Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages

Pre-implementation discussion is at /archive1. Archives: /archive2, /archive3, /archive4, /archive5, /archive6, /archive7, /archive8, /archive9, /archive10

New WikiProject: Disambiguation

A new WikiProject has been created to address some facets of disambiguation template usage in Wikipedia. Please take a moment to click by Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation for more information. Courtland 04:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

whats on a dab page

• links to dabbed articles
• alternative: link to the closest related item if no article exists
• explanation with comma, stating where the item belongs to
  • larger topic, geographic region...
• explanation in brackets
  • especially for 2LAs + TLAs etc citing code sources
• ...

Maybe this structuring helps to understand the dab texts better. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

cite sources

Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine which page they are looking for; these pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific place

this is against citing culture. WP-references should be wikifyed Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The pages that the dabpage links to should of course be citing the references. wangi 18:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A dab page is not an article. By definiton, a dab contains no questionable information and hence doesn't need citation. Articles contain information and need citation. Don't forget to make the distinction between a dab page and an article when you are quoting Wikipeida article guidelines/polices.--Commander Keane 18:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

what did I quote? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"a dab ... doesn't need citation": an alternative view is: a dab should never contain information that is not on the disambiguated pages; therefore, those disambiguated pages are the source for the dab pages. This only works if it is clear which pages are the disambiguated pages, which means there should be only one wikilink per line. Eugene van der Pijll 18:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

what about "AM can mean Armenia" - than I read whole Armenia page to check whether this is right. Faster: link to the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code definition. and for "am can mean Armenia" link to ccTLD. Your whole unwikify idea makes it harder to check the correctness of the info. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I can understand what you mean Tobias, but the problem with that is that by introducing the extra wikilink to ccTLD, it makes it harder for otehr readers who are not interested in the the Armenia entry. We have to compromise, attempting to achieve an accpetable outcome (it terms of ease/speed of use) for every reader. This is why the "one link per line" guideline is used.--Commander Keane 19:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Tobias, about the "what did I quote". Your citation related comment seemed to be quoting Wikipedia:Cite sources.--Commander Keane 19:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

on purpose I said cite-culture, to distinguish it from guide/policy

I don't see why additional links (not words) are so bad for the reader that the should be omitted for all readers. one bullit, one dab. the main word is the first word. if you are not interested in Armenia - you skip and that's it? esp. if the explanations are in brackets, it's obvious the links are not the dabbed links itself. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly up to interpretation, but if there are 15 topics and 15 wikilinks, then there ate 15 choices. These choices are wikilinks, they are blue. If you have more wikilinks, then there could be 30 choices - and it's takes longer to make your descision. Do you disagree with that?--Commander Keane 20:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The representation has to ensure that it is obvoius to the reader _which_ link is the dab link. Now I see your problem. Don't try to fix representation flaws by unwikifying non-dab page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't get this debate. A disambiguation page is for the lone and sole purpose of disambiguating between ambiguous pages. Because it is not an article, it has no true information on it whatsoever; rather its purpose is navigational, hence it doesn't really have any sources which therefore don't need to be cited. Fullstop.

I really can't think of a way to expand on that. What is there to cite? It's just a series of links to potential answers. The biggest problem with dab pages is that many are too complicated; this manual has pedantic guidelines that lead to a simple page.

If whether an entry merits appearance on a disambiguation page is a problem, use the talk page, because this concerns editors, not readers. Neonumbers 03:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

maybe you read the above and you will get it Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I did read it, and I think this whole thread is pointless because it goes off on unrelated tangents. Next time, I will try and phrase things more explicitly. Neonumbers 08:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Tobias, you're thinking that "unless they may be essential to help the reader determine which page they are looking for" justifies linking to the ISO and other code explanations, right? I disagree. If the page says "Armenia (country code AM)", this is more than sufficient to determine that this is a link to the country of Armenia, and additionally explains that being its country code is what connects the digraph AM to it (even this is not strictly necessary). Whether the link they clicked on actually refers to Armenia has to be determined from the source page's content or context, the disambiguation page merely has to unambiguously identify a link's destination (Armenia or something else). Whether it's an ISO, or NATO, or UN country code is irrelevant to finding the link (although this information should be somewhere in the article about Armenia).

AM could be linking to the article on Armenia for a thousand different reasons, or just for general reference about Armenia, but the odds that it is specifically to let the reader determine which country codes use AM for Armenia are vanishingly small. —Michael Z. 2005-12-5 17:21 Z

ever thought of wrong entries? ever thought of XY being a country code for Xantustan in codeset1 and a country code for Xylistan in codeset2? Furthermore people do not only click, they can also type. And then they can read about lot of different meanings for say AM. I am also deleting lenghty texts about cities that I saw in geo-dab pages. IMO the entries should be short but do not lose on precision. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Further reading: http://www.statoids.com/wab.html

If what I gather is right (and I apologise if it is not), you're worried about unworthy entries creeping their way onto disambiguation pages, which makes it difficult for the editor to check the page is well-compiled. The emphasis is on editor because it does not concern the reader — or at least, should not. In this case, I suggest perhaps a comment, or a note on the talk page — a comment would be better because it would be seen by anyone attempting to edit the page. I apologise again if I got the wrong idea. Neonumbers 06:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

readers too, (may) like to check whether what they read is right. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

But not what they read on a disambiguation page. Remember that the purpose of a disambiguation page is to redirect a user to the correct page, not to educate them about the possible meanings of a certain word. Articles should be sourced; sourcing a dab page is like sourcing the navigation bar. Neonumbers 04:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

your comparison lacks: the dispute is mainly about wikifying. Furthermore a navbar in general is smaller. BTW I think comparisons like this do not help very much. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In which case I take back the comparison and remind you again that a dab page exists for the sole and lone purpose of showing the reader to the correct page, not to provide an exploration route nor to educate the reader. I will resist a strong temptation to explain why the comparison is valid. Neonumbers 02:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

sole and lone purpose of showing the reader to the correct page ... cars are made for driving. take out the radio and cushions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that you've taken a leaf out of my book and made your own comparison that doesn't help very much, I will defend mine.

A disambiguation page is a navigational aid and nothing else, like a navigational bar. They are not exactly the same thing, but in the sense that you would not put anything more than necessary (e.g. sources) on either of them, they can be compared.

