Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages

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)

OK so @162 etc. is telling me there's a style issue with this sort of an edit.

If we have a redirect for a specific song (to its album), why wouldn't we link that from the disambiguation page?

The converse argument sounds like that sort of a redirect is somehow an inherently bad idea, but we have ~58k of those (transclusions of {{R from song}})...? --Joy (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It may not be an explicitly stated guideline, but the distinction is generally observed and is based on the guidance at MOS:DABREDIR: a song redirect is used only when the redirect is an alternate title or when it points to a dedicated section (usually in an album article) about the song. If we're just pointing to an entry in a track listing, or some other passing mention, the entry links to the performer's or album's article in the description.

This may not seem like a big deal for a single entry on a short dab page like Die Young (disambiguation), but it does provide a useful sorting mechanism and argument solver on longer pages where we might otherwise end up with a random assortment of entries based on whether or not an editor had bothered to create a redirect. —ShelfSkewed Talk 22:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how this is justifiable by MOS:DABREDIR. The Eon example fits far better here than the Switch example, because this redirect helps disambiguate incoming links, at Special:WhatLinksHere/Die Young (Black Sabbath song) there's no less than 15 already in article space. I don't know if there's a clearer indicator of potential than that.

I don't see why a potential dispute on sorting the list between editors would be more important than the scenario where editors encountering an ambiguous reference to the song miss the existence of the proper link and then have to guess the disambiguated name. The former is an issue that may arise, but the latter will definitely arise if we drop the link. Worst case, they may actually not guess it right, and then make a redundant red link, or unlink it, or even pipe the album name in references to the song. --Joy (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that per MOS:DAB, "piping and redirects should generally not be used on disambiguation pages." There are specific instances outlined at WP:DABREDIR where a redirect may be appropriate; this is not one of them.

None of this prevents editors from using the Die Young (Black Sabbath song) redirect in other articles that are not disambiguation pages. 162 etc. (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It is pretty confusing to both allow for primary redirects, while purporting to generally avoid using redirects on disambiguation pages. Primary redirects don't come with helpful visual elements beyond the technical redirect notice, they have no captions to explain them, and yet we find them normal. But another redirect with a caption right next to it, visible before the reader clicks, is not normal. This is not really a coherent guideline. --Joy (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The Eon redirect goes directly to a named, anchored section that provides a substantive definition; this is significantly different from pointing to a track list in which a song is listed. And the way songs without articles are treated is not exceptional. Dab pages also do not use redirects for simple mentions of albums, books, or films in lists within other articles.

And if you want to contrast the problem of differences of opinion among editors about how a song should be listed versus the problem of how editors will disambiguate links, I would say that, in my experience, editors who add songs to dab pages are much more likely to be casual or one-off editors, so it is helpful to have a clear distinction you can explain to head off disputes, while editors who are concerned with disambiguating links are much more likely to be experienced editors who know how to dab a link. —ShelfSkewed Talk 01:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It's true that the section part of that redirect is suboptimal. The rest of the article actually provides quite a bit more information about that topic:

• Infobox says it was released as a single
• Overview section talks of who wrote it, and how it became one of the mainstays in setlists
• Notable covers section mentions a cover 30 years later

All of these are further indicators of potential. I still think there should be a place somewhere along the path to this information where we explicitly link to that disambiguating redirect, because that would make it far more obvious to non-experienced editors where they could start writing an article for it. --Joy (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that individual songs that do not meet WP:NSONG and are unlikely to ever have a standalone article are better to list on disambiguation pages as direct links to the album. This avoids the easter egg element and more clearly marks which songs have some substantial content (i.e., an article) and which are just mentioned in passing or only appear in the track listing. But IMO, systematic campaigns to remove such NOTBROKEN redirects are unconstructive. older ≠ wiser 10:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

May I ask for a third option regarding recent edits on Sharr? I believe that in general, people whose dab page name is their first name do not belong on such a dab page, because only people who are widely known by their first name alone are expected to be searched for by first name. FromCzech (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. Quoting WP:D: To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it.

