Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Jazz (disambig)

Could someone who is more familiar with this MoS look at Jazz (disambiguation). I tried to clean it up but I would really appreciate some advice. Naufana : talk 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good. Not much there to complain from my side. The only things I'd change (maybe just for personal preference) would be:

1. change the intro to: "Jazz is a music genre but may also refer to:"
2. avoid the huge section headers within the People section (and replace them with bolded text) because the sub-sub-sections are not long enough (yet)
3. add why Carlene Begnaud is listed on the dab page (e.g. add "known by her stage name Jazz"), or maybe use the existing redirect Jazz (wrestler) on the dab page (redirects are cheap) because people looking for the wrestler will find her faster that way

– sgeureka ^t•c 22:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice, I think the page looks much better compared to when I first came to it. Tschuess, Naufana : talk 23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Jazz from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is included but not the actor who plays him, DJ Jazzy Jeff? Or does that not count? --Geopgeop (T) 10:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of what a dab page is intended for, and what a person or thing is called. The Jazz dab page is not meant to be a guide to everything with Jazz in it. It is intended to distinguish among things that are or could be referred to as Jazz. The Fresh Prince character is called "Jazz"; DJ Jazzy Jeff is not. --ShelfSkewed Talk 12:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguating Titles

I haven't found anything on how to disambiguate titles, or whether to do this or not. My prime scope are Tolkien-related articles, and within them, for example, four persons (fictional characters) are titled "the Tall": Galdor the Tall, Maedhros, Elendil and Húrin the Tall. I suppose it is worth noticing such uses, but how can they be introduced into existing dab pages? Súrendil 12:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Be aware of WP:NOT#DIR, and consider that this comes close to "repositories of loosely associated topics". Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the resolution of conflicts where more than one topic could have the same natural article title. Your collection does not suffer from this problem, and I don't see where any of them belong on dab pages. Chris the speller 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent change about categories

"It is generally undesirable to include a disambiguation page in another category." I can't figure out what this has to do with parishes, and find this generally confusing. When IS it desirable? Should we avoid adding Category:Ambiguous place names to dab pages where there is more than one town with the same name, as in Peabody? Shouldn't this have been discussed before the manual was changed? If it's not clear to me, it's not going to be clear to many new editors. Chris the speller 04:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, I agree with what User:Robin Patterson added. Categories are intended to navigate between articles, but since dabs are non-articles... Anyway, I'd keep the section but change it to something like "Categories aid navigation between articles. Disambiguation pages however are non-articles and do not require categorization other then for maintainance purposes (disambiguation pages get auto-categorized by using {{disambig}}, {{hndis}} and {{geodis}}). Other categories should generally not be added to disambiguation pages. Exceptions are Category:Surnames, Category:Given names and their subcategories if disambiguation pages include short sections of name information or lists of people. Delete these categories if you move those sections to their own pages." (Needs to be tweaked.) – sgeureka ^t•c 09:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we just need to spell out the cases where it is desirable. Take this hypothetical case, a dab page "Sunset Lake" that has 3 different articles about bodies of water, with a proper {{geodis}} tag, which adds category "Ambiguous place names". Then an editor notices that the movie "Sunset Lake (film)" was overlooked, adds it and changes the geodis tag to disambig. I see that, and add the category "Ambiguous place names", because the page does contain a list of ambiguous place names along with the movie. I don't think I want another editor to come along, armed with the recently added guideline, and remove the ambiguous place names category. Same with "Lists of ambiguous human names", with Octavia as an example (3 women and an opera). Maybe these 2 categories, along with Surnames and Given names, are the only exceptions we need. It might be enlightening to know what the real-life case was that prompted Robin to change the guideline. Chris the speller 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I rarely add another dab subcat to a dab page that is already tagged with {{disambig}}, unless there are many entries that would justify to do so (example: Beaufort).

