152:
131:
22:
1728:). As for talk pages that also contain other content: there's nothing wrong with the DAB banner being there as well, though its only purpose will be to remind editors that they're not on the talk page of an article. If you believe it adds clutter, feel free to remove it. Of course, if someone tried to create placeholder talk pages for a large number of dab pages (with or without the banners of other projects), that would be disruptive. –
71:
53:
1002:. If you want to challenge the current consensus regarding references on dab pages, that's the place to do it – but as Bkonrad has explained, that consensus is quite firmly established (for good reason, IMO). What I might be willing to support would be the inclusion of a ref or two within an invisible comment (<!-- like this --: -->
1423:: the sentence is made up of two clauses, each of which is headed by a negated predicate. There's nothing wrong with that, even in the eyes of prescriptivists. However, I find the version without negation clearer, but that has to be weighted against its greater length (which matters given the format). –
1088:
I think that a long list of disambiguations (longer than ten entries, say) is difficult to search visually without using the search key (Ctrl + F under
Windows). Is there a rule when it is allowed to order entries or sections on a large disambiguation page? If so, where can I find this rules? If not,
436:
The statement "Don't add entries without a blue link" does not exclude entries that also contain a red link. It only means that each entry should have a blue link. As NapoliRoma suggests, the more problematic statement is the one limiting entries to exactly one link without distinguishing between red
386:
There seems to be two paradoxical sentences in this page. In the part "don't", it is written "Don't add entries without a blue link." It means we cannot add red links at all. On the other hand, the fourth sentence is "Don't add red links that aren't used in any articles." So we can add particular red
979:
Thank you for your answer
Bkonrad. I would need to invest a lot of energy to do that effectively, so I am just stating here my support to whoever will want to persuade the community to make reasonable exceptions to this agreement. Dear whoever, feel free to inform me if and when you raise the issue.
945:
So, when other encyclopedias and books contain several entries on historic persons, a few of which are one or two lines, your suggestion is that these entries should be discarded? I cannot agree to that, no matter how many shortcuts to guidelines you provide. There has to be another solution. If you
605:
No, that is not how consensus is established. Being outweighed may feel like being "barked" at, but it's not. You can dig up reams of reasoned discussion that led to a consensus as well-established as this one. Your particular opinion on this matter has been raised and rejected by the community on a
1473:
The difference between the two versions is 6 words (8 words vs. 14 words). Two of the 14 words in the longer version are the "a" article, so it's really only a 4 word difference. If it's more clear to use 4 additional words, I think it's worth it (of course, the reason it's more clear is that it is
1138:
I think this rule is pretty dumb and stands against everything
Knowledge stands for. Red links are an important feature of Knowledge, and disambiguation of concepts and names is a very important feature in its own right, not only to divert readers to existing articles. Notability is the only thing
1908:
There are clearly concerns that the added guidance does not match consensus. That aside, this page is intended as a concise list. It is not intended to be a rigorous explanation of every nuance. Every word added drives away a potential reader. This point applies also to the subsections below:
2104:
As I have already admitted, this is currently not in the guidelines, so it doesn't belong in this summary. The only question is: would you support adding to the guidelines a statement that if the term being disambiguated is not the linked term, put the link as close to the beginning as possible.
961:
You can create articles or stubs for the entries yourself with appropriate references. Or you can find an article on a topic associated with the person or term and include a mention there with citation. The exclusion of references on disambiguation pages has been the accepted standard since very
1752:
Oh, now I get what you meant. It's the banner of the dab project that's not needed, and as for other wikiprojects it's up to them to decide whether they want to track dab pages. I agree that in the vast majority of cases, that would be a bad idea. But adding relevant content-project banners is
2293:
It's already clear what the editor is being asked to do; this does not make it any clearer. Re the parenthetical, anyone who's reading this footnote has already read that bullet, immediately prior. The only part of this proposal that isn't a net negative to me is the word "also", on which I'm
2071:
I admit: I did not carefully read the guidelines, and the guidelines are completely silent about it. It just seems like a good idea given that the expectation is for the link to appear at the beginning. Therefore, this discussion is more of a survey to see if there would be support to add to
744:
The issues you see may be easily fixed: delete redlinks, add blue links, etc. No reason to proliferate bureaucracy. Also, lots of ugly cleanup templates will disturb the main purpose of disambig pages: ease of navigation. If you don't know how or have no time to fix, please put
2000:
While I don't disagree with the statement, I don't think it is needed on this page which is intended to be a very brief and easily accessible guide. There is little benefit to adding many footnotes to address minutiae that have little direct relevance for this simple summary.
812:
I respectfully disagree. I created DDD with the intention of presenting only the most essential points, to avoid TL;DR syndrome. The full dab guideline is there to cover the less important details. In my experience, non-bulleted lists and entries ending in punctuation are
2037:
The big words at the top of the page already make it clear that disambiguation pages are not encyclopedia articles. Bringing up namespaces and page counts here will only muddy that point. None of that information will help editors know what a dab page should look like.
329:
to the DAB on which you are working? Why would one want to do that? Why add a nonexistent link to a DAB page even though another editor somewhere else has added a nonexisting link on an existing, real page? I am just trying to see the reasoning behind this. Sincerely,
922:
Disambiguation pages are primarily navigational aides for existing content on
Knowledge. Just as Knowledge is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of trivia, disambiguation pages don't direct readers to content that is not covered in an existing articles.