Sharr is a list of 6 items, 3 of which are people. It is not getting too long by any stretch of the imagination. The default Google Search output has been 10 much fatter items for the last N decades. The idea that we need to cull entries from a much shorter list is downright preposterous. Are you trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove some sort of a point? --Joy (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The disambiguation page is not an index of all pages that contain the term in question, but only those that the user might have in mind when searching for the term, see first sentence of MOS:DAB. It is absurd for someone to search for a person by first name alone, unless the person is widely known by that name. I don't care at all how many items are on a page and whether it's long or short. FromCzech (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

No, that is absolutely not absurd. We have countless examples of disambiguation lists matching given names and ample statistics proving that readers click through. Some relatively recent egregious examples where this sort of a thing was discussed include Talk:Charlotte and Talk:Julius. I have no idea where you've come up with such a strange belief, or why it's necessary to argue it so forcefully with so little rationale. --Joy (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I just asked for a third opinion here and got it in the form of an edit to the page. I don't know why you're making such a big deal out of it here and why you don't assume good intentions. I don't understand the examples with the names Charlotte and Julius, both these dab pages include separate pages about the names and don't include specific people except where relevant. For me, the discussion is over, everything is resolved. FromCzech (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, I am assuming good faith, but after you censor, edit-war, misquote guidelines and advocate for beliefs not based in any apparent evidence, I think it's fair to ask why.

Those separate pages about the names usually exist to avoid lengthening the main list. It doesn't make sense to make a separate name page to list a handful of items. If we force readers to click again to hop between tiny lists that aren't distinguishable, it doesn't make their navigation more efficient. --Joy (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

BTW, maybe it would help for posterity to mention that we actually know that of a case where we have chosen a primary topic based on editor consensus, yet the reader lookups for the same ambiguous given name are a consistently measurable minority of ~30%.

We should not casually disregard given names as a method of reader navigation and/or a topic of reader interest. --Joy (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I concur that it is proper and appropriate to include the three names on the disambiguation page, particularly given that these are unusual names either as given names or surnames. BD2412 T 19:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with FromCzech. Names are no different from other partial title matches. They clutter the page and get in the way of the search engine, which is a much more complete and up to date tool for readers don't know or can't remember a full name. The {{in title}} is all we need to help those few people. Of course, it's much less important on a short page than a longer one, but even on a short page names can be left out. Station1 (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

