Disambiguation: We really need to finish it this time!!

[Aleta Curry]

I know no one is gonna thank me for this, BUT:

There has been a LOT of moving things around to disambiguation pages lately.

I do not recall this ever being settled.

Doing searches, back in 2006 Larry raised the same concern I have regarding a sort of 'disambiguation game'.

I also remember a fairly recent discussion when Noel raised the topics of redirects.

Most recently, Hayford asked about a style manual.

Sooner or later, this is going to cause a conflict if we don't settle it amicable and 'officially' beforehand.

Sooo...can we do so?

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I know no one is gonna thank me for this, BUT:

There has been a LOT of moving things around to disambiguation pages lately.

I do not recall this ever being settled.

In other words, it remains ambiguous?

.

Doing searches, back in 2006 Larry raised the same concern I have regarding a sort of 'disambiguation game'.

I also remember a fairly recent discussion when Noel raised the topics of redirects.

Seriously, more an issue of redirection, but it would be helpful to understand the rules for case sensitivity in the software, and if the level of sensitivity differs in different usages. There are times it almost seems as if it learns an alternate capitalization

Most recently, Hayford asked about a style manual.

I did my part for your Dragon, leaving you the Official Dragon. In the disambiguation page, I put in the song "Puff, the Magic Dragon" for him to handle with Peter, Paul and Mary.

Then, I realized that "Puff, the Magic Dragon" itself was ambiguous, with musical and military usages.

[Chris Day]

My impression was that a consensus had been reached but the proposal did not go through the editorial council. 

The short version is:

1) The obvious name gets priority; in this case dragon. A disambiguation "mesage" is left at the top of such articles.
2) When there is no obvious name then the title is a redirected to Name (disambiguation).

The subjective part is "what is obvious", let the figting begin

[Aleta Curry]

Yes, Chris, that would be my understanding as well, but I didn't want to say because I'd been on holiday and who knows what might have happened in the meantime?

Howard!!  A military Puff??!! Say it ain't so!

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Yes, Chris, that would be my understanding as well, but I didn't want to say because I'd been on holiday and who knows what might have happened in the meantime?

Howard!!  A military Puff??!! Say it ain't so!

Afraid so. [[AC-47]], replaced by [[AC-130]]

...green scales fell like rain...

[David E. Volk]

Do we need to write a new proposal regarding disambiguation alone, style guide, or moving pages?

"Obvious" means what a third grader would answer, not what computer science and military people would answer.

Thus, tomahawk is a hand weapon, not a missle.

Of course, things like bonnet might yield differing responses in AE vs. BE still.  I see no end to some arguments as long as CZ insists on using multiple English versions unless nearly every entry is disambiguated.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

Do we need to write a new proposal regarding disambiguation alone ..
"Obvious" means what a third grader would answer, not what computer science and military people would answer.
Thus, tomahawk is a hand weapon, not a missle.

The problem is that one large group of people's 'obvious' is quite often another large group's 'obscure', and while there are many cases where it's 'obvious' what the 'principal' meaning is (e.g. "dog"),  there are many cases which are not so obvious (e.g. "file" - do you mean the computer file, or the collection of papers).

It was for this reason that the early version of my Disambiguation mechanics proposal assumed that we would usually place no meaning directly at titles which had any significant chance of being ambiguous (e.g. "tree", or "protocol", to name some which garner many wrong links), but some people didn't like that, so I changed it to allow the 'primary' meaning to claim the base-name (via a redirect, for reasons explained in the proposal).

I see no end to some arguments as long as CZ insists on using multiple English versions unless nearly every entry is disambiguated.

Which is why I like the 'if there is any disambiguation needed, no article gets to 'claim' the base-name' policy, because by definition there can be zero time wasted over arguing which meaning is the 'most common': if there's more than one, they both have to go elsewhere. However, that line of reasoning didn't carry the day; some people thought it was more important to be able to type [[dog]] and have the link 'work' straight off, without any further work on their part.

Noel

[J. Noel Chiappa]

My impression was that a consensus had been reached but the proposal did not go through the editorial council. 