When you add a radio and cushions to a car, it does not compromise its ability to drive (unless you have a driver that is continually distracted by them in which case they should be removed). If you add anything to a disambiguation page that does not support its purpose, the reader has to sift through more text and its fitness for purpose is compromised. Hence, anything unnecessary on a dab page is harmful. Neonumbers 10:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

anoying unwikification

Since more or less one week I see Commander Kean and his crew going around and unwikifiing all links they can find if they point to a dab page. THIS IS ANNOYING! Sometimes the pages are not pure dab pages, but have some interesting text and by I don't know which rule have the dab-label. And the label says: If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Please read this dab-msg, it does not say unwikify all you can find. Is this organized destruction? Better a link to a dab page than no link at all. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't label editors as a crew or gang, just because more than one disagrees with you. This leads to ugly discussions about each other instead of about Wikipedia. If most people disagree with you on a question, maybe that says something.

"Sometimes the pages are not pure dab pages"—every page should be clearly an article or disambiguation page. This is where the problem lies. Articles are to be linked to, disambiguation pages are not. Sometimes a "rich" disambiguation page can be split into an article and separate disambiguation page.

The MOS says "don't wikilink any other words in the line", in bold-faced text. I agree that "better a link to a dab page than no link at all", but this this is still an undesirable situation; clearly "better a link to an article than a link to a dab page". Links to disambiguation pages are to be removed and disambiguated—ideally nothing will point to disambiguation pages. If non-disambiguating links get removed on a disambiguation page, then just add them to the linked articles, where they belong. —Michael Z. 2005-12-5 17:30 Z

but it's like crew attack. It did not see them for some days and now they come to articles and templates that already exist for a very long time. A lot of people did not disagree with the way they were before. But now this organized crew comes and changes. They are allways more because they are organized. Fine. My first attention was drawn by nonsense Council-dab at Template:Subnational entity. Now federal was unwikified only because it linked to a page that has a dab-tag. Maybe fix content and create "Federal (dab)" and "Federal (article)" if you think this is fun, but don't hinder people from reading what is said about the word federal in WP by simply unwikifying! That's simply annoying. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict, sorry if I repated stuff) This doesn't really belong here, but Tobias Conradi asked a question above, and I thought I'd answer, feel free to move the discussion somewhere more appropriate - just give me a heads up.

I believe you are referring to my work at WP:DPL (link repair). You have asked me to stop WP:DPL on my user page - I will stop if there is community consensus for that, feel free to do a request for comment if you wish (or get some other opinions, I have nothing to hide: all my link repairs have a suitable edit summary, and you should also know that I use a bot). However, I will continue link repair for the time being.

In the course of link repair I do occaisionally de-link a wikilink, becasue I believe it gives no benefit to the article. There are the following the guidelines: Wikipedia:MoS#Wiki-Linking, Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. I also make mistakes, and they get fixed. I don't see that as reason for me to stop.--Commander Keane 17:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

At first you should unwikify your above post. Go on with link repair. That's great thing. And of course errors happen - no problem. But stop the destructions. You go with a bot and others that don't have one must reinsert lots of links by hand. simply halt destruction. thanks Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you define destruction as de-linking a wikilink. Read the guidelines: Wikipedia:MoS#Wiki-Linking, Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. In my opinion (and it seems the community's looking at those guidelines) if a link doesn't yield any useful information then I de-link it. I am improving the article. If someone comes along and re-links then they are degrading the article. I'm sorry if my work means that inexperienced editors spend time degrading articles. An example is Foundation used in the context of "the business was founded in 1996". There is no appropriate article so I would de-link that. --Commander Keane 18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

maybe better ask whether there can be an article one day. and link to this. So you avoid re-linking to the wrong place by others. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You might also be seeing members of Wikiproject:Disambiguation at work. I guess we are loosely organized, but please don't characterize this as an attack. It's an effort to clean up disambiguation pages and make them conform to the intent and word of the conventions.

I think a lot of these problems and misunderstandings result from a lot of poorly-formatted disambiguation pages with lots of encyclopedic content and non-disambiguating links mixed in. People have seen too many bad examples and work on the basis of them. This project aims to clean this up. Please join. —Michael Z. 2005-12-5 18:23 Z

you are calling me inexperienced, but how can you be so arrogant? You make articles worse by unwikifying. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume you are responding to someone else, because I am not calling you anything. Can we stick to the subject and get over any perceived personal slights? This line of discussion is counter-productive. —Michael Z. 2005-12-5 20:20 Z

BTW I also worked a lot on dab-pages and corrected links and added other meanings. I agree with Michael that part of the conflict seems to stem from mixed-pages. But I found a contradiction: on the one hand the CommanderCrew states the dab-pages should never be linked to. On the other hand they are super-eager to guide the people that on occasion click to such a page as fast as possible. But the majority of people that are on these pages maybe are not people that want to leave as fast as possible. Because lot of those possible fast-leavers never come there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Tobias, I have never considered you to be inexperienced - I have seen your highly experienced dab related edits on my watchlist. On your comment above, we have the random article button for those who want to aimlessly meander Wikipedia. The encyclopeida should be easily accessible for all, which means avoiding links to dab pages and creating efficient dab pages.--Commander Keane 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:-) but federal has some interesting info. it's not only dab. what would you suggest? IMO the dab-tag should be removed. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to discuss this at Talk:federal, my comments are there.--Commander Keane 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia (disambiguation)

I need to walk away from the Wikipedia. I know I do. And yet, here's another example of editing to conform to style and being reverted. Help? Tedernst | talk 23:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel your pain, but don't know what I can do about it. At least the editor didn't call it vandalism, when that happened to me I was far from pleased.--Commander Keane 23:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

{Walking away from the Wikipedia} :-) Tedernst | talk 23:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I re-inserted some of your changes. But I can understand the reverter since some valuable info was deleted. The hyphen vs. comma vs. bracket thing could maybe be fixed. Write a good guide an point to it. maybe next time do changes in steps, each explained, the less controversial at the end - so revert for the whole is less likely. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You could give using the edit summary "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)" a go, if you come back.--Commander Keane 01:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both (Tobias Conradi and Commander Keane). Those are excellent suggestions. Tedernst | talk 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant to mention that that edit summary is more intimidating to new editors, I know you already link to the MoS, but not in it's most brtual form.--Commander Keane 20:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Name dab's - full name vs. surname only

Surname dab pages seem to be going in a couple different directions:

1. Lewis (disambiguation) includes a list of people with the last name of Lewis. In cases where a full name occurs more than once - like George Lewis - and there is another dab page for that full name, the full name dab page is the only link for that full name.
2. Morgan includes a list of people with the last name of Morgan. In cases where a full name occurs more than once - like John Morgan - each individual instance of that name is listed in the surname dab and the full name dab while John Morgan is not linked at all.