New proposal for wording (if you agree, just copy it to the MOS): Categories aid navigation between articles. Disambiguation pages however are non-articles and do not require categorization other then for maintainance purposes, and they already get auto-categorized by using {{disambig}}, {{hndis}} and {{geodis}}. No other categories should be added, except Category:Surnames, Category:Given names or their subcategories (if the disambiguation page includes sections of name information or lists of people), or disambiguation subcategories that might apply. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Piet Delport 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

disambigs vs redirects

I've gotten into a short edit-war this morning with a user over a disambig standard that I have been enforcing for a long time, and it's time to seek 2nd, 3rd, 4th (etc) opinions instead of continuing the revert war.

The issue has to do with when a disambig is proper, and when a redirect is proper. My position has always been that disambigs are for navigating between two or more destination articles, and a redirect is the proper form when there is only one destination article on the project. If a disambig has only one destination link, has one link and several non-linked lines, or has one blue link and one or more red-links, then this is a bad/broken disambig, and a redirect would be the proper way to handle the situation. I've been converting all these situations to redirects for a long time. Today I got into a breif revert-war with a user over it.

So we have the general issue of the disambig vs redirect situation, and the specific situation of the multiple (IMHO) broken disambigs being generated by User:Paultyng. The other interlacing issue is that Paultyng seems to be in essence arguing that, whether they are broken or not, he intends to create the extra articles within a few weeks, so this will be a non-issue by then. And that may very well be the case, but for now, they are (IMHO) bad and broken, and I do not see why they have to remain bad/broken disambigs for the time it takes him to build the extra articles. Three examples of the disambigs in question are shown in the links in the previous paragraph. There were ten in total that we were reverting on, and might be more that I did not find before I stopped the warring. Discussion between Paultyng and I can be found here and here.

The general issue effects my general MO on handling these things. I regularly do Short Pages patrol, which is how I generally find these. Single or short double item disambigs often end up on the report, and if they meet the above conditions, I generally convert them to redirects. If this is not the proper way to handle these, I need to know so I can adapt how I deal with these pages. - TexasAndroid 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing to point out, is to check the "What Links Here" on the pages (for example [1]). The pages I changed to disambigs have incoming links that are intending to hit different targets besides the one I created, so by definition typing in that name and going to the one specific page for the redirect can result in confusion for a user when its easily demonstrable that multiple places exist with the same name. And like TexasAndroid stated above, some of those articles will be created as the bot stubbing them finishes its work. pw 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just found: "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject." from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Redlinks, it even has a two entry with one redlink example, so I guess there is a precedent. pw 16:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My (uninvolved) take on the matter: Both of you are right. If, as you say, all the topics are in fact notable enough to get a wiki article, redlinks are fine. The only question that isn't really answered beyond "vague" is: How long does it take for the current redlinks to be turned into stubs, i.e. becoming bluelinks (that's what the bot is for, right?) If it's significantly more than one or two weeks maximum, or if there is the risk that Paul abandons that project (I don't hope so), I would side with TexasAndroid, as such poor dab pages are just distracting for the reader. If it's just a couple of days, then no need to get in a wiki-deadline panic. As I said, my take. (Paul, if it really takes several weeks until the stubs get created, you might want to create a dab page at XYZ (disambiguation), and then swap XYZ with the dab page only after the stubs got created.) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest (but not insist) that pw simply reverse the order of his work - create the articles first then point to them. Having the red link doesn't help much in the interim (in most cases). (John User:Jwy talk) 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to order the article creation by number of things sharing its name, hopefully that will take care of this issue. pw 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Linking to Three-letter abbreviation

A lot of the TLA disambig pages lead with something like:

AAD is a three-letter acronym that may refer to:

This seems to violate the limited wikilinking principle for disambig pages, since a user who is looking for "AAD" is not looking to be disambiguated toward the Three-letter abbreviation article. It's also inconsistent. Is there a policy on this? I'd rather change them to just say "AAD may refer to:" like the rest of the dab pages. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a good point. Pencil me in under "Concur", for now. Of course, the "AAD" would be bolded. Chris the speller 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS:DAB#Introductory line proposes "ABC may stand for:" at the moment. I agree with avoiding overlinking, but would like to point out two things:

