Talk:Santiago Bernabéu (disambiguation)

Why this page exists

To editor Wbm1058: in your edit summary, you ask "if it is 'unnecessary', why does this page exist?" The page history shows that this page exists because the dab page and its talk page (this page) were moved to the base name. So this page became a redirect to the talk page of the base-name page. It should be obvious then that this page's qualifier is an "unnecessary disambiguation". It is unnecessary because the page it targets does not need it. Don't see the problem here, sorry. What would be your preference in cases like this? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 03:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The (mainspace) page is necessary for the purpose of intentional linking to disambiguation. So it is not unnecessary. My preference is to not put templates like this on talk pages. What useful purpose does it serve?

Santiago Bernabéu (disambiguation) itself is tagged with {{R to disambiguation}} so if we can't tag its talk page (which is intended for discussions about a page which is an {{R to disambiguation}}) then we shouldn't template the talk page at all – unless the template serves a useful purpose. The talk page should certainly not imply that its associated mainspace page is for unnecessary disambiguation. That would be unsynchronized.

The fact it was moved is not the primary reason for the page, though {{R from move}} is OK. This page could still have a legitimate rationale for its existence even if there was never a primary topic and the disambiguation has always been on the base title. In which case it would not have an {{R from move}} either, and I would be happy if this talk page was never even created. Becuause ordinarily there is not really much to discuss about a page which is a redirect. And it's better to keep discussions on the talk page it redirects to. wbm1058 (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Must ask why you think {{R from move}} applies to a talk page, but other rcats that are equally applicable don't apply? just because it's a talk page? There is no lack of synchronization here. Technically, the subject page, Santiago Bernabéu (disambiguation), is also a page with unnecessary disambiguation. Since one dab rcat is enough on pages, and in this case {{R dab}} is more important on the subject page than {{R undis}}, that's why we don't tag the subject page with R undis. However, the talk page is also from unnecessary disambiguation and does not redirect to a dab page, so R undis is appropriate for this type of talk page. At least it has been for the last ten years. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 09:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

PS. If you'll check it, Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages is a subcategory of Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation and has been since Feb. 2011. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 10:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

{{R from move}} populates Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects, which serves a useful purpose. {{R from move}} is placed on both the article and its talk when a page is moved. The same template used on both; that's synchronicity. wbm1058 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It is correct and proper to place a talk page into a category that is parent to the category in which the subject page is placed. That's what is happening here. The subject page is placed into a subcategory and the talk page is placed into its parent category. Synching is only important as it applies to the page titles, that is, when a talk page has a different page name. That has absolutely nothing to do with categorization. Why can't you see that? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 11:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There are other examples of talk pages being categorized different from subject pages. Template redirects can be {{R from template shortcut}}s but their talk pages are not templates, so they can only be {{R from shortcut}}s. Cross-namespace redirects can be categorized for example with {{R to project page}} but not their talk pages. I really don't see why you think talk pages should not be placed in any and all appropriate, applicable categories. This talk page has a parenthetical qualifier and targets a talk page without the qualifier. So the qualifier, in this case "disambiguation" in parentheses, is unnecessary. The appropriate category for it is then Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 12:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Technically, the subject page, Santiago Bernabéu (disambiguation), is also a page with unnecessary disambiguation. Santiago Bernabéu (disambiguation) is a page with "unnecessary disambiguation". This means that the disambiguation term "disambiguation" more specifically but unnecessarily more specifically describes the subject of an article on the unambiguous topic Santiago Bernabéu, because there is a primary topic for the name, and that primary topic is ambiguous, so it is a disambiguation page.

Who's on First? Who. and Disambiguation is the designated hitter. wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is presently no primary topic for "Santiago Bernabéu". And that is why the dab page remains at the base name. Editors were unable to decide definitively in a recent RM if the stadium was the primary topic due to page views, or the person was the primary topic due to other things being named for him. That is why the dab page is still at the base name, and that is why the subject page for this page is an unnecessary disambiguation and placed into a subcategory of that parent category. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Deep dive

I hadn't looked into how disambiguation, and the disambiguation policy, got started on Wikipedia. This is kind of a back alley for discussing meta-type things, I know. But, since we're here...

On 5 April 2002, Wikipedia:Disambiguation was a short list of disambiguation pages, started because Special:LonelyPages was marking disambiguation pages as orphans. As an aside, I believe at one point the MediaWiki software was updated to keep disambiguation pages off the LonelyPages list, but a quick look shows that the special page is still cluttered up with a lot of {{surname}} lists – technically not general disambiguations, but really a special type of disambiguation. On 6 March 2002, a Wikipedia:Standards for disambiguating pages discussion was started, and a month later (5 April 2002), it was merged into Wikipedia:Disambiguation to turn it into a policy page.

The first-ever edit to WT:Disambiguation was made on 14 March 2002, and pointed out this edit, which substantially changed the format for disambiguation from what it had been up to that point. A couple of edits later, we see the present-day format taking shape on 3 May 2002. Template:Disambiguation didn't get started until later, on 6 December 2003.

Template:R to disambiguation page didn't debut until 5 April 2004. It referenced Wikipedia:Disambiguation§Links to disambiguation pages. This template appears to have been boldly created; later the same day, the same editor created Template:R from misspelling.

Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation is much more recent. It was created on 28 August 2010, along with Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation, which was added as a subcategory of Category:Unprintworthy redirects. Neither the edit creating the template nor the edit creating the category provided a rationale for their creation. See Category talk:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation, which has one section discussing the purpose. These appear to have been boldly created; the only relevant discussion I see the creator participating in around that tine was Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 25#Template:R printworthy. @Mclay1: can you give your rationale for creation? wbm1058 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirect templates exist to explain on a redirect page why the redirect exists and why it goes to where it goes. R from unnecessary disambiguation is for redirects that contain more disambiguation than necessary, e.g. The Beatles (band) goes to The Beatles. Every redirect template has a corresponding category to track the pages tagged with the temple. What's the reason for your question? M.Clay1 (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mclay1: See #Why this page exists above for background. All the discussion on this talk page started after Paine Ellsworth reverted me here and here. I've taken the discussion to Template talk:R to disambiguation page#Are talk pages valid use for this?, where there is wider participation. Feel free to add your opinion there. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)