Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 54

If my understanding of WP:Disambiguation is correct, ~200 pages need to be converted to DABs

So, I'd like to get an expert opinion on whether or not the DAB pages need to be created and, if so, some help with doing that.

I used an algorithm to detect mistargeted links in List of human protein-coding genes 1, List of human protein-coding genes 2, List of human protein-coding genes 3, and List of human protein-coding genes 4 and found 226 pages that did not meet the relevance criteria for those tables (the algorithm detected all of the mistargeted links that I found by manually combing through the lists, so I'm fairly confident that it detected every mistargeted link in the tables). Those mistargeted links are listed in the collapse tab here: WT:MCB#Gene symbol link targets that don't include the words "protein", "proteins", "gene" or "genes". Since all of the alphanumeric sequences in that list are HGNC-approved gene symbols for genes that encode a human protein (you can verify this by searching any of the symbols from that list on this page: https://www.genenames.org/), the gene/protein topic is inherently notable and an article about them can be expected to exist at the gene symbol by readers.

The vast majority of the pages in that list don't strike me as a clear primary topic (notable exceptions would include SI, ESPN, and PDF, which are definitely all primary topics; none of the gene symbols are primary topics IMO), so I believe that virtually all of those pages need to be converted to DABs which list both the current link target and the gene symbols with parenthetical "(gene)" disambiguation (e.g., en:MTR as a gene symbol → MTR (gene)); this follows from MOS:MCB#Article name, which specifies that form of parenthetical disambiguation, and my understanding of how the WP:Disambiguation#Primary topic when a disambiguation page lists only one existing article by that name section applies in this context. NB: The only pages in that list which may not need disambiguation for the gene symbol are the enzyme pages, which are all highlighted; I've asked WT:MCB for assistance with determining whether those enzyme pages need disambiguation since it's only necessary in certain technical circumstances.

Is my interpretation of WP:Disambiguation in this context correct? I.e., should the majority of the 226 pages listed in WT:MCB#Gene symbol link targets that don't include the words "protein", "proteins", "gene" or "genes" be converted to DABs? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me like there's going to be three types of cases here:
  • Topics that already have a disambiguation page, such as as BMX (disambiguation) and MTR (disambiguation) (a bit confusing that you seemed to be suggesting that a new page would need to be created for MTR). In those cases of course we'd just add an entry for the gene topic if it's not already there.
  • Topics that were made primary by default because there were no other articles to claim that abbreviation. In those cases we can just add a hatnote pointing to the gene page, as outlined at WP:ONEOTHER.
  • The least likely case by far I would imagine, where we have a primary topic that already has a hatnote or two and now the gene topic would push it over the line to where we'd want to create a new disambiguation page instead of adding another hatnote. And I'd like to note that this still wouldn't involve "converting" anything to a disambiguation page unless the gene topic actually challenging the current target for primacy. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't entirely agree with that analysis. The fact that a lone topic exists at a title doesn't give it automatic primacy over all challengers. WP:TWODABS does allow two-link disambiguation pages where there is no primary topic, so those might theoretically be made. Also, TLRs in particular are highly prone to have multiple meanings, even if we don't list or hatnote all of them, so in each of these 226 cases we would need to examine the term to determine whether there were any additional meanings that could be disambiguated. BD2412 T 05:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • By way of example, I just disambiguated AARD. BD2412 T 05:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fyrael: Good point, I didn't think to check for the existence of PAGENAME (disambiguation) pages for the links in that list. Derp. I do not think that most of those link targets are any more primary than the human gene and human proteins corresponding to each gene symbol in that list though; consequently, I think that some of those PAGENAME (disambiguation) pages should be moved to PAGENAME.I should definitely look at all of the PAGENAME (disambiguation) pages before I make a blanket statement like this; I may still feel that way after I do though. Also, within the next 24 hours, I'm going to update the wikitables with parenthetical disambiguation for all of the gene symbols in that list. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The example I looked at seemed to need no change: NHS redirects to the primary topic National Health Service which has a hatnote pointing to NHS (disambiguation) which includes NHS (gene) and all is well. It is worth checking that every "... (disambiguation)" page is actually linked by a hatnote from the base name as too many navigational routes are broken by omitting this! PamD 07:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
And I've just added the missing hatnote at Asymmetric digital subscriber line, which I think is the undoubted primary topic for ADSL. PamD 07:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

GFY has me a bit speechless. I can't say I've seen that many, but that is the dumbest cross-project link I've come across. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

