Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 35

message: We may need a section on what to include in particular on abbreviation lists.  I've been using the same criterion that I use elsewhere: the linked page uses the dabbed term in relation to its (or its section's) topic -- nicely clear-cut.  Not every page that has the title initials "HP" needs to be on HP (disambiguation), for instance, but Harry Potter can be.  But see those pages' edit histories and Talk:HP (disambiguation) and Talk:Harry Potter.  -- JHunterJ 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like we can use previous Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability.  I can see the concern that, for example, if "HP" was only used on fan and personal sites, it might not make sense to include on the page.  However, if there are neutral sources that refer to it as such, it seems perfectly appropriate to include it.  The example given of newspapers mentioning it as HP is exactly what I was thinking of.  Those are verifiable, especially since we would consider them valid references for articles.  It seems like usually common sense can dictate what should be on the pages; I'm sure most of us are able to tell things that could conceptually be abbreviated by various abbreviations.  However, when there is disagreement about it, it seems that if there are verafiable sources referring to the article in question by that abbreviation, that should be reason enough to include it. -- Natalya 21:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right; my point during the HP discussions is that Talk:Harry Potter editors can determine whether the article Harry Potter should say "HP", and the Talk: HP (disambiguation) editors can simply trust them to reach a consensus, which can be used to determine if the abbreviation is included on the dab. The dab editors don't need to vet every linked page. -- JHunterJ 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True... but could there be situations where the editors of that page were overly biased in favor of including it, just because they wanted to get their page more attention?  Not saying that that is the case now, or even that it often would be, but that possibility would make me somewhat leery of always resorting to that practice.  Not to say that we will not get rational editors on both the disambiguation page and the article page who would look for appropriate citations... just that it could be fishy sometimes.  A conversatoin between the two groups, perhaps, might lead to the most elegant solution.  -- Natalya 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very possibly on the bias.  My philosophy on this, though, is: disambiguation pages aren't articles; they serve to disambiguate Wikipedia articles, even flawed Wikipedia articles.  If the editors of a page are overly biased, then (unless and until that bias is identified and corrected) that article merits inclusion on the disambiguation page -- just like if someone creates a redirect HP (Harry Potter), the redirect should be included until it is RfDed, or if someone creates an article at HP (some distinguishing phrase for a non-notable topic), it should be included until AfDed.  ... Besides, a conversation between the dab editors (of unspecified bias) and the hypothetically overly biased article editors is like to turn inelegant. -- JHunterJ 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to be included on abbreviation pages 

message: We could use some more eyes on HP (disambiguation) -- see Talk:HP (disambiguation) and Talk:Harry Potter for the train wreck over the inclusion of Harry Potter. -- JHunterJ 11:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[HP (disambiguation)]] 

message: This guideline says that see also sections should be used only for spelling variants/likely mistakes. It seems to me appropriate that it would also include variants of the word that have a different form; for example, the disambiguation page Splitting would have links to Split (disambiguation) and Splitter (disambiguation), and it seems appropriate to put them under see also. Is this correct? Can that be added to the guideline? Rigadoun  (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. – sgeureka t•c 16:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That definitly makes sense.  I might consider them "spelling variants", or at least variations of the word, but perhaps we can make that clearer. -- Natalya 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it. Rigadoun  (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also for different forms of the word 

message: When the DAB page can refer to a movie which has sequels with a similar name, should all of the sequels be listed? For example, should Halloween (disambiguation) really list ever Halloween film, or should it just list the original film, its remake, and the film series article? -Joltman 18:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say only the first movie and the series article need to be linked; the others, if not removed outright, should be relegated to the "See also" section or the whole set moved beneath all the other entries known as just "Halloween". -- JHunterJ 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would make sense under the See also (it doesn't meet the criteria here), but I agree that only those films known as "Halloween" (i.e. without numbers, etc.) should be included, in addition to an article on the series. A better case could be made for topics missing an article on the series, but still I think a user is unlikely to intend to find the sequel when searching the first movie's title, or even if s/he is, s/he would expect to find a link to them from the first movie's article. Rigadoun  (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Since there's already a Halloween (film series) I'd probably just list the first one + the film series link. Otherwise, I might try collapsing all the sequels into a single entry -- having multiple blue links on one line might be preferable than these 10+ entries. (But there's so many other marginal entires on this particular page -- songs, episodes of shows, etc. -- that I'm not sure it makes much difference.) Ewlyahoocom 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should sequels be listed on a DAB page? 

