Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 23

message: Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)#Islands -- Chuq 08:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islands 

message: The "may mean" / "may be" distinction is still useful for dab pages that are divided into two separate sections as described in the Order of entries section. I've restored the mean/be usage for this specific case. --Muchness 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of entries

message: Does the anti-piping "rule" apply as strongly to human name disambiguation pages? I generally agree with not piping the links on a disambiguation page, however, I also don't have much expereience with human name disambigution pages. Consider Ladislaus. This is the name of a bunch of kings and princes around Poland/Hungary/etc. who each wind up being known by 2, 3 or 4 different preferred "variations". One result, is that currently Ladislaus Posthumus of Bohemia and Hungary shows up as 3 different links László V, Ladislaus, Ladislav but never as the actual name of the article. Thoughts? Ewlyahoocom 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before piping, consider the reader who is struggling to find an article, who investigates Ladislaus, then Ladislav, only to find the same article. There would be less astonishment if the links were not piped. This page does present a challenge, for sure. I would put the proper link, followed by "referred to as Ladislav by the Bohemians" or something like that. Ten editors would do this page ten different ways. BTW, I bet Ted Knight never went by his middle name, so he shouldn't be there. Chris the speller 04:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Even if the names are slightly different, and may not be spelled the same way as "Ladislaus", they all belong on the disambiguation page in whatever form they are.  -- Natalya 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piping and human name pages 

message: Hey All! For better or worse, Wikipedia is (mostly) case-sensitive -- so it's possible to have 2 (or more!) "primary topics". For example, Jim Crow is a redirect to Jim Crow laws; and Jim crow is some kind of bending tool. I tried a double primary topic format, but it looked a little strange and has since been reorganized. But how would you have handled it? Ewlyahoocom 15:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently had the same problem with ETA, eta, and ETA (disambiguation).  ETA goes to the apparently primary topic about the Basque nationalist group, while eta redirects to ETA (disambiguation).  If ETA was the true primary topic, eta should redirect to it instead.  Then the question came up of whether eta (letter) should also be a primary topic, and if eta should redirect to that.  It seems much too confusing to have different cases of the search redirect to different pages.  If there is a situation (such as the two above) where different cases lead to two separate but equally primary articles, I'd think that having all the searches redirect to the disambiguation page would be best.  This makes it as un-confusing as possible -- Natalya 17:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, too many dab pages can be confusing, even if proper. And the Jim Crow page looks better after the reorganization. Chris the speller 17:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My thoughts -- for Jim crow, I'd argue that there is really only one primary topic and the somewhat specialized and not very commonly known railway tool should be renamed, something like Jim crow (rail bender). Jim Crow laws would remain the primary topic and all the uses would be listed at Jim Crow (disambiguation). ETA and eta is a little more interesting, the Basque organization is certainly the primary topic for all caps "ETA", while there is a very good case for the greek letter as the primary topic for lower-case "eta" (or due to Wiki software limitations, "Eta"). Nearly all of the links to Eta are for the Greek letter. But practically, I think having two primary topics for the same three-letter combination would lead to confusion. I think the current situation seems pretty reasonable. ETA, the Basque group is rarely spelled in lower case, so I don't see why "eta" or "Eta" should redirect there--seems more sensible to redirect that to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 17:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points about ETA/Eta.  That's probably a case where ignoring all the rules ends up for the best.  -- Natalya 17:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim crow (tool) might be better than Jim crow (rail bender), which might be taken for an occupation. 208.58.242.29 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre double primary topic format 

message: Any comments on the use of an image on this disambig page to aid it: Mississippi Delta (disambiguation)? Thanks/wangi 20:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the few examples where an image does assist in disambiguation.  There was another example once, I can't remember, but it was very similar. -- Natalya 20:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, in this instance it does help... But in the general case I wouldn't say so. I've converted it to use the  template now/wangi 21:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome - it looks perfect. -- Natalya 22:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congo (disambiguation) was the earlier example, discussed in Archive 16. Chris the speller 01:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I just changed it to use the  template. Thanks for the lesson, Wangi! Chris the speller 04:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really a hidden gem, but I've always liked the image at Field - in truth it probably shouldn't be there, but it makes the page look nice, and doesn't get in the way. -- Natalya 14:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The footpath photo does not even show a footpath, just a road and signs that point to footpaths that are not visible. It sure doesn't help disambiguate, as it could apply to two of the three articles, and doesn't indicate which article(s) it applies to. As usual, Natalya is right; the photo at Field should not be there. "Green field" and "paddock" appear nowhere on the page, except in the caption. A reader could spend quite a few seconds trying to decide which article it applies to. It's an OK photo, but should probably be on Field (agriculture) instead of the dab page. It slows down the loading of the page and probably distracts most readers, whereas the Mississippi and Congo images definitely help to disambiguate. Chris the speller 05:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, c'mon! The Footpath photo is just funny (in self-referential way). Or am I the only one who thinks this? Ewlyahoocom 08:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ewlyahoocom about the footpath sign. It'll be a sad day when a such an innocuous tiny bit of levity is prohibited. Is it really such a bad thing that a reader might spend a moment to stop and smile? At worst they might wonder WTF is that picture doing there--I find it extremely difficult to believe it would contribute to any genuine confusion though.  The field image is somewhat less clever though, IMO. older ≠ wiser 12:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: On your suggestion, Chris, I added the field image to Field (agriculture), and it is now in the correct place. -- Natalya 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boo! I'm sorry I opened this subsection of the thread. It is far more controversial than I imagined. Ewlyahoocom 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't worry about it!  It's not really as controversial as it seems. :) -- Natalya 00:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure about that case - the primary article is defined enough that it doesn't seem like it would be easily confused with any of the other entries. -- Natalya 19:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see the line Interiot mentioned ("Images are discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles") added to the guideline. The image in Pillar isn't helping and should be removed.--Commander Keane 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images to disambig? 

message: How's this for a nasty disambig page:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DB&oldid=51737242
!?!?!!!! /wangi 21:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks much prettier now. :) -- Natalya 22:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoa