Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

• Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/archive 01
• Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/archive 02
• Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/archive 03

/from templates is basically wrapped up, with only a handful of particularly problematic links left lingering. I think /from portals is not nearly as urgent, so I propose a return to an old-fashioned collaboration of the week pick. So what's next up? BDAbramson T 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the articles with lots of links require specialist knowledge, but conservation looks like it could be attacked by just about anyone. That'd be my suggestion. Soo 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What about Special:Whatlinkshere/Syndicated (~100 ~30 links)? It's a redirect to Syndication a bunch of them can be easily changed to Print syndication or Television syndication. Or is this too easy for a collaboration? --Dual Freq 15:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the ones left are radio syndication links, but no good spot to send them to. Special:Whatlinkshere/Syndication might still be a good one to try. I changed a few syndication links to radio syndication before I noticed that it was just a circular redirect. Anybody up for making it a real page so I don't have to go back and fix the ones I sent there? --Dual Freq 15:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a request for it at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences#Communications though now I think it migt belong at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts#Radio. In anyevent based on the other thigns on the DAB I would say that this article really should not be a redirect so if no one else creates a good version in the next few days we should create it as a stub. I think we should wait and see if someon who will do more than stub it comes allong form the requests page first. Dalf | Talk 07:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of Television syndication says "In the television industry (as in radio) ...". Couldn't the problem be solved by having radio syndication be a redirect to television syndication? --Russ Blau (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That might work, but the TV name makes the article seems to exclude radio, begging for a separate radio article. Maybe one article named syndication (broadcasting or media) could include both. It would probably need a slight rewrite to include more radio information. I've been disambiguating the print and tv ones, but maybe I'll stop until this gets resolved. --Dual Freq 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on the CE disambig page, and here's what I'm noticing - a lot of them are articles in the "History of Malaysia" series. However, none of these articles, nor the HoM series box link to CE, the box links to Common Era, as it should. So, the 'what links here' says they link to CE, when they don't. I dunno. Search4Lancer 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known problem with Whatlinkshere and templates. Template:History of Malaysia used to link to CE, and any article which uses that template and hasn't been edited since it was fixed still has the old link information attached. Bo Lindbergh 21:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I could fix it just by say, adding a space to the end of the articles, or some useful edit such as a new link or something, and it should fix it, yes? Search4Lancer 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just answered my own question, as this method works.Search4Lancer 22:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To do a null edit, you don't even have to put a space to end of the article, you can just hit save without modifying the article at all.--Commander Keane 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting the list from each new dump in a subpage and transcluding it? This would simplify the changeover procedure. Bo Lindbergh 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated (significantly) the list on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance. Perhaps it would make more sense to use that as the regularly-updated list for this page, rather than using lists generated from dumps that become outdated after a couple of weeks. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the use of transclusion.

The history of this page has become unmanagable, and since the dump gets cut/paste to a subpage eventually transclusion is a good idea.

• I support using Maintenance as the new basis for reports.

Database dumps are too unreliable and become outdated too quickly. The only question is what we call them (ie database dumps isn't appropriate). I'm happy for a new maintenance report to be generated right now.--Commander Keane 04:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. It is an endless task after all, so breaking it into discrete rounds (each of which has a steadily advancing progress meter) probably helps improve the contributors' fighting spirits. ;) Bo Lindbergh 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for discrete rounds, it is just that a new round needs to be generated periodically. At the moment the database dumps are too unreliable, we have been waiting for nearly 2 months for an update - which is unnaceptable. I would like to see monthly updates, and this appears only possilbe by using Maintenance. I feel that peak efficiency for the Project occurs when there are many options for people to choose from, at the moment output is low. Just to confirm, the only disadvantage of Maintenance is that it has the possibility to be non-discrete?--Commander Keane 06:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by non-discrete? Do you mean without defined end points? If that is the case then we still suffer the problem of inevitable overlap. It might be better to change our way of thinking about the completeness of the project. The percentage complete is an artificial construct that does not map very well to this project. I think simply tracking (estimated) corrected links, number of disambig pages with less than X links, Number of DAB pages total etc might be the better plan. In other words we should think of a coherent status box of vital stats about disambiguation pages in wikipedia. We might compare the status at different times (including the total number of DAB pages). I think that sort of thing would give users who are helping and passers by a better view of the improvement in usability the project is creating. This also frees us to format the list of pages needing to be processed or maintained that will foster the best and most work, without having to worry about making the list do something else (like tracking an artificial and somewhat nonsensical percentage). Dalf | Talk 07:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Global statistics exist (example) but I think with multiple users adding comments like "15 links cleared" there is a want for more localised progress. Localised progress is achieved by discrete reports with a progress bar. Localised progress motivates people. --Commander Keane 08:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we do both? Those that need that boost of seeing the progress made can work from the dump page (I'm probably in this category most of the time), and those with near-indestructable wills (and anyone who gets really motivated) can work from the maintenance page. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 16:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One recent feature on Maintenance shows the change in the link count from week to week. A possible way of measuring progress would be to count up all the articles showing a reduction in link count; e.g., "15143 links to 78 disambig pages were removed since last week." --Russ Blau (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That makes for depressing reading when new links are added faster than the old ones are removed.