418:...so what may need editing is the sentence: "Put exactly one link in each entry, at or near the start." Strictly speaking, that should be "exactly one blue link." I also think "at or near the start" is incorrect -- especially in the circumstance we're discussing.--
2269:
I don't understand the objection to the addition of the four words ("the proposed red" and "also") to the footnote. I think they add clarity to the footnote. I also don't understand the objection to the parenthetic statement. It helps tie different points together.
1070:
That bizarre sentence might mean something to you, but it means nothing to anyone else. If you want to write an essay on your musings, go right ahead; this information page, however, will continue to reflect the applicable guidelines in clear, common language.
345:
Red links are allowed in articles. No one's come up with a reason to disallow them on disambiguation pages, although we do have more restrictions: the red link has to be used somewhere else first. Do you have a reason why they shouldn't be used here? --
514:
No, disambiguation pages are not to do lists of articles to be created. Unless there is an existing article that contains verifiable information on the topic there is nothing to disambiguate within the context of
Knowledge. If there is an article that
1965:
Whether or no to add a footnote to acknowledge an apparent contradiction in the title statement which states that
Disambiguation pages are not encyclopedic, yet they exist in the article name space. Proposed footnote (whose wording can be altered):
1737:
Thanks, it's more that I think the other four shouldn't be there - the various entries on the page have their own banners on their talks - what's the point of repeating these here? If bigger disam pages took this approach, it would be ridiculous.
859:, then the task would eat me an unfair amount of time that I don't have. So, unfortunately, I don't have the time to clean all the disambiguation pages that I come across. Having quick access to such cleanup tags (templates) might be quite useful.
491:" needs to be changed and offers some possibilites. Often the reader can decide without specific knowledge, which one to pick, because they belong to the same group. If he has come from a Congressman, there is a very good chance, that
471:
Also, no paradoxes should be inferred from the information here. This is a handy dos-and-don'ts list, much abbreviated from the full guidelines. If something appears to be a paradox, we check to see what the actual guidelines say. --
712:
1757:
for example is unusual in having several discussion threads, including an old RM discussion; if a new RM discussion were to be started, you would definitely want this to show up in the article alerts of
Wikiproject Christianity. –
702:
1170:, but I can tell you it has been raised many times before, and the existing consensus has been reconfirmed each time. You can read that guideline and search through its talk page history if you want to understand why that is so. —
692:
286:
has some articles already linked to it? Why? Why should it ever be OK to add a red link to any article, linked or otherwise? What purpose does this admonition serve? When would you want to do this? In confusion, your friend,
606:
reasoned basis many times. You're free to challenge it again if you think you have a strong case, but unless that challenge prevails, you are obligated to follow consensus, whether you like how it was established or not. —
258:
The original version was "Don't add red links that wouldn't make good articles." It was changed last month to "Don’t add red links to articles that aren't already linked from articles" and then the current version.
1385:
1372:
In my opinion, it's perfectly understandable and concise. There's nothing at all grammatically or logically wrong with two negatives in a sentence, half-remembered grammar school admonitions notwithstanding.
388:
2060:
Whether or not to say that in case the link in the entry is not the disambiguation term, put the link as close as possible to the disambiguation term. Proposed footnote (whose wording can be altered):
1413:
851:. About one third of them are Romanian Rivers, so I have to to the same on RO.WP too. Not only that, I have to place a lot of "See also" items for dab pages about words with the same roots, e.g.
242:
Don’t add red links to articles that aren't already linked from articles (click on the "what links here" link under the toolbox on the left hand side to see if any article links to the red link).
2050:
1943:
Thank you for bringing to Talk. As
Bkonrad said, the guide doesn't call for creation of redirects. And I do not agree that concision doesn't apply to footnotes. It applies to the entire page. —
1139:
that should count here, not a strange wish to have less red links. de.wikipedia has no problem with that, and their disambig pages are just as good (and often better) than en.wikipedia's. --
564:
this page, is where consensus on these questions is established, and where it should be challenged if necessary. Two, Bkonrad is right, there is an overwhelming consensus that dab pages are
2014:
I think adding this footnote makes it clear that it is acknowledged that disambiguation pages are not encyclopedic even though they are in the same space as all the encyclopedic articles.
794:), so I don't think that the entries which you removed today should be removed. Also, this is a page for instructing editors to do the basic things of editing a disambiguation page right
527:, that can be included as a blue link in the description for the entry. If there is no existing article that mentions the topic, there is no evidence to support any claim of notability.
520:
492:
1036:
1684:
A) That was a silly thing to put an RfC tag on. B) The entire debate could have been avoided by changing "Don't" to "Avoid". . And doing that now would still be an improvement. —
402:
The first sentence doesn't mean you cannot use red links at all. The guideline is that you can't add a red-linked entry unless there is also a useful blue link within that entry.--
1981:
Not sure why this is controversial. This is intended to reinforce the fact that disambiguation pages are not encyclopedic even though they are counted as articles. Other than the
1063:
821:
think it's appropriate to point to the cleanup tag; this is the only place most editors are likely to come across it, and it would be better for an editor who's not interested in
583:
I feel, the consensus ist established by barking away other opinions. But as long as I can find another article which is linking to the new item everything is ok. Very strange. --
856:
302:
It meant "don't add (to disambiguation pages) red links that link to non-existant articles unless the red link is already linked from an article". I've tried to clarify it. --
2126:
adopted into the guideline, it would not be important enough to mention on this concise summary, which necessarily excludes lots of other recommendations of the full guide. —
903:
What happens if among the entries are descriptions which are valid, but not enough to constitute an article? Should these descriptions stay unreferenced, without verification?
