Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut
Disambiguation

"Mos:Dab" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Mos:Dab has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Mos:Dab until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mos:DAB" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Mos:DAB has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Mos:DAB until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The guidelines in MOS:DABRED is currently silent on whether it would be OK to add entries to disambiguation pages if the article exists in a foreign language wikipedia using the Template:Interlanguage link. Wouldn't it be a good idea to add something about it? I'd like to add something about it, but I'm not sure what to add. If the article exists in a foreign language Wikipedia, would it count as a blue link? or would all the rules for red links still apply? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am asking is that I recently created a new disambiguation page, and there are tons of articles that could be added to it if it's allowed to add articles in foreign language Wikipedias. But I'm not sure whether this would be permissible. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DABRED contains the information you're looking for: "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." Bearing in mind that other language editions of Wikipedia have differing standards of notability, and differing levels of willingness / ability to enforce their standards... in general, a foreign language article is a good clue that the topic is notable, so a red link is probably fine. As an extreme example of the bad case, there are some articles that used to be on English Wikipedia but were since deleted at AFD/PROD, but the old articles were already translated to other language editions, resulting in an apparent "gap" that won't be filled. But yeah, go read the other language's article, and take a decent guess as to whether it'd pass notability here.
That being said, disambiguation pages are the wild west, and I was put off from editing them for some time after another editor rather rudely reverted me several times when I added some red links, when I had even been planning on translating the added articles over to en-wiki. (In the realm of saltily fighting ancient battles, I will note that all of the links I added except one do indeed have articles now.) So there are clearly editors who disagree out there, and you might yet run into one; I just think they're wrong and not in compliance with the guideline. SnowFire (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the previous sentence of WP:DABRED is A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should be included on a disambiguation page only when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link., which puts the above quote into context. I understand "liked article" to mean "linked article in en.wiki", and perhaps we need to insert that term to avoid ambiguity. I don't think a link to another language Wikipedia is enough for a dab page entry: the reader should be able to find out more in English about the topic, so we need a blue link to complement the {{ill}} red link. If we allow entries which are only linked to a non-English wikipedia article, our dab pages could expand to include every biography on any other wikipedia, every hamlet in the world even where there is no WP:RS, and so on. PamD 07:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm definitely not advocating for mass inclusion of anything in any other language wiki. As I wrote above, a foreign language article is a good clue that the topic is notable, but a clue != inclusion for sure. That said, I'm not sure the number of incoming links is really that useful a measure. I've found articles on plainly 100% notable people who, when I searched for them, had mentions all over the place on English Wikipedia, but that were in plain text and not already linked. (Mostly academics whose work was being cited in citations.) SnowFire (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to proceed is to look for instances of WP:DABMENTION: often, topics are mentioned in other more generic or related articles, so you can actually start even without a red link if you're unsure if there's WP:POTENTIAL. --Joy (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RFC about this a few years ago, which after a great deal of discussion concluded "OK in some circumstances, but leave it to editors to use common sense and judgement of context to decide for themselves what these circumstances are." Dan Bloch (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this info. I wasn't aware of WP:DABSISTER. Perhaps I'll start a discussion on that talk page regarding what does "under certain circumstances" mean. I, for one, have no idea. Examples, which this page has lots of, would be useful. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the solution to having a redlinked article on a DAB page isn’t to link to a sister project, but to write an article on that topic/subject here on enWP. Do that and there is no longer any need to use inter-language links on the DAB page. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move the WP:DABSISTER to this page

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal #3. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So as to not have two discussions at two pages… please leave any comments at WT:DAB and not here Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DABACRO - not a great example

[edit]

The example given to illustrate MOS:DABACRO is itself concerned with acronyms. This makes it quite "meta" and harder to read and understand. An example using acronyms that are about something other than acronyms would make it much clearer in my opinion. --Jameboy (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a particular example in mind? Paradoctor (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I'll go away and think of one. I may be a while. In the meantime please enjoy some smooth jazz. --Jameboy (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameboy and Paradoctor: It's not hard to find violations of this policy (as I understand it) on most acronym DABs today.

SSB may refer to:

WPA may refer to:

POC may refer to:

JRB may refer to:

GWB may refer to:

Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence about wikidata and wikivoyage

[edit]

The current setnence in WP:DABSISTER about wikidata and wikivoyage makes no sense. The sentence reads as "Do not add entries where the content is on any other sister project, like Wikidata or Wikivoyage".

  1. EVERY Wikipedia article has an entry in Wikidata. Wikidata is the database used to connect entries between different languages. See for example the entry for Wikipedia on Wikidata.
  2. Not clear what is the purpose of this prohibition

I think the sentence should be about not linking to non-encyclopedic sister projects such as Wikidata or Wikivoyage, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata has had serious issues regarding verifiability and reliability. So, while we don’t mind if Wikidata takes its information from us, it does not work in the other direction. We don’t take information from Wikidata (except in the limited ways specified). Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it sounds like we don't wnat to link to it. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we absolutely should not be linking directly to wikidata from disambiguation pages. Although there has been some contention elsewhere about whether it might be acceptable to use wikidata with {{ill}} to provide links to multiple languages within articles. older ≠ wiser 20:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me. Why would it be acceptable to use {{ill}} to link to Wikidata? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you look in the archives, both here and at the various Village Pump pages… we have had a LOT of discussions about how (and even whether) we should incorporate Wikidata. There is a lot of negativity about it. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think it ever is. But in articles, there has been some contention about this. But for disambiguation page, it has never been appropriate. older ≠ wiser 23:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages&oldid=1248991450"