Bo Lindbergh 16:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that wasn't quite what I had in mind. Consider the following excerpt from the Maintenance page (obviously a real-life calculation would include many more entries, but I'm doing this by hand):

1. Cruiser (780 links) (new)
2. Temple (652 links) (-1)
3. Drug (640 links) (-299)
4. Premier (607 links) (new)
5. Boer War (551 links) (new)
6. Radiation (544 links) (+3)
7. Rock (494 links) (-11)
8. Sorbonne (479 links) (new)
9. Economy (478 links) (-26)
10. Foundation (471 links) (new)
11. Occupation (457 links) (new)
12. Signal (425 links) (-12)
13. Communications (422 links) (+5)
14. Telegraph (412 links) (new)
15. Arts (405 links) (+2)
16. Autonomy (400 links) (+6)
17. Keyboard (397 links) (+77)
18. Epic (394 links) (+12)
19. United Provinces (381 links) (new)
20. Pound (364 links) (new)

A script would count only the red entries, and output "Since last week, at least 349 links to 5 disambig pages have been cleared." --Russ Blau (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one thing we can do to knock down this trend is to drop a note on user pages for folks who make disambig links. Is there any way to pick out the individual editors who have made such links, particularly the ones that have done so most frequently? BDAbramson T 16:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try checking the page history for the main page. You'll be able to pull out the names of anyone who made significant contributions, at least. Soo 18:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I mean the opposite! I want to find people who routinely write articles with links to disambig pages (when they should be making links to the specific articles disambiguated) and tell them to stop (and perhaps fix their mess)! BDAbramson T 20:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The table is not depressing if you read it differently. The number of total links in Wikipedia has been increasing by 1 million in that time interval, and the percentage of links that go to disambiguation pages has actually been decreasing, so this project is making a visible impact in that metric. Kusma (討論) 17:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Perhaps we should include some kind of "total number of links" factor, so we can see the percentage going down. I personally like the percentage meter we have now, as updating it is very satisfying, and seeing it go up from the efforts of others shows what a great group effort the project is. More frequent dumps would be good; the number of pages that I'm interested in fixing is dwindling. So, good ideas all round, folks - I'll be following this carefully. Soo 18:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the avrage number of links per DAB page might be an intresting stat as well... Dalf's comment continues below in the 'More radical measures' section.--Commander Keane 10:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)...[reply]