1. Sometimes adding a short description for the type of abbreviation is helpful for sectioning. See III. (Might fall under "Break rules".)
2. Some surname sections also link to "surname" as well as to the language of origin and meaning. (Yes, surname sections are the bane of our existence.) – sgeureka ^t•c 07:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine anyone one arriving at one of these pages looking for the three-letter acronym or surname pages. Short descriptions might be OK, but the links is gratuitous and should be delinked. (The link to Roman number could be marginally helpful to a reader, but even then I'd prefer to see it out of the intro and on it's own line.) Ewlyahoocom 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Declared policy against illustrations on disambiguation pages?

I am involved in a dispute at Talk:Haguna. Pages like Haguna and Hrōþirīk(i)az look like article pages, but the editor who contributed most insists on having a disambiguation tag on the page. Would it not be a good idea to state explicitly in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) that disambiguation pages must not have illustration, references, etc. /Pieter Kuiper 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Failing to find support among other editors for the removal of the disamb tag on Talk:Haguna, he is trying to change policy here. It may be a case of Wikipedia:Harassment since he is doing considerable removal of information from articles where I am the main contributor, see Pieter Kuiper's edit history.--Berig 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several articles with potentially ambiguous names. If the page is disambiguating a human name, it should be tagged with the {{hndis}} template. If the page is providing encyclopedic content, it is not a disambiguation page and should not be tagged as such. Per current MOS:D conventions, images should only be used on disambiguation pages when they aid in disambiguating the ambiguous term – see, for example, Mississippi Delta (disambiguation). --Muchness 22:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS:DAB does mention images: "Including images is discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles." Haguna violates the vast majority of style guidelines for disambig pages, so it is clearly not a disambig page as it clearly stands. More specific comments on Talk:Haguna. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that the pages in their present form are not disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 23:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're remaining very narrow minded on one format. If a photo gallery helps sort out the subject matter... or if we had some dissambiguation pages that looked more like wikipedia's main page, or some user pages, we could be looking at a revolution that would totally anoy any conservative such as yourself... but may lead to some inovative methode which remains in line with the spirit of WP:MOSDAB. --CyclePat (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here, or who it is that you're calling conservative, but you'd best keep such labels to yourself. Regarding images on disambiguation pages, there have been extremely rare cases where images are helpful for the purposes of disambiguation, such as Congo. But in most other cases the images are merely gratuitous and entirely irrelevant for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 04:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, someone who supports the status of the Manual of Style (as is), would be considered a conservative. I'm simply trying to say, in what was probably one of my least elegant of manners, that a photo gallery, perhaps not for all articles and disambiguation pages, may have its place. Along with tables, colours, and other elements ([such as this user page example) which could help distinguish items and remain within the spirit of this Manual of Style a liberal approach is generally good. And no, I'm not saying that we need to change anything with the Manual of Styles, I'm just saying that thinking outside of the box can sometimes lead to better results. Surely there are studies out there that break down the psychology of the best page layout and set-up (I remember studying a little bit in "marketing class" at University) --CyclePat (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about vague generalities, then sure, consensus can change if there is a demonstrated need and a arguable better way to do something. The style of dab pages has evolved over time. At present, the style guidelines have been pretty stable for a while now, so there would likely need to be a correspondingly strong case for change. But guidance shouldn't change based on vaguely expressed notions. Do you have something specific in mind? I don't see anything on [[2]] that I'd even remotely consider a good thing to consider using on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still in the works but I'll give you a little heads up. Check out Help:Sorting. --CyclePat (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to disambiguations pages on a disambiguation page

How should these be formatted? Please comment on the current formatting of such links on the "Coombe" page. Snowman 20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the last 2 entries under "See also", simple links are enough:

• Coombe
• Combs

and the ", disambiguation" text is not necessary. If you mean something else, please specify. Chris the speller 21:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense not use link via a redirect page, as you have indicated.