So where should it lead instead? There seems to be no article mentioning the gene. PamD 07:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what revision you saw when you wrote that, but GFY was a cross project redirect to wiktionary:GFY. I had to move it to GFY (abbreviation) to change to wikidata item for the cross project redirect to another page, then set the wikidata item for the gene to GFY so that I could automatically load the {{Infobox gene}} data for the GFY gene. Right now, the cross project redirect that is located at draft:GFY; I deleted the GFY (abbreviation) redirect to it for obvious reasons. The current GFY page redirects to the name of the protein in encodes (per MOS:MCB#Article name), so everything is fixed now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I was on my phone, which limits access to a lot of content in complex tables etc. But I've now made a dab page at GFY which seems more useful, and includes the Wiktionary link. PamD 08:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@User:PamD and others here: it’s *really important* that SYMBOL (gene) (e.g., GFY (gene) in this instance) be created when a gene symbol redirect is replaced with a DAB page that links to the pagename of a protein or gene alias; otherwise, it breaks internal links that would normally default to the parenthetically disambiguated gene symbol (e.g., in the gene lists). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@Seppi333: Sorry, but you cannot lay down the law in incomprehensible terms like that when ordinary editors are making ordinary cleanup edits. If gene-focussed editors have in the past created links and redirects without making incoming navigational links, other editors will try to clean up as and when they have the interest and time to do so. If you are telling us that we must not make normal edits ... well, it probably won't work, but you need to explain yourself a lot more clearly. If gene editors believe that they have a right to claim the gene as the primary topic for every abbreviatgion such as "NHS", or that the National Health Service cannot be treated as its primary topic, then they need to rethink. On GFY: you unilaterally draftified a page which had been there in various forms, usually as a redirect to Wiktionary, in a way which ignored all previous activity, to overwrite it with your own particular interest, the gene: you can't do that, even if doing otherwise breaks your gene-specific systems. PamD 09:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to give constructive criticism to assist with disambiguation work, not offend you; my bad for having done that. Deleting that page is fully justified by the policy link I listed in the move log when moving the page; please read it to understand why I deleted the redirect from the mainspace. In regards to disambiguation, in virtually all cases where the article wasn’t created moments prior to a conversion from a gene symbol redirect to a DAB page, that redirect WILL have backlinks. If you don’t do what I’ve described, you will be creating dablinks unless you manually retargeted those, which is more work than simply moving the redirect to it’s parenthetically disambiguated pagename, consistent with MOS:MCB.
Again, I’m not trying to be a dick. I’m telling you this because it’s really important to do that for internal navigation of the GeneWiki. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I was just coming back to say that yes, per usual rules in making a page into a dab page I should have checked for incoming links... as I now did so and found the uneditable List of human protein-coding genes 2, which now links to the dab page. But there's a problem in your initial assumption that every symbol which leads to something which isn't a gene is a "mistargeted link": no, NHS is just fine, ADSL just needed a hatnote added. There are readers of the encyclopedia other than those looking for genes. PamD 09:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Without understanding fully what's going on here with gene symbols, would it be safer if you just created a Foo (gene) redirect for every single one of them, which could then be the links used in your complicated systems which will otherwise be broken if ordinary editors make natural edits? They would be orphan redirects but no-one would challenge them, and you would then have a uniform set of links to work with? PamD 09:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: I'm not sure why you're cherry-picking links that I never commented on to argue with me. Please stop with the hostility. I never specified all of the pages that I thought were primary; I only listed three that I asserted were unambiguously primary and stated that most were not clear primary topics. That does not means all but those 3. I agree with you on NHS; ADSL is open to debate IMO (i.e., I'm virtually certain that more than 2 notable topics that are associated with that term). Also, your suggestion to create those redirects is actually a pretty good idea IMO. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify: the term "mistargeted link" applies to the wikilink in the corresponding table in the gene lists, as in, the wikilink is mistargeted, not the linked page in the event that it's a redirect. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Seppi333: Looking further down you list: what do we do with PATJ? It's an accurate redirect to the airport, and PATJ (gene) is a redlink. Nothing appropriate-looking is appearing when I search Wikipedia for PATJ or patj. PamD 09:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    The immediate solution for fixing the mistargeted links in the tables is to link to the parenthetically disambiguated gene symbol; when a new human protein page is created by an editor, a bot will normally create links from the corresponding gene symbol or parenthetically disambiguated gene symbol (if applicable) to the corresponding protein page at a later date. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
But if PATJ (gene) doesn't exist, what do we say in the hatnote on the airport article which is the target of PATJ? Human editors will remove a hatnote with a red link, rather than wait for something to be created at a later date. Confusing. And still you call all these links "mistargeted", when in some cases the targetting is 100% fine as with NHS, in other cases someone didn't create the link they should have done when creating the gene page or redirect.
This sort of disambiguation cleanup is the kind on which I can spend far too much fascinated time, but I really need to get on with other stuff today ... election leaflets to deliver, real life stuff ... so I'm resisting the temptation even to create the missing dab page for APEH/Apeh. PamD 09:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Re PATJ: doesn't WP:Disambiguation provide guidance on that? Re: NHS. To illustrate the thing that is "mistargeted", go to List of human protein-coding genes 3 and click the NHS link. Think about why that's taking you to a place you didn't expect based upon where you thought you were going.
The answer is that the wikilink you just clicked needs to be piped someplace else, which is NHS (gene). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) The NHS link in your table at List of human protein-coding genes 3 leads via 3 clicks to NHS (gene). It should presumably have been piped there in the table, that's the only reason it leads to somewhere "you didn't expect", so the problem is with your table and not with the rest of Wikipedia. PATJ should be a red link to PATJ (gene) in your table if there is nowhere more useful for it to go to. And I've just created APEH as a dab page which includes a link to APEH (gene) instead of it being a redirect to an American college course. And I must now log off and get on with real life ... will be interested to see whether any other disambiguation geeks comment on this thread. PamD 10:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It should presumably have been piped there in the table, that's the only reason it leads to somewhere "you didn't expect", so the problem is with your table and not with the rest of Wikipedia No shit. Really!? I didn't know that! Wow, I wonder how I managed to program a script to detect all those problematic links in the table without knowing that the table had problems! What an amazing coincidence. Look, you're starting to piss me off, so I'm not going to respond to your agro comments here anymore. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