Is there some standard that covers this situation? Personally, I don't like 2 above because then John Morgan is simply a subset of Morgan which means redundancy, extra maintenance, etc. But, when I changed a surname dab to be like 1, I got yelled at.

One idea I had was to keep standard 2 above and then make the full name dab into a redirect back to the surname dab.

Opinions? —preceding unsigned comment by Wknight94 (talk • contribs)

Good question. Because dab pages are navigational aids, I favour number 2. Though I guess it could depend on the length of the page. Maintenance is, well, annoying but not more important than navigational purpose. Neonumbers 06:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

full name dab should stay. because if you look for a John Morgan why bother the reader with Morgan Counties etc? But the Sub-dab (full name dab) should have a ref to main-dab (surname dab) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am hoping the solution will involve the List of people by name, thus relying on one central list. There some disucssion about this before, I don't know what the outcome was.--Commander Keane 12:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

On Morgan, you may want to place replace all "John Morgan"s with John Morgan (disambiguation). Possibly, the entry on Morgan could be limited to a link to List_of_people_by_name:_Mor#Morgan. -- User:Docu

IMO the replacement with John Morgan (disambiguation) is not a good idea. maybe you search for a guy called Morgan, so better to have it in one page, otherwise you would have to click through several subpages. nevertheless a ref to the subpage could be made. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's something I've steered clear of so far, but is the list of people called Morgan as a first name really needed? I'm sure there are some exceptions, but generally an article never gets its title from someone's first name, and it's unlikely that someone is searching for someone by their first name.--Commander Keane 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

most first names are IMO irrelevant. Maybe Jesus ("Christ") can go under first name. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

_ _ If i worked on Morgan & found a list of people given-named Morgan (they are at the top of the Dab, for gods' sake), i would suppress the instinct to simply delete them, and apply the See-also provision of the MoS (Dabs) by moving them to the See-also section: the main list at the top is for "Morgan" when used as a lk that would have been well advised, if it had not turned out that there are multiple contnders for the role of being the topic covered by Morgan, or for being the target of a rdr with that title. In contrast to the given-name Morgans, people with surname Morgan are contenders for Morgan as a rdr, just as Immanuel Kant is the sole contender, i think, for the rdr Kant, which indeed rdrs to him. People with given name Morgan are not legitimate contenders for an article or rdr titled Morgan, so (despite my inclination to drop them) i move them under the See also hdg at the bottom.

_ _ Alert readers will have thought of exceptions: Madonna (musician) and Prince (musician) are more like given names than surnames, but are widely enuf used to be contenders for the article; that's not bcz the names "Madonna" or "Prince" are different from "Morgan": Madonna Wayne Gacy and Prince Johnson IMO clearly belong under the "See also" entries of the respective Dabs.

_ _ (In Prince (disambiguation), i for one would admittedly be grateful to find PJ -- rather than have him deleted -- since my confidence in his surname was low enuf that i might have tried Prince Jones first, and gone on to Prince (disambiguation) upon that failing. So i just added a surname to a Dab page -- in the See-alsos -- as my first time doing so.)
--Jerzy•t 17:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

_ _ I also prefer duplication between dabs over having the main section of the Dab lk to other Dabs, for two reasons:

1. A big Dab page can be daunting, but even more daunting is the knowledge that somewhere on a seemingly small page there are 5 lks to other dabs of unknown size. Give the user a clear picture of how deep the water they're in as soon as they hit the dab, rather than foster Monster-Dab anxiety.
2. Unless they're on the wrong Dab page (see next 'graph), or on a really huge page (uh, more than a screen? more than a screen and a half?), let them use their eyes more and the mouse less, making navigation efficient; don't insert an easily avoided link into the process.

_ _ (But as a hypothetical example (sorry i don't have a real example in mind), i think i have put a dab like Franc under see-also on a Dab page like Frank; and even if i didn't let adding the reciprocal lk distract me, i'd probably support Franc lk'g to Frank from its own See-also. To me it makes a difference that "John Morgan is "subordinate" to "Morgan", whereas "Franc" and "Frank" are more like equals: a "positive" reason for using See also for Franc under Frank & vice versa is that it helps break the closed loop from Frank to Franc back to Frank; a "negative" one is that including "John Morgan" is guaranteed not to double the size of "Morgan", while adding everything on Frank or Franc to the other could double one or both of them.)
--Jerzy•t 17:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Wording of the {{disambig}} template.

In a recent discussion I found that the translation of the German disambig has a MoS guidline:

"The entries should restrict themselves to a specific definition and each entry should only be linked to one article"

Having this on the EN {{disambig}} could help out.--Commander Keane 16:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but I think it would be the wrong thing to do. The template is meant to be read by users to explain the page they're looking at. The above text is really instructions to editors. --RoySmith 18:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

agree with Roy. BTW the Germans sometimes have very hardcore comments to their readers/editors. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I too agree with Roy, possibly what caused me to bring it up is the current inclusion

"If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article"

which is also an instruction to editors. Even though I have done a few link repairs in my time, I don't think I've ever used that message. Should it be removed too?--Commander Keane 17:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I see these as two different items. The German instruction is for editors of the dab page. Then English instruction is for readers of another page that linked them here, inviting them to become editors. I will not fight this if others decide it doesn't belong, but I like it as-is. Tedernst | talk 17:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the english friendly invitation. WP is still in progress. The final edition can take this out ;-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto with those who point out that notices to editors should not be on the template. Neonumbers 10:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I defend the en: invitation to readers as distinct from the de: instruction to editors. We solicit monetary contribs from readers, and -- since the Science (magazine) article estimates 10% of our readers are editors (hell, do they mean only 10% of the people who ever read ever edit, or that 10% of traffic is by people who've never edited, and what makes them think they have any idea in either case, but never mind) -- i think of the Dab's solicitation to edit, and the similar one in the stub tag, as valuable ways of encouraging readers to become editors, which should be an important process.
--Jerzy•t 17:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

dab at top of page

the italiens have the dab-template at the top of the page. I personally like this. Sometimes I don't use "XYZ may refer to" but instead place the dab-template at the top of the page. I do so many dabs, it's really faster for me. Well, a robot can repair this. But what do you think, wouldn't it be nicer for readers to have the dab msg at the top? On long pages you only see it at the very and. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it at the top because it is essentially wasted space. For medium length lists that would otherwise fit on one screen, it forces one to scroll down to see the whole list. older≠wiser 16:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• this fit-in-screen-or-not is only true for exactly one length, per screen length.
• If it is regarded as wasted space, this would mean the message is waste in itself?