I've moved the most current list of dab links to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Current list and transcluded it on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance. If there is a consensus to do so, it could be transcluded onto the main WP:DPL page as well. --Russ Blau (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is consensus for that. In case it wasn't clear, what I supported above was the monthly creation of a report with information extracted from the Maintenance list. The report would be discrete, and independent of Maintenance, with a progress bar. The only difference to the current system is that we wouldn't wait for the database dump, which are included in Maintenance now anyway. As far as I can see, this idea is exactly the same as the current method.--Commander Keane 03:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved a few comments from the 'Suggestion for future dumps' down here, to facilitate wider disucssion--Commander Keane 10:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the creation of new ones I still think we should request (or ask about how muh load it woudl generate) a feature that warns a user in the privew page when they edit a page and add a link to a DAB page. User:Lupin's popup script is capable of doing some of this and even suggests the disambiguation targest. I have a feeling that it would likley generat too much load but it is worth asking about anyway. I mean it would be really cool if you clicked save or preview and it gave you the preview page with a warning like "You have added a link to Native American which is a Disambiguation page and may not lead to the article you desire ...." and then suggestions about alternatives. Or maybe I am just dreaming. Dalf | Talk 09:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dalf, that exact system has been a dream of mine for some time now. I didn't realise that Lupin's script could be used. In that case, couldn't the script just check against a list of dab pages (maintained by us) and therefore not generate any extra server load? I'm not sure how slow (CPU wise) that would be to use though. I don't how eager the developers are for load generating features though, for example you can't select the namespace in "Whatlinkshere".--Commander Keane 09:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if warnings on the preview page would be enough. Making all links to redirects and disambiguation pages green or orange might work better. Bo Lindbergh 10:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a great idea, IMO. Orange, most likely, since external links are already green. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was some minor discussion about this colouring idea previously: here.--Commander Keane 10:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Lindbergh has kindly (thanks Bo!) generated a new report, from the Dec. 13 database dump. As we discussed previously, the new dump exists on a subpage (Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/2005-12-13 dump). However, if you hit one of the [edit] buttons on the main project page you are taken straight to the right spot. All discussion will continue on this page, not the subpage. More importantly, I suggest Broadway (disambiguation) for the next collaboration, thoughts?--Commander Keane 00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness—that's alotta dab pages! Well, at least I won't want for anything to do on Wikipedia. Broadway sounds good. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 07:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I helped knock off some of these, but nice job to the person who did all of the bulk! JHMM13 (T | C) 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, bugger-all work went into Broadway (disambiguation). Broadway was redirected to Broadway theatre without discussion. I would have liked to see some consensus, because now there is a risk that the redirect will be overturned.--Commander Keane 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I actually switched it back. As much as I like to see the green progress bar move, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a bunch of articles about NYC subway stations, for example, linking to Broadway theatre. --Russ Blau (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the guilty party who redirected Broadway to Broadway theatre without consensus. Sorry about that. Still, I think the redirect is correct. Maybe 1% of the Broadway links go to something other than Broadway theatre.--Bill 15:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, since it's rather controversial the proper way to obtain consensus for the redirect will be a Requested move.--Commander Keane 19:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating a topic that is now in archive 03, I have nominated the Staten Island disambiguation page for deletion. If you have an opinion one way or the other, place your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staten Island (disambiguation). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following 3 dabs have 15 or less links to them in the main namespace, but due to difficulty or lack of motivation I can't bring myself to finish them off:

• Flemish
• Vatican
• Charles I

--Commander Keane 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could I resist? All done. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting going on some of the pages from the list, and I'll be cut/pasting this into my edit comment:

Corrected link to disambiguation page. ([[Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links|you can help!]])

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotter (talk • contribs)

Interesting. I think this edit summary is clearer, since it removes any confusion between disambiguation pages and disambiguation links. I might start using it. Does anyone else think it should replace the current version on the project page?--Commander Keane 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#How to help? I like that note a lot, and I wouldn't vote to replace it. I started using this note because removing links to disamb pages is a slightly different activity.--dpotter 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant "disambiguation link repair (You can help!)". Found on this project page; WP:DPL (step 8 on the instructions). You have caught me, I do tend to be a little liberal in the use of the word "project" around here :).--Commander Keane 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, mon capitan! It is you who have caught me. I missed that instruction, and I'll revert to that comment, which IMHO works nicely. dpotter 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic. I'll be using the edit summary you introduced to me and you will be using the edit summary I introduced to you.--Commander Keane 02:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do the instructions still stand for what to do when a dab page's links are fixed? The layout of this page has changed a little since I was last here, and now I noticed a lot more people editing the graph total themselves.

Not wanting to screw up stats, I've followed the instructions literally and just struck through Bisexual but left it in the main list.. --OliverL 11:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The instruction in question is outdated. It currently reads as:

If you fix all the main namespace links to that disambiguation page, please strike it (using <s></s>) from the list below, and add it to the list at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance.

Since we now move completed entries to the done section, and maintenance doesn't require human intervention (I think it reads the dumps itself these days) I propose the statement be changed to:

If you fix all the main namespace links to that disambiguation page, please move it to the ''Done'' section and strike it (using <s></s>).

