Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Disambiguation

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

We've lost something over the years. MOS:DABORDER used to say "Within each group within a section, and within each non-subdivided section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This might mean in decreasing order of likelihood as user's target, alphabetically, chronologically, or geographically, not to the exclusion of other methods." [emphasis mine]. A sequence of edits by User:Swpb in 2015 replaced this guidance with "Within each group or section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. Entries are typically ordered first by similarity to the ambiguous title, then alphabetically or chronologically as appropriate."

Ordering dab page sections alphabetically does not make sense, except as a fallback when there is no other way to order entries. If a reader has ended up on a dab page, the one thing they do not know is the exact title of the article they want. Sorting the list by the one thing the reader does not know is not ordering "to best assist the reader in finding their intended article." It is often possible to order entries by their likelihood as a target. Feature films should appear above individual episodes of television programs. Band names should appear above album titles, which should appear above song names. Common things should be listed before obscure ones. Countries should be listed above states, and states above cities. Ordering dab pages based on this principle is common practice, but the current guidelines have lost the documentation of it.

I propose to replace the text quoted above with "Within each group or section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. Articles that are more likely to be the reader's target should be listed above those on more obscure topics. Other methods such as chronological ordering may be used where appropriate. Alphabetical ordering should be used when no other method is suitable. Entries may also be organized by similarity to the ambiguous title." Srleffler (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go back to the original wording, unless there was a consensus to change it. Alphabetical order is not deprecated nor a last resort. However, nor is it always best: I've carefully organised a few dabs only for another editor to undo the painstaking work with an automated bullet list sorter. Certes (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DABACRO requires abbreviations to be mentioned in the respective article. This means that it is illegit to list any three-letter country code in a disambiguation page with a link to the respective country (as only the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code is added in the infobox). But practically, the situation is different, however inconsistent. CAN does contain a link to Canada. JPN is even a redirect to Japan, and for good reasons. Conversely, the respective entry in DEU does not link to Germany, but only to the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 list, following the rule. But this is an exception and hardly meaningful.

I would like to question the rule for situations like these. Default practical usecase for a country code in a disambiguation page is someone having read this code in an external source and then looking up which country this is. For example, a reader may have seen SMR in a sports result list and now wants to find out which country this is. In the disambiguation page, he will find it's San Marino, and maybe he has further interest in the country. So, where to link to than the country itself?? I think the rule should be adapted for cases like this. --KnightMove (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, I've inquired at Template talk:Infobox country#ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 about why there is no option to include the alpha-3 code for countries. Note that there have been some previous discussions that have touched on this, in particular Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 37#Including ISO/IATA/ICAO codes, chemical element symbols, etc.. on dab pages. older ≠ wiser older ≠ wiser 13:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding the alpha-3 to Infobox country, which should remove any objection to its appearance in dabs. DEU etc. are probably allowed anyway on the technicality that they're codes rather than abbreviations. Such codes are used increasingly, especially in sport, and the fact that their presence helps the reader should override any pedantic objections. After all, we'd only be adding/retaining about 200 entries across Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both so far. I will take some more time to browse through the older discussions and extract their results, but a remark right now: This is not only "about 200 entries", but many more. There are several defined sets of three-letter country codes with many differences to each other: ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, List of IOC country codes, List of ITU letter codes, List of UNDP country codes, List of FIFA country codes and many an International vehicle registration code. --KnightMove (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I can sympathize a bit, the issue becomes where do we draw the line? There are many, many, many lists of miscellaneous acronyms and initialisms. Why are articles on countries exceptional? older ≠ wiser 14:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those are well-defined lists by notable international organisations, and those lists have unquestioned separate Wikipdia articles in their own right. There are "many, many, many lists of miscellaneous acronyms" out there not meeting those criteria. For those that do, I am all for adding the respective acronyms in disambiguation pages. --KnightMove (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So are you proposing to specify those particular lists as exceptions? While there are certainly many crufty lists of acronyms, I mean list of acronyms and initialisms published by reputable organizations. For me, the issue comes down to maintenance and the burden of confirming that an entry added to a page is in fact correct. If the linked article contains nothing to allow verification, it becomes considerably easier for mistakes (or the deliberate addition of spurious entries) to go unnoticed. older ≠ wiser 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. But this can be solved with linking the list in the edit summary. --KnightMove (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather it be in a hidden comment with the entry as not all edits are reviewed immediately and looking back through edit history for something like that is not practical. older ≠ wiser 01:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, although I would word this rather as a recommendation than a rule when someone expresses doubt - I do not se a necessity to spam disambiguation pages with Wiki code for no real use. And certainly it is better to link the external source of the list - otherwise this may be faulty, too.