2323:. I find no reference to this guideline on the page. I do recall this guidance in the past, but not sure whether I saw it in formal documentation. ANyone have a real source?
1724:
There's no policy on the matter, but there's general agreement that talk pages only containing the WP DAB banner should not be created (that's documented in the footnotes of
1268:
2172:
When I first read this entry (without the word "existing"), I was a little confused as to "what articles"? Adding the word "existing" seems to add clarity (at least to me).
1955:
678:
I think this page should have a "See also" section filled with the names of templates useful for signaling that a disambiguation page has issues. For example templates like
1640:
181:
1836:
Whether or not to add to the footnote about piping that it's preferable to create a disambiguation redirect over piping. Proposed footnote (whose wording can be altered):
326:
322:
2063:
This is desired, but may not always be applicable. If the link is not the term that is being disambiguated, put the link as close as possible to the disambiguated term.
1654:
1807:
535:
1622:
1604:
1483:
1466:
1449:
1427:
1259:
As per these dos-and-dont's here, editors are not supposed to "include every article containing the title." The template basically guides editors to do just that.
427:
411:
1563:
1537:
1523:
1505:
1223:
612:
592:
578:
1207:
It's not dying by any means, and constantly re-litigating every consensus is a colossal waste of our time, but if that story makes you feel better, that's fine. —
481:
1923:
Conciseness is a great objective, but it should not come at the expense of clarity. For the main text, I am proposing the addition of only one word (see section
1586:
1379:
807:
375:
355:
311:
268:
667:
1718:
1213:
1194:
1176:
989:
974:
939:
462:
445:
1031:
955:
916:
524:
496:
2187:
I've no objection to this, although it smacks of deliberate obtuseness to pretend confusion. What other type of articles could this realistically refer to?
1776:
1762:
1747:
1732:
1148:
1127:
1012:
834:
762:
1308:
1294:
1694:
644:
1167:
1098:
1019:
1077:
879:
392:
339:
296:
252:
1366:
1839:
Piping for reasons other than format is acceptable when the link is not the term being disambiguated. If it's possible to create a disambiguating
738:
778:
right? Although I praise your assumption of good faith, I have doubts about the number of editors that actually read that edit intro. Therefore,
275:
1985:
no other non-encyclopedic entries in the mainspace are included in the article count (note that redirects do not counted in the article count).
798:. Not a page to teach them how to let others fix their mistakes. IMHO, this is not the right place for a link to {{disambiguation-cleanup}}. --
163:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit
2372:
2213:
2195:
2114:
2099:
2029:
2009:
1901:
825:
the cleanup to tag the page, rather than do nothing. DDD applies to all dab edits; it's just as much about cleanup as it is about new entries.
1936:
1892:, I see an example of how a disambiguating redirect is superior to piping. I don't see why not include it in this summary page as a footnote.
1239:
1327:
900:
What happens if the articles are not yet created? How can anyone be sure that the red links are real and not the product of our imagination?
508:
2300:
2226:
2132:
2044:
1875:
does no such thing. It describes some situations where redirects may be appropriate. It does not contain any directive to create redirects.
572:
articles. Familiarize yourself with the guideline before you make any more embarrassing pronouncements about things being "totally wrong". —
487:
This whole thing is totally wrong. Red links in disambiguation pages have a good reason: They show readers, that the link they followed to "
2324:
2232:
1821:
1514:
I think it needs to say "unless used in at least one article". Otherwise, the plural could be interpreted to mean "more than one article".
1399:
1390:
Requesting additional comments since the above discussion failed to attract attention from anybody other than the two editors in conflict.
1354:
1185:
No wonder
Knowledge is slowly dying. Silly conservatism, no embracing of "doing the right thing" and "WP:Be Bold" to be found anywhere. --
451:
1700:
1528:"...unless used in an article"? That could be interpreted to exclude links found in multiple articles, but only by the wilfully obtuse.
1164:
1. You are raising this in the wrong place. Please read the edit notice that appeared at the top of the window when you edited this page.
283:
279:
1049:
illustration of two kids sledding off a hillside ramp they have built out of snow. Or on the other hand, perhaps a better metaphor is a
396:
1918:
1104:
I recommended the editor to check in with the project due to mass sorting dabs alphabetically (both sections and entries in sections).
2358:
2122:– this discussion should happen on the talk page of the guideline itself, not here. But I will say that even if such a recommendation
891:
218:
2389:
2287:
2181:
2142:
2085:
1994:
1949:
1395:
97:
2200:
To me it was confusing (I clearly wrote that I was wondering "what articles" without the word "existing"). I don't know why you are
1576:
I can live with "unless used in articles". "At least one" isn't needed to get the point across - everyone needs to remember this is
2332:
2076:
a statement that if the link is not the term being disambiguated, put the link as close as possible to the beginning of the entry.