Adding a section break to make editing easier PamD 16:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I know little about genes but I've done quite a bit of work on disambiguation and in the related field of misdirected links. Please let me summarise what's already been said and add a few more thoughts. I'm sure other editors have more experience of this than I do but it's hard to guess who knows what, so I apologise in advance for the bits that insult your intelligence.
Some links which should lead to genes instead lead to unrelated topics which share the initials, such as linking to the UK National Health Service when NHS (gene) was intended. There may also be problems with page titles and interlinking.
Before dealing with wikilinks, we may need to clean up the actual pages. WP:MULTIDABS has good advice. There are several cases depending what articles exist and whether there is a primary topic (PT).
  • No PT: dab at the base name listing XYZ (gene) and other article(s)
  • PT + gene only: article XYZ about the PT with a hatnote to XYZ (gene); no dab is needed
  • PT + gene + others: XYZ (disambiguation) listing XYZ (gene) and others
  • Gene is PT: article XYZ about the gene; probably already correct
  • No gene article: probably already correct
Once we're sure which articles live at XYZ and which at XYZ (gene) then we can seek bad links. The Python bot detects many such errors. Wikipedia's own search can also be surprisingly powerful. PetScan is a very useful tool for this sort of thing. For example, it could find targets linked from a list of pages which have titles consisting of a few capital letters and are not in certain gene categories. Quarry is also useful for making lists, such as cases where XYZ (disambiguation) and XYZ (gene) exist but there is no wikilink between them.
AWB or JWB can be a big help with the cleanup. DisamAssist is also useful, especially for fixing links to newly created dab pages.
Once that lot is complete then anyone clicking a relevant wikilink should find themselves at the gene article, or see a redlink if no article exists. The page cleanup should also ensure that readers who reach a page XYZ by other means can navigate easily to XYZ (gene).
I hope some of that was useful, and I'll be happy to help with the work insofar as someone who thought genes were made of denim can. Certes (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Certes: I'd just add one point to your 3rd bullet point above: that when there is a PT and a dab page we need to make sure that the PT article has a hatnote alerting readers to the existence of the dab page - too often forgotten! And of course the PT may well be a redirect rather than an article title, as with ADSL. Scope for lots of useful cleanup and creation of missing dab pages. One useful step would be to identify all "FOO (gene)" articles which are not linked, either directly or indirectly, from "FOO", and then make those links: hatnote on "FOO", entry on dab page at "FOO", entry in "FOO (disambiguation)", or "redirect" hatnote on the page with spelled-out title for which FOO is PT (and to which it redirects), and probably other possibilities. PamD 17:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I've created a Quarry query (A-F G-M N-Z) to list "FOO (gene)" not linked from "FOO" by any type of chain that I saw in practice. (Each section takes seconds but, oddly, a single run for A-Z takes forever.) Each of the ~150 cases needs further analysis to see what type of links are needed. Certes (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: Wow, lots of scope there for disambiguators to do useful work, thanks. But I've found one which slipped your net! I scrolled down to "P" to have a look, followed up "Paralytic" (yes, moved to the disambiguated title in 2017 with no redirect from Paralysis to which the name redirects), but then looked at PIGS: route is a redirect to Pig (disambiguation), dab page entry for PIGS (genetics), redirect to PIGS (gene)! Could be a pattern for anything ending in "s". PamD 05:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I think PIGS has a reasonable indirect link, so the last NOT EXISTS in the Quarry queries are there specifically to exclude such cases from the list. If we removed that filter then we would get many more cases such as A-1 (gene). Do we want those listed, perhaps separately, and if so what would we do with them? Certes (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I've copied the list of missing links here and made a start on classifying them here. Certes (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Feedback requested please, especially on which unrelated articles without dabs require a new dab. I see PamD has already made a start with PCTP. VISA just needs an addition to the linked Visa (disambiguation); some cases may be ONEOTHER which just requires a hatnote; others are less obvious. We may want to tick off the manual fixes such as new dabs when done, leaving the hatnote cases for a JWB run. Certes (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I've just finished a brisk run through all entries starting with "P" in that list (well we can't always start at "A": I stubsort on the same basis). See my contributions list... several hatnotes, several new 2-entry dab pages (with "what links here" checking and a few disambiguations made), several entries added to existing dab pages (in one case clarifying the link, as it didn't go through the "Pokemon (gene)" redirect, and in another avoiding another redirect by linking to PIGS (gene) on the dab page instead of PIGS (genetics)). I don't think "Foo (gene)" as a dab page entry needs any annotation (though in the case of Pokemon I carried over the existing text, rejigged). Just over an hour's satisfying work for I think 19 genes.
Where and how should we be recording progress on these? Unless I've missed anything, there is now a clear route from every "POO" to its "POO (gene)" article or redirect (ie all the ones starting with P).
Of course these unlinked genes are only the tip of a massive iceberg of articles with disambiguated titles which aren't linked from the base name: we could do a similar list for any common xyz used in "Foo (xyz)". PamD 16:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