Now the question remains how to go on with modifying the rule like this? I suggest the following addition (outdenting again): --KnightMove (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Amend MOS:DABACRO with the following sentence:

"An exception are codes by established authorities which are relevant enough for a Wikipedia article in their own right and for which the meaning of the specific code is to be considered the primary interest of the reader. For example, the List of IOC country codes is a Wikipdia article. A reader seeing the country code VIN in a sport results list may want to know which country this is (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in this case - the code is different from the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code, VCT). So it is legit to add this meaning in the disambiguation page Vin and link to the country. If any such case provokes doubt, an external source should be added as an invisible Wiki comment (in <!-- (link to the source) -->)."

--KnightMove (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continue at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not# Alteration to NOTDIRECTORY about which entries may be included in disambiguation pages. As WP:NOT is a policy, conclusions reached there might override MOS:DAB. Certes (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation § Best practices when a similar name is massively less notable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Balthazar, Iterresise and I had a little back and forth editing about the intro line. I know that many dab pages that treat multiple variants spellings use the phrase "or variants" or something similar to avoid an exhaustive listing of each and every variation. I had thought something to this effect was in MOSDAB, but I may have been mistaken

Currently Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Introductory line states:

Where several variants of a term are being disambiguated together, significant variants may be included in the lead sentence. For example:

Bang or bangs may refer to:

or

Bang(s) may refer to:

Arc or ARC may refer to:

Angus McKay, MacKay or Mackay may refer to:

However, it is not necessary to mention minor variations of capitalization, punctuation or diacritics. For example, AU may refer to: is preferable to AU, au, Au or A-U may refer to; and Saiyuki may refer to: is preferable to Saiyuki, Saiyūki or Saiyûki may refer to.

On Balthazar, there are four distinct, although relatively minor, spelling variations treated on the same page: Balthazar, Balthasar, Baltazar, and Baltasar (all of the last three redirect to the same dab). Does (or should) MOSDAB have any recommendation as to how the intro line should be presented in such cases?

• Simplify to only the main spelling as per Iterresise's initial edit
• Use ", or variant spellings," to abbreviate the list as it had been previously
• List each of the variants (for example, although this omits Baltasar)

Or is this something best left to hash out on case by case basis? Although even so, some might argue that a strict reading of MOSDAB doesn't allow for using ", or variant spellings," language. older ≠ wiser 12:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case-by-case basis. In one case, the variants may be very rare; in another, they may be nearly as common as the WP:COMMONNAME. And there may be many, many variants, with a handful worth mentioning because they are common, then followed by something like "or other variants". This is not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. There might be wording tweaks we can make, though, to be clearer about this. Some of what I just wrote might be adaptable for this purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with both of you. I believe all variants should be listed (in the intro line). For example: Balthazar#See also lists Belshazzar (disambiguation) (a variant) and Belshazzar (disambiguation) lists Baghdasar, "a form [variant] of Belshazzar". If there are variants, the normal case is to create other disambiguation pages. Iterresise (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even on the same continent as practical. There are hundreds of variants of "Elizabeth" as just one example, and there are at least 100 spellings of my own surname, counting all the attested Irish and Scottish anglicizations (with and without M[a]c and O' or Ó).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any citations to support this? Iterresise (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion, not an article, and we don't need citations to simply have a discussion. But if you want to be a WP:WIKILAWYER and try to WP:WIN every discussion you get into with pointless arguments and bluster, instead of employing common sense and considering that some people may actually know something you don't, and instead want to make out like they're blatantly lying to you, here you go: [1], [2].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what it is you are suggesting. Are you saying Balthazar should include Belshazzar, Belshazzar, Baghdasar in the intro line? Why? That seems bizarrely at odds with both current practice and any portion of disambiguation style guidelines. BTW, my preference is to list all of the significant variants in the intro although for very long lists I'm perfectly happy to abbreviate with "or variants". BTW, the first of your edits to the page left only Balthazar in the intro line and one of your subsequent edits omitted one of the variants. As you can see, listing every variant can be messy. older ≠ wiser 21:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well disambiguation pages are for articles which have the same name, isn't it? From what I understand, User:SMcCandlish believes it is impractical to be doing this yet Baghdasar, "a form [variant] of Belshazzar", has been split off from Belshazzar (disambiguation).