message: Sometimes there is a question whether the "entry word" in an entry should be redlinked or not linked at all.  For instance, from Sephiroth:
*Sephiroth (Tales of the Abyss), the ten ancient devices used in order to support the Outer Lands in Tales of the Abyss
vs.
*Sephiroth, the ten ancient devices used in order to support the Outer Lands in Tales of the Abyss
Both entries have a single blue link, which is good.  I usually click through the proposed redlink and see "What links here" -- if anything else links to it (and preferably the blue-linked article in particular), then I'll also include the redlink on the dab; if the only thing that would use the redlink is the dab, I opt in favor of no link for the "entry word".  I was considering making the suggestion in the guidelines.  Thoughts? -- JHunterJ 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'd probably prefer the creation of a redirect ("with possibilities" if necessary) to make the redlink blue. But maybe that's just my coward's way out. Ewlyahoocom 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I do the same (checking for incoming links etc.). But if you add this to the guidelines, you might want to elaborate on how to find and use Whatlinkshere. It took me two months as a newbie to realize the potential of the toolbox (and I still don't use it much unless I have to). – sgeureka t•c 02:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reasonable rule of thumb. You could just add a link to Help:What links here in lieu of explaining it anew. I think the converse is a reasonable guideline, too: a link that seems like it should have an article written reasonably soon (that is, one to be redlinked) should have other oncoming links, and they should be added from relevant articles per Wikipedia:Build the web.  Rigadoun  (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've adjusted WP:MOSDAB#Red links based on this discussion. -- JHunterJ 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on redlinks 

message: I just cleaned up Gelb, and it had an entry "the German word for yellow". True enough, but I changed it to a wiktionarypar, mainly so you, my esteemed colleagues, can easily observe what's over there. I have seen quite a number of wiktionary links to entries like this, where there are only definitions of foreign-language words. My tendency is to remove them from dab pages, but perhaps we need a guideline. I suggest that we discourage wiktionary links where they only lead to foreign-language definitions. And I don't think we needed the original entry "the German word for yellow", as a speaker of German who wants to know about the color yellow should be entering "gelb" in de.wikipedia.org, not in the English WP. Any thoughts? Chris the speller 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it depends on whether there are people with that surname on the dab page (someone may actually want to know what the surname means and where it comes from). I'm not sure what to say about surname-less dab pages. I just think that some drive-by wikipedian will add the translation to the dab page again anyway, especially such popular ones, so I wouldn't bother(?). – sgeureka t•c 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Assuming the English Wikipedia article (Yellow in this case) doesn't serve to disambiguate the term ("Gelb" doesn't appear on the article), then yes, it should be deleted.  I think the existing disambiguation guidelines cover this, but I'm all for making them clearer  since there are may editors who don't read all the nuances I see in them (and I don't blame them). If a surname-full dab page reaches the point where it's covering the meaning and other info about a surname, the dab info and surname article should be split into two pages. -- JHunterJ 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that a dab page that has onomastic info about a surname or given name, (or which has more than a handful of people) deserves to have that stuff moved to a surname or given name article (which I did for this article because it had 6 people already, with many more existing articles yet to be listed). In this case, I assume that the name has something to do with "yellow", maybe yellow hair or yellow teeth, but I don't know it for a fact, and don't care to dig up references. I have gotten to this point by moving surname blather off hundreds of dab pages, having found most of them by looking for one-word pages that use hndis. The question about wiktionary links to foreign-language words remains, and I have seen quite a few of them, but feel that they clutter up disambig pages, and that it's not the mission of WP to be a German-English or Italian-English dictionary. If I'm wrong, please tell me now. Chris the speller 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What question remains?  Include a link to Yellow on Gelb?  No.  Include a link to (English) wiktionary through Wikitionarypar on Gelb?  Yes. -- JHunterJ 04:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question about linking to a (supposedly English) dictionary from an English encyclopedia page even when there is no English definition of that term. I don't know why Wiktionary has foreign terms defined in it, but don't care, either, as I have very little use or respect for it. You say yes, but don't say why. I say why is anyone searching for a completely foreign word in WP, and why should we add clutter to WP to accommodate them? Following Sgeureka's lead, I propose the acronym DBWE (drive-by Wikipedia editor) for the type of person who sees "gelb" , thinks "that's the German word for yellow" and feels compelled to add it, even though "Gelb" is not a candidate for a WP article title about colors, except in the German WP. I try not to forget the true reason for dab pages. Chris the speller 06:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want to add the wiktionary template, that's fine, but I think it's the right thing to add when removing dictionary defs from a dab.  And if another editor has already added a wiktionary template, certainly don't remove it just because it has no English content.  Perhaps there could be a separate Wiktionary template for use when the target Wiktionary entries have no English definitions.  I don't think clutter is an issue unless there's a TOCRight template as well, then it can start looking a little funny. -- JHunterJ 11:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary links to foreign-language words 

