Template talk:Disambiguation cleanup

TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. See here for the discussion. -Splash 01:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different text

To aid in understanding and cleanup, I propose this new text (I have only changed the small cleanup-related text):

This is a disambiguation page — a list of articles associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
Note: This page needs to be cleaned up. Entries should be restricted to a specific description and only be linked to one article. See the Manual of Style for more information.

What do you think? Can we update the template with this? Is there a better wording?--Commander Keane 08:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placement

Shouldn't this be placed at the top like all the other clean up templates? I know this is a special case, but now that it uses the ambox style it doesn't fit in at the bottom. - Rocket000 00:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, ambox should really be at the top of the page, but I don't see why it should in the case of dab pages. See below. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambox style

I'd prefer this template to go back to the old non-ambox style because

dab pages are not articles (and "ambox" stands for "article message box") - cleanup templates for categories (also non-articles) also don't use ambox, see for example Category:Underpopulated categories
it requires some non-trivial skills to cleanup dab pages (I mean, I needed to read MOS:DAB several times to understand even its mainpoints), and cleanup tags usually intend to bring non-regular editors up to speed for (minor) cleanup work. But non-regular editors generally do not clean up dab pages, so why should a template scream at them each time they come to such a dab page when they can't really do anything about it for lack of experience?
{{disambig-cleanup}}, similar to {{disambig}}, is concerned with the status of the page via categories, not to tell the reader what is wrong with the page in the first place. I think most people use Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup to find dab pages in need of cleanup, so the design of this template only matters to the reader, not the dab editors. So I think the template should be as unobtrusive as possible.

– sgeureka ^t•c 08:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all these points, and add the opinion that the old template wasn't broken, and didn't need fixing. Put it back to what it was, as this style will not result in better dab pages, but likely will make things worse, if it has any effect other than annoying readers. Chris the speller 13:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus at Template:Ambox#Actual discussion of the pros and cons of using Ambox on Category pages agrees with the "keep amboxes out of non-article pages" argument, so I'll be bold and change {{disambig-cleanup}} back now instead of waiting for some more days for comments. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after Remember the dot, while organizing the disambiguation templates and categories, separated the ambox from the rest (and thereby fundamentally changing how this template is used), I have restored the text of this template to the pre-ambox format with the new category Remember the dot added. I'm not so sure this should link to the Wikiproject though. older ≠ wiser 22:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draw attention to possible ongoing talk

From time to time I clean up dab pages, and a suggestion has occurred to me which I hope will be useful. Bearing in mind the Note the cleanup templates cause to be displayed on the dab page, for example:

{{Disambig-cleanup}}: Note: This page may need to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

{{Hndis-cleanup}}: Note: This page may need to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. See WikiProject Disambiguation for more information.

I think it would be good to draw attention to the possibility that there's existing discussion about aspects of the particular clean-up needed, or any issues already encountered. So my suggestion is, expand the Note to point that out. Something along the lines of:

Note: This page may need to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Further information might be found on the talk page.

For general information, see WikiProject Disambiguation.

PL290 (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blue "cleaned up" link in {{disambig-cleanup}} already points to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, so no need to link it twice. And I think that link can be moved onto the "cleaned up" words also in {{hndis-cleanup}}.

If we add the talkpage sentence, let's use small text for it. But not <small> since that is too small for many readers, instead 88% size which we use for small right-aligned {{tmbox}} and {{ombox}} templates and recently also the set index boxes like {{SIA}}. So like this:

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
Note: This page may need to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Further information might be found on the talk page.

(Not sure if we should have line breaks between the large and small text parts or not.)

But now when I see a full example it seems a bit too much to have the talkpage sentence, and people who add clean-up boxes are usually too lazy to write any explanation on the talkpage. (They are already too lazy to fix things themselves, they just tag on clean-up boxes.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your layout suggestions are OK. On the other aspect, despite what you say I often find detailed discussion on the talk page about the clean-up. I didn't think of looking at first, but then I happened to notice discussion and realized I should check there first, so as to take it into account in my clean-up--or perhaps continue the discussion instead, if others have identified that the clean-up is less simple than it at first looked. Hence the suggestion. I think it's worth doing--what's the down-side? PL290 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since you see such cases and seem to do work on disambig pages you probably know more about this than I do. (I am just a template coder that was asked to fix stuff in these templates and ended up managing them.)

