Category talk:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup

Additions

Added a bunch here. :) Gflores ^Talk 05:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heuristic

I've added quite a few as well, after running a program that evaluates each disambig page and assigns them a heuristic score, and I'm manually tagging the ones with the worst score. Please note that {{disambig-cleanup}} shouldn't always be interpreted as "please start deleting stuff", sometimes it means "this page doesn't appear to meet WP:MOSDAB's guidelines, but it also may not be a disambiguation at all, so it may be more appropriate to replace {{disambig}} with {{surname}}, {{split}}, or just remove the {{disambig}}", and thus some of the pages listed here may need a different approach. --Interiot 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my goal is for the program to hilight the really clearly badly-formatted pages, and not really to tag pages that merely have a number of problems, since there are a nearly unlimited number of those. If I don't seem to be doing that, or if you have some examples of pages I might have missed, feel free to let me know on my talk page. --Interiot 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 1, 07

I've recently been tagging dab pages that require cleanup, of different kinds, while flipping through wiki using the random article button. Normally, I tag a whole bunch of pages then go back and fix them later, when I have the time. Often times they get fixed before I return. On that note, I just want to say a big thank you to everyone and all the work they've put into cleaning-up dab pages recently. You've all done an excellent job and I've noticed a signifcant decrease in the number of pages on this list over the last few week which is truly fantastic. (: France3470 22:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked this page this morning and there were only FOUR pages listed! Nice work, everyone! I've taken care of that "problem" and tagged a boatload for us to attend to. Happy spiffing! SlackerMom (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, great. Can't clean up dab pages without the people tagging them. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 16:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha ... and ... Buddha (disambiguation)

I have been trying to clean Buddha. My first thought was to clean in the normal way ie just retain genuine disambiguating lines (and tbh I still think this would have been best). As this would have meant removing a lot of "prose" I created a separate dab page at Buddha (disambiguation) and left the verbiage/info at Buddha. This has not gone down well with editors interested in the subject. Perhaps you would like to take a look at recent events there ... and put them both on your watch lists. Abtract (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks this got sorted very well. Abtract (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one to go

But I ran out of steam ... Abtract (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy suggestion

There seems to be a tendency by some editors (me included on occasions) to be rather picking and pedantic in the application of MOS:DAB. There can be nothing more galling for editors than having a bunch of "dab specialist" descending on "their" pages and tearing them to shreds; not only do we wipe out unlinked items, we re-sequence, create new sections and use different, fewer words to describe their beloved lines. No wonder they object sometimes. As a suggestion maybe we should go easy on unimportant detail; for example does it matter if the original version says "fictional character", has a few more words than is absolutely necessary, gets the order slightly wrong, includes an item that should technically be in "see also", doesn't put people in a separate section at the end? ... you get my drift I am sure. I recently had a (much needed) courtesy lesson and this has made me think. Of couse, dab specialists themselves are not imune from hurt feelings so I woder if we might not be a little less inclined to correct each other's work as well as going easy on the detail. If we concentrated on what actually made disambiguation easier and forgot just a tad about the nitty gritty of MOS:DAB, and other similar, maybe the wheels would turn more slowly. If you want a specific suggestion it is this:

"When cleaning a dab page, make only those changes that significantly improve its disambiguation effectiveness and forget about the minutiae; leave as-is averything that doesn't detract from it's effectiveness; be inclusive rather than exclusive". Just a thought. Abtract (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of this list

I realize WP is sort of a rolling thing, and it's hard to maintain "original purposes", but it's my opinion that this list has gotten out of control. In my understanding, the original purpose was to tag really dreadful pages with major format problems, not just every page that needs some polishing. Allow me to quote from above:

For what it's worth, my goal is for the program to hilight the really clearly badly-formatted pages, and not really to tag pages that merely have a number of problems, since there are a nearly unlimited number of those... --Interiot 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the sheer number of tagged pages obscures those that desperately need immediate editing. It may also cause potentially helpful editors to shy away from the enormity of the task. I propose that this tag be used more judiciously. Many of these tagged pages, while needing some help, are not in desperate condition. Limiting the use of this tag will help reduce the backlog, which I feel has been artificially created. SlackerMom (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely support a less egregious tag, maybe {{disambig polish}}, that means a dab page could use some work by someone familiar with MOS:DAB, but is not just a horrible, overlinked mess of prose. There is a bot request for more automatic fixing of dab pages. You may be interested in commenting there. I think I've already been overruled, but I wanted the bot only to mark pages (with a minor cleanup tag, not this one), and let humans do the actual cleanup. It's probably good to hear from everyone "in the field". JackSchmidt (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo-hoo!

Just had to exult for a moment...finally got this list back down under 200! It all fits on one page again! SlackerMom (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed - I'd been used to seeing at 330+ - way to go (to all involved)! That's very exciting. -- Natalya 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness, we're under a hundred. Maybe I should be quiet, though... SlackerMom (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We got back up close to 200 -- i think without wrapping around onto a second page. I'm about to bring us back to 150, tho i won't save Keiko (given name) (its brand new name) w/o its current Dab-CU tag until it's a clean page -- and i won't leave the kbd until Keiko is a proper Dab, even tho it should be a nice day to be out. But still, i'd love to have someone beat me to the milestone!
--Jerzy•t 17:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now I'll race you to 125. SlackerMom (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! Keiko turned out to be 149, and 125 zoomed by w/o my noticing. Now at 100.
--Jerzy•t 07:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry, Prince of Wales

Can anyone help improve this dab? See the discussion page on it. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suggestions for disambiguation repair

If anyone is interested in clean-up, then please have a look at Quadell's latest batch. Boleyn3 (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

It's great to see the numbers on here so low. I've prodded a number of pages here, so if you agree, please add a prod2 to get rid of these quickly. I've PRODded A. Cunningham, Agglomeration (disambiguation), Aloa (disambiguation) and Ammuditchi; I think they're straightforward deletions.

I'm unsure what to do with Ahenobarbus, Acmon, Acidinus (cognomen), Megareus, Autonoe and Athenodoros - are they multi-stubs/dabs? This isn't an area I know anything about, but it would be good to get them off this page, so if anyone knows this area, please have a look.

Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's down to 37 now! It would be great if we could remove the backlog tag this weekend... Boleyn2 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog tag now removed, we're down to 9! However, I've looked at the nine several times and don't know what to do with them, but they don't seem as if they'd be time-consuming to someone with more knowledge than me. Boleyn2 (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few i tagged, and commented at some length on another at Talk:SR#Clean-up.
--Jerzy•t 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem dab

If anyone could comment at Talk:Drunk tank it'd help. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Could anyone have a look at Reverend John Hancock and 南山 and contribute to the discussions on them? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues

The number of tagged dabs is quite high at the moment. Two problems are replicated through dozens of tagged pages, so I was hoping for a consnensus on them so they could be sorted?

The two are: e.g. Route 29 (public transport) and e.g. Chicago (AFL).

With the Route x (public transport) pages, there often isn't a dab at Route x, but a set indice page - I really don't know how they work. Therefore these incomplete disambiguations are hard to resolve. What do people think is the best solution?

As for x (AFL), it usually seems to me more like a broad concept, and they seem to be mainly partial matches. Should they be merged to e.g. Chicago sports section, or deleted? Thanks for any ideas. Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the set index covers all the ambiguous topics (and possibly others as well), and the set index exists at the base name, there is no need for a separate dab, and the incomplete disambiguation can redirect to the base-name SIA. If the set index doesn't cover all the ambiguous topics, then a disambiguation page is needed -- either the set index can be moved and the dab placed at the base name, or the set index can have a hatnote leading to the dab. I would favor putting the dab at the base name, since it's hard for me to fathom how a set index could be the primary topic, but that could just be my personal preference away from SIAs. The incomplete disambiguation would then redirect to the (new) dab. If any of the incomplete dabs can be rewritten as topic stubs, that's fine too. I think that's fine for Chicago (AFL), for instance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) With the Route x pages, likeliest options seem to be A) treat the List of highways numbered x (which Route x currently redirects to) as the primary topic and add a hatnote to it; or, B) move the Route x (public transport) disambiguation pages to Route x and add a see also to the List of highways numbered x. Seems option A would be less work and less likely to arouse opposition.

With the X (AFL) type pages, seems that a similar situation with sports team disambiguation was discussed within the last several weeks at one of the main disambiguation talk pages. I don't recall if there was a mutually agreeable resolution though. See Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 35#What is an "incomplete disambiguation"? older ≠ wiser 19:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Albatross is off our necks

I have come back from an extended editing break to discover pages on this list that have been tagged for almost two years. I cleaned up two pages from September 2012 and intend to keep chipping away on the oldest ones. I have to admit giggling over the irony that the oldest page on the list was Albatross (disambiguation). SlackerMom (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A big welcome back, User:SlackerMom! Yes, this project's waiting time was always very short, but it has lost its momentum since you stopped involvement, I'm afraid. I don't know that anyone works on this much anymore, so thanks for your hard work. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Boleyn! I was glad to see that you are still working away on the Template:hndis pages. I'm sure I'll make a few mistakes on those; I'm feeling a little rusty. I always appreciated knowing you were keeping an eye on them. I'll probably work here for a while, since it seems that plenty of folks are working on other DAB projects. This has always been my favorite, anyway! SlackerMom (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]