Huggums537 (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also, I forgot to mention that you are right about the above referenced quote that redlinks also have the issue. We agree on that part. What I was trying to say is that redlinks are presumably notable entries when it comes to DABS so the problem is not strictly because of non notable entries as it was made out to be. Huggums537 (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  The reason it is so important for me to point this out to people is so that they will begin to understand that if the problem is not strictly limited to just mom notable entries, and it also affects notable entries, then maybe the problem doesn't have anything to do with notability, and perhaps we should be looking at something else for a change? Huggums537 (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  You have read my other comments, you know that I reference the WP:N use of "notable" that includes non-articled topics. That use is perfectly valid here and keeping the current NOT language would not affect subjects who are notable but don't have articles. But now that you've clarified that "notable lists" refers to specifically DAB subjects who provably qualify for but don't have an article, rather than to the notable entries in list articles, the vast majority of which will have articles themselves, then sure, some small sliver of subjects who have been explicitly identified as notable but do not have an article or redirect are also affected by the bluelink issue. That's a good reason to limit DAB entries only to subjects with articles or that are given substantial discussion in another article. How many subjects in the latter class have non-overlapping substantial coverage in multiple articles that do not link to each other, and therefore would suffer the bluelink problem? JoelleJay (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, so then based on what you just said you should switch you vote to support removal since you now understand that "just the notable ones" is completely wrong, and you think it should be something more along the lines of this really weird "articles only" thing? Huggums537 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support. These inclusions are not, in fact, causing the creation of unwieldy lists of non-notable people. I'm sure we can refine the definition of WP:DABMENTION in ways that does not exclude world-class athletes or candidates for national office merely because their name is on a list. We do not exclude subjuects from lists merely because they do not merit a separate article, and a disambiguation page is, fundamentally, a list. BD2412 T 15:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure why we are removing the guidance here, it seems like good advice? In what cases would you need a DAB page to have an entry that didn't link to a Wikipedia article? I am confused. --Jayron32 15:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32:, it sounds like you are misreading it then. Of course disambiguation entries need to link to a Wikipedia article, but this is saying that the person also be notable themselves. If this guidance is enforced, we would no longer be able to include disambiguation entries for people who are discussed in wider articles but do not themselves have articles. So even if a significant section of a band article is about one of the members, we would not be able to include that person in the disambiguation page (which currently would include a link to the band), significantly hindering navigation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    • In that case, I am still opposed to removing the text without replacing it with more nuanced guidance. We still want to recommend against adding every John Smith on earth to the DAB page on John Smith. Instead of removing the text, we should rephrase or expand it to capture that nuance. --Jayron32 16:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
      • That's what WP:DABMENTION is for: entries are not included in disambiguation pages unless they: 1) are discussed in another article and 2) provide value to the reader. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't think it's the job of WP:NOT to be duplicating detailed dab advice. Note also that if BilledMamma's proposal stays, it would for example rule out an entry for Murder of Anthony Walker from the dab Anthony Walker. Uanfala (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
        • Unless and until someone offers a more nuanced way to do it, I'm still opposed. Just because a bit of guidance is mentioned in one place on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it isn't useful to mention it in two places, and this seems like a good time to mention some guidance in two places. I agree there needs to be some change. This is a bad change, however, and I'm not willing to do something I believe makes the rules worse just because we need to do something. Someone propose a change that actually makes it better, and I'll support it. --Jayron32 16:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
          • Again, the nuance is at WP:DABMENTION. NOT is not the place for such focused guidance like this. Fundamentally, I see you are opposed to adding every John Smith on earth to the DAB page on John Smith, in which WP:DABMENTION is very clear that there should not be any John Smiths added to the disambiguation unless there is encyclopedic value to doing so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I don't think I was clear. When I said "Just because a bit of guidance is mentioned in one place on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it isn't useful to mention it in two places, and this seems like a good time to mention some guidance in two places." What I actually meant to say was "Just because a bit of guidance is mentioned in one place on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it isn't useful to mention it in two places, and this seems like a good time to mention some guidance in two places." I hope that clarifies my meaning, so you don't miss it next time. --Jayron32 16:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
              • I don't think you're understanding that the NOT guidance as currently written is in contradiction with DABMENTION, not simply that it's mentioned twice. Uanfala and I are trying to explain why the guidance at NOT is harmful and the guidance at DABMENTION actually accomplishes what you want. Regardless, I'll strike that part from my last reply because it seems like you're hung up on that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

                Yes: the problem is that NOT conflicts with DABMENTION, rather than that they are duplicates. Many editors experienced in disambiguation consider DABMENTION to be a better guideline than NOT. Certes (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

                And therein lies the problem with restating guidance in multiple places, rather than actually just mentioning it (i.e. linking to its rightful place): it may grow and develop in different, and even contradictory, directions (as has the case at hand). — Guarapiranga ☎ 10:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Compare MOS:DABRED: "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• OPPOSE This makes unreadable, excessively long dab-pages possible. Beside that, it is an open invitation for spam. The Banner talk 16:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm actually surprised to see you oppose this because I recall cleaning up a few of your disambiguation pages several years back because they were in conflict with WP:DABMENTION. Note that if you oppose this change, a few of your disambiguations would be deleted, including: Imko Binnerts, Toine Hermsen (which also fails WP:DABRL, so the restaurant should be moved to the base title) and Jan de Wit (disambiguation) (which should probably be deleted anyway as a WP:TWODABS situation). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    • That I never followed up on those had everything to do with avoiding a conflict (not with you). But I will take a look at filling in the blanks as you just requested. The Banner talk 20:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence of these supposedly excessively long dab-pages or spam? Please show me the money. Huggums537 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Not so much in dab-pages but in lists. The Banner talk 09:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

    Many articles waste a lot of space to simply state that a large number of non-notable names are in some group. I agree with your desire to prune these useless lists of name-checks. However, I don't see that as a reason to oppose this RfC, which is specifically about removing a restriction on which entries may appear in disambiguation pages and does not affect list articles. Certes (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

    See this example, now in dispute: Excelsior Recordings. To my experience, people will shop for arguments to get their way. Using the same standards everywhere, provides clarity. The Banner talk 11:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

    @The Banner: That is not a dab page, and if it were a dab page the question of whether to include inlinked names would be clearly answered no, regardless of NOT. so you are confusing the issue by linking to irrelevant content rather than addressing the actual effect of the RFC. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