With regards to Elizabeth, it seems Elizaveta (disambiguation) would be a variant and is correctly disambiguated. I am not convinced that taking a case-by-case approach is ideal or the best practice. There are 100s of variants of "Elizabeth" and his last name but that doesn't mean the ones with articles cannot be disambiguated or listed. Just because disambiguation may take a long time, it doesn't mean that disambiguation pages shouldn't be created. Iterresise (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're straw manning. I never said anything about, much less against, the idea of having separate disamibuguation pages for things that seem to warrant them (like, say McCandlish and McCandless (surname)?) but which could also be considered by some to be variants of one name. Rather, you proposed that "all knownn variants should be listed" in the lead a disamgiuation page, which is a very different proposition. And your dependent idea of particularly including in the DAB intro any variants with their own disambiguation pages is not what we do; they go in the "See also" section lower in the page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean strawpersoning? What you did say is "that's not even on the same continent as practical" which I interpret as "User:SMcCandlish believes it is impractical to be doing this".

I do believe any variants with their own disambiguation pages should go in the "See also" section lower in the page. Yes, I believe we agree on that. Example cases:

• Baghdasar ("a form [variant] of Belshazzar", it is listed in the "See also" section on Belshazzar (disambiguation) lower in the page )
• Elizaveta (disambiguation), a variant of Elizabeth. Elizaveta (disambiguation) is listed as a redirect in the "See also" section on Elizabeth lower in the page.

I didn't propose "that "all known variants should be listed" in the lead in disambiguation pages, which is a very different proposition". Example: I mistakenly omitted "Baltasar" in [3]. I will fix that. Iterresise (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interested in playing long-winded "he said, she said" games. I've made my points clearly, and other people can have their input, and we'll move on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did in fact literally say I believe all variants should be listed (in the intro line). [4]. But are you going to continue removing '(or variants)' and similar language from the intro line? older ≠ wiser 01:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem? I omitted "Baltasar" and fixed it. Iterresise (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you've opened a worm-can discussion, proposing that all variants should be listed (in the intro line), treated other editors poorly when they disagreed with you, ignored practical concerns with the idea and ignored actual practice when it comes to handling of variants, then denied making the argument you made, instead of just conceding that you made a poor argument, and you're going round in circles with a bunch of hand-waving. It's a tedious drain on editorial time and goodwill. This smacks of WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:WINNING behavior. See also [5]. This is not a discussion forum for endless argument-for-sport with "Internet enemies".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iterresise: The original question I raised concerned use of "or variants" and similar language in the intro line. Balthazar was only an example where this came to a head. You had previously made several similar edits to other disambiguation pages removing "or variants" language from the intro line. Hence my repeating the question to clarify what is the understanding of whether "or variants" is acceptable in the intro line to abbreviate multiple minor variations. older ≠ wiser 10:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Iterresise's view on this, mine is that it is obviously permissible, because we routinely do it and there is not a rule against it, nor a clear rationale to institute a new rule against it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean permissible? Both of you have misunderstood me: when I stated "all variants should be listed (in the intro line)", I didn't mean to include cases where there are already on separate disambiguation pages for other variants.

In addition: SMcCandlish: you misunderstood me when you state: "treated other editors poorly when they disagreed with you, ignored practical concerns with the idea and ignored actual practice when it comes to handling of variants, then denied making the argument you made, instead of just conceding that you made a poor argument, and you're going round in circles with a bunch of hand-waving.... This is not a discussion forum for endless argument-for-sport with "Internet enemies". And this is just a joke right? Iterresise (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating me back to myself but adding nothing to it other than vague handwaving like "you have misunderstood" without explaining any such alleged misunderstanding, is not an argument, it's just noise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Mr. SMcCandlish Iterresise (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Observing that your input has not been cogent has nothing to do with assumptions about the faith behind the input.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out. Iterresise (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing anything to you. You are doing it to youself. See First law of holes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is permissible but not ideal. Do we have consensus that all variants should be listed (in the intro line) that are not already on separate disambiguation pages for other variants? Iterresise (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I see nothing wrong with using "or variants" (or similar) to abbreviate a longish list of minor variants. older ≠ wiser 09:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. There is obviously not a consensus to list every single variant as a general principle, and I've laid out impossible-to-ignore reasons why, like names that have 100+ variants. The most that can be said is that if there were five known variants, then listing four of them plus "or other variants" would not be helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example. Why shouldn't we list all the variants that don't have disambiguation pages? Iterresise (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Including Irrawaddy in the intro line on that page doesn't make any sense since Irrawaddy has its own page and there is not any redirect. That page at present is only disambiguating topics with the spelling 'Ayeyarwady' and it doesn't even need to include 'or variants'. older ≠ wiser 10:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if there are only these two uses, there is a good case that Ayeyarwady should be restored to being a redirect to the river and address ambiguity in a hatnote (or perhaps redirecting it to the already existing dab page at Irrawaddy. older ≠ wiser 10:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. My edits wholesale removing "or variants" and other variants may not be ideal but in some cases they are. Maybe that is what user:SMcCandlish means when he says on a "case-by-case" basis. I've made a lot of removals. Maybe you can suggest which ones were incorrect/inappropriate. Iterresise (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it to the target you suggested as I agree. Iterresise (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting case since I redirected the variant to the most common variant/spelling. What about keeping the most common variant and making redirects to the disambiguation page? Iterresise (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what you are proposing. older ≠ wiser 21:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I am proposing is to remove ", or variant spellings," and similar language. It might be a good idea to add the language to the project page.