What about:

• Coombe, disambiguation
• Combs, disambiguation

This also tells the reader what sort of a page is linked and does not link via a redirect. Snowman 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking via a redirect (as JHunterJ did with this edit) helps may it clear that the link to a dab is deliberate, and is not a link in need of fixing. --Paul Erik 21:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul is absolutely right, what was I thinking? I must have been zeroed in on "formatted" and forgot where it should link. If the link is right, as Paul and JHunterJ have it, no other "formatting" or description is needed. Chris the speller 02:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What about:

[[Combs|Combs (disambiguation)]], which has the same appearance, but avoids a redirect and so requires less work for the wiki servers. Snowman 11:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Paul had it right, as a direct link to a dab page, such a link appears to need fixing. Redirects are not such a great load on the servers, and links to redirects are sometimes preferred (see "Piping" on this guideline). Worry about the readers, but not the computers. Chris the speller 15:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but suggest making the "Piping" section clearer, or write in the particular case for disambig links on disambig pages. I hope AWB knows the rules. Snowman 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One link per entry guideline

The last time this was discussed (October 2006), the majority of editors felt that the one link per entry guideline should remain as is. As I stated the last time this issue was raised, this is a non-trivial change with far-reaching implications for how we go about formatting dab pages, so I feel it's important to establish that consensus of the prior discussion has changed before implementing it. --Muchness 05:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by majority. Decisions require rationales, and if someone wishes to take a particular position they must justify that position and discuss it if necessary. A discussion in which no one else deigned to actually address the problems with their position is not consensus. The consensus of that discussion was at least inconclusive due to the failure of other parties to actually discuss, and at most a consensus to follow the unopposed outcome of the discussion, which was to remove the rigid restriction. —Centrx→talk • 17:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that what the MOS currently says (almost never link more than once per entry) is preferred. If another article really has more information about a subject than the article with the subject's name, than the subject's article should have a link to the other article with more information, and there is no need to link to the secondary article on the dab page. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is more helpful and quicker for the reader to be directed to the related page, and in some cases the reader is indeed searching for and reasonably expecting a link to the highly relevant article of a different title. Pick almost any disambiguation page for place names (Category:Ambiguous place names) and you will find that this is not only common practice, but very helpful. Other general situations are where the primary topic is an article likely to be deleted. Such links are potentially equivalent to red links but are presently navigable. —Centrx→talk • 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should the reader be required to click-through twice, or to copy and paste, in order to get to the article they seek? Why should the guideline assume that readers are so stupid that they will be certainly confused by links that are distinctly separate and have different titles? Why should the guideline be so uncompromisingly rigid, unlike other guidelines, in order to strain to not use the features of the wiki and impede the reader in contradiction of the ostensible purpose of disambiguation pages? —Centrx→talk • 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Because (hopefully in the near future) the article with the intended name should focus on its topic more than a completely different article. If that's currently not the case, fix the article, not the dab page (guidelines). Also, with the current dab guidelines, a reader still only needs to click one link on a dab page to get to the article he seeks, because that's the name he entered in the search box. Where the most information can be found is not the job of dab pages, but resolving conflicts in article titles is. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

People are actively going through disambiguation pages and simply removing the secondary links without improving the primary article; that is, this guideline is 'enforced' regardless of whether the primary articles are improved or not. This is pretty reasonable; it is after all a guideline, and it is easier and quicker to semi-automatically remove links from disambiguation page than to improve the articles, and there is no guideline on Wikipedia that creates an obligation for someone to write an article. This is what people are doing, and there would be nothing wrong with it if the guideline were correct, but the guideline is not correct. —Centrx→talk • 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Centrx, a link is a link, and this guideline is only about the links on dab pages. There will always be links to bad articles. Regardless of that, using a link must remain as effortless as possible. A dab page is meant to get you there, not to distract you on the way. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 00:54 Z

The disambiguation pages are part of the encyclopedia, which is not perfect. There is no distraction. These links send the reader to articles more relevant to their search, and there is nothing distracting about a link that has a clear title. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, Sguereka. Disambiguation pages must stay out of the way, and not engage the reader.

