Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool

Understandable

Wikipedia should be asking for ratings on whether the article is understandable. I was running through an article on holographic theory, and I was like, "What in the world are they talking about?" The article should be accessible to a wide range of audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.208.196 (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'd maybe classify that under "well-written". If we decided to add a fifth item to rate, though, this would be high on my list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updating ratings

Can I update my rating once I give it?

Suppose I give a good or a bad rating, it wont necessarily apply tomorrow. Wikipedia articles can be updated and change. Frankly, sometimes for the worse. If an article changes in quality, I would like to re-rate accordingly. It makes sense, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.162.70 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've added the simple instructions to the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right word here?

'Surface' - do you mean 'service'? --Greenmaven (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, surface is what was meant, as in "For information or facts to become known." It's as a verb. Sorry if it's too corporate-speak. Steven Walling at work 22:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Even Wiktionary doesn't give the meaning this article appears to be using. I think it's just wrong. How about "expose"? False vacuum (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Wiktionary: "5. (intransitive) For information or facts to become known." That is the meaning. Steven Walling at work 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template vote still on page

Is this template supposed to display the last visitor's rating? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I believe that it is supposed to display your last rating. Had you rated that page before? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turning off

I did what it says - ticked the box in Preferences. Damn thing still appears. I'm never going to use it, so (like adverts on other sites which I never click - and nowadays block) I don't want to see it. I still use the old Wikipedia format as the new one irritates me and I can't find things quickly. Is this the cause of my problem? Peridon (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reproduce a problem in any of the old skins. Is this still occurring? Can you clarify which skin is selected in your "Appearance" tab in user prefs?--Eloquence * 05:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on Monobook. It appears on quite a few new articles that I find at CSD. I don't seem to find it much on older articles, and I tend to associate it with short articles, for some reason. I've not compiled any statistics on it. I'll take notes, if you want. To be quite honest, I have doubts about the usefulness of the tool. There is a possibility of rigging, unless accounts and IPs are recorded, and I can't see the point of it being only applied at random. It has appeared this morning (UK time), but I can't remember on which article - I think I deleted it... Peridon (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just came up on Fusion Asset Management LLP and The Prayers of the Faithful. Peridon (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll do some more testing to see if we can reproduce this.--Eloquence * 21:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I"m unable to reproduce this either. Peridon, can you provide more details on your system (e.g., OS, Browser + version)? 216.38.130.161 (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbranded computer, CRT monitor, XP Pro (screen display set to Classic to get rid of Big Bright Buttons for Kids), Firefox 3.5.17 (with AdBlock Plus 1.3.9 and Tab Killer). I've not been into CSD yet today - catching up after being offline a couple of days. Peridon (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most so far clear, but appeared on Nizami Shirinov. Peridon (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I left the page open while I did other things, then refreshed it (to see if someone had deleted it yet). The thing disappeared on the reload. Peridon (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to reproduce it either (I've tried creating Just a test of AFT). Helder 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't appeared tonight. Weird. Peridon (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back again - only seems to be on short articles and goes away on refresh. Peridon (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these, by any chance, short articles that you'd previously visited? I'm wondering if perhaps it's a caching problem. Does it turn up on, say, Special:Random pages?

And I apologize for this "is your computer plugged in" kind of question, but you did click the "Save" button after ticking the box, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're mostly articles I'm looking at for the first time (and quite often the last time, as I delete them...). It appeared on my Rover Scarab article, which I haven't been into for ages. Don't worry about the question - I ask questions like that in one of my other lives.... (Often find they hadn't done whatever it was, too... The worst was a computer that hadn't had AV updated in three years, with a little girl downloading 'free' games from all over everywhere - plus every spyware around except one.) I've just resaved - still coming up. Tried Random - came up. Why me??????????? Just in case it matters, I run Spybot S&D with TeaTimer, and WinPatrol too, on top of AVG antivirus and ZoneAlarm firewall. Peridon (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why you? Doubtless it's one of our computers little jokes on us all. Would you mind leaving a message at Mediawiki about this? I think the devs are watching that other page fairly closely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peridon (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reflection

