Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages

The disambiguation page Pinkwashing has no primary topic. The intro line in that page has 4 blue links. In my opinion, they are all useful. I tried to codify that case into the MOS, to make those links more than just WP:IAR. However, my effort was reverted. In a discussion on the reverting editor's talk page, they eventually said that they do not believe the intro line at Pinkwashing is correct, but don't want to fix it.
So the questions are:

1. Is it proper to have 4 blue links in the intro line at Pinkwashing?
2. If so, should we codify it into the MOS, or just keep it as WP:IAR?

Green Montanan (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Other editor here. I didn't want to get into a debate about a page I don't care about, but now that I have: The introductory line in Pinkwashing is non-standard, and everything except "Pinkwashing may refer to:" should be removed. DAB pages are for navigating and shouldn't include article content. Danbloch (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you mean "informational content" since there is no article from which to pull "article content".

Be that as it may, although all the examples at MOS:DABINTRO show very short intro lines w/o adding any additional information, the section doesn't say that the intro line cannot have any informational content. Green Montanan (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you are using the intro line to define a common meaning before more specialized ones. You might as well just reformat it to be straightforward, skip the obvious parts and links, and simply say:

Pinkwashing is a portmanteau word that may refer to:

• Any cause marketing related to femininity
• Pinkwashing (breast cancer), [...caption...]
• Pinkwashing (LGBTQ), [...caption...]

--Joy (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Although your proposal sounds good, the problem is that the cause marketing article does not currently mention the word pinkwashing. Therefore, unless or until the article mentions the word, I don't think it would be a valid dabs entry. Green Montanan (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

So, then just find a source that says this and edit the article first, and then you have a valid mention? --Joy (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

There's no point at all to linking to any of the four words. I think simply "Pinkwashing may refer to:" is sufficient. There is a link to wiktionary if anyone is interested in the definitions and derivation. older ≠ wiser 03:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The intro shouldn't include any unsourced statement. Where there isn't a primary topic, just "Pinkwashing may refer to:".

Possibly "Pinkwashing" should be added alongside "Bluewashing" in Greenwashing#Related terms, and Greenwashing included here as a "See also"? PamD 08:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I have a similar query below. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 23:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The guideline says that introductory lines should be simple, such as:

Term may refer to:

However, I have come across some disambiguation pages that add extra text. For example, an old version of Pac-Man 2 says:

Pac-Man 2 can refer to either one of four games:

Is this largely an MOS:DABI thing, or is there another guideline that actually allows this? Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 22:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It's redundant and will often become wrong. People adding entries to, or removing them from, a dab page aren't going to look at the intro to see if a number is there that needs to be augmented or reduced, and from then on the number will be wrong. Readers, furthermore, don't have any need to be told in advance how many items are on the list. In addition, there's nothing about this particular dab page that might lead one to think an exception is called for. Finally, the guidelines aside, "either one of four games" is bad English. Just remove it. Largoplazo (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done with that. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 00:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

When we talk about a "primary topic", what is meant by "topic"? Is it simply the subject of one article? Do article and topic always have a one-to-one relationship in this context? If so, isn't that a different kind of "topic" to the one at Wikipedia:Featured topics, which is a group of inter-related articles? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

For disambiguation, articles and topics do not necessarily have a one-to-one relationship, although this is frequently true. The language in the page is deliberately phrased to use "topics" rather than "articles" there are many cases where a topic that readers may be looking for does not have a stand-alone article. Sometimes the topic is treated in detail as a subsection of another article, or it may be an entity closely related to another and is not independently notable. I'm not at all familiar with Wikipedia:Featured topics (I wasn't even aware of its existence, to be honest), but it appears the term is used in a broader sense than it is at WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. older ≠ wiser 18:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

All true, but shorter answers: yes; that would be true in the great majority of cases; yes. With hindsight, "topic" might not have been the best word to use. "Subject" would work I think. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

After a brief perusal, I think 'topics' as used in Wikipedia:Featured topics is a bit unclear. I think it would be clearer to describe that usage as "topic areas". A topic is customarily a singular thing (although it may be expansive). I find it a little odd to try to shoehorn a group of related topics together as a singular "topic". older ≠ wiser 19:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responses. I also just noticed that the WP:TOPIC shortcut is actually a third use ("stay on topic") that doesn't handle either of the above uses, so have noted it at Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles#WP:TOPIC. --Jameboy (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

While MOS:TIES and WP:RETAIN are applicable for articles, it isn't clear whether or how these should apply to disambiguation pages. This question arose as I noticed Rasptae updating various disambiguation pages to change organisation to organization. As a USian, I've gotten used to seeing commonwealth English 'misspellings' and don't generally give them a second thought. But seeing these edits made me wonder. On the one hand, I can see a case for consistency, that a single dab page should use a consistency variety of English. But then, there are article titles which incorporate the variety of English into the title, so a simple consistency would not always be 100% possible (at least not without resorting to using redirects). And then there is a case for retaining the spelling for individual entries based on how the article is written. For example, should the dab description for Asian Music Circle be written as organisation as in the article or as organization to have consistent presentation on the dab page (see this edit to AMC). older ≠ wiser 10:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN is clear: "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another." Any such edits should be reverted. 162 etc. (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Except disambiguation pages are not articles. older ≠ wiser 17:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. 162 etc. (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Bkonrad for addressing that issue

As MOS:ARTCON states, "The conventions of a particular variety of Standard English should be followed consistently within a given article." But it has already been noticed that disambiguation pages are not encyclopedia articles. It is not feasible to stick to the same editing style since these pages contain various entries combining different national varieties.

