Category talk:Disambiguation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category is getting awfully big and takes a very long time to load (it took me 3 tries to defeat the time-out bunny). Would it be a good idea to sub-categorise: for example create Category:Disambiguation (people)? --Phil | Talk 17:03, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Now that the category displays as pages of 200 it's less a problem. Besides it's an advantage of having all disambiguation pages in the category itself and, an attempt of categorizing the people pages (at Category:Lists of people with the same name) is currently listed on CFD. -- User:Docu

Contents 1 Other disambiguation categories 1.1 Think Construction 2 Moved everything that starts with a number 3 parent category changeover 4 Categorization error 5 Please come join the dab page categorization discussion 6 cleanup 7 Fate of Category:Signpost articles 8 Disambiguation of TLA, FLA, 2LA, 3LA, 4LA, 5LA, et alia poll 9 Disambiguation subcategory and template poll 10 Secondary disambiguations 11 Boldface terms?

[edit] Other disambiguation categories

Disambiguations are becoming increasingly common just like stub categories. We should make a disambiguation topic proposal page just like the stub proposal page. Doncha think? --SuperDude 16:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Fact is, there are no really logical subcategories of diambig pages - by definition, a disambig page will include anything and everything that shares the same or a similar name.

At best, you could maybe sort alphabetically or something, but that's about it. - SoM 22:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Think Construction

You're right on target: disambiguation must by its nature cross concepts. But notice: cross concepts. How is that done? By aligning construction. That is, the meaning of things is a terrible thing to categorize on, for example, subway stations, because you have to know that XYZ could be a subway station. But construction is good because construction is not as far removed from disambiguation, for example, anything with a number in it, n-letter acronyms and so on. Thus in the sub-categories above, those that attempt to classify by concept are not as good as those that attempt to classify by construction. Point is, everyone should ponder what other categories we can create that gear themselves toward construction rather than concept.

--Somewherepurple 23:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved everything that starts with a number

I put everything that started with 0 through 9 in the numerical category.

There is an inconsistency with numbers: under the numbers category, there is a sub category that hold anything that is a letter/number combination. Yet, under some of the A-Z items at the top level, there are things that are letter/number combinations. One of these should go. I think it should be that any letter/number combinations should go into the number subcategory. - SomewherePurple 21:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] parent category changeover

Why is the category Category:disambiguation types being moved to this one? I was trying to sort dabs like stubs were sorted. --SuperDude 04:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• This was discussed, albeit briefly, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#New_Category_found:_Disambiguation_Types, and action was not taken until a while after the last comment there (as I recall). Please don't move back to the original organization, but bring up your concerns at the link listed here where the comments appear. The primary issue is one of unnecessary categorization and the primacy of Category:Disambiguation over all disambiguation types. I don't understand your reference to "sort dabs like stubs", and even if I did I don't agree that the same brush should be used for each of these two page types. I'll reference this thread on the WikiProject section noted here. Courtland 00:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization error

I am baffled by an error. Some 3-letter acronyms are on the disambiguation category list abeit null presence of the category being embedded in the {{TLAdisambig}} template and pages with that template embedded. We should maintain the main dab category so they can stay in Category:Three-letter acronym disambiguations. (unsigned comment from anon)

• If I understand correctly the question, the reason is that template-assigned categorization does not automatically change when the template is edited for all the articles bearing the template. You'll notice that the template-assigned category does change when the article is edited. This is a "feature" of mediawiki that results in the need to do "null edits" on large numbers of articles in some cases when categorizations change. Does that address the confusion? Courtland 23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Well then, just press EDIT, and press SAVE, and see what happens, becuase We are trying to reduce the population of the dab category. (unsigned comment from anon)
  • That technique suggested by the unsigned comment has worked according to my test results. So will anybody just try it? --SuperDude 01:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is working now, but I recall a time not too long ago that I tried repeatedly to do exactly this without success. Perhaps the fix came with the upgrade of WikiMedia software, or I just happened to hit pockets of bad-time for the wikimedia servers. Courtland 03:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

i ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit] Please come join the dab page categorization discussion

There is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Proposal to modify MoS section 'The disambig notice'. about the future of dab page cats. If you are interested in this topic, please come join that disucssion, to make sure your voice is heard before a decision is made. --RoySmith 16:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup

Finally some people other than me have depopulated this category. Please continue making more spinoff templates. --SuperDude 22:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fate of Category:Signpost articles

Refer to the CfD discussion @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_30#Category:Signpost_articles. Courtland 18:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation of TLA, FLA, 2LA, 3LA, 4LA, 5LA, et alia poll

There is a poll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) until 12:00 (UTC) January 15, 2005.

--William Allen Simpson 13:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation subcategory and template poll

There is a poll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) until 14:00 (UTC) January 15, 2005.

--William Allen Simpson 14:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary disambiguations

I have seen alot of articles with a header with a style like this:

X refers to this or that, for other uses, see X (disambiguation)

also;

"X" redirects here, for other uses, see X (disambiguation)

I would also like to create Category:Disambiguation pages for redirected article titles as a subcategory for Category:Secondary disambiguation pages. --Nintendude ^{userpage | message} 20:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Sorry, but the explanation given on Category:Secondary disambiguation pages is nearly unintelligible, so I'm not entirely certain what the purpose either category would be. Could you perhaps provide links to some specific examples that you have in mind? You seem to want to categorize the disambiguation page rather than the redirect. I'm not sure that is a good idea. I think what *might* be useful is a category similar to Category:Redirects with possibilities, which is created by adding Template:R with possibilities to the redirect. Perhaps something like Category:Redirects to primary topics created with Template:R to primary topic. older ≠ wiser 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the necessity of the "secondary disambiguation" category. Any disambiguation page that does not have a primary usage should be named XXX. Any disambiguation page that has a primary usage should be named XXX (disambiguation). Plus, following MoS:DP, the primary meaning should be abundantly clear and does not need to be marked with an asterisk. --Usgnus 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are terms that redirect to a primary topic article with a different title and where there are other possible meanings to the first term (and occasionally additional alternate meanings for the other title as well). For example FBI is a redirect to Federal Bureau of Investigation. For a very long time (I'm not sure when it changed), King was a redirect to Monarch. I think these are the types of cases Nintendude is referring to. I don't know how common they are, but they do exist. older ≠ wiser 23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to the "secondary disambiguation" category, not the new proposed category in this section. --Usgnus 23:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I count 1732 articles that fall under that definition... where "x (disambiguation)" and "x" is a redirect. On the other hand, that query picks up a lot of silly redirects to the disambig page itself (eg. Children, Background). Anyway, as long as they're not moved out of Category:Disambiguation, I don't have too much of an opinion, though I don't quite see the use of the new category. --Interiot 18:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ack, there's 382 such silly redirects. --Interiot 18:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boldface terms?

I was reading through the Dakota disambiguation page, and found that it had so many enteris that I got lost. So I went and boldfaced the key terms of each entery, which (I think) makes navigting through the page much easier. Before I do this to any other page, though, does anyone think I've done something I shouldn't? Is there some written or unwritten law I've violated? Thanks for your input. --Badger151 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're asking on the wrong page. Look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) for current recommendations on style and ask on the talk page there if you still have questions. older ≠ wiser 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)