Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

headings: less is more

OK, I've been reading through the nice index of archives (thank you Ted), and see that arguing about headings, leading lines, and links to main article have been repeated ad nauseum. Not that long ago, I preferred flexibility. Now, I'm swinging to the opposite conclusion. Folks need to keep in mind: these are not articles!

Looking back, I see a couple of proposals that seemed to have no strong objections, but apparently never gained enough support to bring change. I'm combining them here.

1. {{main}} for any link back to main article
2. semicolon bold heading, no descriptive (weasel) words
3. ====sections==== (note 4 '=') for different kinds/groups of links, and {{TOCright}}
4. bullet link, then comma ',' or long dash '&mdash', then description (no period)

---

Main article: Whatever

Whatever

• Whatever (this) — description
• Whatever (that) — description

In field, people, places, things

• What ever else link — description

---

--(asbestos suited) William Allen Simpson 11:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said — this manual is based on the principle that disambiguation pages disambiguate. Many of those proposals gave way simply because we had another way which seemed to be more common and worked equally as well (I think... off memory, anyway...)

1. We never really reached a true certainty on that one, I think the one we chose in the end was arbitrary. Personally, I don't like it, but at the time I couldn't think of an alternative. I have my own proposal on that, which I'll talk about below.
2. Is this the leading line? The leading line kind of leads into the list of links. I generally don't like flexibility, but I tend to exercise flexibility with the leading line because I find that the best line really does change between pages. For example, people dabs generally use "is the name of". Places dabs where all places are from the U.S. (how come there's so many?), I generally start those with "can refer to one of these United States places:" or something similar, even if it is a bit long — more help than hurt here, just to indicate they're all U.S. places.
3. I don't remember the sub-section one... strange, maybe I never took part in its discussion. {{TOCright}} is already part of our manual for longer lists.
4. I think that's one of those flip-a-coin things; I think more pages tend to have commas rather than em-dashes, but either works as well as each other; we just want to pick one and stick to it. (Can't remember our conclusion on full stops.)

Now, this main-article link. I briefly mentioned in a recent discussion an idea of putting the main article in a floating box on the right-hand side of the page. This way, it's both present and out of the way. The box doesn't need to be bright yellow or anything, just a simple box with "Main article: thingy" will do. The only downside I can think of is that it's kinda fancy — so this wants to be as simple as possible.

Other options were including it in the list, which of course we decided against, and of course the hatnote and our current guideline. A major wall in deciding this guideline back then was that there was no apparent trend, so we couldn't just take the most common. When I think about it now, either my new right-aligned box idea, or the hatnote, would work. Neonumbers 11:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

While I generally agree with most of your points (in fact, some are proposals I made myself) I think there's little to be gained by continuing to tweak details like this. Here's what happens: half a dozen well-meaning people debate it here, and we all agree, so it gets written into the guideline. Then someone takes it upon themselves to go through the thousands of dab pages and make them conform to the guideline, in three or four cases sparking revert wars. Finally one of the reverters on one of the nonconforming pages get mad, comes here and unilaterally changes the guideline to something else, and starts their own project of changing all the pages to their own pet format. Eventually we notice the change and change it back, perhaps with an acrimonious debate on the talk page, but in the meantime the dab pages are in as much disarray as ever, and we've wasted a lot of time. For example: [1], or [2], User:Uncle G's recent attempts to change "may refer to" to "is". Does it really matter whether the main topic is linked in the description line, via a {{main}} template, or a right-aligned box? Or is just the first entry? To me, that seems a lot less important than the fact that there's no article on the Abbey of Solesmes, the world authority on Gregorian chant. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said/wangi 17:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind tweaking, but lets keep it as simple as possible. Over the last couple of months the average disambiguation page has got a little neater, because there's been a lot of attention on them.

I'm in favour of keeping the main link as the first item in the list. It will usually be visually prominent because it has no parentheses, and no description is usually needed. A main article template will prompt discussion or debate about which item is main. Linking the bold term in the leading line invites debate about whether it should be on the list too, and makes it less prominent than the first item on the list, in my opinion, where it is sometimes mixed with other linked terms in the leading line.

I would be against the use of section sub-headings. Just plain paragraphs serve best in the cases that a list should be subdivided:

1. A separator should be visually subordinate to the leading line; the subheading is larger and has more bold text
2. A paragraph takes less space than a heading; helping keep as much of the list "above the fold" (in the browser window w/o scrolling).
3. A table of contents is practically never needed for a disambiguation page.