• As discussed above (or perhaps at the template talk page) there are many who feel that the message should not get in the way of the primary function of the page, which is to direct a user to the correct link as efficiently as possible. older≠wiser 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• can the XYZ may refer to be dropped, so it is less waste? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

After my "Wording of the {{disambig}} template." suggestion above was rejected, I'm thinking of a new disambig template, with just one line. It would take up the same amount of room as the "XYZ' may refer to:", and therefore could go at the top. It address Tobias' three concerns. It would look like:

The issue with this is that you don't get the "...may refer to:" leader. But "may refer to" is not agreed upon (and even despised by some). I'm putting this idea here becasue I'm sure there will be a fatal flaw and I'd rather here it from my comrades at MoS rather than the harsh wilderness that is Template talk:Disambig.--Commander Keane 17:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If we could agree on a one-line template, perhaps--though I'd want to lose the double-rules at top and bottom (which I have always disliked). Also, there would be considerable inconsistency for quite a while, and I think there would always be some who insist on some sort of lead-in line. older≠wiser 18:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it. I don't mind the double-rules, though perhaps we could get away with simply italics the way we link from a page to it's same-named disambiguation page? Tedernst | talk 19:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The double-rules are not important to me, it's the philosophy of the singe line at the top. At Template talk:Disambig there are murmurings of adding an icon to {{disambig}}, which would forever force the template to the bottom. And if you are going to have an icon, you may as well have all the pointers about internal links and MoS. The template would blow out in size, like the German disambig.--Commander Keane 20:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

At the top it justs get in the way of the real content - the links to the actual articles. Keep it at the bottom. wangi 20:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I like having it at the bottom. The French have a nice small one at the top, see fr:Modèle:Homonymie, but I prefer having a short bolded-subject lead in. — Catherine\^talk 21:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to come in on Tobias' and Keane's side on this one. His proposed template, shown above, could replace the existing leader line, and therefore wouldn't take up any significant additiional space. I've never been happy with the "may refer to" wording and neither have a number of others. We may be able to agree on a wording of a template like the one shown above which would serve the purpose of the introductory line as well as supplying a distinctive appearance. For example, we might want to include the name of the disambiguated term in boldface. The only thing we'd be missing is the exhortation to fix links leading to the page, which we could put on a separate template for the bottom, so we'd have {{dab-top}} and {{dab-bottom}}, somewhat like the afd closing tags. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

About the exhortation to fix links, is it really the helpful? Although I've done a few link repairs and am very conscious of the problem, I don't think I've ever arrived at a dab page then gone back to fix the link.--Commander Keane 22:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I do so, not always, but regularly. I'm almost certain I started doing it because I read that exhortation. Since then, I've considered it very routine maintenance, that's easy to do in passing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I could (albeit grudgingly) live with a one-line template at the top, if (and only if) the double rules are lost and the template is shaded with some (light) colour (and it is limited to one line). If this is to be done, all pages should be changed as quickly as possible using a robot, which should also take care of the leading line.

However, I still prefer it at the bottom, and with the leading line; I feel this is clear enough for those that just need to get to a page and don't really care about what a disambiguation page is. In this way, the interested notice it and the uninterested don't encounter it. Neonumbers 02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Arriving on an ambiguous link is the MAIN reason I fix the link. It often causes me to take a gander at the "What links here" and fix them, too. Moreover, I don't believe that utter uniformity in the top line is useful, there are already several examples, especially when there are several groupings of links on the page. Please leave the long notice at the bottom. --William Allen Simpson 15:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

for me it would not be a problem if it has two lines and includes the invitation to fix links. For coloring maybe take care what skins other people use. The extra dab-bottom template could be a good idea, this could have the invite. Can be robot added and nobody has problems if it is missing for a while. One suggestion above was to include the title. For the TLAs we have several, and there are other cases where several titles (spell variants) use the same dab-page. I don't know whether this is a prob. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I maybe created 100 or 200 or more pages like [1] The {{dab}} is really good because it is minimal typing. Someone moved the {{dab}} down, but did not write the "Blabla may refer to:" intro. Seems he was to lazy too. Additional I do not like the different wordings "may refer to", can "refer to", "refers to", "refers to one of the following" etc. It distracts me. IMO a standardized dab intro should be used. Even for "blabla may refer to" a template could be used. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

_ _ I doubt we can settle on a top standard wording.

_ _ I have personally argued that grammar problems prove that "refer" (rather than "be") is the only wording that can always work right. Yet i strongly prefer

Blah-blah may be:

(in all but those pathological cases) since virtually all articles are about the thing and not the word, and should and do begin with the title as the subject of a sentence about what the thing is or was or does, not what the word means.

_ _ "Refer" or "mean" also promotes turning Dabs into wordy dict-defs.

_ _ Having the Dab tmplt at the bottom may confuse readers encountering their first or second dab, or rather let them stay confused longer, but the "may"/"can"/"might"/"one of"/etc., the terseness of entries that comply with the MoS so that attention is focused on the single lk per entry, and the format as a list or categorized list all support quick comprehension, with the Dab tmplt at the bottom available for backup for those who still don't get it.

_ _ The Dab tmplt belongs at the bottom bcz it is a detail, not the main business, and it needs the boxing to draw enuf attention that users are aware it exists (even if they don't read it the first dozen times they hit a dab) so that they can make a decision (based at least on how hurried they are) about whether to glance at it beween finding the entry they needed & lk'g out to it.

_ _ If you think variable wording at the top is distracting, think abt our current recent "otherwise" wording for a moment, and about what "associated with the same title" could mean ("associated" in what sense?; associated by whom?; with what title? -- isn't an article "associated" only with its own title, the one that appears at the top of its text?; what is an article (perhaps distinguished from a topic, a page, a dab, a rdr, a discussion, a policy abt articles....)? Write this on the inside of your eyelids: Dab pages raise to very close to the surface the very confusing issues & paradoxes of map vs territory, thing vs name, and of conditions contrary to fact and subjunctive case, that human culture tries to avoid outside of jokes and philosophical self-flagellation. (I for one eventually gave up, a year or so ago, not just trying to correct the (until recently, long-standing) wording "pages that otherwise might share the same title", but also even thinking about whether "otherwise" and "might" are subtly semi-redundant (did we mean "would otherwise", and if so, is "otherwise" unnecessarily vague?) and what the really accurate wording might be.) Don't give anyone the impression that any at-all-specific reason for having a dab is important enuf to appear at the top of the page; the most valuable explanation for dabs is the unconscious one you have after using two or three of them.
--Jerzy•t 18:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Article headings leading to disambiguation pages

Could somebody refresh my memory, where are the MoS guidelines on the Otheruses et alia Templates?

This comes up (for me) with Antioch. A couple of different editors independently noticed a "custom" line was used with 3 repetitions of Antioch (one misspelled), and all other useful information already in the lede of the article. We both replace it with Otheruses. Yet vehement reverts occurred. William Allen Simpson 15:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If my memory is correct, this is no manual guideline for it.

The templates are listed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but I don't believe there are any guidelines regarding it. Sorry this couldn't be of help.

Custom lines are, of course fine; I would back you in saying that the line was a bit overdone. I have shortened it accordingly. Neonumbers 10:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In this case the correct template would have been {{Otherplaces}}. Wikipedia:Hatnote is under development and I implore all you fine people to help shape it into a guideline for this kind of thing.—jiy (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikipedia:Hatnote is exactly what we need. I'd not seen a reference to it before. I'll note that it's listed in Help:Section and (the identical portion of) Wikipedia:Section#"See also" line or section (sorry I didn't notice, it's been months/years since I looked at them), but not Wikipedia:Disambiguation. William Allen Simpson 14:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Unclear rules when it comes to disambig pages where the meanings all point to other terms

It isn't clear to me how the rules apply to disambig pages like Bummer. I tried to follow them as closely as I could, but IMHO someone should add some content to the manual of style page about this. 65.57.245.11 03:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (Hixie)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation covers the style of disambiguation pages. Deco 04:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's a very good question.

In my humble opinion, the first four entries on that page (bad trip, etc.) shouldn't even be there: while they are synonyms, I don't think it is an encyclopedia's role to redirect slang words to the appropriate article. However, some will disagree.

If you must include them, the articles that actually have "Bummer" in them (namely, the film, etc.) must go first, because they are the more likely targets (remembering that this is an encyclopedia). The 2003 film should go first because it has an article. The indefinite articles "a" in front of each of the other four terms do not need to be there, and they should be separated with a "Bummer can also mean:" line.

However, I would request that page be deleted and move the Bummer (film) article there :P. I leave it to your judgement, User:65.57.245.11. (btw, can I suggest you get an account to distinguish yourself from others of the same IP?) Neonumbers 10:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

dab or not

Do we have a policy on how it's determined if a page is a dab or not? Free Presbyterian Church is the one I'm thinking of. It had a dab tag on it so I edited it as such. I was reverted and the dab tag removed. It still looks an awful lot like a dab to me. And in general? What do we do with cases like these? Tedernst | talk 19:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's clearly disambiguating, and was marked for cleanup. But one of the reasons I arrived on this talk page is the rather stark view that some have of these pages. Some folks want them to _assist_ in locating the correct page. Stripping all the useful information was too much! Moreover, it may be a bit more work, but several of them already have enough information for a stub article, which would be a lot more useful than deleting the gathered information.... William Allen Simpson 21:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're referring to my specific actions on that page, that's in the past, as far as I'm concerned. That page is not currently a dab page, which is my current issue. How do we know what's supposed to be a dab and what's not. If that's a dab, I'm going to edit it again, to remove unnecessary wikilinks and all references at a minimum. If it's a not a dab, then I'm trying to understand what makes it not a dab. Specifics about that page can be discussed there. I'm trying to ask a more general question. That page is just an example. Tedernst | talk 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If a page is concerned with one topic (eg Free Presbyterian Church's) then I get the feeling it's not a disambiguation page. Take Conservative Party. It is currently marked as a dab, but ideally it should follow format of Liberal Party. {{disambig}} is often abused by editors who don't know what to with a page, the author of Free Presbyterian Church has eluded to this on the talk.--Commander Keane 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's my take: it is a dab page, but it shouldn't be one, for the reasons listed above. Ideally, someone will come around to writing an article on it. Maybe it could be put on requested articles? I don't know how to deal with this... that's just what I reckon. Neonumbers 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It was cases like this that the former Category:Signpost articles could have helped. However, this category was deleted with little discussion a couple of weeks ago. Courtland 01:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

the glorious WP has no article about standard anymore

further reading: Standard Talk:Standard - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

linking back to main article

I edited Police according to what I thought [[MoS:DP#Linking back to the main article] said about bold (don't do it). I was reverted and when I went back to look it up, I found that I was wrong. Was this changed at some point recently? I can't find it anywhere in the history. Am I simply misremembering? If so, I've edited a lot of pages incorrectly. Tedernst | talk 21:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Wahoofive wrote that section back in 2005-05-09 21:30:28, and it really hasn't changed much since then. Fortunately, you have your contribution history, and you can easily go and fix all the mistakes! William Allen Simpson 00:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There was a discussion of bolding here and a general discussion of how to format links back to the main article here. There may be more in the archives, but that's what I found in a quick pass. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The first one is interesting (about bolding links in the list), but not what I'm after. The second one is much more relevant. I still can't figure out why I was so sure of myself that the MoS said no bolding when linking back to the main article, when clearly it hasn't been that way since I've been active on dabs. And no, William Allen Simpson, it won't be at all easy. Have you looked at my history?

So now the question is, should that link be bold? I think not. Tedernst | talk 16:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should be bold. (No, normally I don't look at user history except in case of vandalism. Of course, since you should have clear comments referencing this MoS for every entry, and spent 10 minutes or so for each cleanup checking every link for accuracy, I cannot see why it would be difficult?) William Allen Simpson 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And why should it be bold? Tedernst | talk 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This issue was a trivial one in the pre-implementation discussions. There was no common already-existing practice that we could find, nor was there an ideal method we could agree on — in fact, I don't even think we could think of one. So this is, to an extent, still open to discussion. If anyone has a better idea than the one at present, it would be greatly appreciated.

In fact, I've just thought of something. How about an align-right template, say, {{dabmain}}, that just puts a box to the right saying something about the main article being there? That way, it's out of the way, but still existent — how it should be (no-one would've gotten to the dab page without first going through the main one). Just an idea — what do you think? Neonumbers 04:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Folks can also get to the page via search. Moreover, I don't like the idea of a single link back template, as the wording is so often variable depending on the subject. But maybe we should abandon the idea that there be a linkback above the "may also mean" and just go with: most likely meaning always the first item. That gets rid of a lot of the variability, and answers this question with finality. --William Allen Simpson 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with William Allen Simpson, curiously. Tedernst | talk 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

By suggesting a template, the main point was that it is in a box to the right, out of the way. It still think, as a courtesy, a link should be provided — just to make things foolproof, kind of like you would include a procedure in a computer program for something that would never happen, just in case it does. The (very concise) description of the main page may/may not go in the box with it (an allowance can be made for this, I'm sure, e.g. {{dabmain|pagename|concise description}}

I would support any other method to remove the linkback before the first leading line "XYZ may (also) mean:", as long as it is still mentioned on the page. It needs to be both. Neonumbers 03:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are mixing the two issues up. On the one hand there is a new way to introduce a secondary (if that's what I can call it) dab page. On the other hand there is the use of a template as an alternative to typing out the new introduction. Try not to mix them up. Although I am interested in a new introduction, I won't be using a template (much as I don't use the otheruses templates - they are an abstraction that takes power away from new users).--Commander Keane 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ay? I assumed we were talking about Police (disambiguation) (even though the Police link was cited)... correct me if I'm wrong... if I am, my proposal stands in a new section... Neonumbers 03:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Lookfrom

Template:Lookfrom was recently created, and could be useful on Dab pages, especially pages for first names, such as David etc. This template will put a link to Special:Allpages with all pages that begin with this name. Could be useful, but the template may need to be formatted to make it look better (I can't do fancy formatting so I won't try!) --Wonderfool 15:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I proposed something like this as an explicit link addition under See also on a dab page and it was generally rejected as being an unnecessary addition to dab page content. That was several months ago as I recall. If consensus is to move forward with this now, it might be useful to format the template similarly to {{wiktionary}} by boxing it and setting is off to the side because it effectively leads people into a domain of Wikipedia that the vast majority will never have visited (let alone known about) and exits disambiguation proper by providing access to stemmed products of the article title. One thing that is a disadvantage is that redirects are not distinguishable on Special:Allpages, which will be a source of frustration for many users, I believe. User:Ceyockey 04:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think one place where the template (or a mutation of it) would be helpful is on pages like Xeno where the term is both a standalone word/title as well as a prefix. The usage as a prefix would be well served by adding the link to Special:Allpages, and I'll do so on this particular instance. User:Ceyockey 17:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

TLAs

I thought that the format for three-letter acronym/abbreviation disambiguation pages had been discussed somewhere, but I can't find it now.

The MOS currently has examples including the following:

XYZ may refer to:

ABC may stand for:

The MOS doesn't recommend any special treatment for disambiguation pages that are three-letter abbreviations, except for using {{TLAdisambig}}. (A recent consensus was against using a wider range of disambiguation templates, such as for 2LAs, LNAs)

Some editors have been adding longer leading lines like this:

AMR is a three-letter abbreviation with multiple meanings, as described below:

I would suggest following the MOS examples, because:

• Shorter is better—the focus should remain on the disambiguating links
• A colon (:) serves the purpose of the phrase "with multiple meanings, as described below" perfectly well
• TLAs are often not only abbreviations, but also three-letter words; why say which at all?
• Explaining three letter abbreviations and linking to the non-disambiguating article three-letter abbreviation is outside the scope of a disambiguation page; it waters down its function

Remember, a disambiguation page is an interface that a reader only encounters when a link in an article has failed to jump directly to an article. They serve only as an interface to find the link target, and not to explain anything or offer exploration links. Their contents should be as minimal as possible to get the job done. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 18:55 Z

Well said! Tedernst | talk 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I kind of agree. Sometimes less is more. Remember we already have {{TLAdisambig}} so there's no real reason to have TLA in the intro as well. Shinobu 22:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

NOT WELL SAID! As pointed out several times, last by William, people can come (to) the page via search engine, or type a word directly in the browser bar. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So how would linking to "three-letter abbreviation" help these people? The page has a stated purpose, and non-disambiguating links dilute it. —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 08:55 Z

who was talking about linking? I referred to your words

a disambiguation page is an interface that a reader only encounters when a link in an article has failed to jump directly to an article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So are you suggesting a different wording from the MOS, or just making conversation? —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 20:34 Z

I would perfer that a uniform introduction be agreed apon, and that intro be used on all pages. Jsmethers 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, proper grammar dictates that a complete sentence be used before a colon. The examples given here are sentence fragments. Jsmethers 00:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the complete sentence in grammar part — a colon, I'm sure, can be used before a list, which is what a dab page (in effect) is.

Well said, Michael. Neonumbers 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A colon may be used before a list, but the sentence before the colon must still be a complete sentence. A colon is the equivilent of a period. Jsmethers 06:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what a nice response! Regarding sentence fragments, perhaps "XYZ may refer to the following:" would make it a complete sentence, but in my opinion just the colon conveys 100% of this meaning (or rather, the leading line plus the list of links constitutes the equivalent of a sentence). —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 05:49 Z

If the desire it for the shortest possible introduction, it could be simply the name of the page followed by a colon. Jsmethers 06:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's exactly what Neonumbers just said. Anyway, while we're all here, can someone propose a revision to the MoS incorporating these ideas? —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 06:03 Z

I also like "ABC may stand for:".
Generally it tend to think it's useful to name the context the TLA is used in and obviously to what it expands. Both points shouldn't be a problem based on the current MoS.
Besides, as [[User:Gerbrant|Shinobu]] writes {{TLAdisambig}} should take care of the rest. -- User:Docu

How many times can I say that this usage is wrong before someone realizes it is wrong. Ignoring grammar for without good reason will only harm the reputation of wikipedia.

There must be a complete thought before the colon. It must be an independent clause. If it is not a complete thought without the list, it is not correct. Jsmethers 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My Canadian Oxford Dictionary includes the complete sentence "Abbr.: CCF." That is, admittedly, a very specific usage. Would "XYZ may refer to the following:" or "XYZ may mean several things:" be acceptable?

Those are all fine. The example from the dictionary is correct because the colon is being used in a definition. Jsmethers 20:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What if the colon was left out? Would "XYZ may refer to" be acceptable on its own at the top of a list of bullet points? —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 20:36 Z

Anyway, I would prefer to avoid "may stand for", because XYZ may be both an abbreviation and a full word. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 20:00 Z

To have a standard introduction, the desired types of lists should be taken into account for parrallel construction. Most of the TLAs appear to contain lists of items, and some appear to contain complete sentences. This dictates that a complete sentence be used for the introduction to allow for both types of construction. Therefore, the following introductions seem to be valid:

• XYZ may refer to the following:
• XYZ may mean several things:
• Meanings of XYZ:

This last one fits with the desire for a very short introduction. I also think it is visually appealing since it breaks up the left margin by place the bold at the end of the sentence, thus distinguishing it from the bold headings.