I've often said in various places that although this construct is in principle an excellent idea, it's actual design and implementation are flawed. It's going to create a lot of biased results that will not reflect the true quality/usability of our articles. It appears that suggestions from outside the development team are not being given due consideration, and that the team has the intention of pushing it through come hell or high water, based on a broad WMF suggestion that some kind of external evaluation of articles is required. Discussions seem to be fractured and spread around many departments of the Foundation and its Wikipedias. I have been unable to keep track of it all, and I would dearly like to know what metrics are being prepared for the evaluation the gathered data. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second the opinion above. I don't question the good intentions of the WMF people but I am starting to think they are becoming Wikipedia's own worst enemy. "Beaucratic"-based thinking is starting to drive Wikipedia instead of the userbase itself. I don't like it. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the difference is that WMF defines "userbase" as including far more than experienced editors, whereas our power users primarily define "userbase" as "editors, especially editors just like me".

WMF says that the WMF user community includes almost five billion users. I'd guess that your user community only counts the tiny fraction of a percent of those users who regularly edit articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual capability, Validation and Audit

IMO, it's too dangerous to encourage the use of such an easy way for the average person to alter the credibility of a Wikipedia article. Here's why:

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, however, a check box does not contain enough information about the pertinence of the voter nor about his ability to construct an objective critique.
Who validates these votes? Any person, authenticated or not, can vote, even entities that are not human (bots?)
Votes are additive, there's no other way to revert or rectify the ranking of an article but to add more votes. The huge amount of votes induces a chaotic behavior.
Speaking about chaotic (Brownian?) behavior, we are about a massively distributed global optimization problem where the objective function does not gratify excellence nor scientific validity. It rather gratifies satisfaction by aggregating simplicity, accessibility and vraisemblance. Complex articles with high abstraction and scientific/engineering skills requirements will be penalized. The overall quality of Wikipedia articles will converge to the exact level of accessibility of the normalized IQ of the readers (must be around 100?) When you target global satisfaction rather than excellence, it's what you get.
There's some kind of psychological obstacle that protects articles from being profaned by people who don't have the skills to write valid and verifiable content. This obstacle doesn't exist or isn't enabled for other social media, and sure, the voting system doesn't escape to this rule due to the points explained above. This parameter sums to the objective function that served the widespread and success of Wikipedia, just don't remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.248.195.1 (talk)

The overall quality of Wikipedia articles will converge to the exact level of accessibility of the normalized IQ of the readers.

Interesting... Helder 17:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's exactly what Wikipedia needs. The closer your are to something, the less you see. Those who try to edit or re-establish a NPOV in a "protected" article will now have another way to voice their opinion when they their edits are reverted. Further, does it take an expert to determine if an article is Trustworthy, Objective, or Well-written? To the author, of course they are. To the person reading it, maybe not. Logical fact (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the objections to the voting box. People with dynamic IPs will have an ability to vote many times, and it takes up a lot of space too. Only people who want to see it should see it, and the box should be invisible on the article page by default, perhaps visible from the talk page unless a box is checked to show it in the article page. 173.180.214.58 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Trustworthy' vs. Reputable Sources

I know articles that use reputable sources, but the articles themselves are not 'trustworthy', because the sources are cited incorrectly or cited out of context. This makes it difficult to give correct feedback using the current feedback tool. Perhaps there should be a section about accuracy and one about citations? Sushilover2000 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the sources are being misused, then your trust for the article is fairly low, right? So rate it that way. There's still a whole talk page available for complex points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so why does the tool refer to the sources instead of the article itself? The definitions in the tool are flawed and don't make sense.190.19.154.181 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definitions make sense, but that you're also supposed to use common sense. For example, there's no setting for "some top-quality sources and some completely worthless sources". This is supposed to be a very simple, big-picture rating, with all of the advantages and disadvantages that implies. Whenever the situation is complicated, you can explain your concerns on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It doesn't make sense to conflate the quality of the sources cited with the quality of the article itself under a single 'trustworthiness' parameter. There should be two separate parameters for the quality of sources cited and the factual accuracy of the article.--Harumphy (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that the phrase "Good reputable sources" means "The article names good reputable sources" rather than "The article is based primarily on and properly uses good reputable sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a measure of trustworthiness in the article itself, not its sources. The tooltip steers the reader towards the latter. This contradiction is very confusing and when I first saw it it nearly put me off rating the article at all. The problem is not in something I may be assuming, but in what the tooltip unambiguously states. --Harumphy (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article too long?