I would also suggest commas over dashes, although consistency is what's really important:

1. Commas are easier for anyone to type
2. Commas are less obtrusive than dashes, but can serve the same semantic purpose here
3. There will be no argument over hyphen/en dash/em dash, solid/spaced/non-breaking spaced dashes

—Michael Z. 2006-01-12 18:23 Z

I have no problem with commas, and if I work on a dab page that has some commas, some dashes, they will soon be all commas. Chris the speller 19:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Michael. I was actually kind of surprised to see that the MoS currently recommends putting a link to the primary page in bold in the first line. This seems rather uncommon to me on the dab pages I've come across and runs counter to other portions of the general MoS which recommends that links should not be bolded. I prefer to have the main link as the first item in a list. I think I also agree with Wahoofive that we probably shouldn't try to overspecify details. While we don't want to have too much variation in the pages, I don't think there is much benefit in trying to nail down every detail in what is meant to be a flexible guideline. older≠wiser 22:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We should, however, nail down details which can be nailed down, because of the nature of these pages; this guideline is probably one of the most inflexible guidelines around. Its level of flexibility now is about right (each of the four above proposals are already specified as something else), of course too much nailed down is, well, it just won't work.

I think the first proposal above merits discussion, and no other; the rest seem pointless — at best, arbitary changes that neither improve nor degrade. But the first one: at the very least, now that we've had a while to carry implementation out, it might be worth re-thinking that guideline. It can and should be standardised; it is a very simple procedure that does not require case-by-case consideration.

Two questions need to be answered: do we like the current method of linking back to the primary topic? If not, what possible methods are there, and which would work best? (Okay, three questions.) Neonumbers 00:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity, by "first proposal" do you mean the use of the {{main}} template for the main article? —Wahoofive (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, including alternative options. Neonumbers 10:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My motivation was partly Uncle G. Getting rid of the weasle words gets rid of an argument! And I was awake in the middle of my night, so I looked at the archives. It did put me back to sleep....

The {{main}} would only be used on "(disambiguation)" pages where there is a primary topic page. We've learned those are only a small minority of the pages. I am/was also in favor of having the link back as the first item in the list, but that was strongly rejected in the archives, and doesn't work well for sorted lists with headings (whether semi-colon bold or '=' sections). The page name is pre-determined, so there's never an argument about which is the main page, and even when there is another candidate, the {main} template now takes multiple arguments.

I agree that single line (semi-colon bold) section headings work for pages with less than 20 entries, but sections (and {TOCright}) are really needed for pages like Aurora (disambiguation). The sections there were the usual 2 "=" level (too big), and that's why 5 "=" might be better (as they are the same size).

It sounds like this group prefers comma (not dash). I agree about less argument (spacing, ndash, mdash). So, at least we have consensus on something!

Hopefully, we'll just hash out the other details....

--William Allen Simpson 06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with the "main" template. But beware of making assumptions about the appearance of different header levels — they don't look the same on different machines, different browsers, or different WP skins. I see why you don't want H2 headers (except on tremendously long pages), but don't just assume that H5 will match the body text size. If you want it to match, just specify boldface (that's typically what I do). 68.164.94.76 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me —Wahoofive (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So, normal "==" level is OK for headings on pages with more than 20 entries?

--William Allen Simpson 23:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about using the "main" template. It's principle pupose is to link back to the main article of a subarticle. Dab pages are not subarticles. As such, folks may muck around with the wording and phrasing pertaining to that use without realizing it has a secondary use on dab pages. That could argue for a separate dab type template, but I'd still prefer to see the link to the primary dab page as the first in the list after an intro line (or at least mentioned as the principal meaning). Personally, I find that having some flexibility in the opening line is a good thing, which would seem to be constrained by the proposed use of the "main" template or something similar. Bkonrad 03:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point! People have already been mucking with {{Main}} lately, due to {{Qif}}, and a lot of spacing and things have been happening.

The first link idea is a perennial favorite, but has been rejected too many times to waste more time on it.

Since this will only be used to point back to a Primary topic, we can make up some nice general phrase like "Primary topic: X". Unfortunately, {{Primary}} was recently created (although not in use), and User:Ctrl build agreed to let us use it!

--William Allen Simpson 03:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC) updated --William Allen Simpson 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed Aurora (disambiguation) back to "==" level with the usual lede instead of Main, but no "refers to" line. This is an example where the TOC is justified. Please look at it, and via the history look at 5 "=" level with Main, and tell me what you think?

-William Allen Simpson 03:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a heckuva lot of difference. Wahoofive 04:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a page. A couple of points. First, I don't think it is a good idea to link terms in the headings. They are extra liks that do not assist the reader to find the page they are looking for and are hence not strictly necessary by this MoS and links in headings are deprecated by headings MoS. Second, I wonder about the utility of having such fine gradations of headings, some of which have only a few items. Perhaps a list of headings such as

==Vehicles or vessels==

with aircraft, automobiles, and ships (perhaps with bold lines as subheadings (not actual TOC subheads)

==Sciences==

with the entries under Biology, computers and space

==Music and literature==

==Places==

==Other==

Not necessarily in this order, though I don't think the headings need to be in alphabetical (of course the individual lists under each heading would be). And I still don't care for having the link back to the primary topic bolded. older≠wiser 04:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with older≠wiser.

Furthermore, I wonder how many of those links actually need to be there. Are all those redlinks really going to get an article? I'm sceptical, maybe their removal couldn't hurt too much. (I did notice the large number of commented-out entries under music.)

I'd be perfectly fine with a "Primary topic: Thingamajig" template.

No takers for that right-floating box of mine? No? Didn't expect much out of it... Again, nothing fancy, just a simple box to the right-hand side, white background and all... (I won't be here for the next week) Neonumbers 10:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I commented out many of the extra entries already. BTW, I was trying to get comments on comparative look and feel between the larger and smaller section names (via the history), rather than a discussion of the particulars of the entries. (Believe me, it was amazingly more verbose before I got there.)

As to a right-floating box instead of "Primary topic: X", I think that might conflict with the wiktionary templates that are showing up on a lot more pages these days. The hatnote style is more familiar.

--William Allen Simpson 13:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, taking the above advice, and using the new {{Primary}}, with fewer headings and ";" bold subheadings instead, please comment on Aurora (disambiguation).

--William Allen Simpson 21:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks better. A minor point: the links in the bold subheadings to terms like Canada, or Biology, etc., that are not needed for disambiguation are, well, unneeded. As for {{Primary}}, I think some indication of what that primary use is would be helpful. OK, suppose you get to the disambig page by a search (or perhaps through a bad link on some other page or through a hatnote link). You have no idea what that primary item is about unless you click on it. Personally, for "Aurora", I would have expected the astronomical phenomena to be the primary topic -- and if I were looking for the mythological thing, how easy would it be to find it? I simply don't think it is a very good idea to eliminate any sort of description of what the primary topic is on the dab page. older ≠ wiser 21:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris the speller's comment is moved to a new section "{{primary}}" below, basically to keep this discussion size limited and to make archiving easier. Hope no-one minds. Neonumbers 10:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Piping

The prescription against piping is a little stale. It may have been helpful in WP's growing days, but I think we've come along way with presentation. Maintaining it no longer makes sense. "Whatever (dab term)" is kind of silly looking when "Whatever, a dab term" works just as well and has the benefit of being proper English. Maintaining this guideline is also restricting style and maintaing confusion when the dab term formatting in the article title is different. For example, cities and neighbourhoods are disambiguated postal system style, "Wedgwood, Seattle, Washington" but on a dab page with "Wedgwood (China)" does that mean there is a city named Wedgwood in China? Of course not. But pipe text would make both appear the same, and with English explanations.

Of course, the guideline also states "Ignore the style guide when it makes sense to do so", but you often find format wars based on this prescription as well as lame attempts that hit hundreds of pages to "conform" - the perps of which have no clue on the subject matter, and often done by newbies trying to gain edit count. SchmuckyTheCat 01:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason the piping injunction was put in was because many pages formerly looked like:

Whatsit could be:

• Whatsit, a this
• Whatsit, a that
• Whatsit, something else

so every link looked like it went to the same article. Making place names consistent would be a perfect reason to ignore all rules. Wahoofive 07:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wahoofive brought up a good example. When I see "Wedgwood (China)" and this is a city i would move to "Wedgwood, China". The other way around if there is Wedgwood (China) I would generally not assume it to be a city, because cities in en:WP use comma dab. Unpiping also helps to see inconsistent dab of different cities. On the above mentioned Whatsit example you need to point your mouse to see how the articles are dabbed. No need if unpiped. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I too think that what is said about piping is overly prescriptive. Particularly for names, that is. If it's an example like Joe Jones (Australian cricketer), why is it more readable to have 'Joe Jones (Australian cricketer), Australian cricketer]]' in a list of Joe Joneses? In fact it's not really helpful. The argument about looking like all the Joe Jones links go to the same article strikes me was weak. People will figure it out, probably after the first exposure.