With the the intent of parrallel construction, the following do not appear to be appropriate introductions (notice the lack of colons):

• XYZ:
• XYZ may stand for
• XYZ may refer to

Perhaps we should wait a few more days for input, and then take a vote. Jsmethers 05:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The nature of the leading line is an issue that keeps getting brought up and no complete satisfaction has been reached with regards to bolding, "may mean" vs. "may refer to", the use of colons, whether any leading line is required at all, etc. I would like to resurrect, at least partially, an alternative that Courtland offered a while back, wherein the leading line is styled similar Wiktionary. The basic idea is that the leading line consists of the bolded term and nothing else, eliminating contention regarding its wording, grammar, and formatting.

Tree

• Tree, a woody plant
• Tree (graph theory)
• Tree (set theory)

It is not perfect in every situation, but it is something to consider.—jiy (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That looks quite good. It clearly visually defines a term and list of definitions. Here's the same thing done using wikitext markup for definition lists (";" and ":"), which is semantically more correct, and improves accessibility of the page (eg, for handicapped screen readers). The exact visual format could be tweaked in Wikipedia's style sheet.

Tree

Tree, a woody plant

Tree (graph theory)

Tree (set theory)

Really, there's no call for using boldface. The complete-sentence rule is intended for prose, not tables. The colon here indicates that the continuation of the sentence is typographically separated; it's not similar to a semicolon, as it would be in formal prose. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have lost any further interest in this discussion. Do whatever you all wish. Happy new year. Jsmethers 01:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree; the structure of the information is primarily conveyed visually, not in prose. It's similar to a dictionary headword and definition. —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 20:46 Z

I like these - they look very clean. Semantically I'd prefer the second, although one might say that the first looks good too. Shinobu 00:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So what is being agreed upon here is that there should be nothing except the link on a line, correct, just the link and nothing else, period, yes? User:Ceyockey 02:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Italicizing

There is no need to emphasize the link with bolding or italics, although book titles and the like may be italicized in conformance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles).

Based on this, editors often italicize like so:

• Avalon (album)

This doesn't seem right. Titles of major works are italicized, but "(album)" is not a part of the title of the work; it has been appended for janitorial reasons and does not exist as part of the title outside of Wikipedia. Some editors, then, italicize using piping, like so:

• Avalon (album)

This is more correct, and at the very I think least the Manual needs to be clarified so that if italicizing is to be used, this is how it should be done. Personally, though, I never italisize because disambiguation pages are not articles and so editorial formatting required for articles, such as italicizing titles of major works, is not required. Additionally, simply leaving italicizing out eliminates complicated piping and issues of consistency.—jiy (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A change in the manual to specifically recommend Avalon (album) would be fine by me. (Its removal altogether would not.) Neonumbers 03:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd thought that such a change had been added. It would be useful to add if it is not there; it would also be useful to propose exact wording here so it can be hashed out for consensus (wars can start over single words that are seemingly innocuous). Note that such a guideline addition does not seem to be specifically supported by the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy that I can see, which is unfortunate; if a naming policy can be cited to support the addition, that would be good to include (for instance the section on ship names which does include mention of italicization). As an aside, I'd say at least 10% of the edits I've made from something like [[Avalon (album)]] to [[Avalon (album)|Avalon (album)]] get reverted by editors who don't like the change (for a variety of reasons). User:Ceyockey 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing this for a while, and I don't remember any reverts. It's not necessary, but it does make the page typographically neater. The reason it's not in the general MoS is because the disambiguation part is practically always hidden in articles, but it is explicitly revealed in disambiguation pages. I would support adding a recommendation for this technique, or at least a mention that it is acceptable. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 05:57 Z

The page is a list of links. If the Avalon (album) was italicized in the article title, then it would be OK to do so in the link. (But it's not.) Sometimes, folks seem to spend more time tweeking than actually producing anything useful.... William Allen Simpson 13:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh?—jiy (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The page title is not italicized for stylistic consistency and/or due to technical limitations. In most other cases, the titles of major works are italicized. —Michael Z. 2005-12-24 18:28 Z

Removal of redlinks from dab pages

It appears that User:Tedernst has begun on a relatively aggressive campaign to rid disambiguation pages of red-links based on the notion that if there isn't an article, there shouldn't be an entry on the dab page. I'm personally not planning to do anything about this but I thought it should be pointed out considering some of the discussions that have taken place about the appropriateness or lack thereof of including red-links on dab pages. User:Ceyockey 01:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's nothing organized, actually. Some pages just look really ugly and most of the redlinks look sketchy. If someone adds one or more of the redlinks back, I will leave them alone, especially if there's something said about noteability of the particular links. I'm not a zealot, contrary to how some of my edits might make me seem. :-) I'm also a fan of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, for whatever that's worth. Tedernst | talk 03:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look at Cabal (disambiguation). I think the only way to stop your wholesale gutting of pages is to produce a lot of redirects to trick you into thinking that there are really articles, perhaps. I suppose it's a matter of whether a sub-article concept (i.e. something that is addressed in part of an article) is worthy of any consideration in the disambiguation universe or not. I would take your actions to mean that you do not believe anything below the level of a full article should be addressed at the dab page level, correct? User:Ceyockey 03:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, if it's addressed in the linked article, I leave it. Tedernst | talk 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not the approach you took with Cabal (disambiguation). Bkonrad restored some material, I see, where the term is mentioned in the linked article but you had deleted the links. User:Ceyockey 04:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me be a bit more to the point. Consider Uniform (disambiguation), which I just worked on. According to your actions to date, I would anticipate that the "U" entry would be deleted as not associated with an article and therefore not worthy of disambiguation. If I am right then the only way to keep it from disappearing would be to create U (NATO) as a redirect (tagged with {{R to list entry}} most likely) to NATO phonetic alphabet. This redirect creation would seem to be useless because nobody will search for "U (NATO)" nor will they insert and wikilink this text into an article; its only reason for existence would be to allow existence on a dab page as a blue-link. Is this really what you are striving for? Before you answer that, look at NATO phonetic alphabet#Alphabet and pronunciation and consider whether "uniform" is a legitimate term that should be leading to this place in some fashion, be it dab or redirect. User:Ceyockey 03:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no point in having that entry for the letter U, no. What is its purpose? Tedernst | talk 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's see -- the word "uniform" is used to represent the letter "U". What is so difficult to understand? older≠wiser 13:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why would anyone search for "uniform" when they mean "U"? Why would anyone link to "uniform" when they mean "U"? You seem to think this is obviously to anyone more intelligent than a potted plant, but I don't see it at all. Tedernst | talk 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

While my instinct is to agree with Tedernst that no one would link or search for "uniform" in this case, it's occurred to me that if I wanted more information about this alphabet (for example, I couldn't remember what word corresponded to V), I wouldn't necessarily know what article name to look under. I've heard of "alpha, bravo, charlie" etc. (not to mention abel, baker), but I wouldn't have had the foggiest idea that it's a NATO invention until I read this thread. Although I might be able to find it by starting with "alphabet," another reasonable approach would be to search for whatever words I could remember. When someone's searching an encyclopedia, they're not always certain what they're looking for at first.