Some articles are incredibly long. Is it possible to rated their length? Politis (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great suggestion! Logical fact (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Mistake on Rate This Page Feature

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

– Helder 16:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Rate this Page feature has a grammar mistake in it. After rating, a box says:"Did you want to create an account?" It should be "Do you want to create an account?" Cr6564 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text seems to be defined by means of MediaWiki:Articlefeedback-pitch-join-message. Helder 16:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't rise to the level of a grammatical mistake; it's a common construction in informal, spoken English. I do agree that it should be changed (although I'd rather see the whole feature disappear quickly and permanently). Rivertorch (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original poster that it is a grammatical error and I have made an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Articlefeedback-pitch-join-message. Informal, spoken English be damned. We wouldn't accept that in an article, so we shouldn't in this case. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an error, but it's probably not the question they mean to ask. A correct answer to that question could be, "Yes, I did want to create an account, but now I'm so tired of sitting here that I think I'll turn off my computer and go outside." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should I rate the page "as an expert"?

The new "Rate this page" box has me slightly confused over whether I even am an 'expert' on the subject at hand. On the subject I happen to be looking up this morning, Perlin and other noise generation, I find that I did study these in college, other types of noise functions and similar fields are hobbies, and my knowledge comes from external areas like textbooks. However, while I might be able to spot a gross error in descriptions or grammar, English is not my best language and I will often misread something. Or, speaking of other computer programming related subjects, having knowledge of a valid implementation of an algorithm may lead me to read a + as a -, or the other way around, leading me to approve an invalid article because of my reading mistake; when I am supposed to be knowledgeable in the subject matter. Or the page may have trustworthy sources, be complete and well-written, and still have such a minor grammatical mistake. Perhaps a 'How confident are you in this rating' may be needed, or a means to weight the opinions of those who have had revoked edits on the page. I have no real proposed solution yet; but I feel the matter does need to be discussed. exestential crisis detected near 66.207.88.49 (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question shouldn't even be there. It is confusing and is likely to be misused by many. Plus it doesn't even make sense for most articles. What's does "highly knowledgable" even mean for Justin Beiber, Snickers chocolate bars, disambiguation pages, and so on? Jason Quinn (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC) AMENDED Jason Quinn (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caption

The screenshot should have some kind of caption so that it's clear that this is an image of what the rating thing looks like, not a rating box for this article itself.

Aesthetic suggestion

I think the box should be center aligned, with an option to collapse it in a similar manner to a navbox. That should give a much cleaner look for those who like this function but dislike how prominent it remains when they aren't using it. —W F C— 23:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone? —WFC— TFL notices 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The center alignment was already requested on bug #29995. You can vote on it if you have a bugzilla account. On another bug it is requested an improvement on the layout of the tool (and it was mentioned the possibility of collapsing part of the interface ). 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Article expansion or improvement

This on the face of it seems a good idea, but what happens to votes once an article has had a major revamp? A suggestion would be once XXXX words or characters have been added old votes are cancelled. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Article ratings automatically expire after 30 edits to the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A thought...