P looks good: thanks for the good work PamD. My only suggestion is that Pol#Science and technology may need another look: through no fault of ours, it lists Pol (HIV), which is a gene, and Pol (gene), which isn't. If you're happy to continue in that vein, that's great. If not then you could leave lists for the simpler common fixes which might be automated, such as adding hatnotes. Certes (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm taking the line that as long as the reader can get from the "Foo" to the "Foo (gene)", any further tidying up (as at Pol) is down to the genetics geeks! I've just polished off letter "R" ... only 5, shouldn't take long ... till I decided Rax/RAX needed a dab page instead of a bundle of hatnotes on two articles. Done now. PamD 16:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the rest of the false positives from that list, though some might still benefit from a tidy as PamD did with Rho (disambiguation). Certes (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Now done all the "S" - except SPI1: SPI1 (gene) is a long-established dab page. @Seppi333: you might like to do something with this? PamD 17:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I had to go to a specialized enzyme database to find gene information on that. The enzyme is notable because it synthesizes auxins; but, there's 2 (non-human) genes that are associated with it, so SPI1 (gene) shouldn't link to the enzyme page. They're distinct topics. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
On a tangent unrelated to genes, one part of the iceberg is listed on the Missing entries log. It contains false positives such as Gooseberry (gene) but is generally right. Certes (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for helping me with this; I really appreciate it. I would have given up after adding disambiguation for maybe only a dozen entries if I had to do this by myself. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I consider a chance to make 200+ useful new disambiguation pages a goldmine! BD2412 T 04:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Seppi333: Please can you take a look at User:Certes/Gene links#Enzyme or protein article and #Miscellaneous? Improving those links needs someone with a clue about genes. Also, does the wording I've used in edits like Y14 read well or, if not, what would work better? Thanks, Certes (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Certes and Seppi333: I made a slight modification of your description at Y14; I hope it's an improvement! Leschnei (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: I'm sorry for overlooking your question about where to record what still remains to be done. I've been updating User:Certes/Gene links. Apart from the cases awaiting a gene expert, all that remains is A–O and T–Z from the Unrelated article without dab section. The tricky bit there is deciding what merits a dab. For example, should AK1 be a primary redirect to Butte Municipal Airport or to Adenylate kinase 1? In this case I'd guess that there is no primary topic so we need a new dab at AK1, which Dabfix can create easily once we agree that it's wanted. Certes (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Done a couple more - and I reckon AK1 is best redirecting to the dab at AK-1, have done that now. I added a sentence to your notes at User:Certes/Gene links to remind us to check for incoming links if converting anything from a title or redirect into a dab page. Found a couple of interesting cases where there was no mention of term in target article of redirect - added previous name NKRF to the Kidney Research UK, but ODAM is a bit mystifying and seems to date back to an ancient poorly-done merge: made a new dab page. All a nice little project, on a day when I have other priorities and am welcoming a diversion. Just fixed BBC3. PamD 13:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I hope I'm getting this right: in this edit I'm thinking that we help the reader by making the "LOX (gene)" link explicit, rather than listing the chemical it encodes, as previously. PamD 13:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks right to me but Seppi333 may be able to give a more informed assessment. Many articles describe both a gene and the protein or enzyme which it encodes, and I'm unclear as to the best format for the dab entry. Certes (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that using the redirect is important in this case, to make it obvious why it is on the disambiguation page. I added just a little more info to say that this is the designation for the human gene. The nomenclature for gene and protein names can be a bit complicated - human genes are in all-caps (LOX) and mouse genes have the initial letter capitalized (Lox). Lysyl oxidase mentions only the human gene in the text. Leschnei (talk)
There are a few cases where a protein and the encoding gene should be on separate pages, like genes that encode multiple proteins. It's similar to how enzyme pages, which reflect EC numbers, can be associated with mutiple proteins which in turn are encoded by multiple genes. I'll take a look an go through it as time permits. Thanks again. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Regaring Y14, the wording looks fine. That appears to be an old gene symbol. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: I merged/redirected 8 articles and moved the corresponding wikidata sitelinks and moved 3 more sitelinks for articles that were already merged in your lists. I'll address the rest a bit later. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Figured I'd mention this: in general, when there isn't a 1:1 correspondence between a gene and an enzyme, it isn't ideal to use a set index article at a gene symbol to list to correponding gene(s) and enzyme(s). When there's 2+ human genes that correspond to a single enzyme (i.e., 1 EC number), the ideal approach is to list the enzyme on the gene pages and link the gene pages on the enzyme page (a la AOC2/AOC3/primary amine oxidase and MAOA/MAOB/monoamine oxidase). When 1 human gene corresponds to 2+ enzymes (i.e., 2+ EC numbers), it's best to list the gene in the enzyme articles and the enzymes in the gene article (a la ALG2, GDP-Man:Man1GlcNAc2-PP-dolichol alpha-1,3-mannosyltransferase/EC 2.4.1.132, and GDP-Man:Man2GlcNAc2-PP-dolichol alpha-1,6-mannosyltransferase/EC 2.4.1.257). In circumstances where there's an non-human enzyme which is encoded by a non-human gene that shares a gene symbol with a human gene (this generally only applies to non-animal genes due to the fact that many animal genes that share a symbol with a human gene are orthologous), one can typically naturally disambiguate such pages based upon the capitalization in the symbol since most non-human genes are not written in all caps (e.g., how Taar and TAAR were disambiguated).