    I see in the RFC no limitation to dab-pages as the subject is "Simple listings". The Banner talk 16:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

    Then I suggest you go back and read it again. The sentence about simple listings is before the one in question. The RFC is about the next sentence, which is only about dab pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

    Then the RFC is malformed and should be closed without conclusion. The Banner talk 18:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for the practical reasons mentioned above, and because I don't actually think the stated clauses are in conflict and need to be resolved. If articles are unlikely to have pages, they certainly don't need dabs—disambiguation should be for existing content, not preemptive organization. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @David Fuchs: I think you misunderstand the proposal. A title can easily have "existing content", suitable for linking at a dab page and passing DABMENTION, without having its own separate article. It is only those DABMENTION links that are in dispute; MOS:DAB clearly does not allow entries without a link at all, so wording here that conflicts with MOS:DAB in other ways is unnecessary to prevent that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

    Not only is it unnecessary, but it is actually harmful and damaging due to the misunderstandings and conflict that it creates. Huggums537 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support "the mass creation of hundreds of thousands of dab pages" is a strawman; there's no real possibility of that happening, despite maybe two or three outlier examples having been cited. WP:DABMENTION already clarifies what entries should and should not appear on dab pages, in my opinion appropriately. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreeing that this is a strawman. The dab guidelines have had rules for the inclusion of non-notable entries since the their beginning in the mid-2000s. A decade and a half later, we're not really swimming around in an endless sea of bad dabs, are we? Uanfala (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• strong oppose per many others, but primarily because this is one of our only ways of fighting against non-notable cruft. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  So, nothing really policy based then? Just a general "we don't like cruft" vote? Huggums537 (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is policy based, but thank you for your incessant nagging of every single comment here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, I guess I deserved at least some of that. My nagging was not helpful in this case. I apologize. Huggums537 (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  However, I think I do have something helpful to offer, and that is the thought that a vote cast for the purpose of enforcing policy to weaponize against "cruft" is unreasonable, and frightening considering the fact that some people can live with cruft or live without it, and still other inclusion fanatics would be equally happy if we kept all of it. If you had said, we need this policy as one of our only ways to fight vandalism, then I would have agreed itt is policy based since weaponizing policy against vandalism is pretty much universally acceptable to nearly everyone, but weaponizing policy just for a personal opinion about "cruft" is unacceptable, and our policy shouldn't be advocating for personal opinions, especially when it comes to something like weaponizing it. Huggums537 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Neither - Change to "just the ones already covered on Wikipedia" or something along those lines. WP:N is too high a bar for a dab page, so I support removing it for reasons similar to BD2412, but I also support the idea of being stricter than "don't include everyone". We have to have some content about the subject is the thing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - No need to open the door to the inclusion of cruft. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: I notice that, among the dab pages you have edited, one of them is Sara Wood (disambiguation), where one of the Sara Woods listed is not individually notable, but instead links to an article on a crime case (her murder) that is not ambiguous for the "Sara Wood" title. Is it your intention that this crime link is inappropriate for the Sara Wood dab and should be removed? Because that is the effect of your opinion here. This RFC and the clause that it discusses is entirely about that sort of link: names of topics that are not themselves notable but with a link or redirect to another article where we have some coverage of that topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

    • • User:David Eppstein - It isn't clear to me from reading the RFC and the clause that it discusses that that is what it is about. It isn't clear to me exactly what the RFC is about. Either someone needs to give me a better ability to read the mind of the text, or it needs to be clarified, or something. I'm sorry, but it isn't clear to me what the RFC is about. It looks like it is about cruft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

        Perhaps a few more examples would help.

        1. Dab 12 o'clock lists 12 O'Clock (rapper), subject of List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliates#12 O'Clock
        2. Dab David Greenfield lists David Greenfield (Canadian politician), subject of Green Party of Canada candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election#David Greenfield (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin)
        3. Dab Takashi Okamura lists Takashi Okamura (comedian), subject of Ninety-nine (owarai)#Takashi Okamura

        None of those people are considered notable enough for a complete article so, per WP:NOT, must be removed from the disambiguation pages to prevent our readers from finding them. Is that desirable? Certes (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

        No. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

      • @Robert McClenon: The RFC is about a clause of NOT that requires that all entries in disambiguation pages be to topics that are individually notable, above/beyond the requirement in DABMENTION that they all have bluelinks. The murdered Sara Wood is DABMENTIONed but not individually notable, so the disputed clause of NOT would require her removal from the DAB page. "Cruft" is a red herring. DABMENTION already prevents cruft. The problem is that NOT goes well beyond that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

