Talk:Buckethead (disambiguation)

This disambiguation 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

Buckethead task force (inactive)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of Buckethead task force, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Buckethead task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Buckethead task forceTemplate:WikiProject Buckethead task forceBuckethead task force

Outtakes

"Buckethead" is a nickname for members of the fictional terrorist organization Advanced Idea Mechanics
"Buckethead" is a nickname for firefighters, primarily on the East coast.^[where?]

Widefox; talk 12:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Buckethead

I personally would consider that "Lord Buckethead" (c.f. Screaming Lord Sutch) a WP:PTM so have moved to the see also and fixed the piping per WP:MOSDAB. Is it really a "reasonably likely topic name" per WP:D? seems tentative/fringy. Widefox; talk 13:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was the first thing that I remembered when I came across the phrase "Buckethead", we need to remember that dab pages are there to avoid confusion between multiple things of the same name. If someone was writing about fringe candidates and linked to Buckethead then having Lord Buckethead on this page would enable disambiguation. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Within reason. If there were two Lord Bucketheads maybe. So on balance in this case, no. We need to remember that it isn't useful to readers to include things like Gold Party at Gold (disambiguation) (Gremloid Party possibly somewhere, M. Jane St Vincent at Saint Vincent) - I consider this level of listing non-notable unelected / joke party / fringy candidates are well below the threshold for what is reasonably useful for readers and clutter - they fail WP:POLITICIAN as not elected for instance although not a criterion for DABMENTION. Yes she was PM, but this is undue weight to fringe. I'm not sure there's any guidance on what is below threshold for a mention WP:DABMENTION (I think the wording used to say not all mentions need to be listed but I couldn't find it). Worth getting more opinions at DAB project? I'm tempted to say remove on principle (rather than on size of this DAB). Widefox; talk 11:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Lord Buckethead did stand more than once, not sure if it was the same person. As disambiguation pages include alternate names and subjects below the notability threshold I would say this was a good example of a useful entry. At the very least if fulfils a role of clarifying for anyone who was trying to work it out , that the musician and the politician are not the same. I don't understand under what principle if any you would want to remove such items from a dab page - that just sounds like deletionism to me. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manawatu Turbos fans' buckets

There's no WP:RS for the term in Manawatu Turbos. Some fans have worn buckets, sure, but with no WP:RS should it be listed here for the world? I removed the DAB entry (which also incorrectly included an WP:EXT) the first time as I considered it poorly sourced, unencyclopedic WP:FANSITE fan info, also removing it from the Manawatu Turbos and tagging that article with multiple such issues. We need a RS so we can say who refers to which fans and how. My understanding of WP:MOSDAB is that if it is WP:DABMENTIONed in the article it can go here, but this should be established first in the article with RS and then may (or may not) go here. Doesn't this all fall below the encyclopaedic threshold (although on the other hand, it is in keeping with the slapstick of the term)? Is it really a "reasonably likely topic name" per WP:D? I disagree that it should be re-inserted in the DAB with the article having two new non-WP:RS per WP:BRD. Not allowing EXT in DAB entries is not new, no. Widefox; talk 10:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the problem by adding a dozen or so reliable sources you can take your pick of them - that's too many, but you can probably find the best few easily enough. Perhaps Television New Zealand, or the All Blacks, or TV3, or maybe SkySports, or ESPN are better sources (I've even added sources from Australia and Canada, to show that it's a moderately widely-known nickname - to give you an analogy you'd understand well, it would be as widely known as the term "The Sky Blues" to refer to Coventry City FC). Your understanding of MOSDAB, by the way, seems to be slightly incorrect - WP:DABMENTION says "if A is mentioned in article B, then it needs a link". Nowhere does it say that if A is not mentioned, there should be no link. If a term is a reasonably likely search term (and I would definitely argue that the term bucketheads for Manawatu supporters is extremely widely known in New Zealand) it is therefore definitely appropriate for a dab page.

