Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

An editor has requested that Weizmann (disambiguation) be moved to Weizmann, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 02:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jintao (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Byzantines#Requested move 19 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. veko. (user | talk | contribs) [he/him] 15:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a proposed merge discussion at Talk:London (disambiguation) which is related to this WikiProject. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 01:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

This move request could use more eyes/input, and should be of interest to this project, with disambiguation being an option. BD2412 T 16:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rose (disambiguation)#Proposed merge from Rosé (disambiguation) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Therianthropy (disambiguation)#Proposed merge of Therian into Therianthropy (disambiguation) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Foo (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WCAR (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:US-Iran War#Requested move 28 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anki#Requested move 6 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Diana Pang be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a disagreement with Kynguyenvuonminh about including redlinks in the description of entries on dab pages that already have a blue link. Other voices would be welcome Talk:Xuân Sơn#Articles on new communes. older ≠ wiser 17:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment:: Since Bkonrad has to ask for other perspectives, it is clear to me that there's currently no clear guidelines or consensus on these kind of red links, and this is a WP:DISPUTE. I'm happy to follow the guidelines once there's a consensus, but until then I would kindly ask Bkonrad to not further remove any red links on other DAB pages that I added, per WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF. If there's eventually a consensus on not adding those, I will remove them myself. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The page name of the dab page, which should come at the beginning of an entry, should be the only red link in an entry. That entry should also have one blue link to be valid, and when and if the pagename redlink should ever become a blue link, then the other blue link should be deactivated. There should be no other red links in an entry. MOS:DABRED is crystal clear on this. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! When you stated that "There should be no other red links in an entry", do you mean this "only the entry for the architectural motif can include a red link"? I saw this sentence, but I have no idea what "entry for the architectural motif" means? Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The phrase "entry for the architectural motif" refers to the first example: "Flibbygibby (architecture), a flamingo motif used on cornices", which means that "Flibbygibby" (a made-up term) is described as a flamingo architectural motif. That example shows the correct way to write one entry on a disambiguation page titled "Flibbygibby" or "Flibbygibby (disambiguation)". This makes it clear that only the link that includes the page name can be red-linked, and there must be one other link that is blue. Disambiguation pages are designed to be navigation pages for readers, which helps us understand why there can be no other red links in an entry. Readers cannot navigate to a red link. Hope this helps. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

So this has to be interpreted from the example - which is not very ideal, is it? Since examples should only meant to illustrate the rules/guidelines above it, not providing additional rules/guidelines themselves. I'd say, a clear statement regarding "no other red link" would help a lot. Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the rule of only one red link is interpreted from the paragraph above the examples. Those examples are there to make it more clear to editors the precise meaning of the words under the heading "Red links". If you think that the words of MOS:DABRED could be made even more clear for editors, then feel free to clarify those words. I've always thought that the Red links section was pretty clear myself, but that's just me. Since you had trouble understanding it, then yes, it could probably use some tweaking. What do you think, editor older ≠ wiser? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to clarifying the language, I don't have any suggestions and I think we don't want to fall into trap of trying to cover every possible misinterpretation. At some point, people need to understand the entire guideline and not take snippets out of context. older ≠ wiser 12:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I see now why MOS:DABRED was easy for me to understand way back when. If the MOS is read from start to finish, one first comes across MOS:DAB1 higher up on the page, which clarifies one blue link per entry and no other wikilinks. MOS:DABRED slightly alters MOS:DAB1 by allowing two wikilinks when the primary link is a red link and the secondary link is a blue link. So I have to agree with you that stating it again at MOS:DABRED might be reverted as redundant. When the entire style guideline is read and understood, then editors should be clear about the maximum of two wikilinks per entry, and that only when the pagename is a red link and its usage article is a blue link. From MOS:DAB1 in italics "Do not wikilink any other words in the line." This community consensus is all an editor should need. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 14:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that River Valley High School, Singapore be moved to River Valley High School, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey folks. Is it appropriate to have a disambiguation page entry for a word, if the word appears as an entry in a Wikipedia article that's a glossary or a list of terms? I was thinking that it's not, but perhaps I'm mistaken. The current version of the FOID page has such an entry. There's also a discussion about this at Talk:FOID#New slang. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:09, 28 March 2026 (UTC)