Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 17

message: Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#First name disambiguation. `'mikka (t) 00:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   First name disambiguation 

message: On a disambiguation page, should the links be what the page title is?  I don't know what it's called when you make a link that SAYS one thing and goes to a different page, but should that be used?  I did that in Let's Go, but I'm not sure if I should have ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuschex (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 July 2006  (UTC)
:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping suggests Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed (for example, Moment (physics)). In many cases, this may be all the user needs to distinguish the article.. Besides the piped links, ideally each line in a disambiguation page should only have one blue link. Disambiguation pages are primarily intended to help a reader find the intended article as quickly as possible, with extra information and tangential links kept to a minimum. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should links be the page title? 

message: In case you don't have :Category:Disambiguation on your watchlist, there's some discussion at Category talk:Disambiguation#Secondary disambiguations of some new subcategories which may be of interest (or concern). older ≠ wiser 22:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new disambiguation subcategories 

message: No matter how you phrase an "otheruses" template, there are some articles in which it will look ridiculous, and therefore the editor chooses among many different "otheruses" templates.  But if there are so many, there shouldn't be such templates at all; there should just be a style manual with examples of ways to phrase disambiguation notices in various different circumstances, using, e.g. the "dablink" template.  Most "otheruses" templates refuse to let the editor choose between a capital and a lower-case initial letter, and I find that obnoxious.  I do remember that one of the many "otheruses" templates actually produced results that looked like something an intelligent person could write, but it couldn't be universally used (I don't remember now which one it was).  Michael Hardy 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People appear to disagree with you on the issue of capitalizing articles' names (although have you brought it up somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style?).  There's no need to insult them.  And a lack of standardization just looks unprofessional, with every article having a different look.  And finally, a template like  works for the overwhelming majority of articles — I'd welcome counterexamples. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Simetrical.  is probably the best and most generally useful.  is good too.  There was a big debate about deleting the former in favor of the latter earlier this year, and thankfully it failed. -- Slowmover 20:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Templates are extremely useful for standardization, and should not be discarded.  They can have enough variety to fit almost all articles; the remainder might qualify for , sure, but the vast majority can use some combination of parameters sent to  or perhaps .  Case should be dictated only if there's agreement that it should be (I don't think it's a good idea; consider eBay), but that's largely irrelevant to the question of whether to use templates at all. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "otheruses" templates should be abolished

message: Hi,  I dont know how to do a disambiguation page, but the Defence Analytical Services Agency is best known as "DASA", however this page has been taken.  Could someone please sort out a disambiguation for this please?  Thankyou!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebigalan39 (talk • contribs) .
: (Note: comment moved from top of page.)  Powers 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation request 

message: If I search for 'Prime' hoping to find a pointer to 'Prime Minister', I'm out of luck. There are some pointers to other pages starting with Prime, but not to all of them. If I do a similar search on the Danish wikipedia (search for 'Prim'), I will get a pointer to the Danish version of Special:Prefixindex/PAGENAME. This way, it is easy way to look for all pages that start with the ambiguous term.
Is there any reason to not do the same thing on the English Wikipedia (other than the fact that the template is protected)? Dash 12:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the archives, this suggestion has cropped up a few times before (maybe also at WP:MOSDAB). There is the problem with what Prefixindex does with page titles containing "(disambiguation)".--Commander Keane 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add pointer to Special:Prefixindex/...? 

message: This issue is related to diambiguation. Please share your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Nationalistic bias in global city names/redirects Tinlinkin 10:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalistic bias in global city names/redirects 

message: Some disagreement over what to list / what not to list on this dab page. Input welcome: Talk:AFD. Thanks/wangi 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[AFD]] 

message: Is there a preferred format to indicate that an entry's title may also refer to another topic when the second topic would not itself qualify for an article?  Specifically, I've authored an article about a late 19th century/early 20th century author and mycologist.  His name is shared by a late 19th century religious author who has very little chance of having his own article, but who often shows up in searches by author name for books of the period, so I'd like to have some way to avoid the potential for confusion.  Serpent's Choice 09:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest writing a short stub about the guy currently with no article, which shouldn't be too hard, since you already know about him a bit.  Do you think he has little chance of having his own article because he is not notable? It seems that if he shows up in searches that much, it would probably be okay.  Once you have the stub, then you can either place disambiguation links on the two pages, or create a disambiguation page for them. -- Natalya 12:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation for nonexistent (nonqualifying) topics

message: ...so I corrected it.  I apologize if that was out of process, but it looked like an obvious structural error.  Please revert my change if I'm wrong.  Thanks. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing policy pages is fine — otherwise they'd be protected.  Of course, if your edits are substantive, they'd better reflect consensus, but make superficial edits as you like. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading levels were screwed up under "What not to include"

message: Should potential misspellings be disambiguated?  For an example, see the recent disambiguation links added to IMVU (version link) and I.N.V.U. (version link).
--TJJFV 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Misspellings 

message: I'm a little confused on how disambiguation links should be posted at the top of main articles.  For instance, the article Wizard (fantasy) has a link to the disambiguation page: Wizard.  Is that correct, or should the link actually be to the unambiguously titled Wizard (disambiguation) which then redirects to Wizard?  Thanks!  Dreadlocke  ☥  22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wizard (fantasy) actually needs no disambiguation links (I've gone ahead and removed them).  Since the page is located with the parenthetical identifier (fantasy), the only way someone will arrive at that page is either from the link at Wizard, or directly from another article that linked to Wizard (fantasy).  Either way, there is no way that the person could have arrived at the article mistakenly; therefore, no disambiguaiton links are needed. -- Natalya 22:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Natalya!  That's an even better solution! Dreadlocke  ☥  23:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main article dab links

message: It seems lately that quite a number of users have reworded/reorganized/dono massive copyedits on Wikipedia:Disambiguation.  While being bold is always encouraged, since this is a guideline, it is a really good idea to discuss any major changes here first.  Fixing a spelling or small grammar mistake is not a major change, but altering what the guidelines say/how they are organized is.  There is a reason things are laid out as they are; not to say that it is the best way, but it is a way that was agreed upon.  If you have a suggestion for an improvement, by all means post it here, for improvements are awesome, but as the notice on the top of the page says, please make sure it reflects consensus first. -- Natalya 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Natalya. However, I did just revert JohnLai who had just reverted Centrx's recent revision of the page. For the most part, I think Centrx restored much of the content to a state it was in before a couple of weeks ago during which some fairly extensive changes and additions were made. I found most of the newer changes to be a significant decrease in the quality of the page. But, I won't revert again on this, but I think that is the best candidate for a version to use as a starting point to discuss additional revisions. older ≠ wiser 16:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that many of Centrx's changes were very useful.  I was just making a blanket statement, since it seems like there's been a lot of editing of it recently. -- Natalya 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Centrx's edits have been re-reverted.  I agree with Bkonrad that those edits really helped people understand disambiguation, and would like to change it back.  Would those who disagree please speak up as to why?  Thanks! -- Natalya 00:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All signs point to User:JohnLai, who reverted, being a sockpuppet of User:Wai Wai. Regardless, there is no consensus for the changes he made. —Centrx→talk • 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss major changes to the guidelines first