Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 29

message: Sometimes there's some confusion about whether a particular article is just a random list or a disambiguation.  It seems like the primary difference is whether backlinks need to be disambiguated.  An ambiguous term will collect accidental backlinks that need to be updated to point to one of the items on the list; a non-disambiguation list doesn't accumulate accidental links, and therefore its backlinks will never be corrected.  If there's agreement on this, I'd like to update the main page to clarify this. 
An example...  C and D both have long lists of meanings at the bottom, but they also have separate disambiguation pages. Some of the entries on the list are disambiguatable, and they get copied to both places, while the non-disambig entries get mentioned only in the list.  --Interiot 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updating the main page (of disambiguations) should be discussed on the talk page of the main page WP:D. -- JHunterJ 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists versus disambig pages 

message: What's the purpose of a disambiguation page? I was under the impression that it was to aid in navigation, in the case that the general term is linked in an article where it should go to a more specific article. Like where an editor links to "the pirates", but forgets to say the "Pittsburg Pirates." Some editors feel it should be an aid to browsing, where the DAB page should list any possible usage of the term (like, say, "Terry and the Pirates"). Just in case someone would be looking for a thing with "pirate" in the title. 
Is there a consensus on this issue? -Freekee 06:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the consensus is it's an aid in navigation.  Looking for a thing with "pirate" in it should be done with the search button or with an external search engine. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists -- JHunterJ 11:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a most basic sense, disambiguation pages should contain any articles that someone might be reasonably looking for when they search for a term.  This include all articles that are of the form "Foo (clarifier)", as well as easily confused articles that may contined the term "Foo" (and some other articles too).  However, that does not mean that every article containing the word "Foo" should be included on the disambiguation page.  -- Natalya 17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks to both of you. -Freekee 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome! :) -- Natalya 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the point?

message: You might be interested in my proposal to cut down on repeated newbie mistakes with disambig pages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Proposed_disambiguation_guidance.
(Can we keep the discussion over there, in one place? Thanks!)
Fourohfour 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed_disambiguation_guidance 

message: Urgh, any opinions on List of London bombings which is tagged as a dabpage? Thanks/wangi 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO that's not a dab page, that's just a list.  Almost all the incoming links should point to 7 July 2005 London bombings, and changing the redirects at London Bombings and London bombings would fix almost all of them. CarolGray 08:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of London bombings 

message: I have made one edit containing two unrelated suggestions.Abtract 09:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this guideline is that it makes a suggestion based on screen resolution, which is likely to vary significantly from user to user. I've attempted to address this by basing the guideline on number of entries instead. Please reword and/or copy-edit as needed. --Muchness 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK but its not copyediting I am after but a real change. First, it is clear to me that, for readers using a laptop (and surely there are lots), 30 is far too high a limit. I suggest some number between 10 and 20. Second, what is the reason for switching the index to the right when the vast majority of articles keep it on the left? IMO it looks better and is more visible in the normal place ... is there something peculiar about disambiguity pages that I have missed?Abtract 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one else seems too bothered I am going to edit it slightly.Abtract 10:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go along with some change on this, though I'd just assume omit any specific number and simply leave it as "longer lists" and allow discretion of the editors to format. Also, I really think the need to use second level headings should be fairly uncommon on disambiguation pages. Also, BTW, the use of TOC right is in common use throughout Wikipedia, not only on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 11:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I go along with not stating absolute numbers but I believe quite strongly that we should cater for the mass of users with laptops where lists with 4 or more headings would benefit from the table of contents facility to easily access the page required. Since this seems a 'no brainer' to me I cannot see what the objection to it is ... can someone tell me just why "second level heading should be uncommon on disambiguity pages"? It's surely not enough simply to state it? ......... As to TOC right, it is hardly in common use and surely isn't 'standard' so why should it be standard for disambiguity? Again simply saying it is so doesn't make it so, with respect :) Abtract 11:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using random article and ignoring those without a table of contents, I just went to 30 articles all with a table of contents on the left and got bored before finding one on the right (I never did find one) ... I rest my case. Abtract 11:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong methodology. See What links here for the :Template:TOCright. For a non-article page like a disambiguation page, the left TOC simply results in wasted white space--essentially forcing a reader to scroll down, whereas with a right TOC, a reader can scan a larger portion of the page. The same applies for second level headings--I'm pretty sure it has been discussed before on this talk page, which is how the guidance got incorporated into the style manual. It's really only appropriate with exceptionally long lists, like Aurora. older ≠ wiser 13:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I take your point on Toc right; I still think it looks untidy and does not achieve its objective but this is clearly a well worn path and I accept it for the moment. However you don't mention my point about users with laptops so I will reiterate it: when using a laptop  (and maybe other relatively small screens?) a list longer than about 10 is not viewable at one go - this leads me to think a table of contents would be helpful. Now so far as I can tell this is much the same reasoning that led to the 30 rule on big screens, simply adapted for small screens. What is the objection to this? Abtract 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your current change seems OK as it accords with current practices. I'm not sure I see your point about TOC and screen size, since the TOC is visible when using TOCright. I've rearranged the sentences a bit--and clarified that the use of TOCright is not dependent on use olevel two section headings. older ≠ wiser 14:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I may have explained it badly, the screen size point refers to the previous limit of 30 in the list before using level 2. I am happy with removing the limit. I have simplified it further but in doing so I went to the example page and found it uses level and level 3 so we may need a more typical example.Abtract 14:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reword implied that subject area headings and second level headings can be used interchangeably, which is not current practice. This is a not-trivial revision that effects a large number of pages; please can you hold off on introducing it to the guideline until we've discussed it further on the talk page?  --Muchness 14:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (after edit conflict)I don't see that Aurora uses more than two levels. There may be some confusion over the difference between Wiki section levels and HTML heading levels. Basically, a top-level section heading in Wiki terms (i.e., constructed with ==Section title== translates into an HTML H2, and a level two section heading (i.e., constructed with ===Section title=== translates into an HTML H3. HTML H1 is always reserved for the article title. Help:Section explains a bit (although that is pretty dense going for a help page, IMO). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) may be a little better. older ≠ wiser 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand but why does this guideline say only one level should normally be used when Aurora uses 2? On the other matter I hope you dont mind if I remove the word 'very' from the guideline. Abtract 17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that typically only a single level of headings are needed. It identifies Aurora as an example of a case where an additional level of headings may be appropriate. older ≠ wiser 19:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I see. I have claryfied the wording to avoid anyone else misunderstanding.Abtract 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long lists

message: There is a proposal to merge Johnson and Johnson (disambiguation) which you may wish to comment on here. CarolGray 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Hi.  There's a disambiguation page at Passage, and there are three articles that could be intended by The Passage — the St. Petersburg department store, The Passage (band) and The Passage (Battlestar Galactica).  (There's also apparently a film starring James Mason, but it doesn't have a page yet.)  Right now, a hatnote at The Passage directs readers towards the band's page, but there's nothing for the other meanings of "The Passage".  Should a separate dab page be created at The Passage (disambiguation), or should the hatnote at The Passage point towards the general dab page Passage?
I couldn't find any advice on what to do in a case like this in the guideline — should something be added? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and made a separate dab page at The Passage (disambiguation); if anyone thinks it's redundant, feel free to change it to a redirect to Passage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last option above is the right one, point to the general dab page. The new dab page is really not needed. I don't think the guideline is explicit on whether to have a dab page that includes the definite article, but most editors would put "The Passage" and "Passage" on the same dab page. The hatnote in "The Passage" should point to the dab page at "Passage". The new dab page "The Passage (disambiguation)", while much prettier, has been redirected to "Passage" per your invitation. It's ironic that the major article "The Passage" is qualified only by the definite article, since the Russian language has no definite or indefinite articles. Chris the speller 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this discussion would have been better placed on the talk page for WP:D instead of the talk page for WP:MOSDAB, since it does not just concern the style of a dab page, so if you want other opinions, or more detail on this question, you may get more responses or better responses over there. Chris the speller 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also went on to the old dab page (a poster child for WP:MOSDAB} and worked it over. Chris the speller 17:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Chris.  I noticed that Passage needed a lot of work, but didn't have the energy to take care of it last night.  The redirect is fine by me — I just wasn't sure what the usual practice in a case like this was. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline on whether to create separate dab pages for slight variations? 

message: Currently, about 90% of the various 2LC dab pages use upper case for both letters; the remaining 10% use upper then lower. I'd like to see this standardised to both upper and have commented to such effect at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Standardisation of names of two-letter combination pages. Please comment there if you wish to voice an opinion! Grutness...wha? 12:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardisation of names of two-letter combination pages

message: Above I asked about Surname and List of People by name dabs.  I was referring to the first 3 surname letters for the latter.
However, I am wondering whether First name dabs or first name articles should be in the see also section.  E.G., should August Busch have both links to August and Busch in the see also section or just the latter TonyTheTiger 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither.  But there should be a link to "List of people by name: Bus" in the [Busch (disambiguation)] page if there is one. Neonumbers 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I mostly agree with Neonumbers. Disambiguation pages are not lists of free associations of tangentially connected topics where there is little risk of confusion. A link to August is almost certainly not needed there. I'm ambivalent about linking to Busch or List of people by name: Bus-Buz there. older ≠ wiser 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  first name dabs