Since I realize that what I've described above requires some technical knowledge and is time-consuming to address, I'd be happy to deal with disambiguation issues for pagenames that only list genes and enzymes whenever one is located. This issue is moot whenever one or more non-enzyme/gene pages also require disambiguation at the pagename of a gene symbol. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)

@Certes: I'm not sure if you saw my comment at the bottom of User:Certes/Gene links#Miscellaneous, but I think it may be worth trying to find all the set index articles like this so that I can redirect them and interlink the targets or merge them as necessary. I'm hoping there aren't a lot of them though... Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Seppi333: I was asleep when you wrote that but I think this PetScan query may do what we need. It flags up three SIAs linked from gene lists: LCMT1, ALG10 and CHST15. Certes (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! That makes things easy then. I'll go about addressing those tomorrow; I'll need to create 2 articles to fix ALG10. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I also found some other links needing attention. Certes (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Universal changes without consensus

I'm sure many editors on this project have seen Froid pop up repeatedly on DAB pages making sweeping changes. It seems to me that they have for a long time now been trying to remake as many DAB pages as they possibly can according to their own personal Manual of Style. For pages that were previously in a sorry state that's commendable and I'm glad they're getting cleaned up, but very often this happens on a page that's well-maintained and already conforming to our guidelines. Considering how many discussions on MOSDAB conclude with some variation of "we should consider this case-by-case instead of universally applying something that doesn't always fit", I think this approach is a bad idea. However, if Froid is going to continue this way I think it would be useful to have others weigh in on some of the rules being applied. Normally this would be something for individual talk pages, but since Froid is changing such a large number of pages I think it's worth talking about at the project level. Here are the types of changes being made that I think there is not consensus for (Froid, please do correct ones I'm mistaken on since I'm making guesses on what you intended with an edit summary of "edited, organized"):

  • Moving partial title matches out of "See also" into the main sections
  • Changing the "Fictional characters" section to "Fictitious entities" even when there are no non-character entries. Same for "Groups and labels" when there's only groups listed.
  • Sorting lists of songs, albums, etc by artist surname. This would be confusing enough if only individual artists were included, but when there's also groups mixed in it's even worse.
  • Always adding an "Arts, entertainment, and media" header. Yes, such a header is appropriate sometimes, but we should definitely not be adding it to every single page that has one or two entertainment-type sections.
  • People and Places always first; it's true that some contributors think Places should be first, but People should often be at the very end, and nobody should be reorganizing a page just to promote those to the top.

I definitely feel like there's more, but that's all I can recall at the moment. Bkonrad, are there any you'd add? -- Fyrael (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I would second most of what Fyrael says. Froid makes substantial reorganisations on a large number of dab pages, and even though this is often helpful it is also the case that probably half of the he time the result is that the dab page becomes in one way or another less easy to navigate. The aspects that I have an issue with are:
  • Overcomplicating the section structure: e.g. creating sections on small dab pages (of say, 5 or 6 items), breaking up larger dab pages into ever smaller and smaller subsections and sub-subsections. The resulting structure may be logically exhaustive but cumbersome and unhelpful.
  • Re-ordering sections so that they're in alphabetical order (or with people and places first). This is often a good idea, but I've seen that done even to pages where the pre-existing order was more thoughtful (e.g. having the first section for the most common meanings, or having semantically related sections be next to each other).
Overall, Froid does a lot of good work, but also a lot that is questionable, and over the past year they've been having a hard time taking feedback on board. – Uanfala (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I would say most of those patterns of changes sound only situationally appropriate. (And number 2 is just plain incorrect IMO. wikt:fictitious is not an exact synonym for fictional, and carries some connotations that are almost certainly not intended.) If they are being applied universally to dab pages without regard to individual circumstances, I would agree that that's a problem. Colin M (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I acknowledge that most of this stuff is pretty minor, which is why I usually just roll my eyes and leave their edit alone. I do not think "this is a rogue editor who must be stopped", but that maybe some practices could use a cool down if other editors agree that it's not constructive. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I've seen Froid damage dabs in all the above ways (and a few more, including breaking header syntax and leaving sections logically out of place), always with vague or inaccurate summaries, and he does not take on board any form of guidance. I started an ANI about the edit summaries six months ago, which generated lots of complaints about these patterns, but no consensus to sanction. To editors Bkonrad and Fyrael:, it may be time to return to that venue. I would support a dab editing ban of escalating duration; certainly no amount of talking will get the point across. We don't need dab editors that see themselves as incapable of error. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I think their dab edits are awful, for the most part. I still haven't fixed Mint because I just can't bring myself to, but the ordering is an abomination. Sucks to be the reader looking for one of the more prominent topics. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I have not run into this before, but the old version of Mint is clearly better. Dekimasuよ! 14:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree their dab edits are too often bad, despite all the good ones. A difficult topic as this is clearly a discussion about a good intentioned editor with bad style, where style is affecting the purpose (of navigation) and any attempt to homogenize our dab styles may also fall into that trap of having unintended consequences? I've long suspected the error is to attempt to realise a (utopian) standard order over the diversity which hinders navigation. Suggestions? Widefox; talk 13:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I've tried several times to discuss dab edits with Froid with zero meaningful dialogue. I'm in favour of increasing time topic bans until they engage. Widefox; talk 23:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No talking on the talk page

So if you spot a talk page with a WikiProject Disambiguation banner but no other banners nor any actual discussion, what do you do with it? Is there a speedy deletion category for this? (cf. Talk:The Paramount). --GentlemanGhost (séance) 16:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There are about 190,000 such pages. They are harmless and can be left as they are. I don't create such pages, but I often use the template as a placeholder to replace wikitext such as a redirect that is no longer appropriate. Certes (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I always create them if missing. I'm guessing IP editors can't discuss without them being created already, plus there may be other utility? e.g. dab conversion to SIA etc (or vice versa) so clarifies the type. Widefox; talk 23:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Anyone, anonymous or not, can create talk pages. – Uanfala (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I see. I wasn't aware of the two previous discussions on not creating them (below). As I use the WP:Metadata gadget, missing project banners are very visible for me, and I add them without visiting or even noticing the page existence. There's also a number of dabs with more than one project banner, but still blank, which I presume there's consensus to keep, e.g. Talk:Crab (disambiguation). I'm still leaning towards blank ones being useful, to encourage other projects to template and to lower the barrier for discussion per WP:5P4. I can see it both ways as the vast majority serve no purpose, but do no harm. Widefox; talk 11:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
What should be tidied up, not necessarily by deleting the talk page, is this banner on the talk page of an page that's not a dab. Currently there seem to be none. Certes (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Certes:, the current version of Petscan erroneously returns 0 results for searches that involve a WikiProject Banner (or perhaps for any searches that involve a talk page). With the previous version of Petscan there are 24222 page with the Disambiguation banner that aren't disambiguation pages; the majority are redirects. Plantdrew (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I thought it unlikely that no one has ever added (or failed to remove) the banner by mistake! 10407 talk pages of articles (mainspace pages excluding redirects and dabs) have the banner, either alone or within a wrapper such as {{WikiProject banner shell}}. I suppose a bot could remove the banners but it's not our most pressing task. Also, some examples such as Bunsen might sensibly be turned into dabs instead. Certes (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The premise is that talk pages containing only {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} should not be created. This is documented on the template's page (which links to the discussions behind this consensus), but in short, the reason is they don't serve any purpose (article tracking is done directly via the dab template on the dab page itself), and they're an inconvenience in the long run. However, once they're created, it's a waste of time to try and delete them individually. Ideally, some day we'll get a bot to delete them all in one go, but I don't think anyone is likely to be concerned enough to get the ball rolling anytime soon. – Uanfala (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm glad I read this discussion because I have been creating those pages without being aware of the earlier consensus to not do so. I'll certainly stop doing that now, but if anyone would like to trout me, I'll take my medicine.—ShelfSkewed Talk 02:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Me too, I had to idea! Leschnei (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Main usage of 'Christ'

Participants in this WikiProject may be interested to discuss the main usage of Christ at Talk:Christ (disambiguation)#Main usage. Cnilep (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

UTSA primary topic?