1803:
1690:
722:
1705:
I thought that, apart from one for this project, disam talks should not have project banners, but I can't see a policy saying so.
2066:
1042:
454:
that introduced the statement that is inconsistent with guidelines and practice. I am going to re-instate the previous language.
1003:), which you can probably get away with already. But as Bkonrad pointed out, if you have refs, you might as well start a stub.
1645:
I think it isn't a double negative and would support either the current version or the "...unless used in an article" version.
1357:
with the phrasing "Don't include red links not used in articles" is a good wording? In my opinion, it is absolutely horrible.
791:
2404:
2399:
1636:
1595:' suggestion of "...unless used in an article" is clear and concise. I prefer it to both of the originally proposed options.
622:
208:
1883:
998:
This is the wrong place to raise your concern; as the header states, this page is merely a summary of the formal guideline,
2364:
1083:
93:
78:
58:
1667:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1347:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
718:(I guess such templates exist but I don't know where to find them or I don't have the time to search for them) and so on.
1725:
1673:
840:
1976:
1133:
2344:
Rarely should a bulleted entry have more than one navigable link; including more than one link can confuse the reader.
1826:
1299:
Thanks for pointing that out. I was trying to summarize, but I see what you mean about being neutral in the notice.
1782:
673:
88:
1927:). For all other issues, the added text is for footnotes, and footnotes do not need to be as concise as possible.
2394:
1474:
free of the double negative, so the reader does not have to parse out the sentence to figure out what it means).
2055:
1324:
The consensus is to use a third wording proposed by Certes: "Don't include red links unless used in an article."
817:
significant problems on dab pages, certainly not relative to the other points listed here. On the other hand, I
907:
Because of these reasons, I believe that we should rephrase it to «Don't include references for blue links». --
844:
552:
Two things. One, as I've pointed out to several people on this talk, and as the header makes clear, this is an
2339:
963:
235:
33:
1786:
1754:
1706:
863:
775:
588:
504:
168:
1969:
Although not considered to be encyclopedic, disambiguation pages, by virtue of being located within the
1115:. I suggest the mass sorted dabs are reviewed and if undesirable undone before subsequent edits happen.
1045:; it might even be an ideal wording. My first thot was accompanying it by a photo of a ski jumper, or a
946:
want to name these pages something else than disambiguation, then so be it. I am open to suggestions. --
896:
It is quite reasonable to expect that references are included inside the disambiguated articles....but:
2264:
1960:
848:
2283:
2275:
2209:
2177:
2110:
2081:
2019:
1990:
1932:
1897:
1864:
1632:
1559:
1519:
1479:
1445:
1409:
1362:
749:
1781:
And some projects just track particular DAB pages that relate to major topics in their scope; e.g.,
1109:
2368:
2167:
1790:
1246:
1228:
83:
1798:
1794:
1685:
1459:
1316:
1190:
1144:
632:
628:
2306:
1650:
1043:
what i fantasize might inspire inexperienced Dab editors to finish every Dab edit by tersifying
682:
584:
547:
500:
164:
159:
136:
962:
early in the project. If you wanted to change that standard, you'd need to raise the topic at
2220:
I fail to see any possibility of confusion. There can't be links on pages that don't exist. —
1398:) in order to save a few words? or should it use verbiage that is free of a double negative (
335:
318:
292:
248:
39:
2279:
2271:
2250:
2205:
2173:
2106:
2077:
2025:
2015:
1986:
1928:
1893:
1860:
1628:
1555:
1515:
1475:
1441:
1405:
1358:
1027:
985:
951:
924:
912:
803:
663:
516:
423:
407:
627:"Keep subjective adjectives to an absolute minimum" perhaps? I don't have a problem with
8:
1970:
1304:
1264:
756:
553:
2201:
2073:
1846:
1840:
1618:
1600:
1186:
1159:
1140:
640:
477:
371:
363:
351:
307:
264:
2355:
2237:
2192:
2096:
2006:
1880:
1772:
1759:
1743:
1729:
1714:
1646:
1463:
1424:
1285:
1253:
1123:
1112:
1094:
971:
936:
843:
if they exist and if they are complete. If they don't exist, I have to create them -
532:
459:
442:
1089:
is the only rule that the way they are saved first is per definition the best way?--
855:, on both Wikipedias. If I start to also cleanup the dab pages created by others or
755:
at the bottom, and people from WikiProject
Disambiguation will fix it. -M.Altenmann
721:
So it will be easy for the editors to find those useful templates, since this page (
2347:
1914:
1533:
1501:
1331:
1105:
790:
is also widely used in edit summaries when cleaning up a disambiguation page (e.g.
331:
288:
244:
2147:
2328:
2119:
1547:
1420:
1060:
1046:
1023:
981:
947:
928:
908:
875:
799:
734:
659:
419:
403:
381:
1973:, are included in Knowledge's article count (currently standing at 6,885,295).
1554:. In my opinion, the additional 3 words are well worth the additional clarity.