Incidentally, anyone is welcome to update the stats, but if you don't feel like it then they will be taken care of by someone else.--Commander Keane 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask someone to take a look at the "what links here" page for lathe? It contains a rather longish list of articles that don't seem to actually include any links to the lathe article. Most of them include one of the Wikiproject Metalworking templates, but I can't find any lathe links in there, either - only links to lathe (tool). Help. dpotter 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of hand, I remember lathe being changed to lathe (tool) on a metalworking template. What you are seeing in the "Whatlinkshere" are false postives - the Wikimedia software won't update the false postives (to preserve server resources) until they are next edited. To get rid of them, you can perform a null edit (=blank save). You just save the page without changing anything and it will be removed from the "Whatlinkshere" (note: the edit won't show up in the history). Alternatively, you can get a bot (eg I have a bot that will do this, so does RussBlau) to do the blank saves (sometimes called touching) for you. My bot is currently working on Lathe. You can request a bot do this for any page, anytime, on this talk page. If you need further explanation of what I have explained, just ask.--Commander Keane 17:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, wow it feels fantastic to get a nice solid explanation like this. Thanks very much, I understand perfectly. That was driving me nuts! Is there an easy method for doing touching a page without a bot? "Edit this page" followed by "save" doesn't seem to actually create a new revision, but is it recalculating the 'what links here' by just doing this? Should I add a space or extra newline somewhere? dpotter 18:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Edit this page" followed by "save" is recalculating the "What links here". A new revision isn't created, but I can assure you that a false postive will be removed by doing this. Incidentally, my bot has finished running through Lathe, there shouldn't be anymore false positives there.--Commander Keane 18:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I forgot to mention, no space or newline is needed.--Commander Keane 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks very much. The bot worked great, took me from 100+ links to about 5 that actually needed fixup. Thanks for both the help and the education! dpotter 18:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re-indentingI have a slightly different problem. Template:Wikiproject Indian cinema was added to some relevant talkpages; later, it was modified to ensure that all the talkpages are automatically placed in Category:WikiProject Indian cinema. However, not all the previously up-dated talk pages are reflected in the category. Guess some null edit needs to be done on them. Can your bot handle this? btw, Commander's bot seems to be making the Working Man's barnstar redundant; great work, way to go!! --Gurubrahma 05:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that categories also suffer from a lack of database updating. I'll get my bot to touch each of the pages that use Template:Wikiproject Indian cinema, hopefully this solves your problem. The bot will be done in 1.5 hours. I don't have any tools (apart from my eyes physically looking at the category page) to check if this works, so maybe you could check for me Gurubrahma, since you are familiar with the category.--Commander Keane 07:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton Commander, it seems to be working; it was sub-100 when i posted the request, it is now 200. --Gurubrahma 09:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, what is currently the fastest way to do this tedious task? Gflores ^Talk 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great guide here: Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links/Guide#Editor.27s_techniques D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately the fastest way is to use a bot to assist you (you still need to make every descision though). I use m:Solve disambiguation.py. The fastest I've gone is 375 in 30 minutes, but at that speed my brain began to fry. If you don't want to install the bot, a browser with tabs, and popups (which let you open a page directly in the edit window from the "What links here") are useful.--Commander Keane 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for. Is a bot flag required to use the solve disambiguation? Gflores ^Talk 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you definitely have to request permission to run any bot (including one that just does link repairs) at WP:BOTS. You will be approved for a one week trial, after that you may apply for a bot flag. A bot flag is generally needed for accounts that edit many times per minute (they clog up recent changes). solve_disambiguation.py can run very fast, so a bot flag is recommended. I welcome more questions.--Commander Keane 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some dabs for pop and it appears that most of the links are coming from album/music artist articles, meaning they are referring to pop music. I noticed techno and rap also were redirected, should the same be done with pop with a (otheruses) template? Gflores ^Talk 17:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to start working on fixing links to disambig pages, but I wanted to ask a few clarification questions:

• I understand that if an entire page gets fixed, it gets striken through and moved to the 'Done' list. However, is the instruction "and add it to the list at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance." something different? What is the difference between the way the pages are listed on this page and they way they are listed on the Disambiguation pages maintenance with the (+,-) in parenthesis?
• If a page is not entirely fixed at one point, should that be noted, or just left as is until it is entirely fixed? Is it fine (as I see on the page) to just add to the end how many are left as of whatever the date is?

Thanks -- Natalya 20:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]