message: I came across :Category:acronyms on a dab page today. It's a fairly well populated category, although I have never come across it in the past. MOS:DAB#Categories currently only refers to name categories, so I don't really know what to do. I also ask because HOS would allow for redlinks as an acronym page. As a disambiguation page however, it shouldn't, and I've previously always deleted the masses of redlinks without incoming links. Opinions? I don't want to "harm" other projects. – sgeureka t•c 18:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: It seems this category is usually applied to articles whose subject is widely known by the acronym, like DINKY. But I'd still like others' input about whether to remove all redlinked term without incoming links, even though they are/were sourced. (My take: Wikipedia is not Google, therefore delete them.) – sgeureka t•c 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see a WikiProject for acronyms identified with the category.  In any event, complete lists of acronym definitions should be left to Wiktionary, and yes, I agree that the redlinks (and no-links) should be removed from the acronym dab pages here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, wouldn't have thought of transwiki'ing the list. – sgeureka t•c 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:acronyms question 

message: It's not just your imagination. There are fewer, about 1800 fewer. I took it seriously where it says "Pages only listing persons with certain given names or surnames who are not widely known by these parts of their name otherwise are not disambiguation pages". Today I finished a 6-month-and-5-day effort, from Glenda to Sandra, from Barker to Winkler, following one-word pages in the category: "Lists of ambiguous human names", changing from hndis templates to the surname template (1494) or given name template (295). Along the way, I split many dab pages onto new surname articles (395) or given-name articles (133). This cleaned up dab pages so that CorHomo could process them, allowing it to disambiguate 1,986 links. I only got yelled at a couple of times. This is not just to brag, but to encourage all editors; you can get a lot done if you just keep chipping away. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outstanding.  Thanks! I've been chipping along too, although without the statistics (but my numbers would be much lower anyway).  -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That is AWESOME! Way to go.  I am encouraged, since "chipping away" is my only option.  (And I've come to feel that you have to get "yelled at" once in a while to be sure you're making a difference!) SlackerMom (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fewer dab pages with just given names and surnames 

message: I notice that the order of entries is recommended to be "most used at the top" etc. It seems to me that this creates a possibility of pov creeping in ... who decides which is most used? what are the criteria? etc. I know there are some guidelines in the section but I am still dubious ... would it not be better to stick to alphabetical order, splitting into sections for larger lists? There would then be no possibility of pov. See MS and its talk page for the sort of difficulties that can arise. Abtract (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has come up before.  It's only POV in the sense that the good judgment of editors is required; that is, the same judgment exercised in every other article.  An alphabetical list is only rarely helpful; if there are a few major uses and a bunch of minor ones, it greatly helps to move the major ones to the top, where they'll be used by 95% of readers. SnowFire (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: mmm I'm not convinced (alphabetical lists are completely nuetral and are widely used throughout wp) but thanks. Abtract (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Order of entries]]

message: Here is an interesting case at AFD involving a disambiguation page that disambiguates foreign language (non-latin) characters. I've voiced my opinion there, so I won't repeat it here, but I think it raises interesting questions for disambiguation on WP:EN. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting case at AFD 

