Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disambiguation page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Cyberpunk RPG

Cyberpunk (role-playing game) is a game created in 1998 on which the video game Cyberpunk 2077 is based. GURPS Cyberpunk is a 1990 adaptation of the GURPS RPG system to the cyberpunk genre, noted for its accidental role in the development of computer law. There is a dispute about whether the former article should have a hatnote to the latter. See Talk:Cyberpunk (role-playing game). 2601:642:4F84:1590:1119:A0B1:9F7D:F5D2 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which example to use for "non-encyclopedic uses of a term"

We have an item saying:

Non-encyclopedic uses of a term are irrelevant for primary topic purposes

This sentence used to be followed by:

for instance, Twice is about a Korean pop band, despite the existence of the common English word "twice", as the latter is not a topic suitable for an encyclopedic article.

I removed this after noticing Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 October#Twice was actually closed with No consensus to overturn, defaulting to endorse; closing at this time because the discussion was open for over six weeks, and has now been dormant for a week.

This was now replaced with:

for instance, Inception is about the film, despite the existence of the common English word "inception", as the latter is not a topic suitable for an encyclopedic article.

I think it would be generally less confusing to have an example where a primary topic is not chosen in order to demonstrate this. Perhaps something like "beginning" would be a better example, because there's no primary topic there, as opposed to a soft redirect to wiktionary (or picking any one of those items).

It should also be noted that the status of Inception hasn't been discussed in a long time, and there was a stark difference between Talk:Inception/Archive 1#Requested move in 2010 and Talk:Inception/Archive 3#Requested move in 2011, and possibly a difference now that we have the benefit of hindsight as to why that film should be the primary topic for its title.

TIA. --Joy (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "an example where a primary topic is not chosen" (like beginning) is a good choice. I haven't seen a single person who argues that non-encyclopedic uses of a term should be considered for primary topic purposes advocate for these disambiguation pages to be turned into soft redirects to Wiktionary—they all just say that the word should remain as a disambiguation page, so how exactly would such an example illustrate the point that they are actually irrelevant? Malerisch (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments based on dictionary meanings are implicitly based on WP:DABDICT, and often also WP:DABMENTION. If this example implies that all dictionary meanings are inherently irrelevant, that would mean these guidelines are implicitly contradicting one another. --Joy (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It occured to me to go look for the rationale for this clause in the first place, and I found that this text seems to have been added in July 2024, but I can't find any discussion about it in /Archive 56, so this change doesn't seem to have backing in proper consensus anyway. --Joy (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To explain a bit better - I think the best argument for the movie Inception being the primary topic is just how often it's found in references from other articles as the meaning of the word "Inception", IOW it has already demonstrably overshadowed the generic meaning of the word when used with the first letter uppercased (and because Mediawiki doesn't distinguish first uppercase from first lowercase in navigation, we have to consider them together). In that case, we have no need to advise against the comparison with the dictionary meaning, because the movie already does quite well in that regard, it doesn't need any such procedural help from the guideline.

The guideline should instead try be helpful in cases where it's less obvious whether a comparison with the dictionary meaning is relevant or not. --Joy (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New page type 'Navigation page'

You may be interested in the WikiProject discussion at WT:WikiProject Disambiguation#Navigation pages – creating a new page type. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]