1300:
1279:
1260:
2383:
2320:
1856:
1614:
1596:
1050:
795:
787:
636:
568:
repositories of nonexistent articles. They exist solely to aid navigation to
495:
is the right one, if he comes from running at Olympic games, it might be the
473:
367:
347:
303:
260:
176:
2351:
2188:
2092:
2002:
1889:
1876:
1872:
1852:
1768:
1739:
1710:
1542:
And when you're dealing with policies, you don't want ambiguities. I think
1118:
1090:
967:
932:
655:
528:
455:
438:
1910:
1592:
1529:
1497:
1288:- it's fine to highlight a discussion, but please keep notices neutral. —
966:
rather than here on the talk page of an abbreviated precis of that page.
852:
151:
130:
317:
If there is an existing page somewhere in Knowledge — say, for example,
2091:
Again, this is getting pretty deep into the weeds on a simple summary.
1056:
867:
769:
726:
488:
171:
and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the
2242:
Whether or not to add the following bold faced words to the footnote:
1831:
1613:
a policy page, nor even a guideline page, but an information page. --
2295:
2221:
2160:
2127:
2039:
1982:
1944:
1581:
1374:
1289:
1208:
1171:
1072:
1007:
829:
781:
607:
573:
499:. In that way future articles get there incoming links beforehand. --
172:
2152:
Whether or not to add the word "existing" to the entry to read as
1753:
actually good for dab pages that stir up any sort of controversy:
1108:
has general guidance on this. Additional issues being edits like
1053:
booth, where effort and delay are as close to zero as imaginable.
999:
1386:
RfC: Should the policy page use a double negative to save words?
1284:
Merits of that discussion aside, your notice here is skirting
1240:
Template_talk:One_other_topic#Encourages_partial_title_matches
866:
page (pointing to this guide too) is a breath of fresh air! —
560:
consensus established at the cited guideline. That guideline,
2249:
link is used in existing articles, click it, then click the "
70:
52:
1166:
2. You're welcome to raise the matter at the right place,
725:) is linked every time one edits a disambiguation page. —
240:
I can't figure this out. Can it be phrased more simply?
847:. If they are not complete, I have to add more items -
1111:
where there's non-allowed piping, and the entry fails
96:, where you can join the project or contribute to the
1041:
That section title is my first cut at encapsulating
1851:Not sure why this is controversial. The example in
1168:
Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages
274:Then it is OK to add a red link (say, for example,
1627:Support Certes' "...unless used in an article". ─
1394:Should the policy page contain a double negative (
2346:It is covered in a bit more detail in the MOS at
857:inter-relate the rivers, brooks, creeks and lakes
86:pages on Knowledge. If you wish to help, you can
2381:
1855:shows that it's preferable to have the redirect
713:dab page containing references or external links
2051:Link as close as possible to beginning of entry
1709:has 5 banners, including yours. Is this right?
1494:Don't include red links unless used in articles
1353:Does anybody think the double negative used in
1037:"Dab pages should be ridden and not remembered"
703:dab page containing red link not used elsewhere
1438:"Don't include red links not used in articles"
635:, but much beyond that just leads to tears. -
1022:, where I hope that you will both comment. --
693:dab page containing entries without blue link
1674:
180:
82:, an attempt to structure and organize all
1822:A dozen different edits reverted en masse
92:attached to this talk page, or visit the
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
2257:include a blue link mentioning the term
1546:is only 3 words longer than the present
1462:, though your terminology might vary. –
366:(read the intro for an overview). :) --
841:about two thousand disambiguation pages
723:Knowledge:Disambiguation dos and don'ts
2382:
2253:" tool. An entry with a red link must
1924:
1785:has a keener than average interest in
1018:Fair enough, I have raised my concern
2340:Knowledge:Disambiguation § Page style
1956:Disambiguation pages in the mainspace
862:By the way, the recent change of the
187:and a volunteer will visit you there.
157:This page is within the scope of the
2259:(see first item in the "don't" list)
1341:The following discussion is closed.
106:Knowledge:WikiProject Disambiguation
21:
19:
15:
1726:Template:WikiProject Disambiguation
1701:Project banners on disam talk pages
1544:unless used in at least one article
109:Template:WikiProject Disambiguation
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
2164:unless used in existing articles.
14:
2416:
1663:The discussion above is closed.
1334:) 01:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
76:This page is within the scope of
2390:WikiProject Disambiguation pages
2278:) 21:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
1492:How about a compromise version:
521:John Smith (american politician)
493:John Smith (american politician)
150:
129:
69:
51:
20:
892:Don't include references ? !!!!
650:That would seem to fall under "
196:Template:Knowledge Help Project
654:". Maybe that should link to
321:— and that page has a link to
183:ask for help on your talk page
1:
2301:17:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2288:21:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
2227:17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2214:23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
2196:22:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
2182:21:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
2133:17:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2115:23:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
2100:22:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
2086:21:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
2045:17:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2030:23:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
2010:22:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
1995:21:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
1950:17:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
1937:23:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
1919:22:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
1902:23:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
1884:22:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
1419:This is not an instance of a
1128:15:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
1099:14:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
1032:16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
1013:15:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
990:19:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
975:19:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
964:Knowledge talk:Disambiguation
956:17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
940:22:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
931:provide relevant guidelines.
917:22:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
880:10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
835:20:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
808:19:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
763:15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
739:14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
623:Something to the effect of...