In general terms, I also deprecate too much prescription about how piping should be used. Charles Matthews 13:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This thread is somewhat dead, but maybe people will look up here anyway. Piping is bad. If there isn't piping then the only thing you need to look for is the (Australian cricketer) - which will be blue and thus is easy to spot. The trick of piping isn't something you should have to think about when looking for an article, you shouldn't have to figure out anything. The article name is presented to you, and you select it. I am sounding a little forceful here, but it is something we discuss over and over again here, and the outcome is always that piping is no good.--Commander Keane 13:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

to me, Wahoofive's example from Jan 13 was brilliant. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, piping bad. You wouldn't have [[Joe Jones (Australian cricketer)]], Australian cricketer anyway; you remove the trailing text just leaving the (unpiped) link. As the style page says, this is usually enough information to dab the term. I can't see any reason to pipe links if the articles are named clearly and consistently, and if they are not, the non-piped dab page will make them easier to spot and correct. A good example is Backus ~ Veledan • Talk 15:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, piping is not bad; too many rules about it are bad. Charles Matthews 20:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Habit

What to do about Habit, an extended dicdef page? —Wahoofive (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Personally I just tag them for cleanup... and if they are then check up on what was done and make some minor changes... Thanks/wangi 20:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• OTOH, whenever I find one, I carefully check to make sure that all the references already have the information. If it's really a multi-stub page, I remove the {{disambig}} template; otherwise, clean it up myself. After all, since I know how I got there, I'm in a position to know about the immediate problem. And my memory isn't as good as it used to be, to expect to remember later....

--William Allen Simpson 21:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on longer lists

The section on longer lists suggests that it should be broken up by subject area. At Talk:Queensway, we're wondering whether to use "Hong Kong" or "People's Republic of China" (or just "China"), but subject area doesn't really help us decide. Would people like to take a moment to comment please? enochlau (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

tfd for a new dab template

FYI: WP:TFD for Template: Album series Tedernst | talk 07:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

complicated cases

In simple cases of homophony (unrelated terms that happen to be spelled the same), this guideline is fine. I do argue that in more complicated cases, dab pages should provide a coherent summary of how the terms are related, and list them in an informed way. If this guideline is used to justify edits such as this one, it badly needs an update. dab (ᛏ) 12:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with dab. This is a case where a bit of leeway for slightly more extended descriptions on the page can help readers find their way through fairly subtle distinctions. older ≠ wiser

While I agree that Tedernst's edits were overkill, the page did need cleanup. (The present version is much better.) We still need to use common sense. But we've also never reconciled the problem of adjective pages, like this one. None of those pages are really synonymous with the article title, since the articles are all about nouns, not adjectives. In this case, it might be a better choice to eliminate the disambig notice and turn it into a regular article. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we may have to revise the dab page guidelines; rather, ==Break rules== should be tolerated more. I can recall cases where info that was pertinent and most proper on a given dab page "had to" be removed because of the current guideline. But Wikipedia has to remember to be informative, as well as having a tidy format. A case of a tricky dab page is:Roman: should that ==See also== section stay, or go? It is useful to the reader, but it bends/breaks the rules. Alexander 007 12:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

N.B. Roman is another adjective page. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a noun and adjective page. Roman is a noun when one says "a Roman" (e.g., a citizen of the Roman Empire). Alexander 007 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the entries treat it as an adjective. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations

I'm not understanding something. In the straw poll we had fairly convincing consensus that there should be no dab subcategories. WhatWhy is that interpreted as taking abbreviations out of category disambiguation? Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations talks about how to deal with abbreviations, but even when they're disambiguating, they are no longer falling under MoS:DP. I'm not asking a bureaucratic question, I don't think, as I don't care what the name of the thing is, only that it helps readers get to where they want to go. It seems we're violating this principle by removing abbreviations from the dab guideline. Tedernst | talk 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm referring to the new 2LC, 3LC and 4LC templates. Tedernst | talk 20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Straw polls are by no means enforceable; they simply let everyone know where everyone else stands. If some people find disambiguation categories useful for them, let them create such categories. How does it harm you or the site? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-17 20:55

