Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates

Template:DisambigSanta and Template:DisambigSan

Part of a proposed scheme that never caught on (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/archive4#Series boxes for geographical dab pages). Good candidates for deletion, right? Bo Lindbergh 23:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If they are unused, then send them over to TfD. I don't think they are speedy deletion candiates.--Commander Keane 00:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listed. Bo Lindbergh 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved them to the TfD section on the project page. :-D BD2412 T 01:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checking script

Because it's easy to make mistakes when updating this page (ie deleting entries) I've written a script to do two things:

Tell us if there are any dabs that have accidentally been deleted from the list
Tell us if any of the dabs on the list no longer have any templates linking to them (ie the can be removed)

To aid my checking of dab's that have accidentally been deleted from the list, it would be useful if we could place dabs that:

are no longer dabs
have to have templates linking to them (eg the symphony series)

in the Notes section at the bottom of the page. At the moment the notes section is completely up to date (I've ensured that for now). If checking accidental deletions is not a big deal, just let me know and I won't bother exhaustively udpating the Notes section every so often.

--Commander Keane 00:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat offenders

I've noticed that certain templates have (or had) bunches of disambig links - I'm listing the worst offenders here in case this information proves useful in the future:

--BD2412 T 23:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should I invert the report the next time (i.e. a list of template pages where each entry is followed by a sublist of disambiguation pages it links to)? Bo Lindbergh 04:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I think that after this exercise, it will be very rare to see a disambig page that links to multiple templates - someone is far more likely to make a single template with many bad links than many templates sharing a single bad link. BD2412 T 04:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super-repeat offender Template:The Royal Dublin Fusiliers isn't even used anymore. (It was until a couple weeks ago, and replaced by a more generic infobox template, not sure if it should be TfD'd). Should the next list maybe only contain templates that are in use (i.e. linked from places that are not robot-generated lists like Wikipedia:Templates with red links)? Kusma (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary of that, as templates can be subst'ed in (although that obviates the need for a template) - if it's not in use, it should be TfD'd for exactly that reason. I'm confident, however, that this exercise will cut short the high grass, leaving nothing for the future but occasional weeding. BD2412 T 05:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the aforementioned template for deletion. BD2412 T 05:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temperaments

This may need actual work (*shudder*) to fix. Current situation:

Sanguine is a lopsided dab page contaning several stubs and one link.
Melancholic redirects to Melancholia which has a small section on the temperament.
Choleric and Phlegmatic are short articles on the temperaments.

The Right Thing™ to do would seem to either this:

Create Sanguine temperament out of material cut from Sanguine.
Create Melancholic temperament out of material cut from Melancholia.
Move Choleric to Choleric temperament.
Move Phlegmatic to Phlegmatic temperament.
Adjust lots of links.
Harmonize all four temperament articles (format, categories, etc.).

or this:

Create Four temperaments (currently a redirect to Four humours) with all the relevant material.
Make Choleric, Melancholic, and Phlegmatic redirects to the new article.
Let Sanguine link to the new article.

Thoughts? Bo Lindbergh 03:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that we keep Phlegmatic and Choleric where they are, make Sanguine and Meloncholic into articles on the temperments, and move the existing material to Sanguine (disambiguation). bd2412 T 17:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I tried that and all four articles look hella stubby. Ergo, I'm changing my thinking - Bo's second idea is much better, but I'd say we can just keep everything in four humours, with the redirects as stated. bd2412 T 02:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point of diminishing returns.

I think we're getting to the point where these templates will be getting harder to fix without taking some creative steps. I suggest that we go ahead with touching all the links to all the terms on the original list (excluding those that are no longer disambigs). Would it be possible to track the number of links that are corrected through this exercise? bd2412 T 17:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you want a bot to touch every page that is linked to from one of the >1000 templates? That inloves running a "Whatlinkshere" for every template, then visiting each of the pages on the "Whatlinkshere" and touching it. I know this was probably the driving amibiton, but that's a lot of touching (== a lot of server resources). You'd need some sort of permission from a developer (or even better get a developer to do the process) to do this ethically. About getting statistics on the fixes: it is easy to do, but involves a lot of resources so I'm inclinded not to get it done. I could be wrong about the above reasoning, better get a genius like Bo or Russ to check it out.--Commander Keane 21:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure Bo will be around soon to opine on the mechanics of the next step. bd2412 T 21:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any shortcuts. Getting accurate statistics would have involved saving the results of running Whatlinkshere on each dab before starting the repair phase. Bo Lindbergh 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True - I should've thought of that before. But how much trouble will it be to touch all the links from those thousand or so disambig pages in the original survey (minus however many are no longer disambigs)? bd2412 T 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatlinkshere returning false positives is an inconvenience (mainly) to us. Fixing it all at once involves inconveniencing everybody with (temporary) high database loads. I don't know if it's worth it. Bo Lindbergh 00:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is mooted by the fact that the "what links here" page now indicates pages that are linked by "(inclusion)". bd2412 T 03:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings

I added section headings because they make editing and navigating this page easier. Of course I only realized afterwards that this breaks the total dab page count. I think the section editing is more useful than the auto-counter, but if you disagree, please revert. Kusma (討論) 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Links" in nowiki or comments

Apparently the script counts links within nowiki tags or in comments (e.g., John Smith in Template:AFC instructions and and in Template:AFC preload). TimBentley 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another strange one: [[:mk:|Macedonian Wikipedia]] at Template:Bomac-1 TimBentley 01:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The code (I think, better ask Bo to be sure) is at User:Bo_Lindbergh/dabalyze - so take a look to see if it checks for nowiki tags. If it doesn't I don't find that to be a big problem, there can't be that many false positives.

I moved the Boman thing to userspace, I'm not sure what the problem was that you were eluding to (but I didn't look hard). --Commander Keane 12:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a new dump?

The page we're working off of is over a year old - we should get an updating listing from the most recent database dump. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russ has one... I'm just not sure he wants to add it here. Dekimasu よ! 11:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Station templates

I dropped a note on the talk page at WP:WPRS and they are going to swing by and chip away at the Radio Station templates. -Gwguffey (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit over 100 of these this evening with about 70 to go. (Start at #631 (Template:Trenton Radio) if you're reading this and the first one to resume the good fight.) More later and here's hoping some of my fellow WPRS members jump in and finish it up today or tomorrow. - Dravecky (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]