2405:Knowledge Help Project pages
2400:Mid-importance Help articles
2359:15:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
2333:15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
1808:11:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
1695:11:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
1309:21:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1295:19:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1269:16:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1084:Sorting entries and sections
1078:14:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
1064:20:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
839:I am in process of checking
213:This page has been rated as
7:
2373:00:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1787:Eight-ball (disambiguation)
1777:13:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
1763:13:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
1755:Talk:Patriarch of Jerusalem
1748:12:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
1733:12:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
1719:12:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
1707:Talk:Patriarch of Jerusalem
1655:12:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
1641:14:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
1623:14:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
864:Template:Disambig editintro
776:Template:Disambig editintro
613:15:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
593:14:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
579:13:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
536:23:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
509:22:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
376:19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
356:17:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
340:17:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
312:16:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
297:16:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
269:04:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
253:04:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
10:
2421:
2319:in an entry, and links to
1605:16:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
1587:18:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
1564:01:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
1538:00:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
1524:00:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
1252:template which encourages
1242:about the guidance in the
1238:Please join discussion at
1134:No lines without red links
387:links. Isn't it a paradox?
327:Flibbygibby (architecture)
323:Flibbygibby (architecture)
219:project's importance scale
79:WikiProject Disambiguation
2338:It is covered briefly at
2315:side includes do not use
1783:WP:WikiProject Cue sports
1609:Please note that this is
1506:23:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
1484:22:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
1467:22:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
1450:22:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
1428:21:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
1414:21:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
1380:00:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1367:19:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1355:this revision of the page
1214:17:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
1195:14:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
1177:13:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
482:15:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
463:15:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
446:15:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
428:13:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
412:13:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
397:09:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
212:
167:, where you can join the
145:
64:
46:
1909:let's keep it brief.
1791:Hustler (disambiguation)
1665:Please do not modify it.
1344:Please do not modify it.
1149:00:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
674:List of useful templates
1795:Hustle (disambiguation)
1580:the guideline itself. —
1460:reduced relative clause
668:18:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
652:Keep descriptions short
645:23:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
325:, then it is OK to add
112:Disambiguation articles
2395:NA-Class Help articles
1675:
1336:
193:Knowledge:Help Project
160:Knowledge Help Project
1322:
774:You're talking about
319:Inglewood, California
2233:Red Links (footnote)
1552:not used in articles
1456:not used in articles
1440:is a single clause.
1254:partial name matches
1224:Bad guidance in the
236:What does this mean?
2317:multiple blue links
2307:Multiple blue links
631:being described as
525:John Smith (Runner)
497:John Smith (Runner)
2202:assuming bad faith
2074:MOS:DISAMBIGUATION
1925:#Red Links (entry)
1799:AReaderOutThataway
1686:AReaderOutThataway
1400:as in this version
1396:as in this version
362:Specifically, see
34:content assessment
2143:Red Links (entry)
2032:
1277:
1157:
585:Eingangskontrolle
548:Eingangskontrolle
545:
501:Eingangskontrolle
233:
232:
229:
228:
225:
224:
124:
123:
120:
119:
2412:
2247:the proposed red
2023:
1678:
1346:
1283:
1275:
1251:
1245:
1233:
1227:
1163:
1155:
1126:
1121:
871:
785:
773:
754:
750:disambig-cleanup
748:
730:
717:
711:
707:
701:
697:
691:
687:
681:
554:information page
551:
543:
201:
200:
197:
194:
191:
186:
165:the project page
154:
147:
146:
141:
133:
126:
125:
114:
113:
110:
107:
104:
91:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
47:
25:
24:
23:
16:
2420:
2419:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2380:
2379:
2309:
2267:
2262:
2251:What links here
2240:
2235:
2170:
2165:
2150:
2145:
2069:
2064:
2058:
2053:
1979:
1974:
1963:
1958:
1849:
1844:
1834:
1829:
1824:
1806:
1703:
1693:
1681:
1671:
1629:ReconditeRodent
1556:Banana Republic
1548:double negative
1516:Banana Republic
1476:Banana Republic
1442:Banana Republic
1421:double negative
1406:Banana Republic
1388:
1359:Banana Republic
1342:
1337:
1319:
1317:Double negative
1274:
1249:
1247:One other topic
1243:
1236:
1231:
1229:One other topic
1225:
1154:
1136:
1117:
1116:
1086:
1047:Norman Rockwell
1039:
894:
869:
779:
767:
752:
746:
728:
715:
709:
705:
699:
695:
689:
685:
679:
676:
625:
542:
437:or blue links.
384:
238:
198:
195:
192:
189:
188:
139:
111:
108:
105:
102:
101:
87:
12:
11:
5:
2418:
2408:
2407:
2402:
2397:
2392:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2365:117.20.113.184
2308:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2280:Where is Matt?
2272:Where is Matt?
2266:
2263:
2244:
2239:
2236:
2234:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2206:Where is Matt?
2174:Where is Matt?
2169:
2166:
2154:
2149:
2146:
2144:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2107:Where is Matt?
2078:Where is Matt?
2068:
2065:
2062:
2057:
2054:
2052:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2028:comment added
2016:Where is Matt?
1987:Where is Matt?
1978:
1975:
1971:main namespace
1968:
1962:
1959:
1957:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1929:Where is Matt?
1906:
1905:
1904:
1894:Where is Matt?
1861:Where is Matt?