The changes on the guidelines for external links came as a surprise to me, which shows how long it is since I was heavily involved in WikiProject Disambiguation - it was apparently added just under three years ago. Up until that time, the opposite rule was in force - each line on a dab page needed one internal blue link, and if it was a minor item needed for navigation to an article (but was not an article in its own right) an external link was not only acceptable but preferred. Mind you, neither that nor the current state of affairs has ever been a policy, but rather just a guideline - I also note that the current guideline has been softened since it was first put in place (the wording immediately after the change in Nov 2011 was "never add external links"). Grutness...wha? 13:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which revision is that exactly? The first version of DAB dos/don'ts [1] just over three years ago had no refs/EXT. I was just asking for a single RS, I think quite reasonable. That's there now so all good. Re WP:DABMENTION , I not only stick by my interpretation of it, both logically A in B, = yes implies A not in B = no (although WP:DABACRONYM encourages adding "notable" and "verifiable" to articles first) but you may have missed the explicit "If the title is not mentioned on the other article, there is no Wikipedia ambiguity with that topic, and that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page." Quite standard DABMENTION way of removing items not mentioned. These general DAB discussions may best brought up at DAB project rather than here so others may comment, I've put note in to look here. Not sure I need a localised example to understand it - Sky blues refers to the team, rather than my (limited) understanding that the NZ "bucketheads" refers to just a few fans started by one guy a few years ago with the practice already waning. Widefox; talk 21:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - let's take those points one at a time:

Which revision is that exactly? This revision of WP:DAB.
I was just asking for a single RS, I think quite reasonable. I'd already given you one, but you seemed to feel that it was not reliable. As such, giving you several to choose from seemed a good idea, in case there were others you thought were not reliable.
Re WP:DABMENTION , I not only stick by my interpretation of it [...] but you may have missed the explicit "If the title is not mentioned on the other article, there is no Wikipedia ambiguity with that topic, and that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page." I didn't miss it. The first statement says that if an item is present and referenced, then it gets a mention on the DAB page. The second says that if it's not there at all it gets no mention. Nowhere does it say what happens if it is there but not referenced. And if it is there, and some references can be found, as I did, then it makes more sense to add it to the dab page.
These general DAB discussions may best brought up at DAB project rather than here so others may comment, I've put note in to look here. Fair enough, though I know how quickly bogged down such discussions can get.
Not sure I need a localised example to understand it - Sky blues refers to the team, rather than my (limited) understanding that the NZ "bucketheads" refers to just a few fans started by one guy a few years ago with the practice already waning. It wasn't an example, it was an analogy, giving some indication of how widely known the term is in this country. I could have said "to give you an analogy, it would be as widely known as "Big Ben" is to refer to St. Stephen's Tower", and ignored any perceived other similarities at all. If I had wanted to use a direct comparative example, I'd have linked Cheesehead or Gooner. I simply chose one that kept things related to sport and related to a WikiProject you are a member of. As to "a few", it depends on your definition - the best part of a thousand people have turned up in past seasons. And whether the actual practice is waning or not, the nickname continues as strongly as ever - as is clear by several of the references I linked - which seems to be one point you are not getting. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've already said a RS is there now so there is no dispute about inclusion.

In reply to those points, I stand by removing things that fail WP:V. We seem to disagree only about those initial two sources being RS. Thanks for finding more sources, some of which are unambiguously RS. My understanding is a single RS seems the appropriate burden, so although I appreciate the analogies, WP:V was (but not now) the issue. On dabs, I do check and add myself for example with acronyms, and I've seen at least one other editor explain to another editor about requiring a RS for DAB inclusion (an acronym not mentioned in the article), don't think it is that uncommon, but others may correct me. Widefox; talk 11:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That revision of WP:DAB already proscribes refs - seems being explicit about not using refs was added in 2009. Coming back to MOSDAB MOSDAB in 2006 EXT "rarely, if ever", strengthened in MOSDAB 2007 "Never". In the same way you're surprised about changes, I'm surprised it was the opposite, and haven't seen that documented up to 6 or 7 years ago. Before my time here, although your experience is longer. About DABMENTION, OK, we were talking cross-purposes - we both agree it doesn't mention RS. To clarify - after my comma ", but this should be established..." is not referring to MOSDAB but in the article per WP:V's WP:RS, hence me just talking about mentions later which is what I thought you were questioning. Widefox; talk 11:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links are absolutely forbidden on disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are solely a navigational device for the internal navigation of Wikipedia, much like an index. Basically, they only say that the term in question is discussed or mentioned in this article or that. If the use of the term "bucketheads" for a particular purpose is not notable enough to be mentioned in the article, then it surely does not belong on a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 15:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]