Dab pages are substitutes for direct links from A to B. They are the shortest path from A to B when B has a similar name to C, D, E, and F. They are not destinations on the path: we don't distract the reader by adding a topical menu with B2, B3, and B4

"If another article really has more information about a subject than the article with the subject's name..."—nope. We make links work by choosing the right link text, and choosing sensible article titles, not by adding technology in the middle to second-guess the link. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 00:48 Z

That is in fact not common practice, and a link is not some special technology. Why do you want to impede the reader on the basis of this theological purity? —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Centrx is proposing the following:

• • Each bulleted entry should generally have exactly one navigable (blue) link. Including more than one link can confuse the reader; including no links at all makes the entry useless for further navigation. (See "redlinks" below for cases where no article yet exists.) However, some secondary links may be highly relevant and contain more information than the article the primary topic, such that the reader will more readily find the information they seek through them.

Centrx, could you offer an example of an entry in which a secondary link is the one that leads the reader to more helpful information? That might help to focus the discussion. Thanks. --Paul Erik 17:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry—I just noticed that you did provide examples in the October 2006 discussion. I take it that those remain prime examples of what would be helped by your change to the guideline...? --Paul Erik 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think those examples are cases of articles needing fixing, not disambiguation pages. —Piet Delport 2007-08-12 00:02

People are currently actively semi-automatically removing links from disambiguation pages without fixing the articles. If you want to change the guideline to resolve that situation, go for it but it currently says "almost never", which does not account for these issues. Also, there is the situation where the article at the primary topic is likely to be deleted in the future, that is it is potentially a red link, or where there are two equally relevant topics that do not happen to have the title of the disambiguation page. Pick almost any geographical disambiguation page, Category:Ambiguous place names. —Centrx→talk • 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard enough to keep the "extra" links to a reasonable limit already, some editors go so far as to find their justification in "break rules", so relaxing this prohibition will lead to chaos. (And yes, you can find instances when I've linked more than once per line, so don't go looking.) Ewlyahoocom 19:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Over-reacting in the opposite direction is not going to solve that problem. It may even lead people to blindly disregard the recommendation as being plainly unreasonable. —Centrx→talk • 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there already a guideline that says "break the rules", somewhere? When it needs to be done, most of us will recognize the situation and look the other way. I think that is exception enough. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 02:52 Z

That doesn't mean that the guideline should not be improved to minimize the situations where it is wrong. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, apart from the "ignore the rules" (AKA use common sense) aspect of the guideline, I think there already is wiggle room in the guideline for cases where there may be genuine benefit to including more than one blue link per line. Personally, while I'm sure I've done so in the past, especially before the MOSDAB became formalized, and might on occasion do so now -- in general, about the only times I think there is good reason to include multiple blue links is where the primary term is a redlink -- the extra links can provide some relevant contextual distinctions. older ≠ wiser 03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Almost never" is not much wiggle room. "Generally" is more accurate, and an explanation of the situations where more links can be appropriate is helpful. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've no objection to changing this from "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one" to "Each bulleted entry should generally have exactly one". I think the generic attempt to explain in the edit that sparked this thread is more problematic. I'd just as soon leave the practice marked as exceptional and leave the rest to a case by case consideration of the merits of a specific case. older ≠ wiser 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there something between "in almost every case" and "generally"? I can see why Centrx opposes the first, while I think the alternative is too lax and encourages "break the rules" behavior. It should be made clear that the use of more than one link per entry is strongly discouraged yet possible (but not for the reasons that Centrx stated; common sense situation). – sgeureka ^t•c 07:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "rarely", "seldom" or "infrequently"? Dreadstar † 07:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