Yes, the proposal system seems to have ground to a halt, not sure why (I see it's not just this proposal which has made no progress over the summer).

The short version is:
1) The obvious name gets priority; in this case dragon. A disambiguation "mesage" is left at the top of such articles.
2) When there is no obvious name then the title is a redirected to Name (disambiguation).

I'd like to note that this issue ('which article gets to claim the name') isn't really the subject of that proposal, which is mostly about the internal mechanics of how disambiguation works, and explicitly (see the first point in the "Open issues" section) does not take a position on what the policy should be about whether one particular meaning can/should claim the 'base name').

Noel

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Do we need to write a new proposal regarding disambiguation alone, style guide, or moving pages?

"Obvious" means what a third grader would answer, not what computer science and military people would answer.

Thus, tomahawk is a hand weapon, not a missle.

Of course, things like bonnet might yield differing responses in AE vs. BE still.  I see no end to some arguments as long as CZ insists on using multiple English versions unless nearly every entry is disambiguated.

One reason why I put a designator on missiles, such as AGM-84 Harpoon or BaE Systems ALARM, is to disambiguate. Disambiguation is another reason why NATO code names, such as MiG-29 FULCRUM or Tu-160 BLACKJACK, are in all caps.

Even designation systems, however, can get rather Talmudic. BGM-109 Tomahawk actually isn't quite right, except as the original designation. The initial "B" first stood for surface-launched, so it started out covering both the ship-launched, which have been redesignated RGM, and the truck-launched, which disappeared as a strategic arms control bargaining chip. Actually, while the truck-launched was indeed a BGM, it was named Gryphon, not Tomahawk.

Today, the U.S. has RGM-109 (and assorted suffixes) Tomahawks fired from ships. Both the U.K and U.S. fire the  UGM-109 from submarines (not, however, "missile" submarines, which fire Tridents). There was an AGM for air launch, but the USAF and USN both chose other alternatives.

[David E. Volk]

Dog obviously  refers to the famous TV bounty hunter, no?  Fortunately, I mostly write about drugs, whose names have yet to be reused.  Computer Sci. and Military ssem to borrow every name.  We need a plane called the F-39 Acetominofen, which removes our miliitary headaches!

I for one would not object to no article claiming the base name when there is multiple use.

[Chris Day]

I for one would not object to no article claiming the base name when there is multiple use.

I lean that way.  It saves arguments.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Dog obviously  refers to the famous TV bounty hunter, no?  Fortunately, I mostly write about drugs, whose names have yet to be reused.  Computer Sci. and Military ssem to borrow every name.  We need a plane called the F-39 Acetaminophen, which removes our miliitary headaches!

I for one would not object to no article claiming the base name when there is multiple use.

Right. But consider national conventions. For the U.K., which tends to emphasize names with suffixes(e.g., Tornado ADV), it would be the  Paracetamol F. The Swiss would name it the N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide.

If this aircraft became a serious threat, the Russians might build the MiG-41 (NATO designation:  MiG-41 ACETYLCYSTEINE). To insure national capability, the PRC would build the J-44 (NATO designation: J-44 METHIONINE), with a specialized electronic warfare escort, the B-19 (NATO designation: B-19 CIMETIDINE).

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I for one would not object to no article claiming the base name when there is multiple use.

I lean that way.  It saves arguments.

The default should be no article with the base name, and a strong case would then have to be made to allocate one.

[Aleta Curry]

Do we need to write a new proposal regarding disambiguation alone, style guide, or moving pages?

"Obvious" means what a third grader would answer, not what computer science and military people would answer.

I like this.  Talk about 'everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten'.

I still say that every noun in the English language does not need to start with a disambig page with a listing of every possible use.

[Chris Day]

I still say that every noun in the English language does not need to start with a disambig page with a listing of every possible use.

Realistically, what percentage would need to be disambiguated? I'm assuming it is not that many.  And you do have the "obvious" clause wiggle room to get tree and dog in at the basename page.