1848:
1845:
1838:
1833:
1830:
1828:
1825:
1823:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1802:
1760:Uanfala (talk)
1730:Uanfala (talk)
1702:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1689:
1680:
1672:
1670:
1669:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1643:
1625:
1607:
1589:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1509:
1508:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1464:Uanfala (talk)
1431:
1430:
1425:Uanfala (talk)
1392:The issue is:
1391:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1321:
1320:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1235:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1180:
1179:
1165:
1135:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1085:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1066:
1054:
1038:
1035:
1016:
1015:
995:
994:
993:
992:
943:
942:
905:
904:
901:
893:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
860:
675:
672:
671:
670:
624:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
598:
597:
596:
595:
539:
538:
485:
484:
468:
467:
466:
465:
448:
431:
430:
415:
414:
383:
380:
379:
378:
359:
358:
315:
314:
272:
271:
237:
234:
231:
230:
227:
226:
223:
222:
215:Mid-importance
211:
205:
204:
202:
190:Knowledge Help
177:Help Directory
155:
143:
142:
140:Mid‑importance
137:Knowledge Help
134:
122:
121:
118:
117:
115:
103:Disambiguation
84:disambiguation
74:
62:
61:
59:Disambiguation
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2417:
2406:
2403:
2401:
2398:
2396:
2393:
2391:
2388:
2387:
2385:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2302:
2299:
2298:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2285:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2243:
2228:
2225:
2224:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2163:
2162:
2157:
2153:
2134:
2131:
2130:
2125:
2121:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2061:
2046:
2043:
2042:
2036:
2031:
2027:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2008:
2004:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1972:
1967:
1951:
1948:
1947:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1866:
1862:
1859:over piping.
1858:
1857:Eon (geology)
1854:
1842:
1837:
1809:
1805:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1761:
1756:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1696:
1692:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1677:
1668:
1666:
1661:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1588:
1585:
1584:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1490:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1454:I would call
1453:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1436:You lost me.
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1401:
1397:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1348:
1345:
1339:
1338:
1335:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1293:
1292:
1287:
1281:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1255:
1248:
1241:
1230:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1187:Anvilaquarius
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1169:
1161:
1160:Anvilaquarius
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1141:Anvilaquarius
1129:
1125:
1120:
1114:
1110:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1052:
1051:teleportation
1048:
1044:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1001:
997:
996:
991:
987:
983:
978:
977:
976:
973:
969:
965:
960:
959:
958:
957:
953:
949:
941:
938:
934:
930:
926:
925:WP:DABMENTION
921:
920:
919:
918:
914:
910:
902:
899:
898:
897:
881:
877:
873:
872:
865:
861:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
837:
836:
833:
832:
831:
824:
820:
816:
811:
810:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
786:the shortcut
783:
777:
771:
766:
765:
764:
761:
760:
751:
743:
742:
741:
740:
736:
732:
731:
724:
719:
714:
704:
694:
684:
683:Only-two-dabs
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
614:
611:
610:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
594:
590:
586:
582:
581:
580:
577:
576:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
549:
541:
540:
537:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
513:
512:
511:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
483:
479:
475:
470:
469:
464:
461:
457:
453:
449:
447:
444:
440:
435:
434:
433:
432:
429:
425:
421:
417:
416:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
389:Ali Pirhayati
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
360:
357:
353:
349:
344:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
328:
324:
320:
313:
309:
305:
301:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
285:
281:
278:) to article
277:
276:Wurtlespurtle
270:
266:
262:
257:
256:
255:
254:
250:
246:
243:
220:
216:
210:
207:
206:
203:
199:Help articles
185:
184:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
161:
156:
153:
149:
148:
144:
138:
135:
132:
128:
127:
116:
99:
95:
90:
89:edit the page
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
2343:
2316:
2312:
2310:
2296:
2268:
2258:
2254:
2246:
2241:
2222:
2171:
2159:
2155:
2151:
2128:
2123:
2070:
2059:
2040:
2024:— Preceding
1980:
1964:
1945:
1890:MOS:DABREDIR
1888:When I read
1873:MOS:DABREDIR
1853:MOS:DABREDIR
1850:
1835:
1767:Ok, thanks!
1704:
1664:
1662:
1647:StudiesWorld
1610:
1582:
1577:
1551:
1550:phrasing of
1543:
1493:
1455:
1437:
1393:
1389:
1375:
1352:
1343:
1340:
1326:
1323:
1290:
1258:
1237:
1209:
1172:
1137:
1087:
1073:
1040:
1017:
1005:
1004:
944:
906:
895:
868:
827:
826:
822:
818:
814:
758:
727:
720:
677:
656:MOS:DABENTRY
651:
626:
608:
574:
569:
565:
561:
557:
556:: it merely
486:
385:
316:
273:
241:
239:
214:
182:
158:
94:project page
77:
40:WikiProjects
30:project page
29:
1843:, do that.
