Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Ruling needed on Cardboard

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Udo (disambiguation)#Requested move 28 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 22:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Veggies#Requested move 28 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 22:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Does the discussion and conclusion at talk:Dash#Entries with no articles in the transportation section raise any issues of principle that should be documented? {{midsize|(In summary, I asserted that some of the entries were not valid because the relevant section in the target article was not made overt and who knows if the relevant content exists there at all. But given that there is no guideline that I can find that requires any such thing, I conceded and self-reverted.)}}

Wikipedia:Disambiguation seems to assume that the only entries in a disambiguation page are for articles with the same name, different disambiguator{{snd}} but I have encountered many disambig articles where there is entry for a topic that is only a section of a larger article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:The guideline you are looking for is MOS:DABMENTION: "If the topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader." —ShelfSkewed Talk 21:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::tyvm, that's what I needed 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi everybody. In Talk:Russiagate there's a dab to be fix: Has Russiagate a primary topic? MrKeefeJohn (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: It does have a primary topic, which is covered here: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Trump's "Russiagate hoax" claims. That is where we cover it the best, so that's a more logical target for Russiagate than the current link. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Correct that there is a primary topic, and per the definition in the lede of that article {{tq|The "hacking and disinformation campaign" to damage Clinton and help Trump became the "core of the scandal known as Russiagate"}}. Either the lede is wrong, or the idea that the "hoax" claim is the PT sounds like a WP:CFORK to me, which is not allowed. Widefox; talk 23:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::: I'm not sure of your point. As I understand it, there is the mainstream view (topic of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article) from RS. There is also a fringe view promoted by unreliable sources (Trump and right-wing media). Because the fringe view is also occasionally mentioned in RS, we can document and include it in the main article, and we do that at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Trump's "Russiagate hoax" claims.

::: The mainstream view (most RS) is that there was real interference, and that Trump and Co. both publicly and secretly cooperated with the Russians in myriad non-criminal (and maybe some treasonous) ways, but were not proven to have "conspired" or "coordinated" with them, at least not strongly enough to stand up in court. Some evidence of conspiracy was found, at least by Manafort and Stone, with Trump knowing about it.

::: The fringe view (Trump and right-wing media) turns this on its head, calls it all a "hoax", and denies any involvement, often denying Russia was to blame, and trying to pin blame on Ukraine, Hillary Clinton, the Steele dossier, etc, calling that the "real collusion". That is a fringe conspiracy theory, and we document much of that at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Trump's "Russiagate hoax" claims and Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory, which is a related topic.

::: So the fringe "Russiagate hoax" view is a related topic worth mentioning in the main article, as is the case now. It is also an acceptable type of content to fork (where it can be expanded). We don't want it to get too large for the main article, where it would create an undue weight problem. It is notable enough to qualify for an independent article, per WP:GNG: "A topic is {{em|presumed}} to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received {{em|significant coverage}} in {{em|reliable sources}} that are {{em|independent of the subject}}." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robert Prevost (disambiguation)#Requested move 8 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There is an RfC discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(definite_or_indefinite_article_at_beginning_of_name)#Request_for_Comment_on_use_of_definite_articles_as_a_form_of_natural_disambiguation that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Ladtrack (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Decimal system#Requested move 11 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Syrian Republic#Requested move 24 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Terrebonne#Requested move 17 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I recently formatted dhis page per MOSDAB (to my best), but I feel uneasy with main topic being the Nazi Außenlager. Please review. --Altenmann >talk 04:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)