Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 7

message: I'm working on a draft for a major rewrite of this policy here. The intent of this rewrite is to make the text clearer, not to make any significant changes to the policy. Please comment on the article's talk page. (A side-by-side comparison can be seen here). This draft assumes that we'll come to some consensus eventually about the first-name-article issue; PLEASE don't rehash that issue there. Whatever conclusion we come to here will be reflected on that page. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Problem whether to use Tsushima, or Tsushima (disambiguation) for disambiguation in :Talk:Tsushima Islands. Mr Tan 05:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That debate has nothing to do with this page.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsushima Islands 

message: Are there policies on the titles of disambiguation pages?  I personally find it a little irritating when the regular article is a redirect to a disambiguation page (i.e. Yale).  Shouldn't we just have the unambiguous page become the disambiguation page?  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Ah - yes - that.  See the above discussion one the "Disambiguated Primary topic" method of disambiguation.  It's a new addition (few months back now) that was added without discussion, as far as I am aware at least, on this talk page (the above discussion came after its addition).  I propose (again) we discuss the removal of it.  Neonumbers 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This actually appears to be yet another sort of disambiguation page, where the unqualified article redirects to the (disambiguation) article. It's clear to me that this does not fit any of the four forms listed on this project page, and so I'm going to fix it right now. The fourth form seems to refer to the ambiguous page redirecting to the primary topic, and then that having a link to the (disambiguation) page, if I'm not misunderstanding. For what it's worth I would vote against this new form of disambiguation. Deco 02:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I recently did a bit of shifting around of article contents that has ended up with the creation of A Place in the Sun (disambiguation).  I've included in this page a reference to Place in the sun, as well as the titles of the 1951 film and the British TV program.  What I'm wondering is whether there is an element of the guideline that addresses when and how to disambiguate articles that are distinguished by the use of articles such as "a" and "the", as is the case here.  I've expressed my own opinion in the form of the page I refer to, but don't really want to fly in the face of a consensus solution if one has been identified.  As a related note, I'm of the opinion that this is a class of articles that do not really need a guideline to cover, but that they can/should be handled on a one-off basis as they arise; therefore, I'll happily bound on my way if there isn't a guideline.  Thanks. Courtland 18:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
:I know of no guideline. I think it's obvious, though that such titles are likely to be confused and so should be disambiguated.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about articles "a" and "the" 

message: I'm wondering if anyone has considered splitting :Category:Disambiguation into a couple of subcategories based on template usage.  I'm right now thinking in terms of the use of  versus .  Presently, the former template directs labeled articles to inclusion in :Category:Disambiguation.  Could we consider modification of this template to allow direction of labeled articles to a new sub-category, :Category:TLA_Disambiguation?  My thinking is that such a category would be an identifiable finite chunk of page organization. As I've not thought through the numerous pros and cons of this, it would be helpful for a pros/cons discussion to proceed from here on this page. Thanks. Courtland 02:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
:The existing :Category:Disambiguation is so large as to be useless, so my instinct is to support this. But there are some scripts (such as Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links which would need to be updated, so the ramifications might be larger than we think; maybe a mention on Village Pump would be indicated. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting up the disambiguation category (TLA) 

message: I came to this page looking for simple instructions on how to create a piped link but had to look at "edit page" to see the example.  I don't think this is clear since the Mercury example contains piped links but then does not even explain how they work.  Would anybody be mad if I changed the text on this page as follows (this is a rough draft just to show you the idea):
Three different methods of disambiguating are discussed here: piped links, disambiguation links and disambiguation pages. In the first case, piped links are simply links which automatically redirect.  In the second case, an article discussing one particular meaning of a term has a link at the top (or, rarely, at the bottom) pointing the user to another page with a similar title. Finally, a disambiguation page contains no article content, only links to other Wikipedia pages.
Then a brief description how to create a piped link, explainin where the pipe symbol is (over the slash usually?) and then walk people through how to do it using the Mercury example.  
Please reply here or on my Talk page.  Thanks!!!  Laurap414 diligent semi-newbie Aug 12 1 pm CST (how do I insert the time?)
:Now that you mention it, piping is the primary method of disambiguation used on Wikipedia. How about this revision of your opening sentence:
:
Three different methods of disambiguating are discussed here:
* piped links are simply links which automatically redirect to a more specific page.
*disambiguation links are links at the top of an article page offering the user the option to view a similarly-named article. 
*disambiguation pages contains no article content, only links to other Wikipedia pages.
 —Wahoofive (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would anybody be mad if I changed the text on this page as follows

message: I just came across ABB, a disambiguation which was changed to its current style by User:Joshbaumgartner.  I was just wondering what the general opinion of it was.  Should we encourage that form or make sure nobody uses it?  violet/riga (t) 10:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very bad page. Discourage. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics in disambigs