Since this template is only used on 52 pages I'll add the change right away, without waiting for comments from other users.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I have updated {{disambig-cleanup}} and {{hndis-cleanup}}. --David Göthberg (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Design fault

It appears that the revised version of the template makes e.g. Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup from July 2011 a hidden Cat, i guess while omitting Category:Disambiguation pages. This provokes Un-Cat tags & editing to restore it to Category:Disambiguation pages -- or even to put it in Category:Disambiguation -- which has only about two dozen legitimate members! Not having followed (nor found) the discussion that preceded the probably valuable date tagging, i'm not diving in to fix the template, but as an interim measure, i am adding Category:Disambiguation pages to Criticism of Wikipedia.
--Jerzy•t 20:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are Un-Cat tags? What is provoking whom to add what to Category:Disambiguation pages and why? I have witnessed the transition of many categories from undated to dated, and am not able to place what you are describing in my experience. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edit to Criticism of Wikipedia. It was tagged in June, so you should not add it to a July category. Why would you want to do that? Debresser (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jerzy means the template {{Uncategorized}} which add an uncategorized message to the page. This appears to be because Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup and subcategories are marked as hidden administrative categories. Disambiguation pages normally do not need to be added to any categories other than Category:Disambiguation pages (they can include additional catogories, but do not normally require any other categorization). It is an error for the bot which adds the {{Uncategorized}} to add it to disambiguation pages. I'm not sure whether the bot needs to be fixed or this {{Disambiguation cleanup}} template should also add pages to Category:Disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 21:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand. Why not just add Category:Disambiguation pages indeed? To the article, I mean. Directly, not through this template, so that I will be clearly visible when editing the page. Byw, isn't that category supposed to be on all disambiguation pages? Debresser (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though in this particular case, {{Uncategorized}} was manually added by an editor using AWB [1], so there might not be any issue with bots.

Category:Disambiguation pages is normally added to a page with the template {{disambiguation}} and only very rarely is it added directly. When a disambiguation page requires clean up, the template is replaced with {{disambiguation cleanup}} -- however, that removes the page from the former category and places it into a hidden subcategory. older ≠ wiser 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then indeed the solution would be to add Category:Disambiguation pages to this template. Or to not replace {{Disambiguation}} by {{Disambiguation cleanup}}, but to add it. Now that seems a lot more logical. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, that would negate the stated purpose of this template, to combine both tags. Which was a bad idea, now that I think of it. But since I don't think we should change that now, perhaps adding the category to this template is the easiest solution after all. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see [2] and [3]. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks. older ≠ wiser 22:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the problem is the combination of an article classification template with a maintenance template. Something which apparently must have appealed to somebody, but which ramifications weren't thought through till the end. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Please, add this template to MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage: {{Disambiguation-cleanup}} is missing Vanessa (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DabFix

DabFix is out-of-date. --RalfX (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was fixed after another editor provided the new link below. Thanks anyway for pointing it out. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The link for the Dabfix tool is broken because of the recent Toollabs implosion; so "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dabfix.py?page=" should be replaced with the new "http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dabfix.py?page=". 128.84.125.178 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support for cleanup codes?

Any chance of adding a "mosdab" parameter to allow this template to display the content of the codes described at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Resources? The parameter is already used by DabFix, but it doesn't do anything in the template at present. Would certainly help direct clean-uppers to specific problems that were noted by the cleanup tagger. —swpb^T 15:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surname lists cleanup

From my exchange elsewhere about placing {{disambig-cleanup}} in page Khan (surname):

{{Surname}} is in Category:Set index article templates which is in Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. Since it is not a redirection, it is a disambiguation.

Also, WP:MOSDAB says "Set index article exception was designed to be narrow: for pages that contain links to articles about diff:erent topics, please follow this style guide for disambiguation pages"

Therefore {{disambig-cleanup}} is perfectly legal.

In any case cleanup of surname lists is very necessary, since some long surname lists are messed in various ways (with honorifics screwing sorting order, outright genealogy lists with mucho redlinks, or simply unsorted, etc.

So, shall we allow {{disambig-cleanup}} on them or, to avoid confusion and disputes, shall we introduce {{surname-cleanup}}? Or add a parameter: {{disambig-cleanup|surname}}? I am in favor of the first solution, updating the template doc accordingly, because dab-cleanup categories do not seem backlogged.