Our disambiguation pages should not list all the minor variants and only minor variants should be made into redirects to the disambiguation page. This is in accordance with WP:ARTICLETITLE. Take Kara Dag for example. It includes approximately 5 minor variants. Kara-Dagh redirects to the page but is not a listed [minor] variant. The disambiguation page lists hyphenated minor variants which are legitimate minor variants. If we were to include all legitimate minor variants, it might not be practical though Kara Dag has language explaining the hyphenated variants. The question is if we want to include in the manual of style this sort of language. I would oppose it because it would be unwieldy and impractical. So what I am proposing is to remove ", or variant spellings," and similar language and redirect minor variants to the disambiguation page and it may be a good idea to add this language to the manual of style. Iterresise (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've indicated before, I think it is perfectly fine to use "or variants" language. Kara-Dagh is a difficult page in that there are numerous other variant transliterations in addition to those listed, for example Garadagh/Garadag. The page needs other MOSDAB attention beyond the intro line and perhaps is not a great example at this time to discuss the intro line. older ≠ wiser 14:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed with Bkonrad. And Iterresise, just re-re-re-repeating the same proposal over and over again after it has met with a poor reception is not magically going to make it meet with consensus. Cf. WP:IDHT and argument by repetition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. You didn't make your case clear so I reiterated the proposal. Iterresise (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine to be discussing this topic here. You raised the concern and currently there is no consensus or language in policy or guidelines which indicates "or variants" language is allowed. All the examples in the manual of style has a sentence fragment ["... may refer to:"] as the intro line. Iterresise (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include minor variants that are used in reliable sources? Iterresise (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to get drawn into an endlessly repeating circular discussion. All of this has been addressed already, so there is no need for us to continue an unproductive two-person argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your are not obligated to opine. The vast majority of pages don't have "or variants" language. No consensus exists for standardization of the intro line. I see no harm in removing "or variants" language at this time. Iterresise (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop. Multiple editors here oppose your mass removal of such language, so until there's a positive consensus in your favor, WP:STATUSQUO must stand: the absence of consensus does not allow you to continue removing "or variants" language, now that you are aware of the opposition. And the opposition does not have to keep repeating their position for you to be bound by it. If you want to try for a consensus to remove, you can neutrally advertise the discussion, but I don't think you'll get what you're seeking. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 13:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: I understand: You've added your opinion with the opposition. However: making accusations that I will continue to revert is similar to WP:ASPERSIONS. Iterresise (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the WP:ICANTHEARYOU pattern you have been demonstrating throughout this entire discussion is a prefectly valid reason for other editors to make it clear that you need to stop and not re-start this activity, especially when your last comment on the matter was "I see no harm in removing "or variants" language at this time", which is difficult to read as anything but a declaration that you're going to continue no matter what.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked you to give it up but this WP:TAGTEAMING is unwelcome. So let me say to both of you to give it up and that both of you need to stop. Iterresise (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors independently reaching the same conclusion that you're behaving badly isn't WP:TAGTEAMING, and telling you not to do what you said you would keep doing is not WP:ASPERSIONS, but I think you know that. Since you seem to like pages in Wikipedia space, give WP:LAWYERING a read, then touch grass. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 13:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And "My edits wholesale removing 'or variants' and other variants may not be ideal .... I've made a lot of removals. Maybe you can suggest which ones were incorrect/inappropriate." They should arguably all be reverted, because you did it without consensus, came here after the fact in an "ask forgiveness not permission" manner, and have completely failed to establish that what you're doing has consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]