Therefore, it is fair to say that individual entries on disambiguation pages should be treated as quotations.

Per MOS:RETAINQUOTEVARIETY, "For example, a quotation from a British source should retain British spelling, even in an article that otherwise uses American spelling."

Thus, I suggest using a particular variety of Standard English, which suits each individual entry, when compiling a disambiguation page.

Speaking of the aforementioned AMC, the national varieties involve differences in both spelling and vocabulary. On one hand, AMC Theatres is described as an American "movie theater" chain. On the other, Australian Multiplex Cinemas as an Australian "cinema" chain.

It is reasonable to match each individual entry with its encyclopedia article in terms of the national variety and editing style. Rasptae (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me at first glance. But does that mean you should not have edited the entries on AMC to use a uniform English variety? older ≠ wiser 22:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, I had never given that issue an afterthought either before you raised this question. Despite being a nonnative English speaker, I have gotten used to the American spelling and vocabulary.

Thus, I have just been editing most of the pages respectively. But you made wonder about it a bit.

Therefore, I think we need to single out each individual entry from now on. Rasptae (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Recently, I have been trying to add songs that do not have article but with the album having an article to disambiguation pages. There doesn't seem to be a set way to format these pages other than linking only the album if available. Descriptions of other types of entries also show to be inconsistent, but for the purpose of this question, only songs that don't have an article but are mentioned in an article about their albums are considered. Possible formats from 15 separate disambiguation pages are shown below:

What is for sure is that only the album is linked. Basically, there are three questions.

1. Should the year be included?
2. What words are needed to describe the song?
3. What should be the order of the song details be?

Currently, there is no exact standard on these song descriptions, so when I search and add songs to disambiguation pages, I usually search for a different disambiguation page first to format the entries, but since the entries have different formats across disambiguation pages, it is unclear which formatting is best.

I'm not sure if this is the best place to get an answer either. Since WP:SONGDAB redirects to a section in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), that place may have better answers, but the section talks about disambiguating article titles, not descriptions in disambiguation pages, and those descriptions brought me here. Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, MOS:DABBLUE has an example of a blue-linked song, but doesn't list a year. It's not clear why linking to an album instead would necessarily require a year; it's not in the song example at MOS:DABPIPING. Perhaps a year is useful, regardless if the song or album is linked, if there's multiple song entries and the year is helpful for disambiguation. —Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

My preference would be option A in standalone sections for songs (i.e., repeating 'song' or ' a song' in a section consisting exclusively of songs is unnecessarily redundant). In mixed sections, I'd go with option F. The year is not absolutely needed, but is so common that it seems easier to default to including it (rational, while year might not be needed if the reader knows the artist responsible for the song they are looking for, the year may be helpful to narrow down the era in cases where the artist is not known (or has been recorded by several artists). older ≠ wiser 12:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not sure if this is part of why you're asking, but there may also be some differences based on whether there is a article for the song. In most cases, where there is an article for the song, the descriptions would not generally include the album name and if the artist name is included in the disambiguated title, there's no need to repeat that. And there may also be minor issue in cases of non-album singles where the song is only mentioned directly on the artist's article or a discography article. So sometimes the entry might be "<Song>", by <Artist>, <Year>. older ≠ wiser 12:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Include the year for sure, include the word "song" for sure, and it doesn't hurt to include the word "album" when relevant too (although this can be more reasonable to drop). Year is a very common and very helpful thing to include on disambig entries in general (e.g. other media like film / books, people's birth dates, etc.). I am very much on the "disambig entries should be concise but not Perl golf" side. If something is repetitive because 5 songs are listed in a row, good. The point of a disambig page is to fill the reader in on the basics quickly; don't make the reader "guess" or have to think about what it probably is, even if they could puzzle it out. Just tell them. The reader's eyes will naturally switch to the relevant part that changes, and "song" / "album" are invisible in a background. So I'd suggest "(a) song on the YEAR album ALBUM by BAND" by default, or "(a) YEAR song (on the album ALBUM)" when the song release date precedes the album or there wasn't an album. SnowFire (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I agree with always including the year; I would include the word song unless there is a list of songs under a ==Songs== header, in which case the word is redundant. BD2412 T 14:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking at this edit and wondering whether it matters whether an entry's description begins with an article or not. The DAB guidelines include examples with and examples without. I'd look to see if this has been discussed before but searching the archives for "the" or "a" or, given the nature of Wikipedia, "article" is unlikely to be productive. Largoplazo (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

From MOS:DABPEOPLE: For people, ... do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role. The implication is that for articles not about people, the a, an, or the should be included. This is supported by the other examples in the MOS page.

The changes in the edit you mention are in accordance with this. Danbloch (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. But, then, the changes in the edit I mentioned are contrary to this, not in accordance, right? Largoplazo (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Quite right, sorry. Too late at night... Danbloch (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I changed all the sections that mixed HTML and wiki lists to use only HTML. Previously this mix-up caused the parser to incorrectly close all lists when a wiki list ended, rather than just the one defined with wiki markup, causing following bullets to be ill-formed, being outside of any list and appearing to fall off the left margin. It was also an accessibility problem, along with abuse of description list markup for indentation which I replaced with {{block indent}} (see MOS:UBLIST – I know MOS doesn't apply to guideline pages, but accessibility guidelines do). Hairy Dude (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)