normally? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just been reverted based on this policy, so would like to leave my two bits. Removing an accurate (bluelink to a reasonably complete article) wikilink from any page, anywhere, seems utterly pointless. This is an encyclopedia and a wiki - surely both those terms involve crossreferencing everything as much as practical? I can't see how a couple of extra links to relevant non-stub articles might confuse anyone. How about a policy of leaving such links alone unless they are redlinks, point to a stub, or point to the wrong page? Moyabrit 11:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The general understanding is that one comes to a disambiguation page looking for a particular term that happens to have multiple meanings. If an article for a particular meaning exists, there is little point to providing additional links related to that meaning of the term. In relatively rare cases where the target is a redlink or does not have a separate article, relevant information about that meaning may be in a couple of different articles. In such exceptional cases, there may be some value to including more than one blue link. older ≠ wiser 13:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough I suppose, and I'd never suggest systematically putting them in everywhere. It wouldn't be worth the hassle. But it does seem like systematically removing these extra links is an even bigger waste of effort. They're not doing any harm, and occasionally they might help someone. Moyabrit 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is required to "waste" their time -- if an editor feels it is a waste of time, he or she can work on other parts of the encyclopedia. The "harm" the extra links do is clutter up the dab and possibly slow down or confuse a reader. The benefit of helping is not lost, since presumably the linked entry will also link to any significant other entries. -- JHunterJ 21:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate disambig pages for articles with Definite Article ('The') and without

See Light (disambiguation) and The Light (disambiguation) for an example. I don't see the reason for keeping these separate. Other disambiguation pages merge Title, The Title and A Title on the same page. Users tend to forget whether the name of a particular song, book, movie or band had 'The' or 'A' in front or not, and may enter it wrongly when trying to go to the article. This is especially true for those users for whom English is a second language. It helps if users can scan one page rather than two. The only exception I can see against combining them is if the pages become very long. Should guidance be put in the MOS on this? Rexparry sydney 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've already merged some "XXX" / "The XXX" dab pages before, so this issue isn't new to me. But I don't know whether there are enough entries for "A XXX" to also be included; the only instance I can think of is A Life on Life (disambiguation), where I put it in the See Also section. The only question now is what the name of the resulting main dab page should be (see The dead (non-dab), The Dead (dab), Dead (non-dab), Dead (disambiguation) (redirect to The Dead) for a really confusing example). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See Void (disambig), where A Void is integrated on the page, and the separate The Void (disambig). Note the duplication of some entries between these pages, and how Touching the Void is on 'Void' but not 'The Void'. This "XXX / A XXX / The XXX" problem arises mainly in subsections to do with entertainment. My feeling is that merging the pages is a great advantage, allowing these variations to appear together on one page under relevant subheads like 'Music', 'Movies', etc with 'XXX' entries first, then 'A XXX', then 'The XXX'. I suggest such merged dab pages have the title 'XXX' with 'The XXX' and 'A XXX' as redirects if there more than two 'The XXX' or two 'A XXX' entries. Rexparry sydney 04:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else care to comment? Someone split the dab pages The Dead and Dead (dismbiguation) (notice the misspelling) a few hours ago and I'd like to know whether I should just revert him, or move the misspelled dab page to the correct name. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd simply revert him.

Incidentally, unless "The XYZ" has a lot more entries than "XYZ", I'd tend to use "XYZ", if only for the ease of later incorporating "A(n) XYZ", "L'XYZ", etc. So ideally this would be "Dead (disambiguation)" -- but the advantage seems minor and not worth wasting thirty minutes over. -- Hoary 08:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Masking piped links to sections

We now recommend using

*The reverse side of a [[coin#Features of modern coinage|coin]]

as a dab entry for Tail. Is this exception to our usual practice of not masking on dab pages really wise? It will make it somewhat more difficult to maintain, and encourage dabbing links to tail with simple [[coin|tail]] instead of a link to a section.

I realize the reason to do what we now recommend is to take the dab page more readable; but I don't think this is any less readable than linking to disambiguated pages, like Dark Star (song), with the disambiguator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Try reading it:

*The reverse side of a coin#Features of modern coinage

"Readability" probably isn't the best word to describe the rationale, it's more, the phrase makes no sense and is confusing. There is a significant difference with the anchor notation, namely, it's not really intuitive in the same way parentheses are: unless you're a Wikipedia or you know about computers, you wouldn't know what it meant.