Bkonrad, you started this thread with a wholesale accusation about Tedernst. Surely you have more examples than this one. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Er, where did I make a "wholesale accusation"? While I disagree with some of Tedernst edits, I don't recall making any broad accusations. In another thread I did comment that I thought Tedernst may be a little too hard-line in the approach to editing (and I don't think I was alone in that thought), but I certainly did not intend that as a wholesale accusation. older≠wiser 18:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The "wholesale accusation" came from me, not Bkonrad. Let's get our attributions correct, shall we? User:Ceyockey 03:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

On the matter of "why would anyone use _uniform_ for _U_" one should ask "why did NATO?" first. Second, one should ask "what would I do with a string like Charlie-Uniform-Tango" ... scratching your head from watching old WWII movies - ok, Charlie is C, and Tango is T, so Uniform must be U ... let's check - and off you go. It's NOT obvious, but it does make sense to me; it is not necessary (frankly) for it to make sense to you - that is the principle of "inclusion" which we can afford to adopt, I believe. User:Ceyockey 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What if I want to follow the rules rather than break them?

After finding out that I've been doing DAB pages the wrong way, I am now on a crusade to bring all DAB's I come across into conformance with the MOSDAB. So I have one question:

Q. Will my zealous campaign make other editors so mad that they get together and conspire to murder me in my sleep? RlyehRising03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW. I notice a sudden upsurge in the interest given to DAB pages. Could this be because I've been putting links to here in the edit summary? I should note that one reason I include those links is to provide a rationale for my changes, but also (and perhaps more importantly) so that other editors can check my work. RlyehRising 03:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Taking a look at the Participants list, the upsurge in activity around here occurred around November - probably not the RlyehRising factor :). Many of us put an edit summary linking here - as a justifcation, and as an education device. To tell you the truth, I didn't even recognise WP:MOSDAB as an available redirect to here. You may wish to consider using the complete "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)" in the edit summary - it's more effective at getting the message across and editors don't have to follow a link to find out what it's all about.

Will you be mudered in slumber? There will certainly be some opposition to your edits (which I have had a quick look at and agree with, the edits that is). Oppostion can come from ignorance of the purpose of a disambiguation page. Opposition can come from those who disagree with this style guideline. I recommend you place pages you edit on your watchlist; more than once my edit to a dab page has been reverted. Finally, when you get dissolutioned you should take a break from the style side of things and work on link repair (that my opinion anyway).--Commander Keane 09:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I get the some push-back and the occasional stubborn reverter, but generally, editors seem to appreciate a disambiguation page that goes from an ugly mess to a neat list of links. I get the sense that linking to the project helps a lot (my usual edit summary is "Disambiguation page style repair (you can help!)"). When a discussion starts up, politely pointing out MOS:DP can often settle it. I usually insist on de-linking non-disambiguating terms, but if other editors restore some red links or questionable items, I'll leave them in as a compromise. Don't bother starting revert wars; there are plenty of other pages to clean up. —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 09:45 Z

That's been my experience too -- a few minor disagreements quickly cleared up, and a few more stubborn issues, some of which can be solved with existing measures (see Congo above), and some which can't. I think in most cases if someone is defending the status quo strongly, it's better to let it go, and go fix up one of the thousands of other dab pages that need help. The page in question will eventually be addressed again by someone (and the more important the page, the quicker that will happen), and either the defender will have moved on, or s/he will see that it's not just an individual crusade of yours. — Catherine\^talk 22:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If there's a dispute, it can also be useful to figure out what aspect of the page is dear to someone, and just clean up the others. Instead of doing a massive reorg/cleanup/link-culling of a disambiguation page, do simple edits whose individual purpose is clear. Useful edit summaries include the following. —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 23:45 Z

• "format according to MOS:DP"
• "sort according to MOS:DP"
• "alpha-sort"
• "de-linking non-disambiguating terms "xxx" and "yyy""
• "removing non-encyclopedic term "zzz""

Akita

Would anyone like to take a look at Akita and Talk:Akita? Thanks! Tedernst | talk 22:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion - walk away from the page for 20 weeks or more then come back. User:Ceyockey 22:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you (Tedernst) may be taking too hard of a line with your edits. While I generally dislike categorizing dab pages, sometimes it is unavoidable and I don't think there is any hard and fast rule against it. Similarly, some of the "extra" information on that page is helpful for understanding which link is intended. I think the extra links are unnecessary, but the verbiage is not so excessive as to get in the way. older≠wiser 22:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• sigh*... I guess Ceyockey's got a good way of going about it. Don't let it discourage you, Tedernst, there are other pages, thousands of them. Neonumbers 23:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. Good advice. There are plenty of other pages. I'll just move on. Thanks! Tedernst | talk 23:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I had a stab at it too, and after a revert (putting back largely pointless Japanese text) I think it's at a pretty reasonable state. Thanks/wangi 23:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it's okay the way it is. Remember rule no. 8: MOS:DP#Break rules. —Michael Z. 2005-12-29 18:55 Z

categories

Are there no prohibitions on categories for dab pages? Tedernst | talk 06:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

They are deprecated by implication, as there is no explicit mention of them in the style guideline. But similarly there is no prohibition against them that I am aware of. older≠wiser 13:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There tends to be two cases where categories get added, one where all of the entries belong to a particular class (like everything is a place in the United States or everything is a ship name) and the other where someone has just chosen to single out one entry among many unrelated ones for categorization. The all-entries-belong-to-one-class seems to have been the origin of some of the dab-templates which have been the source of some strife for the past couple of months. The main argument against categorizing dab pages for me is that when one looks at a category that contains both dab pages and articles it is not clear which is which, and that could be quite frustrating to readers I think. Do you have particular cases in mind that you want to either add categories to or remove categories from? User:Ceyockey 04:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)