        Does DABMENTION actually prevent cruft? Is the "value to the reader" ever actually cited when deleting DABs, because some of the answers I got at the other RfC indicate it offers no buffer at all: every single mention on en.wiki would be a valid DAB entry, and there is no justification for removal of such an entry for any reason outside of hypothetical "edge cases". At what point do DABs just literally become manually-curated search results? JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support/Modify. This would bring the policy in line with the longstanding disambiguation guideline and actual practice on Wikipedia (i.e. WP:DABMENTION). Keeping it and applying it as written would reduce the utility of using DAB pages for navigation. Many subtopics of existing articles would not meet notability guidelines on their own, but would nonetheless be used as search terms and should be included in DAB pages if ambiguously named. However, there is no harm in changing the phrase to something like —just the ones that meet the minimum inclusion guidelines for disambiguation pages or —just the ones that are at least discussed in other articles instead of outright removal.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think "just the ones that meet the minimum inclusion guidelines for disambiguation pages" can work well here and to incorporate Masem's suggestion for additional clarity on the DAB instruction page. - Enos733 (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The existing text is imperfect, but this is a move in the wrong direction. BTW the whole area of guidance for list articles does need work. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's more than just imperfect, it's harmful because of the conflict it causes due to the contentious nature of it. Also, it makes no sense whatsoever. It incorrectly puts DABS in the category of lists; but lets put that aside for the moment, and just pretend it isn't in the wrong category just for the sake of argument. Now, why on Earth would we have notability guidance for lists that tells us all list articles must adhere to a notability standard, or face page deletion, but the contents of any list has the option to have criteria for inclusion, but then make it a requirement for notability inclusion criteria on all so-called DAB lists that don't have any page notability standards and would never have to face page deletions? The whole reason a choice about criteria for inclusion is even possible for lists in the first place is because the page itself is held accountable to a notability standard. If a DAB page is not held accountable to this standard, then the application of the criteria is wrong in every sense. Huggums537 (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, why would we have plain old ordinary guidance for all lists that choose to use the notability criteria, but would also be accountable for their page notability, and then have a policy dictating not a choice, but a requirement for DABS, and no notability page accountability? It seems like an amazing conflict in the way lists are being handled if they are being put in the same category. Huggums537 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose like others have said, the proposed change is a move in the wrong direction. The comment about notability needs to be there because it makes it clear disambiguation pages aren't a free for all. The actual inclusion criteria may not actually need to be notability, but I think it would be really close to it. GretLomborg (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Would you think the change was in the right direction if I pointed out the fact that the current inclusion criteria in our DAB guidance already makes it clear disambiguation pages aren't a free for all? And, that is just part of it. The "notability" standard is wrong since according to it, everything notable would be allowed, but that is in conflict with WP:DABNOT WP:PARTIAL, which says that not everything that is notable is allowed. Huggums537 (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Again, PARTIAL says not to make DAB entries for articles with partial title matches but where the topic is never actually referred to by the DAB page name. It is 100% irrelevant to the discussion here, which is specifically about DABMENTIONS where the subject does share identity with the DAB page name. Those would never be excluded by PARTIAL. JoelleJay (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  I meant to link to WP:DABNOT, but got confused with another post. I'll fix it now. Huggums537 (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  ...That still has nothing to do with restricting entries based on notability, which is the whole point of this discussion. Pointing out that the DAB rules prohibit making entries on items that don't share a name/pronunciation is completely irrelevant to the type of "free for all" the user was referring to. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  If you can't see the prohibitions in that section, and all the rest of the DAB guidance make it clear disambiguation pages aren't a free for all, then I don't know what to tell you, and if you also can't see that those standards combined with the allowances made in DABMENTION are so far different from a notability standard that the insertion made in this policy was a false statement, then I don't know what else to tell you either. Huggums537 (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  @GretLomborg said The comment about notability needs to be there because it makes it clear disambiguation pages aren't a free for all.

  You said: Would you think the change was in the right direction if I pointed out the fact that the current inclusion criteria in our DAB guidance already makes it clear disambiguation pages aren't a free for all?

  None of the DABNOT sections address what is notable enough for an entry, so they are entirely irrelevant to the notability-based "free for all" concern. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your response here presupposes that notability is the correct criterion for determining whether something is worth including as an entry. It is not. For instance, a topic that is notable, but does not have any article to link, should not be included. A topic that is not notable, but has significant coverage at another bluelinked and notable article, should be included. Because of the circularity of your reasoning (you are arguing that we should restrict dab entries to notable entries because the notable entries are the ones we should restrict to, rather than making any justification for why notability is the criterion you want to use) I find it extremely unconvincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  ...Are you replying to the right comment? This is a subdiscussion on what GretLomborg said about removal of "notability" resulting in a "free for all", and Huggums' claim that DABNOT criteria that have nothing to do with notability somehow address GL's notability-based "free for all" concern. I'm going to go out on a limb here and "presuppose" that GL is aware that we have other standards on when a DAB entry is appropriate, just like we have standards for literally everything else, and that those standards are irrelevant to their concern in the same way inclusion/exclusion of a noble title in a page name would be irrelevant to someone arguing the subject is not notable enough for an article at any page name. JoelleJay (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  And maybe if you're going to snipe about my "reasoning" being "circular" and lacking a "justification", you could do so at one of the comments I made where I actually state my argument about why some interpretation of notability should govern DAB entries, like I dunno, my !vote and its followup comments, or where I outlined exactly which issues I anticipated arising if every mention of a shared name was permissible as an entry, or where I explained why I think we shouldn't just assume DAB editors will always interpret "value to the reader" and "discussed" as requiring nontrivial coverage (especially when some editors already reject that interpretation), or even my reply to you. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Some people reject the idea that notability should be the correct inclusion criterion" isn't any better than "we must use notability as our criterion because otherwise our dabs will list articles that don't meet that criterion and that will be a free-for-all" as an argument for using that as the criterion for including links on dabs. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  May I offer a truce? JoelleJay already said he'd support restricting dab entries to articles and redirects (essentially deferring the deliberation on non-notable dab entries to RfD). Can this be a happy medium (between not only him and David Eppstein, Huggums537 et al, but between all those who think notability is too high a bar, and its absence too low)? — Guarapiranga ☎ 03:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, I will accept a truce with her. Huggums537 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm also willing to set the bar at redirects rather than mentions. I'd prefer to also include interwiki links but that might be too far for some (because of the lower standards for inclusion on other languages) and it's not something I want to fight for. My suspicion is that the effect of restricting to redirects would be increased creation of redirects, but that's not overly problematic, and the more egregious ones can be taken to RfD. The question remains how to adjust the wording both here and at MOS:DAB to be consistent with each other, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  David Eppstein, interwiki links are allowed, at least in principle (WP:DABSISTER). Uanfala (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't believe setting the bar at redirects is suitable, because redirects can be created and kept on the basis of mentions; for example, neither of the redirects recently created for Arthur Harley would be deleted at RfD. BilledMammal (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  We may be moving along the right lines, but it might lead to the pointless creation of many redirects which are permitted but don't help the reader. Perhaps we allow entries for which a redirect would survive RfD, without compelling the actual creation of that redirect. However, any such restriction (which is very unwelcome to those of us it actually affects) belongs in MOS:DAB and not in WP:NOT. I am (and I apologise to those this offends, but it needs to be said) very concerned that we might allow a small group of editors who rarely edit dabs to drive by and dump those of us who do with unworkable restrictions just to satisfy their deletionist urges. Certes (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  There was some discussion of the proposal to set the bar at redirects in the other RfC, and, as I commented there, that would steamroll over a lot of the nuance that goes into deciding whether to build a dab entry around a redirect or not. But there's another practical side here. If you force people to create a redirect before adding a dab entry, you'll make it a lot more difficult to revert that entry in the future: you wouldn't be able to just boldly delete it (as you would now), you'd have to deal with a redirect as well, and that takes at least a week's discussion at a formal venue and a non-negligible amount of paperwork.

