Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 19

message: This manual says:
::The link on the main article should be similar to:
:::For other uses, see school (disambiguation).
The obnoxious "otheruses" template is objectionable for a variety of simple reasons.  (I recommend the "dablink" template instead.)  One of those reasons is that, although the "otheruses" template (usually) is phrased just as above, it will not allow the editor to choose judiciously between a capital and a lower-case initial letter in the name of the disambiguation page to which it links.  That a technical software difficulty.  I reported it as a bug some months ago.  It's no reason why this manual should be similarly handicapped.  Accordingly I've changed it to lower case.
"Other uses" can easily be misunderstood to mean other uses of the thing the page is about (e.g. "For other uses of Jews, see Jew (disambiguation)").  Especially when you consider that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about their topics, not about the words that name them (i.e., the article titled "dog" is not supposed to be about the word dog and how it evolved from some Old English word used 1000 years ago, etc., but about the animals called dogs).
One difficulty with avoiding the "otheruses" template and typing in something intelligent instead, seems to be that the page does not then get listed in some standard lists of disambiguation pages.  I think the "dablink" template takes care of that, and, unlike the "otheruses" template, it at least allow the user to type something intelligent. Michael Hardy 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify what you mean by the page does not then get listed in some standard lists of disambiguation pages.? Dablink doesn't categorize the pages that it is used on. As for the rest, you know I disagree, but if there is a consensus for something else, I'll respect that. older ≠ wiser 23:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to a primary topic

message: Is there a general consensus with respect to whether or not to include images on disambiguation pages? Referring specifically to Corn, Plasma, and Zephyr but I'm sure there are others. Like excessive overlinking, images could be considered needless clutter. But if others like the images and/or see a valid need for them, I don't really care either way. Just looking for consistency. -- Krash (Talk) 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference is not to have a picture. If pictures really help the reader find the page they're looking for, then why not add images for every entry? Sometimes this happens because an editor feels that one entry should really be the primary topic/main article for that topic -- in which case they should be making that argument (although it can be a real challenge to get agreement on what should be a main entry). See also the Semi-disambiguation pages discussion above. Ewlyahoocom 13:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, it seems like an image should not be included in a dismbiguation page, but there are some occasions where it is useful.  For disambiguation pages where the main definition is a dictionary defition and therefore there is only a link to Wiktionary, it can be nice to have a small picture of that dictionary definition.  Field is a good example of this.  Since there is no article about a field of grass, there is the link to Wiktionary, and then a picture of a field (not as random as it sounds).  This is just my personal preferences, though.  -- Natalya 17:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, that picture of field would go great in Wiktionary (I assume their policies allow images). Here, it's just a substitute dicdef. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put me down as strongly against images on disambiguation pages (but feel free to bend the rules when it would help the reader), and I have removed at least one that I can remember. The purpose of the disambig page is to help the reader on his or her way, and images would seldom speed things up. Not everyone has broadband access, and not every reader can see an image. Chris the speller 22:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%. No images in disambig pages. There's absolutely no need for them. -- Necrothesp 12:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 99%. Images can be useful if they show the difference between two of the meanings, and so help disambiguate: see Congo (disambiguation) for a good example. Eugene van der Pijll 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Most images should be avoided, but Congo is an excellent case for an exception. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be appropriate to put something in the guidelines along the lines of "unless an image will assist in clarifying the disambiguation, images should not be included on disambiguation pages"?  In a more eloquent manner, though, of course. -- Natalya 17:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Images should be discouraged in cases where a few words can do the job, but describing the borders of the two Congos is obviously impossible, or at least silly. The guidelines should allow images as a last resort, and should request that the size be kept to a minimum, perhaps trying to keep them under 10 KB. I don't think the Corn page is a good example, because the image is rather large at 31KB, the caption does not indicate which disambiguated article it applies to, and the huge pile gives no indication of the scale (is each ear an inch or a yard long?) A close-up photo of wheat and maize together might be helpful, but not this. Chris the speller 18:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Chris. Gflores Talk 14:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: What is the consensus on disambiguating to wiktionary links? 
For example - A term like Yahoo disambiguates to Yahoo! and other wikipedia entries. Sometimes, the term is used in the meaning of a crude person on wikipages (edit)pointing to this disambiguation page(/edit). Given that the term is not very common, what should happen to this kind of link?
* Disambiguate to wiktionary:yahoo
* Remove the link
* Keep the link to a dab page that does not mention it
What about more common non-encyclopedic terms?
-- Ravn 14:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard is to include  or one of its variants at the top of the disambiguation page, so a person who carelessly seeks a dictionary definition in an encyclopedia has an easy way to navigate to the dictionary. I don't need an encyclopedia article to discover all there is to know about "crude people".  Chris the speller 16:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I fear, I did not make myself clear. My question was what to do with the links pointing to that disambiguation page (meaning wiktionary:yahoo)? Do you mean to keep them? -- Ravn 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not easily find an article which has such a link, but my opinion is that we should avoid cluttering up articles with dictionary links. Many people will know what a yahoo (crude person) is, and putting a dictionary link in an article can be disruptive, especially for readers who don't see well, and are using special software for reading. For anyone with a limited vocabulary, looking up less-common words in the dictionary will be a fact of life. I might feel insulted reading an article where the editor has decided in advance what words might trip me up. Unlink them, unless you find an example of a clear-cut need, and I can't imagine one right now. Chris the speller 17:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice job on the Yahoo dab page, by the way. My only criticism is leaving unnecessary links in the descriptive part of each line. You handled the dictionary aspect just fine. Chris the speller 16:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ravn, your question is often asked at WP:DPL (example) and Chris the speller's answer conforms with the consensus over there. Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context is also relevent.--Commander Keane 18:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Chris and Keane. -- Ravn 16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiktionary:Links