But the town and the mountains that are only sometimes known as Sharr somehow don't create clutter and don't come in the way of the search engine? --Joy (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep all three names - yes, we could create Sharr (given name) for two entries, and make a link to it from the dab page - but why do so? The librarian with the surname needs to be here: if there were no other meanings of "Sharr" we would have a redirect to them; if there were no other meanings except for another "Someone Sharr", we would create a surname page; with the current mix of entries, simply including the people in the dab page is the best solution. I've split them into a separate section per MOS:DAB and for clarity. PamD 07:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why does the librarian need to be there? He was never known as "Sharr", nor were the other two. We could as easily create Sharr (name) for all 3 people, but there's no reason to create name pages unless there's something encyclopedic to say about the name itself. Station1 (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  But there's reason to create toponymy pages that say nothing encyclopedic about the toponym itself? --Joy (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Probably not, but do you have an example in mind? Station1 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  This one! More generally, this line of argument is just so weirdly prejudiced against human names. We link to a town that is only sometimes called Sharr, but more commonly something completely different, apparently. We link to a mountain that is consistently called Sharr or Šar mountain (not just Sharr). A cheese that is consistently called the Sharr or Šar cheese (not just Sharr). There's only evidence of ambiguity and natural disambiguation here. Exactly like with the human names. --Joy (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  If you're asking whether this dab page needs to exist at all, I would tend to agree that all the entries seem like partial title matches, possibly excepting the town. Station1 (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  I wouldn't think of deleting it as the list seems more concise than search engine output, so probably a tad more efficient. Ironically, we don't have actual reader behavior research to back either of those positions up, either. But at least they're not as glaringly inconsistent as an arbitrary removal of some forms of natural ambiguity. --Joy (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Station1 People are referred to by their surname alone in many contexts, so we need to provide access by surname. "X developed Sharr's system of cataloguing", "Y's victory was in a class with Sharr's spectacular defeat of Bloggs in the 1921 final", "Z studied under Sharr at the Sorbonne" etc. In some cases the forename or initial will have been mentioned elsewhere in the reader's source, but the reader's photocopy, snippet view, or screenshot doesn't include that mention; other times the writer will be wrongly assuming that they are writing for an audience who can all identify that particular Sharr. We absolutely need the librarian to be reachable from their surname "Sharr". Given names I'm less concerned about, but Wikipedia has a convention of providing near-complete lists of name-holders, so the reader can reasonably expect to find those two people by their first name, especially if they can't quite remember the surname. PamD 13:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  MOS:DABNAME, discussing names on dab pages, says:People who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should be listed in the main disambiguation list of the disambiguation page only if they are frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Abraham Lincoln on Lincoln). (similar to Joy's quote above but referring to the main list on a dab page - ie "create a separate section for "People") and There are two options for listing name-holders. A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page. For longer lists (of 12 or more entries), and as an alternative for a short list, an anthroponymy list article can be created and linked from the disambiguation page. and goes on to guve examples of both forenames and surnames. PamD 13:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  With exceptions like Beethoven or Churchill, it's uncommon for people to be referred to by surname alone. But for those unusual cases we have the search engine, which, again, is more accurate and up to date. Is every Anna on WP really listed on the Anna (name) page? I recently added a name to the Polanski (surname) page that was missing for 10 years! And there are only 7 Polanskis on WP. Station1 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  Is every Anna on WP really listed on the Anna (name) page?: It potentially could. There is WP:NODEADLINE. —Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't agree that "it's uncommon for people to be referred to by surname alone" (see above), and the search engine can be pretty useless if a surname has other uses, as a placename, given name, common noun, etc. PamD 21:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  If I listen to a podcast on an area I'm not much of an expert on, I often search for people by surname only when their full name was not mentioned. —Bagumba (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  If at any time over the past 10 years someone were looking for an actress named Polanski and relied solely on our surname page they would have been misled into believing we had no article about her. The search engine would have found her, though. Station1 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, but that is simply an argument for always remembering to include See also {{in title}} on navigation elements, to help those readers. Readers are unlikely to stop looking things up just because Wikipedia is not complete. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

As someone who has edited multiple disambiguation (dab) pages tangentially on the British royal family, this has been a dilemma I have encountered and would like a written solution to: How do we refer to the wife of the current Prince of Wales on dab pages?

P.S. Given that William's father is touring the United States, as well as the fact that his 15th wedding anniversary is in two days, I anticipate extra reader interest in his wife in the next few days. Therefore, any insight would be greatly appreciated as soon as possible. Thank you,

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The disambiguation page should reflect whatever the article title is. If there is some concern about how an article is titled, that is a topic for discussion at that article's talk page (or in this case, perhaps at WP:NCROY). The example mentioned of Mary Donaldson vs. Queen Mary of Denmark is IMO incorrect -- the dab should use the actual article title. Similarly for the others. There might be a case for using a redirect when adding to a list of surname-holders (e.g. Donaldson). older ≠ wiser 10:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This would all be so much easier if you just pointed us to the specific page and the specific phrasing you're talking about. :) --Joy (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, on William and Catherine (disambiguation), I referred to Prince William's wife as Catherine, Princess of Wales. But on Princess of Wales (disambiguation), Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation), and Kate Middleton (disambiguation), I referred to her as Kate Middleton. However, given the above comment from Bkonrad, I will be changing the displayed article links accordingly to Catherine, Princess of Wales. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the idea is to make sure the readers are in the clear as to why navigation is set up the way it is.

In case of Kate Middleton, that is a primary redirect to a topic that is named differently, but that's still what the Kate Middleton (disambiguation) list should lead with. It's surprising for it to lead with another name. The other name should be spelled out, but the reason for that disambiguation page is that name, not the other name.

For Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation), I think the items should likewise lead with and link to any pertinent redirects involving the relevant title. In other words, nobody's at that list looking for a Caroline of Ansbach, rather they're there looking for Caroline, Duchess of Cambridge. --Joy (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)