UTSA started life as a redirect to University of Texas at San Antonio, and has gone back and forth a couple times between the redirect and a disambiguation page. In order to prevent edit warring, I have proposed University of Texas at San Antonio as the primary topic with UTSA (disambiguation) being the disambiguation page. Please add your comments/opinions Talk:UTSA. Leschnei (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote for Isaac Asimov's pseudonym

Hi, I wish to place a hatnote on Paul French (author) concerning the pen name used by Isaac Asimov for his six novels collectively known as the Lucky Starr series. These are my ideas:

This page is about the British author born in 1966. For the pseudonym used by Isaac Asimov between 1952 and 1958, see Lucky Starr series.
This page is about the British author born in 1966. For the author of the Lucky Starr series published between 1952 and 1958, see Isaac Asimov.

Which would be best? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Is the 1966 author even the primary topic for the partial dab? The article is suspected to be an autobiography. Perhaps it should be renamed Paul French (author, born 1966) or Paul French (British author), and the current title become a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} to Paul French. Paul Comly French is also a published author. Certes (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the hat note to Isaac Asimov, in case someone is searching for Paul French author of that series of books. The redirect should be to the author. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

OPDS

I would welcome a second opinion (or bold fix) on OPDS (Disambiguation) (note uppercase D). It seems to list one article (Open Publication Distribution System), a term used in a few articles but not described anywhere (Offshore Petroleum Discharge System) and an initialism not mentioned in Public defender (United States). OPDS has been deleted. Do we just move the dab to the base name, or should OPDS redirect to Open Publication Distribution System? Certes (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Certes: I found an article for Offshore Petroleum Distribution System (nb not "Discharge"); moved the dab page to OPDS; created an INTDAB link at OPDS (disambiguation); and while I'm here sent the redirect O-PDS to RFD!. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Shhhnotsoloud. Distribution sounds more productive than discharge, and better for the environment too! I've tidied a few loose ends such as lining OPDS (Disambiguation) (disambiguation) up against the wall. Certes (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The reference to Public defender (United States) was because a web search for "OPDS" (
) finds that way before it finds Open Publication Distribution System. Apparently the term is a common abbreviation for the "Office of Public Defense Services" at least in Oregon (though there are some hits from Maricopa County, AZ as well). It should probably have been added to the article instead of removed from the dab. —Uzume (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

help on Lil Nas X

There is some disagreement if we need to do any guidance for readers who come to Lil Nas X, shortened to Nas X, who may be looking for a different “Lil” and/or a different “Nas”.

Feel free to just fix it but a brief explanation on the talk page might also help.

Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not finding any recent disagreement on the history or talk for Lil Nas X or Nas. Seems probably fine to me as is though. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems fine to me per WP:NAMB. If someone is searching on either of those names, it's unlikely they would be looking for anyone else. Nick Number (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sex symbol

Do both Sex Cymbal (the album) and "Sex Cymbal" (song) belong in the See also section of Sex symbol (disambiguation)? Just one? Neither? Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Certainly at least one. Probably both, the latter as an indented sub-bullet of the former. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 16:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Great minds think alike! Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

List article or topic article for codes?

