Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Disambiguation  
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 

Medon[edit]

Medon needs a disambiguation page. The existing page is about mythology. Should it be transformed into a disambiguation page or is it better to start a new page ? --Io Herodotus (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)-[reply]

Why does it need a disambiguation page? olderwiser 15:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We probably need a dab, because Medon may refer to:
It's less clear whether the Greeks deserve their own list article and, if so, whether it or the dab should live at the base name Medon. Certes (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the Greeks to Medon (mythology) and create the dab page at Medon. No obvious primary topic, and an overdue dab page (there are a couple of hatnotes on the Greeks' page but no ccess route to Tennessee, beetle, singer etc). PamD 15:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PamD: I agree, but someone with a clue about the classics will have fun sorting out the links to the resulting dab. There are 50 incoming links from articles plus another 300 via four templates. They should probably go to new redirects along the lines of Medon, King of Athens. Those mentioning Odysseus are probably about Medon (herald), but the references on Medon suggest that at least three people listed there are {{characters in the Iliad}}. Certes (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the change, but I think it would be better to have only one page for the whole thing. Why 2 pages ? I suggest to revert it. --Io Herodotus (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the entries on the mythology page would fail WP:DABMENTION. In a set index there can be references to support such entries, but not on a disambiguation page. olderwiser 16:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:NCGN[edit]

Hi project.

Let me call your attention to a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Two-part place-dabs.

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer oil[edit]

IEC 60296 will be inhibited and uninhibited transformer oil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.76.25 (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of International Electrotechnical Commission standards mentions IEC 60296, but what is the relevance to disambiguation? Certes (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... I think this relates to DBPC's entry for Butylated hydroxytoluene. Per MOS:DABENTRY, we try to keep such entries concise, leaving full details of the chemical's use for the article itself. Certes (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Lucia and Santa Lucia[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure if this the correct place but I would like to advice about this discussion, about a proprosal of merging to disambiguation pages in Talk:Saint Lucia (disambiguation) MrKeefeJohn (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glass onion[edit]

I'm not part of this WikiProject, but I did create a disambiguation page for Glass onion (disambiguation) given there are three articles referring to that term. Since the upcoming and recently titled Glass Onion film is likely to become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC later this year when it releases, I wanted to get a head start on this, and was wondering if any of these titles, ie Glass Onion (the Beatles song) and Glass onion (the bottles) should be renamed for disambiguation. The film article has 6,809 pageviews, and before the title was announced, the article had already amassed 109,862 pageviews. The Beatles song article has 6,121 pageviews, with a spike of 3,307 from yesterday because readers were looking for the newly titled film. The bottles article has 1,164 pageviews, which again had a spike yesterday, this time of 802. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The song is likely to remain the primary topic. The film is getting more page views right now only because of its recency. I could be wrong, and a few years after the film is released it rises to being more of the typical reader's mind than the song, and if so, a renaming would be appropriate. TJRC (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Glass onion, undoubtedly the primary topic with respect to long-term significance; it differs by the case of one letter (O vs. o), but editors will have varying opinions about how much WP:SMALLDIFFS should matter here. You could always start an RM to see what can come out, but as TJRC points out, it's generally best to wait until the dust has settled on the recently released film. There are precedents for both outcomes with other Beatles songs and films: one RM that didn't succeed at the time of the film's release (but a second attempt several years later did pass), and another that got consensus while the film was still in the news (but it had won a major prize, so that's another thing). – Uanfala (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Films (including Neflix and Amazon and etc originals) are released every day. The film will probably be mostly forgotten in five years. I wish we had a mechanism for pushing a term to primary status for some few years then dropping it back down, but we don't. We look for long-term significance of 10, 20, 50 or more years.
I expect that there's no primary topic here long term, but the Beatles are very very big, the broke up a half century ago and are still a huge deal, and I expect that they will be of popular and scholarly interest 100 years from now to a degree. Much more than say Stravinsky or Coltrane or etc. "Glass Onion" was not a single or an especially good song, but it was on the seminal White Album and does have a lot of insider references. Glass onion bottles look to be pretty obscure and I seriously doubt they will attract as much interest as a Beatles song 20, 50, or 100 years from now.
So if we had to have a primary topic it would be the song I guess. But we shouldn't. Sucks for the people looking for the film, but we don't have a "primary topic for the next 18 months" policy. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1)What makes you think the reader won't be able to find the article for the film? 2)If things were switched around wouldn't it suck for the readers looking for the song? Oh wait - that is what the DAB page is for. MarnetteD|Talk 00:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think we're in agreement -- a search on "glass onion" should take the reader to the disambig page. There isn't a primary target (long-term) IMO. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all terms have a primary topic. In particular, if one topic is primary with respect to usage but another is primary with respect to long-term significance, we may be able to serve our readers best by putting the dab at the base name. Views for Glass Onion just rose from a steady average of under 100 per day to 3,307. Either there's a huge surge of interest in the Beatles, or 97% of visitors to that page were looking for something else. Certes (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The movie. Let's agree to check back in 2027 or 2032 and see what is going on then. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]