Please comment. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: There have been many discussions about this. Surname pages are not disambiguation pages. I've spent a lot of energy trying to get this cleared up. Please see WP:Surname index articles recently written by @Bd2412: for some discussion. Also see some discussion at WP:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#Wikipedia:Surname_index_articles with comment by @Ceyockey:. The guidance on disambiguation is clear at MOS:DABNOTINDEX that SIAs are not disambiguation pages. You miss the point about the exception being narrow. It is not saying that only a narrow set of SIAs are exceptions. It is saying that the exception narrowly applies only to SIAs. It is distinguishing SIAs from "pages that contain links to articles about different topics". The point is that DAB pages are (non-article, navigational pages) about different topics. SIAs are article pages with entries that are of the same type. To be clear, the real issue with you classifying Khan (surname) as a disambiguation page is that you are causing it be flagged as a disambiguation page with links. Because surname pages are article pages, it is ok to link to them. Coastside (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You miss two important points: (1) surnames are lists of articles on different topics: each bio is a completely different topic. and (2) surname lists are in dire need of cleanup. If you oppose using {{dab-cleanup}} on these (I accept your argument about extra flagging), please suggest another approach. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to cleanup a surname page, You should be using the {{siadn}} template instead of the {{disambig-cleanup}} template. Check out Category:All set index articles with links needing disambiguation. That category exists as a maintenance category specifically because SIAs are not DAB pages. In the doc for that category it says "Some links to SIAs are intended and should be preserved.". That's why you don't want to be using the {{disambig-cleanup}} here. Coastside (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need page style cleanup (sorting, red links removed, excessive blue links removed, etc.) not "disambiguation needed"-type cleanup. It looks like I need another template. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have said "different topics". Sorry for the confusion there. Please see WP:SETNOTDAB where it clearly defines the difference between SIAs and DABs. As per the guidance there "An SIA need not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages, although many SIAs do. Unlike disambiguation page guidelines, an SIA is allowed to contain red links to help editors create articles on notable entries.". Again, please see the guidance at WP:Surname index articles. You can have redlinks to entries in surname pages, as for any other SIA, as long as it's a notable entry. Coastside (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically regarding the Khan (surname) article in question, there is a link to it at the article Surnames_by_country, which is a detailed encyclopedic article. It says "Khan is among the most popular surnames, often signifying Afghan/Central Asian descent.". It is referring to the surname as a topic not needing disambiguation. There is nothing wrong with that article linking to the Khan (surname) article. Also, regarding redlinks, there is nothing wrong with adding a redlink entry for a notable Khan if it encourages someone to write an article about that person. In contrast, you would do that in a DAB page only under specific circumstances as described at MOS:DABRED.Coastside (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with redlinks in any disambig pages either, as long as the subject is notable and linked inn other wikipedia articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for completeness sake, there is a subtle difference between the guidance about redlinks in DABs and in SIAs. In DABs you should only add a redlink entry if there's already a link to it in other articles. In other words, the article space already mentions the topic needing disambiguation. In SIAs, notability alone is enough to add the redlink entry. The surname page may actually be the only place the topic (person) is yet mentioned.Coastside (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with blue links in the lede of "Surname" pages. However IMO excessive blue links in the list per se must be handled exactly as in dab pages: they just distract from navigation.

OK. Let us reset it. I have already accepted your argument that {{dab-cleanup}} in "surname" leads to confusion. Still the most important point is that surname lists do require "professional" cleanup. What are suggestions? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Maybe we should create a category Category:Surname pages needing cleanup? I've never created a maintenance category, so I'm not sure what it would require. Probably need some templates to support it. This may be a question for WP:Cleanup or WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Coastside (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we add it, then we will have to have a clear WP:MOSNAME MOS gudeline, similar to MOSDAB, which should include "surname" and "given name" pages. The latter ones are sometimes particularly ridiculouys for me. compare John+ John (given name) nice and clean pages, vs. Ivan (name) and Igor (given name) ws. cherry-picked list in Maria (given name) or completely chaotic random List of people named Peter. And you are right at WPAnthro (), I see yo already went to Willage pump. So I think we may close this thread. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on such a guide for surname pages and will share for review.Coastside (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Disamb-cleanup" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Disamb-cleanup. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Template:Disamb-cleanup until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]