Is it possible that the viewing figures on YouTube and 'like it' ratings elsewhere in social networking will now get considered as reliable indications of notability? I may be cynical, but I can see this going the way of many other measuring schemes. I can visualise Justin Bieber fans wanting to boost 'their' article, once this gets into the blogs and forums. (And similarly fans of football clubs, and people roped in by the CEO to boost their company's carefully written hidden spam article - or even to downrate their opposition's articles...) No, I can't offhand think of a better system - one that avoids the social networking connotations of 'rating'. Until someone can, leave it to Facebook and meerkats. Peridon (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since ratings expire after any 30 edits to the page, gaming the system would take quite a bit of persistence, especially on a high-traffic page.

I do not see any possibility of us re-writing WP:Notability to pretend that how well-written the page is determines whether the page ought to exist. There may be inexperienced people who make that mistake, but it can be addressed with all of their other common mistakes with an entry at WP:ATA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors

So far I refuse to use the feedback form on articles where I contributed as registered user until 2006 or as unregistered user later. If that is not as you want it maybe offer a potential bias checkbox in the form, or add a note that a bias won't harm whatever you intend to do with the feedback. –82.113.99.162 (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the hope is that many people will rate the page (and the ratings are usually ignored if very few have rated the page), having one or two "biased" people is not a significant problem, just like having one or two people that misunderstand the rating system (or that don't know anything about the subject, or rate the quality of the article based on how much you like the subject) shouldn't much matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info, I will now use it when I feel like it on more articles. –89.204.153.138 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelling "Rate this page" box

What do I have to do to cancel the "Rate this page" box at the bottom of articles. I find them absolutely irritating. Scrivener-uki (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found out how to do it on the project page. Went to My preferences --> Appearance --> and checking the "Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages" box. At last, they don't appear. Scrivener-uki (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're lucky - I've turned it off but it won't go away - see 'Turning off' above... Peridon (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low traffic articles

Many of the articles that I significantly contribute to have had the article feedback tool on them for a while. These articles tend to have quite modest page view stats, in the hundreds on a good day. I am wondering whether any valuable information can come from the tool on this kind of article. One high traffic article that I watch, Albert Einstein, has had 5 ratings between this time yesterday and now. Based on yesterday's page view stats, 11.6k that makes 0.04% of the readers of that article submit a rating, admittedly a very rough metric, but the best I can do at the moment. Extending that number to a hypothetical article that receives 100 page views per day, that would mean one rating per 25 days. One rating on its own is meaningless, the power of the tool comes from having a large sample size, which might be impossible on a low traffic article. In an article with a more modest page view rate, one very bad review could mar a reasonable article, I would imagine that this would be especially relevant on articles about controversial topics.

It may be that the use of the tool may increase as people become more aware of it, they may be more willing to persevere beyond the boring references section. I think that my calculations above can be taken with a large pinch of salt, being based on one article over one day. It may be worth doing more work when everything settles down to see whether it is actually worth having the tool on low traffic articles. Any other thoughts on this? Quasi human | Talk 14:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's going to be the rate of traffic-to-changes that matters. Ratings will eventually accumulate on low-change articles. It might take years, but it will eventually happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, so the question is, based on the current rules, is the period over which 30 edits would be made long enough to accumulate an acceptable number of ratings. I know articles which would probably fail that, having only 10 or 20 views per day, and would still have about 30 edits per year. Are there plans to do any more rigorous investigations into the proportion of readers actually using the tool, or to determine whether the tool fails or succeeds in achieving its stated aims? Quasi human | Talk 21:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent observation. It's in-line with what I have observed as well: participation is rather low for AFT. I expect the rate to get even lower as the "hey what's this?"-factor dies away. Your concern raises another important issue. The more obscure articles tend to have a higher edits-to-views ratio. So at the same time that votes are coming in, the quality of the article is changing! When somebody decides to base action on the voting, they are mis-applying the votes to the present state of the article. In a extreme instance, suppose 100 people rate article as lousy (which perhaps it is), then an editor comes along and "makes it nice". Even if this benefactor rates the article as high quality, the votes still indicate the article is low quality. What's to be done??? The votes indicate the article is in bad shape despite the article being in good shape. That is not a good thing! Scenarios such as these apparently are not being considered regarding this "tool", or at the least nobody is giving them any due weight. I really think that the WMF's Strategic Plan is usurping the tried and true editor-based model that has a 5 year proven track record. They are trying to "fix" something that isn't broken. I'm angry about it. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and the whole 30 edits thing is a bit of a blunt instrument, take for example, this one edit which changed an article from being non-neutral and poorly sourced, to being fully sourced and neutral. I'm sure I could also find an example where 30 edits made no substantive difference to an article.