message: For the second time recently I've noticed that an editor removed a TOCright template from a dab page, with the comment that it's unattractive or unnecessarydiff. Personally, I like TOCright on dab pages because it uses otherwise wasted white space and makes the actual content more accessible by pushing it closer to the top. But I suppose I shouldn't go around adding the template to pages I clean up, or reverting edits that remove it, just because I happen to like it. The topic was discussed a bit here last year--see this discussion about long lists, which generally seemed to favor the use of the template on dab pages--but I still thought I'd ask how others feel about TOCright and the circumstances under which it should or shouldn't be used. --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there, thank you for notifying me on my talk page to come visit here. To be honest, when it comes to forcing tables of contents, I prefer only to do so when it is completely necessary, for example, when there is an image in the way of the left hand side of the page, where otherwise there would be no practical need to do so. To encourage whitespace, for me at least, encourages the reader to read in a straight line downwards, rather than telling them to click right at the top of the article. To be honest, it makes little difference, but there are times when I think it is necessary and times when it is less so. It's only very occasionally I make these edits, but I will exercise better judgment in future. Bobo. 21:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have a tendency to prefer TOC's only on long lists, feeling them an unnecessary distraction on a short list.  In fact, I often follow the MOS format here which doesn't generate the TOC at all.  I admit I've never thought of the vertical line argument, which is interesting, but I think I still prefer to use TOCright (I dislike excess scrolling). I'm afraid I do things all the time "just because I happen to like it".  It hasn't gotten me in too much trouble yet! SlackerMom (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, ShelfSkewed, I love  exactly for your reasons. In this particular case, I would definately add it back. – sgeureka t•c 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am also a huge fan of using TOCright on disambiguation pages. Regarding a specific point made by Bobo192, dab pages are not exactly articles, but rather navigational pages. Very few persons "read" a disambiguation page from top to bottom -- there is very little in the way of linear continuity in any case. Considering that the ideal for a good disambiguation page is to help a reader find the article they intended to find as quickly as possible, having a large chunk of useless white space at the top doesn't really help. older ≠ wiser 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Count me as another person who likes using .  Especially on pages where the TOC takes up as much room as the actual list, it's much cleaner to move it to the side, so that the reader can actually get at the list.  :) --Elonka 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think older ≠  wiser is right on the mark. I also think that on dab pages that are long enough to require sections instead of bolded headers (more than about a screenful), we have a better chance of having the entry being sought on the first screen if the TOC is on the right. I'm not keen on dispensing with the TOC, as there are likely to be sections starting on subsequent screens, and the reader should be given a chance to jump to the right section, rather than paging forward to look for it. Chris the speller (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using TOCright 

message: Wikipedia:MOSDAB#People does not give any suggestions for mentioning nationality or citizenship in dab page entries. ( Wikipedia_talk:Citizenship_and_nationality ). Given that these tend to be very contentious topics, do we want to develop any recommendations? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My $0.02.  Mention it if it is useful in disambiguating the person.  Don't mention it, especially if it is contentious, if isn't necessary to distinguish it from another person.  (John User:Jwy talk) 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For  pages, I prefer to include both nationality/citizenship and birth/death years, even if there is only one, say, John Smith (politician).  But Wikipedia talk:Citizenship and nationality doesn't appear to mention "disambiguation", and I haven't found any contentiousness when I've added them.  -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your thoughts. I don't recall the issue of nationality / citizenship causing problems specifically on disamb pages, but the issue is frequently a problem on Wikipedia - for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_10#Nationalities  ,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_10#Putting_.22Jewish.22_back_in_the_opening_sentence , etc, etc, etc, etc, ad delirium. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a really interesting point, Wikipedia:MOSDAB#People does hint at country of origin with their examples of "London based" and "Ohio senator", but does not mention country of nationality. In editing name DAB pages I have also frequently relied on date and nationality to disambig, especially with given name DABs. - AKeen (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality / Citizenship 

message: Would someone (else) kindly take a look at MS please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MS]] 

message: The question of deletability of given-name pages has surfaced again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica (given name). This often has an indirect effect on how we manage dab pages, so I thought I would alert people here. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given name pages as separate from dab pages 