For entries where the ambiguous term is a code, it's been my practice to link to the topic that the code refers to rather than a list article containing the code. For example, the XLS DAB page links to Saint-Louis Airport rather than List of airports by IATA code: X. When I changed one of these recently, another editor that I usually agree with changed it back on the basis that the linked article didn't mention the abbreviation. To me, this doesn't change what topic the reader was looking for, although I could see maybe making an exception for a list article that gave a lot of detail about the code (none come immediately to mind, but I'm sure they exist). I was hoping to get some other opinions rather than have a 1-on-1 debate. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting one, these International vehicle registration codes - total inconsistency as far as I can see! :Compare
Not sure this sheds much light, but having rummaged around out of curiosity I thought I'd share my varied findings. ANd have just had a look at Pages that link to "International vehicle registration code ... interesting mixture there, including J, which has " In international licence plate codes, J stands for Japan." under "Other uses", while J (disambiguation) has " J, the international license plate code for Japan", also under "Other uses". PamD 22:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
There is inconsistency because the different types of articles do not treat the code consistently. The is a place in the country info box template for ISO codes, but not for license plates. Thus most country articles will mention the ISO code but not the license plate code. In my opinion, the dab page should only link to an article that supports the claimed usage. Otherwise it will become quite difficult to sort out legitimate usage from scurrilous additions. older ≠ wiser 00:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I think a good solution for that last bit would be to add a hidden comment pointing to the article that supports the entry while still linking to the country in the visible text. That's what I did at SLO for a similar circumstance. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
And I actually think there's a more general issue with editors feeling they must include justification within a DAB entry description. I'd much prefer having clean entries with comments to stave off other well-meaning editors who might think it should be removed. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Comments explaining editor choices that might be questioned are always a good idea. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure the current state of SLO is ideal. It might actually be best for readers to have two separate entries -- and in neither case link to the country. Think about the context of a reader's query. Why might they be looking up "SLO"? Perhaps they saw SLO on an athlete's uniform or displayed with a score. I'd argue that such a reader is more likely to find the article Slovenia at the Olympics more helpful than the article on the country. Similarly, perhaps someone saw SLO on a license plate. If they only question is what country does that mean, they likely would not need to go past the entry on the dab page. But if they have any interest in the plate code as a plate code, it is more helpful by far to direct them to the article on International vehicle registration code than to the country article (which likely says little or nothing about the code). older ≠ wiser 18:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I tend to think it's a bit more likely than you seem to that the reader would be interested in the country, rather than the sparse information available in lists, but I totally understand and agree that they could be looking for more information on the code. I'm perhaps just yearning for uniformity too much, because clearly for other types of codes like a chemical symbol or a stock ticker symbol the user is almost undoubtedly trying to find information on what the code represents rather than the symbol itself. Another thought I've had for situations like this registration code that pushes me away from my original position is the penalty for us giving the wrong link. If we link to the country and the reader wanted code context, then there's no convenient link or even a mention of the code and now they have to do a new search for the list article. If we got it wrong the other direction though, it's just a simple click from the list article to the country. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
There are at least two good questions here: whether to include at all, and (if so) which format to use. I don't have any easy answers but consistency would be good. Should we have a list of white-listed code types? For example, it might make sense to include the vehicle registration code always or never, rather then sometimes (depending whether it happens to be mentioned in the country article). Certes (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
IMO, internationally recognized vehicle codes should always be included on the corresponding dabs, and should probably be added to their respective country articles if not already present. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 16:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
IMO, a link to the topic itself is almost always more appropriate than a link to some "List of X by Y code" page. If the code isn't mentioned on the article, it should be; codes are easily referenced and don't take up much space in an infobox. Users might search on a license plate code to get to a country article; I can't imagine anyone searching a license plate code with the intention of finding...more license plate codes. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I VERY VERY strongly disagree. There's no reason to think someone looking up a license plate code letter wants the article about the country (which say nothing whatsoever about the plate code) That to me is profoundly unhelpful and disrespectful of the reader. It the code can be mentioned in the respective country article, that is good, although with vehicle code, I'm not sure that it would be better to link to the country article rather than to International vehicle registration code, which at least provides some context for the codes. older ≠ wiser 17:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
However, there is something to consider in Certes comment above that there are two issues here -- and one issue is whether to include such codes on dab at all. I have some sympathy for not mentioning license plate codes at all on disambiguation pages. But if they are mentioned, I'm really not at all convinced that sending a reader to the country article is the best choice. older ≠ wiser 18:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm traveling in Europe; I see a plate with a code I don't recognize. I want to know what country it's for. I don't need a list of all the country codes, I need one country. It's not far fetched, much less "profoundly unhelpful and disrespectful" (wow, chill out). Maybe it's not enough to justify an entry, but then there's zero reader-use case for an entry on a single-letter dab linking to the concept of license plate codes, or a raw list thereof. Now that's profoundly unhelpful. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 18:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Right, if the question is what country does the code represent, you likely would not need to go any farther than the entry on the dab page. I'd consider highly improbable that anyone looking up a plate code would then want to dig in to that country's population, economy, politics, etc. If there were further interest beyond the question of what does it stand for, it is far more likely to be interest in the plate code as a plate code. older ≠ wiser 18:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
You believe that's far more likely, I believe the complete opposite. We're both veteran dab editors. Both our opinions are equally valid, and I think they've taken up enough space now. Given that we're unlikely to convince each other, I suggest we sit back, relax, and allow other editors to find a consensus. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 18:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we be really helpful to the reader and suggest that this is one kind of case where we allow two, or even three blue links, so that in PL#Places we have an entry like:

In most cases a reader looking up a vehicle code will want to go no further than seeing the country name, job done (even though it isn't the job of a dab page, but let's be helpful) - but if it turns out that they're looking at a car marked SME they may well want to refresh their memory as to where Suriname is and how far that vehicle has come. (Actually no, that one doesn't work, nor did several other non-obvious examples I looked for like WAL). PamD 18:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_49&oldid=944474016"