Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Disambiguation subcategories

message: A number of discussion topics and straw polls on the future of disambiguation subcategories. Thanks/wangi 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

message: The first poll responder made a comment that surprised me!  Categories are expressly and specifically designed to make automatic indexes, instead of the older list methods.  Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes are supposed to be complementary, and lists are specifically recommended where the list must be annotated.  What's the need for annotatation here?
:--William Allen Simpson 14:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An advantage of using a list is that you can have a comprehensive listing of all two-letter (aa) and three-letter (aaa) and letter-number (1a, a1, 1aa, a1a, aa1) combinations without the need for actually having articles for them; I see this as an advantage, but there are many who feel that is an unnecessarily crufty approach to the problem.  My argument in favor of this (even for four-letter) is that it is a type of almanaic content that is permissible within the remit of Wikipedia that some find useful. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: --William Allen Simpson 06:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking at it from the perspective of almanac-type content, William. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories versus Lists

message: The poll below is so confusing and vague that most of the questions are useless. Clearly, if we are going to have templates for acronyms with three or more letters, and they are separate (not merged into one), the naming should be consistent. We need to figure out first if we want to have acronym templates at all, and then what the maximum number of characters should be. Once those questions are settled, it will be a lot easier to work out a consistent naming scheme.--Srleffler 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second Srleffler's opinion that the entire poll structure below should be scrapped and redone.  Part of the problem is the issue doesn't decompose nicely into "Support/Oppose" questions; trying to force that just makes the confusion worse.  I seriously considered adding just added a poll question about whether the poll is confusing/premature.  Pre-emptive reply: Yes, yes, we can figure it all out, given enough time.  That's not the point.  Point is a poll should not be a rhetorical maze. --DragonHawk 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: --William Allen Simpson 08:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: --William Allen Simpson 07:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Methodology

message: Tedernst claims that nobody "surfs" Category:Disambiguation. Since categories are indexes intended for browsing, it logically follows that Ted is in favor of abolishing the main category. I look forward to Ted's explanation on why and how this would be in the best interest of *pedia.
:--William Allen Simpson 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No page on wikipedia is supposed to be without a category.  I'm not sure exactly why that's so, but it is.  Since disambiguation pages are not articles and don't need to be browsed, having category disambiguation makes the most sense to me, if categories are required.  In addition, the work taking place at WP:DPL can only happen if dabs are in a category (as far as I know).  If there's some other way for that work to carry on without categories, then I see no reason for keeping the category.  Tedernst | talk 19:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of WP:DPL, how do sub-categories affect that work? Tedernst | talk 19:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abolishing Category:Disambiguation

message: In some respects, this might be easier or harder.  
Based on long-standing Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages, folks were supposed to be adding these names to lists.  Now, it's being forced, as there will be no more subcategories.
It appears that the second step to removing the Disambiguation sub-categories will be to: 
*replace  with , and list in Wikipedia:Multiple-place names.
*replace  with , and list in Wikipedia:Non-unique personal name.
*replace  with , and list in Wikipedia:Multiple-place names.
Where will  be listed?
In some cases, the listing work will already be done.  In other cases, more than one type may be on the page, so it should be in more than one list. But every case has to be checked.  
:--William Allen Simpson 17:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  *dis cleanup 

message: See discussion above and complaints below.  See also WP:Consensus, WP:Straw polls, m:Polls are evil, and recall that Wikipedia is not a democracy.  I'm not saying we shouldn't ever poll on this stuff; just that this poll is too unfocused and disorganized to yield results useful for decision-making.  Further discussion is needed first. 
;Support (oppose rest of poll)
# DragonHawk 05:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-poll: This poll is premature and/or confusing 

message: This is a major change to the guidelines.
;Support
# User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should all *LA* letter templates be removed?

message: Thus 2LAs, 3LAs, 4..., etc are in one category/template (for example )?
;Support
;Oppose
#Whatever value they provide comes from dealing with the different-length acronyms separately.--Srleffler 00:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should all *LA* letter templates be merged into a single one?

message: Current guideline is TLAdisambig. ("Support" should list the one desired.)
;Support
#William Allen Simpson 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Two and Three letter templates be named {{tl|TLA}} or {{tl|TLAdisambig}}?

message: Contrary to current guidelines, all three are in use at this time. ("Support" should list the one desired.)
;Support
#William Allen Simpson 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Two letter templates be named {{tl|2LA}} or {{tl|2LAdisambig}} or {{tl|2LCdisambig}}?

message: None currently used. ("Support" should list the one desired.)
;Support
#--Srleffler 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Three letter templates be named {{tl|3LA}} or {{tl|3LAdisambig}} or {{tl|3LCdisambig}}?

message: None currently used. ("Support" should list the one desired.)
;Support
#
;Oppose
#William Allen Simpson 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Four and Five letter templates be named {{tl|FLA}} or {{tl|FLAdisambig}} or {{tl|FLCdisambig}}?

message: Contrary to current guidelines, 4LA is in use at this time. ("Support" should list the one desired.)
;Support
# only for acronyms --William Allen Simpson 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Four letter templates be named {{tl|4LA}} or {{tl|4LAdisambig}} or {{tl|4LCdisambig}}?

message: Contrary to current guidelines, 5LA is in use at this time. ("Support" should list the one desired.)
;Support
# only for acronyms --William Allen Simpson 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Five letter templates be named {{tl|5LA}} or {{tl|5LAdisambig}} or {{tl|5LCdisambig}}?

message: This is a significant change to these guidelines, and several templates and subcategories have been added in other guidelines.
;Support
# User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should all disambiguation subcategory templates be removed?

message: Defined elsewhere,  has nearly 1000 entries at this time.
;Support
#William Allen Simpson 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should geographic place name templates be used?

message: Defined elsewhere,  has nearly 800 entries at this time.
;Support
#William Allen Simpson 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should human name templates be used?

message: Defined elsewhere,  has 169 entries at this time.
;Support
#William Allen Simpson 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should number templates be used?

message: Defined elsewhere,  has nearly 400 entries at this time.
;Support
# 
;Oppose
#William Allen Simpson 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should township templates be used?