853:Corni River
364:WP:REDLINKS
332:GeorgeLouis
289:GeorgeLouis
245:GeorgeLouis
2384:Categories
2294:neutral. —
2265:Discussion
2245:To see if
2168:Discussion
2067:Discussion
1977:Discussion
1847:Discussion
1679:commentary
1286:WP:APPNOTE
1113:WP:DABACRO
1024:FocalPoint
982:FocalPoint
948:FocalPoint
909:FocalPoint
800:LittleWink
796:themselves
660:NapoliRoma
489:John Smith
420:NapoliRoma
404:NapoliRoma
169:discussion
98:discussion
2348:WP:DABONE
2238:At issue:
2161:red links
2148:At issue:
2056:At issue:
1983:Main page
1961:At issue:
1832:At issue:
1827:redirects
1301:Coastside
1280:Coastside
1261:Coastside
1106:WP:MOSDAB
792:by Boleyn
452:this edit
284:Flibbygib
282:provided
280:Flibbygib
173:Help Menu
2158:include
2120:WP:VENUE
1841:redirect
1676:Post-hoc
1637:contribs
1615:JHunterJ
1597:Ajpolino
1591:I think
1234:template
929:WP:DABRL
637:Richfife
570:existing
558:reflects
517:mentions
474:JHunterJ
368:Quiddity
348:JHunterJ
304:JHunterJ
261:Station1
2026:undated
1769:Johnbod
1740:Johnbod
1711:Johnbod
1278:editor
1158:editor
1119:Widefox
1091:Sae1962
1000:MOS:DAB
849:example
845:example
546:editor
519:either
450:It was
382:Paradox
217:on the
2321:WP:DAB
1911:Certes
1793:, and
1593:Certes
1530:Certes
1498:Certes
1328:Cunard
870:Ark25
788:WP:DDD
729:Ark25
633:famous
629:Mozart
36:scale.
2356:wiser
2352:older
2325:Dovid
2313:don't
2193:wiser
2189:older
2156:Don't
2097:wiser
2093:older
2007:wiser
2003:older
1881:wiser
1877:older
1797:. —
1057:Jerzy
1020:there
972:wiser
968:older
937:wiser
933:older
823:doing
770:Ark25
757:: -->
533:wiser
529:older
460:wiser
456:older
443:wiser
439:older
179:. Or
28:This
2369:talk
2329:talk
2311:The
2297:swpb
2284:talk
2276:talk
2255:also
2223:swpb
2210:talk
2178:talk
2129:swpb
2111:talk
2082:talk
2041:swpb
2020:talk
1991:talk
1946:swpb
1933:talk
1915:talk
1898:talk
1871:No,
1865:talk
1773:talk
1744:talk
1715:talk
1651:talk
1633:talk
1619:talk
1601:talk
1583:swpb
1560:talk
1534:talk
1520:talk
1502:talk
1480:talk
1446:talk
1410:talk
1376:swpb
1363:talk
1332:talk
1305:talk
1291:swpb
1265:talk
1210:swpb
1191:talk
1173:swpb
1145:talk
1124:talk
1095:talk
1074:swpb
1028:talk
1008:Swpb
986:talk
952:talk
927:and
913:talk
876:talk
830:Swpb
804:talk
782:Swpb
735:talk
664:talk
658:? --
641:talk
609:swpb
589:talk
575:swpb
505:talk
478:talk
424:talk
408:talk
393:talk
372:talk
352:talk
336:talk
308:talk
293:talk
265:talk
249:talk
2022:)
1611:not
1578:not
815:not
708:or
566:not
562:not
523:or
209:Mid
175:or
2386::
2371:)
2363:@
2354:≠
2350:.
2342::
2331:)
2286:)
2261:.
2212:)
2204:.
2191:≠
2180:)
2124:is
2113:)
2095:≠
2084:)
2005:≠
1993:)
1935:)
1917:)
1900:)
1879:≠
1867:)
1789:,
1775:)
1746:)
1717:)
1653:)
1639:»
1635:·
1631:«
1621:)
1603:)
1562:)
1536:)
1522:)
1504:)
1496:?
1482:)
1458:a
1448:)
1412:)
1404:?
1365:)
1307:)
1276:To
1267:)
1256:.
1250:}}
1244:{{
1232:}}
1226:{{
1193:)
1156:To
1147:)
1122:;
1097:)
1055:--
1030:)
988:)
980:--
970:≠
954:)
935:≠
915:)
878:)
819:do
806:)
753:}}
747:{{
737:)
716:}}
710:{{
706:}}
700:{{
698:,
696:}}
690:{{
688:,
686:}}
680:{{
666:)
643:)
591:)
544:To
531:≠
507:)
480:)
458:≠
441:≠
426:)
410:)
395:)
374:)
354:)
338:)
310:)
295:)
267:)
251:)
2367:(
2327:(
2282:(
2274:(
2208:(
2176:(
2109:(
2080:(
2038:—
2018:(
1989:(
1931:(
1913:(
1896:(
1863:(
1804:c
1801:/
1771:(
1742:(
1713:(
1691:c
1688:/
1649:(
1617:(
1599:(
1558:(
1532:(
1518:(
1500:(
1478:(
1444:(
1408:(
1402:)
1373:—
1361:(
1330:(
1303:(
1282::
1263:(
1189:(
1162::
1143:(
1093:(
1071:—
1061:t
1059:•
1026:(
1006:—
984:(
950:(
911:(
874:(
828:—
802:(
784::
780:@
772::
768:@
759:t
733:(
662:(
639:(
587:(
550::
503:(
476:(
422:(
406:(
391:(
370:(
350:(
334:(
306:(
291:(
263:(
247:(
221:.
100:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