  Certes, I share your concern here, but I don't think that if this passes there'll be any change to the existing practice: the stray mention of dabs within WP:NOT would (continue to) be overriden by the more detailed and much better supported dab guidelines. What I'm most disappointed at is the fact that instead of addressing the actual shortcomings of the dab guidelines (of which there are many!), we're all wasting our time here debating the solution to a non-existent problem. Uanfala (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  I hope there would be no change to existing practice, which was unaffected by an addition no one noticed. However, if this proposal fails, a four-word policy, which might reasonably be interpreted to require WP:Notability, will override the more detailed and considered guideline at MOS:DAB. Of course, removing the hundreds of thousands of useful-but-prohibited entries would present practical problems. I don't foresee many of the editors who carefully curated them volunteering to butcher their work. Indeed, those of us who believe the entries should remain are prohibited from removing them: such edits would be intended to obstruct ... presenting the sum of all human knowledge in contravention of WP:Vandalism. Certes (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Who says we'd be deleting the "value to the reader" etc. DAB guidance that, apparently, is enough to discourage DABBING every mention? That can be a requirement in addition to the subject also having to qualify for a redirect, which preempts any bluelink issues. And why would deleting a DAB entry require RfD? You wouldn't be deleting the redirect itself. Having a redirect alone wouldn't confer DAB suitability, and if editors interpreted that to be the case despite the "value" clause then that's a strong indication MOS:DAB language needs to be clearer. And anyway my impression from the other thread was that DAB entry deletion was a very uncommon "edge case" scenario? JoelleJay (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. per PamD, David Epstein, Travex, et al. Would support rewording such as PamD suggested, "Just those about which or whom Wikipedia has information". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Isn't any mention technically "Wikipedia having information"? And anyway there's resistance at the other RfC towards any restriction of DABs beyond "name appearing on Wikipedia". JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The current wording is bad and not really needed, so Support removal. I would be OK with the idea that things can be fixed by rewording, but that is a somewhat different topic than the RFC ‘delete or not’, and my !vote of deletion being better than the current phrasing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose in strongest possible terms. EDIT: Upgraded to strongest possible opposition per the discussion below, which implies that some people would see this removal as opening the floodgates by making WP:DABMENTION the sole criteria, ie. they want to have a dab entry for anything mentioned in any article, since the only reason DABMENTION gives to exclude is if it is not mentioned. That is absurd and would make DAB pages unusable. Without at least some reference to notability or due weight, the criteria would vague and useless. The only argument people seem to be making for removal is that someone might, theoretically, misinterpret it to mean that entries on those lists must pass the WP:GNG or related notability guidelines; but this is nonsense. Notability is a central criteria for inclusion not just when it comes to what we have articles on but for the content within articles themselves, and every indication is that editors have understood and applied the existing text appropriately in that regard - with notability as a requirement, but not at the same threshold that would be required to have a full article. Removing it (and leaving no guideline at all) just because people are afraid that someone might somewhere decide that notability only means the WP:GNG makes no sense. At the very least, anyone who wants to change the existing text needs something to replace it with - removing it and replacing it with nothing at all seems to me to be a nonstarter. And 1000% hard no to any suggestion that we could use WP:DABMENTION as it is currently written as the current criteria - it is almost comically insufficient, to the point where I have to wonder if the people refering to it have actually read it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: Please explain how you can possibly read "just the notable ones" in any other way than calling for the removal of entries that do not pass notability guidelines. Also, your assertion that "Notability is a central criteria for inclusion not just when it comes to what we have articles on but for the content within articles themselves" is completely false, and falsified by the clear wording of WP:N "They do not limit the content of an article or list". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yep, it's right there in the nutshell even (emphasis mine):— Guarapiranga ☎ 22:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein and @Guarapiranga are absolutely right about this. The notability guidance is filled with it in prominent places like the nutshell, the lead, and a dedicated section WP:NNC, indicating that most users operating from a "colloquial" usage of notability have a severe lack of understanding of the guidance often confusing it as having something to do do with WP:DUE, which it does not. NNC even specifically says that content coverage in this colloquial noteworthy sense is governed by different policy such as DUE. So, anyone talking about notability in the context of DUE is nothing but mighty confused. Huggums537 (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Notability also has a colloquial usage; while the guidelines on WP:NOTABILITY do not directly limit the content of an article or list, we still normally talk about notability in the context of whether eg. something is WP:DUE. If your suggestion is that we should completely ignore even the colloquial definition of notability for article content or DAB lists then I have to oppose in strongest possible terms; that interpretation would bend the meaning of the sentence you cited from WP:NOTABILITY (which refers solely to those specific criteria) to the breaking point. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Removal of this text would leave us with no guidelines at all? We do have guidelines about these cases: both in the general introduction to WP:DAB, and, more relevantly, at MOS:DABMENTION. It's these guidelines that editors of dab pages have been applying on a regular basis since the early days of Wikipedia. This RfC, on the other hand, is about a stray phrase in WP:NOT that got added 8 years ago and that only got noticed now. Uanfala (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  MOS:DABMENTION is obviously insufficient. If your argument is that anything mentioned, in any article, should be referenced in every possible DAB that could refer to it, then I have to oppose in strongest possible terms - that argument is absurd. And if that isn't your argument then you will have to explain to me what you feel is a valid argument to exclude from a DAB, because (short of the absurd argument that anything mentioned anywhere at all must be included in every DAB) I am not seeing it. And WP:NOT has far more traffic and attention than WP:DAB; I would argue that if you see some sort of conflict between the two, WP:NOT is likely to have had more eyes on it and more consensus behind it, whereas WP:DABMENTION is a rickety, insufficient, and poorly-considered bit of text without much of a consensus backing it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Just a quick note that:

  • can be ≠ must be
  • needn't be ≠ shouldn't be

  Whether particular mentions are worthy of dab or redirect can always be discussed in the appropriate forum. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Aquillion, the main point of MOS:DABMENTION isn't contained in the implied meaning of this shortcut, but in the text that the shortcut points to: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.. Nowhere does it say that mere mentions are enough, and the threshold that it places is higher: the topic needs to be discussed in the target article, and linking to it must provide value to the reader. Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This misses the whole point of a disambiguation page vs. the search bar. Disambiguation pages are about articles with similar titles. If we include every occurrence of the search term in every article, it's no longer a disambiguation page... it's a search engine result. Jontesta (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think this is exactly true. From WP:DAB "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic. So the DAB guidelines do allow for disambiguating to subtopics that do not have their own article, allowing for WP:DABMENTION. Natg 19 (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Is every term mentioned in an article a "subtopic"? Because one of the answers I got to my questions in the other RfC was essentially "DABs are valid for every person mentioned on en.wiki". JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  The only way to stop DABS from behaving similar to search engine results is to delete all of them, and stop using them. A notability restriction doesn't somehow make DABS not behave that way, it just restricts the search to Wikipedia articles, notable redlinks, notable redirects, or other notable mentions only. Huggums537 (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, a notability restriction is a total conflict with the DAB guidance. Huggums537 (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: While dab piped link entries may go unnoticed, under the radar, when created, or orphaned, when the target is changed or removed, redirects are much more likely to be flagged, discussed and maintained at RfD. Simply ruling out piped links from dab pages, while keeping redirects (per MOS:DABREDIR), may mitigate many of the concerns raised by those advocating to keep the current restriction to just the notable ones. I've made this exact proposal at the related RfC about MOS:DABMENTION. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support this or a similar change (such as changing notable to noteworthy) per above; this is in direct conflict with DABMENTION. On the dab page v search results debate, I think Wikipedia's search engine is pretty crap; formatting it in a more easily accessible way is much superior. J947 † ^edits 06:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This will just open the flood gates to endless nonsense on dab pages.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @ActivelyDisinterested: Your most recent edit to a dab page appears to be Special:Diff/1078663501 a few months ago in which you added to Charles Porter (disambiguation) a link to Charles Porter IV, who has no independent article but was mentioned at Oklahoma City bombing for a Pulitzer-winning photograph he took of that event. Should I interpret your opposition here as a statement that you now believe that edit to have been a mistake and that Porter should be removed from that dab page? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

    No -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

    • So you believe it's correct to violate the wording you're pushing here?? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

      Sorry I had assumed you had come across the page and looked into the individual, and their somewhat odd history. Given which I believe they where an exception to the rule. Otherwise I feel the answer was as long as it needed to be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

      Well, obviously I looked into it far enough to tell that he had won a Pulitzer, which could reasonably make a case for notability by itself. But really, I am trying to understand how it is possible to defend both that edit and wording that says that dabs can only list individually-notable topics. So maybe a more charitable take on your position is that it should be ok to add dab entries that link to other articles, but only when the ambiguous title (whether redlinked or redirected) could reasonably later become the basis of a separate article? Is that closer? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

      My opposition to the change is not at odds with the idea that there could be exceptions. It's much more easily stated that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and WP:IAR is a policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

      You would think it would be much more easily stated to just make the policy fit all the future exceptions just this one time right now as opposed to repeatedly having to explain yourself later that the future exceptions are covered because IAR. Huggums537 (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

      I would agree, but that's not what this change would do (as I expressed in my original post). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Generally opposed to removal but I do see the merit in having DAB entries for subjects/persons which constitute a significant part of a larger article. For example, having a DAB of names entry that includes a political candidate listing which points to the relevant election article (since the candidate may not be independently notable of that election they may not have their own article, but this would still be a useful DAB for readers). That said, I do believe that simply removing the present text without replacing it with other guidance would open the floodgates. you would think that Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith would be enough to dissuade certain people from doing that, but I'll bet money that without providing more exact guardrails on the guidance there are people who will try their hardest to make a near-complete listing of every person named John Smith. So to summarize, I strongly oppose removing this text outright, but I would support replacing it with something slightly more nuanced, should a new RfC be opened on that question. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  A possible solution to that is restricting dab entries to articles and redirects, ruling out piped links, so that whether a mention is extensive enough to merit a targeted redirect can be discussed at RfD. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  • That seems workable. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

    As stated elsewhere, that would just force dab maintainers to create permitted-but-unnecessary redirects to jump through the hoop of having one. Certes (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

    So? At least that allows slightly better tracking, and the merit of the redirect/DAB entry can be discussed at RfD with a wider audience. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

    Precisely, JoelleJay. And, as stated elsewhere, a few more reasons that may warrant creating permitted-but-unnecessary redirects are (WP:NOTBROKEN):

    • Redirects can indicate possible future articles (see {{R with possibilities}}).
    • Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
    • Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.
    • [...] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links. (The Rdcheck tool is extremely useful in such cases for finding which redirects need to be changed after an article is updated.)

    — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that there are multiple flavors of redirects. More importantly to this point though, is that redirects can be created for non-notable products (produced by notable companies) or entries in a list. As examples, in athletics, there can long lists of participants on notable teams, in politics, there are a large number of failed candidates, and theoretically, all of these individuals could be a redirect (which I think is unnecessary [and I don't think it usually makes sense to direct a redirect to a DAB page]). A DAB page that is too long is unhelpful. And, it is similarly not helpful if the DAB page links to just an entry on a list, without any additional context. - Enos733 (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it usually makes sense to direct a redirect to a DAB page
  What do you mean?? That's policy!
• in politics, there are a large number of failed candidates
  So failed candidates aren't worthy of mention? Some are even notable! Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul come to mind (the last two held office, but their notoriety far exceeds their office precisely bc of their—failed!—bids to the presidency).
• all of these individuals could be a redirect (which I think is unnecessary
  Why not? Redirects are cheap.

  — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Support I certainly don't want all and every John Smith mentioned but the word notable here is far too restrictive. It is quite easy for there to be particular John Smiths who are mentioned in the news but not satisft Wikipedia's notability criteria that would be appropriate to be mentioned in a DAB. NadVolum (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Support removal because it's factually wrong. DAB pages are actually allowed to contain entries that are non-WP:Notable. An accurate phrase would probably say something like "just every one that is included prominently in a Wikipedia article". Detailed explanations of when to include or exclude belong in the guidelines. It is not necessary to include a false version of the real rules here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose We need to limit disambiguation pages to people who are notable. They should not be an index to every person with a name who might be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. Limiting them to those who are notable is a very good decision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: agreed. We don't need WP:NOT to enforce that, we just need WP:DAB to enforce it. the mistake was specifying Dab pages in WP:NOT when it's just redundant. I think we should make Dab pages more automated, rather than allow more human error/human misinterpretation fo what they should be.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I put my comment in the right place. I think DAB should be meant to sort out multiple article, not non-articles. This is especially true since we could have people on lists without us knowing enough from reliable sources to say if they might be the same person mentioned on a list. DABs are meant to sort between pages. So a notability requirement makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

All non notable entries are required to be associated with an article via the rules that they must be mentioned in an article, and that there must be a blue link in the DAB entry that contains the mention so the ability to sort topics via pages and subpages becomes available especially if the blue link is a redirect to the subpage. Huggums537 (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

A mention in a list is not a sub-topic. If people want to allow sub-topic inclusion then we need wording to that effect. This proposal is not giving us those. Removing this guidance is bad, as is badgering those who want to keep it. There are ways to create a notability standard for DAB that will allow mention to murder of Sarah Jones type articles, but stop us from including every Sarah Jones on a cast list or a US state Beaty pageant winners list, especially in cases where we may not have the reliable sources to say if they are the same person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If people want to allow sub-topic inclusion then we need wording to that effect.
Like that in MOS:DABSECTION? — Guarapiranga ☎ 21:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes: if people want to allow sub-topic inclusion then we need wording to that effect. However, the place for that wording is in the specific and detailed guideline MOS:DAB (where it already is), not in the all-encompassing WP:NOT. WP:NOT can link to MOS:DAB and perhaps summarise it, but the current summary is inaccurate: it implies that dabs may only mention topics which pass the merits-a-whole-article gold standard of notability whereas MOS:DAB clearly sets a lower bar. Certes (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually think the notability standard is wrong because it is much different than the DAB guidance, and is conflict with it, but not because the DAB sets a lower bar. I think DAB guidance is much stricter in many ways, and does a very great deal to prevent unwanted material so to say the bar is lower is not as precise as to say the bars are clearly very different, and notability is a very inaccurate description of the standards. Huggums537 (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, it is a flat out false description of them. Huggums537 (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons stated above. We already have too many problems with bad disambiguation. This will open up Wikipedia to too much unsourced garbage, such as having Beretta directly linked from Umbrella (disambiguation). For example, like a great many pop music fans, I have long suspected that the 2007 song of that title is actually a girl power song in which the word "umbrella" was apparently used to avoid a trademark clearance issue, but that would be original research on my part. We should not be opening up disambiguation pages to such rank speculation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose because the present rule prevents excess. The pages should be limited to notable topics as otherwise they will become dumping grounds for the indiscriminate. BoJó | talk UTC 22:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support, seeing as I hardly agree with the increasingly stringent notability constraint on Wikipedia to begin with. I would agree that there should be some sorting (ideally automated) that would list entries in terms of popularity or significance instead of alphabetical or whatever, but I don't think this would be a negative change.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose removal of phrase - This section often serves as the first introduction to dab pages, and the limited nature of the entries to be made on dab pages needs to be concisely communicated here. The "notable" mention (with link) does that very well, and its removal will tend to lead to uselessly cluttered dabs. It is important to keep dabs limited in size for usability of the encyclopedia (and there is no need for all WP name instances to be so listed, as this is what search functions are for). --R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @R. S. Shaw: Your most recent edit to a dab page appears to be Special:Diff/1093484933, adding an entry for the journal Lexis Journal in English Lexicology for which we have no evidence of notability, linked to an article about its publisher. Should I intepret your opinion here as indicating that you now feel that edit was a mistake and that this edit should be undone? If not, how do you explain the apparent contradiction between what you want the guideline to say and your own actions? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

    "No evidence of notability" means an entry isn't notable until you are able to provide citations indicating so. DABs specifically don't allow citations per WP:D3 (and other DAB guidance) so exceptions for notability such as suggested by @ActivelyDisinterested would never occur meaning that "just the notable ones" is incorrect, and in conflict with the current guidance especially WP:DABMENTION. Huggums537 (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

    Again exceptions don't mean that this change is the right one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I still oppose removal of the wording because I think the point needs to be made, but I would not object to it being amended. However,Huggums537 is right about WP:D3 so perhaps a solution would be to mention that in the condition: say, "just the notable ones per WP:D3". MOS:DABMENTION requires a blue link as shown in the Brigadoon example so there isn't a conflict; more an emphasis. BoJó | talk UTC 04:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I would buy that, except where are you getting that D3 is saying "just the notable ones"? My read of D3 is "one blue link for each entry", not "just the notable ones". These mean two different things if you understand that a non-notable entry can also include a blue link later in the entry [description], or that a non-notable redirect is also a blue link that could be an entry. Huggums537 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

D3 is merely an information page, designed to provide a concise but incomplete summary of MOS:DAB, which itself is only a guideline. Both pages are well written and provide wise advice, but we shouldn't elevate such details to policy status by shoehorning them into WP:NOT . Certes (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (NOTDIR and Dab pages)

• I will repeat something I suggested from above, that it would make a lot of sense if the DAB instruction page had a clear "what to include/what not to include" point by point listing (where it would be clear that notabiliy is not a requirement for that), such that we can say from here "NOTDIR does not apply to dab pages, see <this section>". The DAB pages lack this type of clear listing and instead spread out what's appropripate or not throughout. --Masem (t) 01:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:DABENTRY is for what to include (and how to include it) and WP:DABNOT is for what not to include. I do agree that would be a much better solution. I can tell there is a lot of frustration in the above RfC from disambiguation regulars about trying to shoehorn a nuanced aspect of disambiguation pages into WP:NOTDIR, when it doesn't even make sense to include disambiguations there because they aren't "simple lists" (which were originally defined as yellow/white pages!). -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Those are MOS pages, and hence are fine for discussing presentation, but are not properly normative for content; that sort of guidance belongs in a policy or guideline. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:DABENTRY is part of MOS:DAB, which is a guideline. WP:DABNOT is a part of another guideline (nor related to the MOS), WP:DAB. Some change along Masem's suggestion may be helpful, but I don't think it's realistic to expect that the dab guidelines need to be at a higher level. The only higher level is that of the policies, and advice for what to include in dab pages (for which there can often be many exceptions) doesn't belong there; even the set of rules for which articles belong on Wikipedia (WP:N and the like) aren't at the policy level. Uanfala (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think just speaking more straight forward and at the top of the page that "here are things that should be dated, here are things (perhaps by way of contrast) should not", as to make it clear notability is not a sole factor here (notable versions of a term and thus should have their own article thus should clearly be inured on a dab, but there are also more cases that case be there too). That way, we don't have to mention dab and notability at all on NOT Masem (t) 22:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the present text can also be improved by splitting the current text into two items: one about the simple list, one about dab-pages. That will add clarity, to my opinion. The Banner talk 13:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