If we are to accept the aims of the Foundation's strategic plan as valid, at the very least we should examine whether measures intended to achieve them actually work. It is all very well to propose things like AFT in the aspiration of increasing reader participation etc., but if the vast majority of readers are not using the tool after a month or two, then it has unambiguously failed, and should be dropped. I'd like to know under what circumstances the foundation would be willing to drop the tool, and what investigations the Foundation is planning on doing to see whether that line has been crossed. Quasi human | Talk 14:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, the "anyone can edit" idea has failed, because the vast majority of readers don't ever edit a page.

I think it's too early to decide whether the 30-edit bar is the right call. (I do think it would be nice if it didn't count simple vandalism-reversion pairs as two edits, but that might be technically difficult.) The primary reason that this doesn't bother me is because I'm expecting the person who takes any action based on the ratings to use common sense—exactly like I'd expect them to use common sense when considering the frequently outdated, occasionally vandalized WP:1.0 ratings (which, BTW, this process does not replace). So if you see an article with kind of low ratings that looks okay to you, I'd expect you to hit the history page first, and notice that it was improved recently, and therefore that the ratings are probably out of date (and then, I hope, to rate the page yourself, by way of nudging them in the right direction). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, but what standard should be used to judge the success or failure of the tool? Does the foundation have such a standard in mind? Quasi human | Talk 20:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone can edit" and "the vast majority of readers don't ever edit a page" are different things and the later does not logically imply the former. This is an unnecessary broadening of the scope anyway and I think is an unfair way to dismiss Quasihuman's points. His questions are good ones. How is the WMF determining when an initiative is a failed endeavor? Are they trying to determine that? Would they being willing to admit a misstep? The entire history of bureaucracy suggests that people are willing to avoid taking blame. I am worried that the inertia behind these decisions steamrolls direct user feedback. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMF has a reputation for being very metrics-driven. I don't know how they are measuring success or failure, but I am certain that they are doing it. They've got limited resources and a long list of things they'd like to be doing. As a result, they may overall be too quick to drop projects that don't show immediate success. They don't seem to play the shame-and-blame game when they drop projects: either it's working and they're happy with it, or its not, and they move promptly on to the next one.

I know that there are multiple hopes associated with the tool, so it's possible that it will fail on one and succeed on another. For example, it might produce garbage ratings, or ratings that nobody ever bothers to look at (which would presumably be "failure") but increase the rate at which new accounts are created and new people become active editors (which would be "success"). Consequently, I think that it may be naïve of us to think in digital (either it's "on" or it's "off") terms for evaluating the tool's utility. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any general objection with that approach, if that is the approach of the WMF. On one point, it would be a mistake to associate the increase or decrease in the rate of new accounts with the success or failure of the tool unless this is done in a very sophisticated way, correlation does not imply causation. Also, it is new editors we want, not necessarily new accounts. Quasi human | Talk 12:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling on disambiguation pages

There's no reason to rate a disambiguation page, so is there a template we can place on the page (or incorporate into the plethora of disambiguation templates) which will turn that off for these pages? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

We could usefully rate dab pages for completeness. Perhaps what we need is a stripped-down version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any use or value in that as disambig pages are in a constant state of flux as more items require disambiguation. It would be more useful to encourage people to just add the missing items (if any, or note them on the talk page if they are uncomfortable making the changes themselves. Having a disambig page marked as "incomplete" will serve no purpose because they will almost never be "complete". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]