The reason we refuse to pipe diambiguators, as I'm sure you're aware, is because often it is the only thing a reader needs to make the right pick: it saves him having to read the entire page. There is little real gain in having the anchors there: it is obvious what the reader will expect by clicking on that link (an article on coins, not tails, which is what he gets). Links like [[coin|tail]], I'm sure we're all aware, are forbidden by the manual. Neonumbers 00:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bolding non-redlinks

I see this commonly done, and I added the passage:

It may be useful to bold the last use of Flibbygibby, to assist the reader's eye and mark that it is not to be redlinked, and that links to this meaning should be piped to noodle.

to summarize what seem to me its advantages. I don't really care either way; but let us discuss.

This would permit

Flibbygibby may refer to: Flibbygibby (architecture), a flamingo motif used on cornices Flibbygibby, a type of noodle

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) I dislike any bolding on dab pages (except for the first word) for style reasons, personally. (2) If you start bolding at one place, then people will start bolding other entries, and that makes the problem much worse than anything before. So, no, let's not add this to the MOS. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really too fond of bolding entries like that, mainly because I don't like the look of it and I think it makes the page more complicated than it needs to be. The reader's eye is generally meant to be drawn towards the link itself—if it's really well designed, the reader doesn't actually have to read the page to know which one to click (though he might need to for further clarification). There is no need to mark that something is not to be redlinked for readers, if it is necessary for editors it should be marked with an invisible comment. Neonumbers 00:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sgeureka and Neonumbers. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) encourages us not to overdo it with boldfacing, and I think that this is a case where it is not needed. (Contrary to Pmanderson, I have not found this to be a common practice, although sometimes it happens that someone has attempted to link to a term that is actually the title of the very page it is on—as might happen in the Flibbygibby example—and the software translates that into the appearance of bold formatting rather than a self-link.) --Paul Erik 03:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It probably begins with Paul's examples, and spreads by imitation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I, for one, would be happy if this "feature" were turned off, but it's makes navbox templates that get included on multiple pages look nice e.g. here. Ewlyahoocom 03:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Sgeureka and Neonumbers. And will Paul Erik - the bolding practice is quite rare. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bullet images

I propose encouraging small images in disambiguation pages inline with the disambiguation text. In particular, I find small versions of organizations' logos (think sparklines) makes it much easier for me to skim for the right article. For example, I added the Appalachian Mountain Club logo, and a few others, to the AMC disambiguation page. If you already know the logo, it jumps out in what is otherwise a sea of text. Comments? —Ben FrantzDale 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Non-free logos are specifically disallowed on disambiguation pages, per WP:NFCC#9. (2) I don't think that they're necessary, if even if they were allowed; we assume that Wikipedia users can read. (3) It'd give undue prominence to entries with images over those without, even if the latter are more common. — TKD::Talk 00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of disambiguation would not benefit from having logos. However, these three-letter acronym pages may be a bit of a special case because there's often so much crap on them. IMHO, the real problem with the AMC page is that those categories aren't helpful. I've just tried re-arranging it: into a list of things actually titled AMC and the acronyms sorted alphabetically, then broken out some of the acronyms where the first word is the same (i.e. American and Australian). Here's my version of the page, what do you think? Ewlyahoocom 04:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better. (I also usually divide dab pages into Title and Acronyms sections.) I don't know how it would look to incorporate the "American..." and "Australian..." subsections into the Acronyms sections, but I think the current state assembles all entries in such a (good) way that WP:IAR might apply here. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mm. Not in favor of Ewlyahoocom's changes, though I can see certain situations where they might make sense. Alphabetic listings generally seem a disorganized mess to me; they're only useful if I already know the term I want. I find topic-based disambiguation much preferable, though I will admit that separating the acronyms from the "just a word" meanings is often fine (and something I've done elsewhere, too). SnowFire 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at WP:NFCC#9. IANAL, but I wonder if the usage I suggest would be legal. If it isn't then it isn't, but if it is legal, then I think the proposal should be judged on technical grounds. While I agree that most Wikipedia users can read, personally I am more visual than I am textual; I can spot the logo of the organization I'm looking for in a page of text (even if I'm not actively looking for the logo) whereas otherwise I'd have to read the page (or use my browser's search function) to find the text quickly. Incidentally, a good use of this is found at List of countries, which includes flags next to the country names in the same way I suggested.