We should do something. The dab guidelines and the text being discussed conflict. This hasn't been a problem in practice, because dab maintainers follow the guidelines and no one seems to have spotted the change to WP:NOT, but any future discussions won't be helped by having two contradictory sets of rules to cite. Certes (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about malformed RfC

If you look into the history you will see I unsuccessfully tried closing this RfC before it even began because I have always felt it was malformed. In addition to the comments I made in that close, I also think that the question being posed here itself is rather malformed since it is incorrectly asking if this bit of policy should be removed, when in fact the contentious policy has been removed twice, and the question should be asking if the disputed bit of material should be kept out. There is a very subtle, yet very distinct difference to make about this, and the difference is a very important one because it allows voters to understand whether they are voting on a disputed piece of contentious policy, or just some random question about policy. This kind of subtle perception shift in presentation has an influence on how voters choose no matter if it was intentional or not. I hope that whoever closes the discussion realizes that the true question is about a very contentious little piece of so-called policy, and not just some random thought experiment about something otherwise goodstanding. Huggums537 (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I believe there should also be an option to add a footnote explaining the nuance of the word "notable" in the contested sentence similar to how WP:COMMONNAME has a footnote tagging the word "ambiguous" with an explanation that "Ambiguity as used here is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia.", and/or another option to replace the word "notable" with less ambiguous phrasing. I think a lot of inflammation around here is due to the needlessly binary setup of the RFC (delete a phrase vs. don't delete the phrase), when footnoting or rewording are also viable options. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

DAB pages: Encyclopedic or Navigational?

I find it strange how long this debate is for WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is a bigger problem that's causing this debate to last longer than it should, and that is that we don't all agree what the purpose of the Dab pages are for. At this time, they are treated as a combination of navigational and encyclopedic content.

• If Dab pages are Navigational... WP:NOTDIRECTORY will not apply because WP:NOT rules apply to encyclopedic and community content, not navigational content. And WP:NOTDIRECTORY will have to redefine what Wikipedia is not Simple Listings without using Dab pages as an example. On the flip-side, this makes the process easier, meaning the rules have to be strict to fit the purpose of a Navigation page. If there is no article where the Topic in question is mentioned. Then it doesn't matter if someone considers it notable or not, there is no point to include it in a page dedicated to Navigation.
• If Dab pages are Encyclopedic... WP:NOTDIRECTORY will apply and this debate should continue to find a proper consensus to adjust WP:NOTDIRECTORY. But at the same time, we'll have to rework Disambiguation pages all together. We would now have to treat them the exact same way as List articles. We will have to add references to each entry, regardless of the fact that they may not have an article. Rules will have to be made in place on how to verify which one is worthy of being included in the Dab page. And because of this, Disambiguation pages also have the ability to become Featured-list.

If we want to make any long-term progress in this discussion, the first thing we need to do is establish what they are.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Dabs are navigational. Encyclopedic content belongs in the articles to which dabs guide our readers. Dabs are not articles. Certes (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The function of dabs is to navigate to topics covered in Wikipedia articles. Typically, the relation between topics and articles is one-to-one. But it need not be: a single disambiguated topic may be spread across several articles, and a single article may cover several topics. If that latter point were better appreciated, then I think we'd have less heat in those discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

No one is arguing that DABs are not navigational, or that they are articles... And of course WP:NOT still applies to DABs, where do you see that navigational pages are exempt from all of NOT? The only places they're even discussed are WP:NOTREPOSITORY, where there's an exception with regards to lists of internal links, which it states are acceptable at DABs when an article title is ambiguous; and at NOTDIRECTORY, which explicitly restricts how comprehensive DABs should be. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: WP:NOT is divided into two categories, Encyclopedic and Community. Disambiguation pages aren't articles or list-articles, therefore they can't be considered Encyclopedic. Otherwise, they already fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY just by existing due to them being lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. WP:NOT would have to redefine what Simple listings means outside of disambiguation pages (which could help make better editors). And since we are in agreement with them being navigation pages (not encyclopedic content) then that means, we don't have to go through the trouble of trying to define what is notable. This whole debate is handled wrong because the example used in WP:NOT was trying to control what it means to include content in the Dab pages, but the reality is we need to make the purpose of the dab pages clearer, so that the purpose outweights any desire to add in encyclopedic content such as content that has no article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Several parts of WP:NOT would be inappropriate for dabs and are clearly and correctly labelled as excluding dabs. This RfC is about a specific four-word clause which applies only to dabs, and whether it should be removed. Certes (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

That's the problem. WP:NOT shouldn't have even felt the need to add a clause for Dab pages in the first place if its not even Encyclopedic content. Instead of trying to argue about the four-word clause, it should replace the entire sentence and cover more examples. Honestly, Dab pages are archaic and leaves too much room for people to enter entries that vaguely related to the term they're looking for. It's not too hard to create an automated Disambiguation page with Bots. it won't be as elegant; it will probably have less entries than what we're used to; but it will at least avoid some of these problems that editors have.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Just because they are excepted from specifically the NOTREPOSITORY section doesn't mean they're not "encyclopedic" content. They're not articles, and some parts of our policies have exemptions or modified instructions for, or are obviously not applicable to DABs, but that doesn't mean all of the intent of NOT must be ignored. DABs have an exception from NOTREPOSITORY because their function is to list internal links to pages that might be confused for each other; if a DAB strayed into being a complete [listing] of every person named John Smith it is perfectly consistent for this to be considered a violation of NOTDIRECTORY. That isn't even under dispute here and would be true regardless of whether the "only the notable ones" language was removed. What this discussion is trying to determine is whether removing that (generally unenforced) restriction to only "notable" entries would a) be interpreted as condoning listing every ambiguous non-notable mention on WP; and b) if so, would such "WP-complete" DABs violate the spirit of NOT vis-a-vis the "complete listing" guidance in NOTDIRECTORY. JoelleJay (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't "want" NOT to cover DABs, it already does, regardless of whether those four words are in NOTDIRECTORY. JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: You want WP:NOT to include Dab pages because you believe that if they do, it will keep the outcome you want. That, however, isn't true. The RfC is misguided by both parties into believing that the wording in WP:NOTDIRECTORY is going to get them what they want or prevent the outcome they don't want out of Dab pages. The reality is it shouldn't have felt the need to specify in the first place, especially because Dab pages are already failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY if we try to include it in. It makes more sense for WP:NOTDIRECTORY for Simple Listing to advise not to cover all people recorded to have the name "John Smith" as a list-article, rather than a Dab page. This is why i'm proposing that Simple Listings clarify further in Article-space, not Navigation pages.

