Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

Child protection (disambiguation)

This seems to me to be a particularly bad example of something not being an actual disambiguation page, but I am at a loss for a solution. BD2412 T 22:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It's functioning as an index to articles relevant to the topic of child protection that in most cases someone using the search term "child protection" might be looking for (putting aside for now any quibbles about specific inclusions/exclusions). That's definitely a valuable page to have even if it doesn't strictly fit the arbitrary rules about what can be called a "disambiguation page". Unless anyone can explain what actual (not theoretical) harm it's doing then leaving it as is seems like the best solution. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is functioning as an index, and should therefore be at a title like Index of articles on governmental child protection efforts, or the like. These are not ambiguous topics sharing a name. BD2412 T 02:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That title wouldn't be navigationally helpful. Web-julio (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

VOTD

Hello, I don't really even go here & I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so there's a lot to learn, but I came across this disambiguation page that is... kind of bizarre? It's not titled as a disambiguation thing which is one thing, but the page itself seems to be entirely pointless? It's assigning acronyms to television episodes that, as far as I can find, don't even go by those acronyms? I'm part of the Doctor Who community on here and I have actually never heard any of the three DW episodes mentioned be referred to as "VOTD" ever. According to the page statistics, there have been 874 viewers since it was created in 2010.

I just don't know what to tag or how to handle this sort of thing or where else to put it. I appreciate it, thanks! Garriefisher (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I see two DW episodes there, not three. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A relevant guideline is MOS:DABACRO:

... it is important that each individual entry is referred to by its respective abbreviation within its article ... if an abbreviation is verifiable, but not mentioned in the target article, consider adding it to the target article

—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not titled as a disambiguation thing Per MOS:DABPAGENAME, (disambiguation) is not needed if there is no primary topic for the term.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the rule here?

I got alerted to this change, to an entry in the Japanese wiki. It doesn't seem to be particularly helpful, but I can't seem to find a specific rule for this kind of entry. Can someone let me know yay or nay, and point me to a rule, please? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

A general guideline is MOS:INTERLINK:

... {{Interlanguage link}} template may be helpful to show a red link accompanied by an interlanguage link if no article exists in English Wikipedia.

—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I have seen those and used them in articles myself, thank you. But can they be used without a blue link to the English wiki in an entry on a DAB page? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it appears that WP:DABSISTER is a recent addition:

If the article to be disambiguated does not have an article on the English Wikipedia, but has an article on a sister project in another language, the term may be linked to the sister project using the {{interlanguage link}} template ... Use of the {{interlanguage link}} template is not a substitute for the need to have a red link from an existing article for the disambiguating term (per MOS:DABRED) ...

The latter portion suggests that another page (not just the dab) would need to have a red link to the Japanese group —Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh - thank you for that. I will get back to it and check later. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sexual disorder#Requested move 30 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual disorder#Requested move 30 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wild Wing (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wild Wing (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Public Service Announcement (disambiguation)#Requested move 27 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Public Service Announcement (disambiguation)#Requested move 27 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

All caps

Regi vs REGI. Is having two separate dabs be justified in this case? Web-julio (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Given there are just 7 entries and three see also (excluding those to each other) between the two pages, I would be in favour of merging. Probably to Regi as that's the longer of the two. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Does this need a merging discussion in the talk pages? Web-julio (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If you think it will be controversial, yes start a formal merge discussion. If you think it will be uncontroversial, no - just be bold and do it. A middle ground would be to just leave pointers on the talk page to this discussion and wait a few days to see what the response (if any) is. Personally, I'd wait until circa 24 hours after you asked the question here and then just do if there have been no objections as I'd be surprised if it was controversial at all. Thryduulf (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I personally thought there was a policy on such cases. Because I don't know a another similar case alike. Web-julio (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

We have WP:DABCOMBINE which is a guideline that deals with capitalisation differences in the first bullet. It's worded more strongly than I remembered, but it basically says to combine topics that differ only in capitalisation unless the combined page would be "unreasonably long", giving Oe as an example of a combined dab page (that covers Oe, OE and various ligatures and variants with diacritics). "Unreasonably long" isn't defined, but a combined REGI/Regi dab will definitely not be. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I would think of it this way - how likely is it that the average reader distinguishes these two, can we see a separate pattern of traffic for each group?

If we merge, will this improve navigation for both groups or make it worse?

With 2+5=7 items total, it probably doesn't matter, but if a list grows, it becomes a concern. We recently mentioned something like this at WT:D#Capitalization of a disambiguation page title with both all-caps and lowercase senses where there were examples with 28 and 46 items. --Joy (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)