In summary, if this use of images is not within copyright, then we shouldn't do it, but I still think this sort of approach can make it much easier for users to find the page they want among a sea of links without having to stop to read them. —Ben FrantzDale 14:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it legal? Almost certainly. However, Wikipedia takes a more restricted approach on fair use than the law (albeit erratically, what with different editors having different ideas). Now, I should add that I think many people draw the line way too thinly on where navigational pictures are fair use... but even I will agree that on a disambiguation page, pictures such as these are only rarely appropriate, and that doesn't even get into the technical and style issues noted above. Pictures are fine when there's a list of similar items (like the List of Countries above), and preferably when there are no copyright concerns (though again there are disagreements on that). An example would be List of English monarchs. Disambiguation pages are linked only by having the same term, and thus aren't normally a listing of similar things, and thus pictures are often an apples-to-oranges comparison rather than "all flags" or "all portraits." SnowFire 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

It would be really helpful if thumbnail images. Human is a visual animal, he can pick up visual things fast. It is tedious to go through text. Giving due weight to topics in dab, default size(180px) thumbnail images would be much easy to navigate to desired page. We skip non-free images in dab pages, but images are essential for disambiguation i think. Lara_bran 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also tedious to go through dozens of small images. Due weight is/should be given by the order of the entry by importance. I have the feeling if we would allow even thumbnail images on dab pages, we'd have the same problems as WP:FLAGS, i.e. it clutters, is used for decoration instead of navigation help, and sets a bad precedent. I think the KISS principle works best here. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

thumbnail, i meant [[image:imagename.jpg|thumb|right, which is syntax "thumb". This "thumb" parameter sets default imagewidth 180px. We can keep it so or even reduce it to 125px. I was not referring to small thumbnail images as interpreted by User:Sgeureka. Thanks. Lara_bran 07:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, should have checked how big 180px are before I replied. But now I have difficulty seeing the use of such huge images on dab pages. Like, what kind of images would you propose for Bambi (disambiguation) that would make it easier for the user to find the entry he is looking for? Or Spinner? Or Dominion (disambiguation)? Honest question. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

180px is default image size, if not specified in articles, even 120 or 100 would be sufficient in dab pages. I saw those disambig pages, maybe i should show by inserting images in one of those pages. I will post link to here in WP:VP also. Lara_bran 10:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It will be posting lead images of all articles that dab page links to. With appropiate caption beside text on right hand side. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate disambig pages for singular and plural?

An extreme case: "bird (disambiguation)", (singular, no article), up against "The Birds" [3] (plural, definite article). Although few sensible people would type "bird" while seeking the Aristophanes play, or "The Birds" to find Charlie "Bird" Parker, someone has found it logical to merge these. To save you from having to look, "birds" redirects to "bird" (the feathered critter), and that seems fine to me. Note that "bird (disambiguation)" was already a cesspool of anything that had those 4 letters, in that order, in the title. Before I clean out such entries that are at variance with WP:D#Lists, should I act on my impulse to separate these again? Should the guideline mention whether singular and plural should be combined, or is it just another can of worms like "TITLE" and "Title", or "Tîtlé" with diacritical marks and without? Chris the speller 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would split them up and have mutual see alsos. They both probably have reasonably distinct articles they can disambiguate. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I would do is clean up the page e.g. one blue link per line. (I'll do that now.) Ewlyahoocom 01:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably also a good idea to seperate the person entries into a seperate page. As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Given_names_or_surnames. Taemyr 07:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, I agree with John. Neonumbers 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have unmerged them, and then shoveled out a lot of the disambig page. Since nobody has offered rules on singular vs. plural, it apparently remains an area for case-by-case decisions. Thanks for the opinions and ideas. Chris the speller 19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)