• The rest of the folks will hopefully forgive me for my blunt and direct language:
  1. Well, Ted, it appears to me that this is a case of you being hoisted on your own petard.
  2. That was probably due to your (and others') hack and slash approach to disambiguation that has alienated so many in the community.
  3. (Hint: you might have noticed that a lot of people are upset.)
  4. You've already driven away the ship history folks.
  5. You gave the same level of understanding of subcategory usefulness that you've given to doing a careful and understanding job on the disambiguation pages themselves.
  6. Several folks advocated putting the subcategories in lists, but apparently didn't bother in the past to actually perform that work.
  7. I look forward to your work on updating the human and place name lists with the information now in related subcategories. That should keep you busy for some time to come!
  • The existing guidelines were already clear that these abbreviations are not considered (indeed "replace") disambiguation pages. But good folks noticed they were similar in function, and wanted to bring them in and work on them together, apparently without achieving consensus. These folks were given the same short shrift as the ships.
  • Before writing those poll questions, I carefully read the existing WP:D and MoS:DP language, and as much of the archives as practicable.
  • I phrased the poll questions fairly, and I covered the field comprehensively and specifically, so there would be little confusion about the outcome.
  • I carefully divided the questions into two polls, one on *LA templates, and the other on subcategories.
  • There is no possible interpretation that abbreviations should be merged into disambiguation, the polls focus exclusively on how to handle the templates.
  • I advised you all in advance that should the decision be to eliminate subcategories, it would be a lot of work, and described some details. As the work progresses, more details will become apparent.

--William Allen Simpson 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Willam Allen Simpson, I find your tone quite off-putting. And, you seem to have jumped to conclusions that are not supported by consensus. In fact, this whole poll exercise seems to have been manipulated by you to show how foolish (in your mind) other editors have been. The polls doen't say anything about removing abbreviations from the disambiguation rubric. Also, no where is there any disucssion about what it is that "a lot of people are upset" about. The MOS:DP guideline is very clearly written and I agree with both it's aims and it's implimentation. I thought the ship decision was a poor one, but I was not involved in that at all. If there's a problem with the MOS:DP, let's address that, not by some fictional outcome of a poll that takes some pages out of that method, but by coming to consensus. Tedernst | talk 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I repeat what I said earlier, before it was overcome by four years of history, for some reason or other:

Look, I — and I think most people — couldn't give two shits who done what when... and it's not the right way to move forward.

I thought the whole point of the dicsussion was to take all the previous disambig sub-types, and merge them into one disambig category, if there was consensus. Is that's what is happening? Or is something else being done? Thanks/wangi 17:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

So, what it happening? Is WAS changing things that were previously dab subcats into separate things completely (al la shipindex), or? I do not see the relevance of years and years of history... And to me the consenus seem quite clearly for one big disambig category... Thanks/wangi 20:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

When is a disambiguation page not a disambiguation page?

I'm not going to pretend I've followed everything above, but the problem that drew it to my attention is related; The page MP is apparently not a disambiguation page according to William Allen Simpson (see here) because the tag was changed from {{2LC}} to {{2CC}}. He has used this as justification to include (clearly) non-subject links.

Why?

I don't get this whole thing at all. I'm really not too bothered about disambig subcategories or not, but in either case surely subcategories should remain disambig pages. And I don't see the benefit of linking non-subject items in what is de facto still a disambig page.

I hope that this isn't a case of a disambig page being used as a political football in a policy argument.

Fourohfour 15:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think most editors would agree that this is a disambiguation page, since it is, um... a page serving to disambiguate. Mr. W.A.S. has been an ongoing champion the concept of "abbreviation pages", with selective disregard for the word and spirit of the conventions, and most other editors can't be bothered to do anything about it. We need to hold a poll in a prominent place to settle this, root out any ambiguous cruft in the guidelines, and delete the remainder of the not-quite disambiguation templates. —Michael Z. 2006-03-03 17:11 Z

I would strongly support such a poll, provided it was a genuine attempt to gauge the interest of the Wikipedia community at large; i.e. as you say, this should be held in a prominent place. I assume from what you said that previous polls were primarily seen and participated in by those *already embroiled in this argument*; which is not the best thing IMHO.

Obviously, it'll still only be a small proportion of the total community giving feedback, but so long as everyone with a moderate interest in Wiki policy is aware of it, that's what's important. It would certainly be preferable to (what appears to me to be) the current small group arguing and making political points amongst themselves. Fourohfour 12:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

---

The discussion "Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations" continues into Archive 17.

go to Archive 17 >>