But just to be 100% clear, just because I don't think it belongs in WP:NOT (at least not in the Encyclopedic content), doesn't mean there's zero rules to enforce to remove non-notable content off Dab pages. There are more productive ways to deal with this debate. One is simply enforcing the purpose of Dab pages. If it's not helping readers redirect to an existing article that covers the topic, then it shouldn't exist in the Dab page. In addition, i think we should look into making Dab pages more automated, and less room for human-error or human-interpretation.02:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This section seems to be the result of an assumption that there is a 1:1 relationship between "encyclopaedic content" and "articles", which is not true. Articles can contain non-encyclopaedic content (e.g. navigational hatnotes, links to portals and sister projects, etc) nor are articles the only pages that contain encyclopaedic content (e.g. set indexes are a mix of encyclopaedic content and navigational content; some disambiguation pages need to include some brief encyclopaedic content to usefully serve readers). Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I personally define Encyclopedic content as any page dedicated to directly inform readers of the topic they are searching. As for navigational pages, I define them as any content designed to help readers find the content they were looking for. Of course, in Wikipedia, what is being navigated is encyclopedic content. So the navigation pages will always to some extent reflect that. But no more than just brief descriptors for Dab pages.

Indexes in Wikipedia tend to be glorified category pages and Outlines tend to be more navigation/encyclopedic but I often see them as a bandaid or short-term fix for not knowing how to reflect the content in a main article.

But lets go back to Dab pages. The goal is still purely Navigational. Disambiguation pages help readers reach the right page by organizing any content that shares the same name. But in my humble opinion, we should be guiding readers on notable content.

For example, I'm having a hard time seeing a reason why we need a disambiguation page for Mercury City. But the content in the disambiguation pages shouldn't be there to inform readers on some content that barely mentioned. So some discernment needs to be made.

I agree that WP:NOT shouldn't have even made a mention on notable links. But it shouldn't have been made alltogether. Dab pages should've been evaluated based on their purpose and adjust the MOS for them according to consensus.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Mercury City became a dab in 2008 to include a band article which was promptly deleted. Two of its three entries now fail WP:DABMENTION. We should either redirect to the tower or, if the tower is deemed a partial title match, delete the dab entirely. However, this is all dealt with by MOS:DAB and WP:G14; there's no need for WP:NOT to dictate a higher threshold. Certes (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think DAB pages are a little bit of both and cannot be classified as entirely navigational nor entirely encyclopedic. - Enos733 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles are not always entirely encyclopedic either, and contain some elements of navigational aids, but that does not prevent us from calling them "encyclopedic", nor does it prevent notability rules to the article. Huggums537 (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Enos733: if they are considered Encyclopedic in the sense that they are there also to inform customers, then we will have to treat them like list articles and verify information through references. We can't have Dab pages be both, because it causes this middle gray area where people want to include non notable entries that may or may not be verifiable. And since Dab pages isn't a place to verify info, this causes more conflict.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Merging "Scientific journals" and "Academic language"

These two items in § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal are very closely related to eachother. Scientific journals are part of academic publishing using high-level language. The "Academic language" item is very short and mostly (2/3 of the sentences) overlap the former item (compare:; emphasis mine).

References

~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Academic language or jargon is much wider scope than scientific journals. For example, the arts and humanities are not scientific but they may well be academic. So, the bold merger has narrowed the scope in a confusing way. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: How about merging them and then call the item "Academic language" since it encompasses scientific journals? ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC); edited 17:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Dictionary

There are two sections that says Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. I think we only need one section. Cwater1 (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you misread Wikipedia is not a Directory? (That's exactly the kind of thing I'd do inadvertently.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I did. I did not see that until you pointed it out. It is a good thing I said something on here before I did any edit. Cwater1 (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Written rules and accepted practice

The section "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" says that rules "do not set accepted practice" but "they document ... what should be accepted". Isn't this contradictory and confusing, at least to the average reader? Using the word "accepted" twice here is very problematic. Nxavar (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see your problem with that. The word means the same thing in both places, it woud be more confusing to use different terms I'd have thought. NadVolum (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"rules set accepted practice" for the Brits is like saying "rules are the law". If you are familiar with that the phrasing is not confusing. However, we should not assume the reader is familiar with the British legal system. Nxavar (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I see the problem, but I also don't think it's "accepted." What if we change "set" to "establish"? (And, in the next sentence, maybe "already-existing" to "current.") - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

What the phrase "do not set accepted practise" is trying to say is that, in Wikipedia, there are no firm rules. Nxavar (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what the problem is please. The comment about the British legal system did not explain anything to me. NadVolum (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

BTW I'm happy with replacing set with establish and already-existing to current. THey don't mak much difference to me so if they help others tht's good. NadVolum (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

When the rules "set accepted practice" some interpret it as a MUST be done and some as a SHOULD be done. In the first use of the word the MUST is assumed, in the second the SHOULD is explicit. "Established" also does not make it clear if it is a MUST or SHOULD. I chose "compulsory" in my edit attempt but it was reverted because of possible change in meaning. Nxavar (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have any firm rules. How many times does that have to be repeated in Wkipedia? If people don't get it there's no point going in for more complicated words - that will just reinforce the idea of fixed rules for anybody like that. NadVolum (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There is an RfC open at WikiProject: Classical Music about the applicability of WP:INDISCRIMINATE

Please come join the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music#Lists of Repertoire/Compositions on Wikipedia! Why? I Ask (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)