message: I haved removed this statement for two reasons. First, it is self-evident and applies to all pages equally so it is unecessary here. Second, TOC right can lead to an inelegant dab page and gains nothing (imho); having the statement here can "encourage" some editors to use toc right without really thinking it through and, in general, it is not preferred (which is why it is non-standard). Abtract (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your edit.  Firstly, guidelines should not be written in a manner which assumes too much knowledge on the part of the reader; I certainly wasn't aware of the option to neaten the layout of disambiguation pages until I read it here.  And it's stated what the purpose of  is in this context – to eliminate white space from the page when dealing with longer lists – so I don't see there's any problem with "encouragement". --Sturm 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with including this information. I've added a link to the section of the help page where editors can find more information about when (on other pages) this is and isn't appropriate.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent; it makes a lot more sense now. Abtract (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but this all pretty contrary to the previous consensus (see similar discussion above).  I think TOCRight is nearly standard for long dab pages and we should discuss further before discouraging it on this page.  I think it prevents scrolling, speeds finding the target article and is useful.  Why is it not preferred for dab pages again?  I don't see that being discussed.  That its non-standard isn't an argument.  Standards should have motivations and the motivations for dab pages are different than those for article pages.  (John User:Jwy talk) 07:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are motivations different? Surely the toc has the same purpose be it a dab page or not ... to enable readers to go speedily to the section they need; presumably it is standard on the left because that is the way an english speaker's eye will naturally travel, plus the fact that a right toc tend to look inelegant (imho), there may well be other reasons. Personally I don't see why a dab page is any different to any other page in this instance, certainly not sufficiently different to encourage toc right. As to why toc right is becoming more popular on dab pages, surely it is because this part of the mos previously contained words that tended to encourage it; that's what I want to change.  Abtract (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fundamental difference between a dab page and an article is that a dab page is a navigation aid (and only a navigational aid).  This can seem like an irony at first but think of it like this: the goal of a dab page is to get the reader to the correct page as fast as possible, like a dab page is open for a matter of seconds.  Keeping the page as vertically short as possible (i.e. preventing scrolling) is an important part of this; this is the rationale for TOCright.  As for why we don't want the reader's eye to travel over the TOC, well, we want it to go straight to the links; if he can't find it on the first screen, he'll look around and see the table of contents and use it to quickly find his target.  TOCright is clearly visible and will naturally be used if the correct link isn't immediately apparent in the main list.  Neonumbers (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully understand the purpose of dab page but I don't agree that having the toc on the right is helpful. It looks inelegant and this is never helpful per se; it is easy to miss because the eye goes down not way out to the right. The point of the toc is to aid navigation on any article and dabs are no different indeed the toc is arguably more important on a dab than a normal article because on a dab page a reader is always looking for just one line and that's what the toc does, it helps find the right place in a long list. Personally I see no justification for toc right on dab pages and I certainly do not think they should be the preferred method. I am happy to see them allowed but not encouraged. Abtract (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Abtract, I think you are the only one here with this opinion.  You keep saying that TOCright is not "elegant", but that is not a sufficient argument to discourage its use on dab pages (besides which I feel it improves the elegance of most dab pages).  My last edit to the guideline was intended merely to smooth out the grammar, but my opinion is that the use of TOCright should be encouraged on longer lists.  Shortening the dab page and making it easier to see in one look (i.e. less scrolling) is a good thing.  I realize this has been stated before and I understand why you disagree, but I don't think your view overrides the previous (nor the current) consensus.  I will edit this guideline again to see if I can make it reflect that consensus.  We may need to hammer it out a bit, if I don't get it quite right. (Abtract, I know you have read the previous conversation about this, because I have directed you to it in the past, so I know it's no surprise to you that your view is not accepted by all.  Changing guidelines usually requires a lot more discussion than editing articles.) SlackerMom (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of elegance is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find the TOC on the left with in a disambiguation page where the entire right hand portion of the page is white space to be a visual abomination. But subjective opinions about elegance won't get us very far. What is more compelling considerations of usability (which currently I find the arguments for TOCright more compelling than not). older ≠ wiser 14:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I understand that elegance (and indeed readability) is in the eye of the beholder but what I do not understand is why toc right should be preferred on a dab page yet toc left is the standard elsewhere throughout wikipedia. Abtract (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TOCright creates no extra scroll space, and TOCleft disrupts the vertical alignment of dab links. – sgeureka t•c 18:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The difference between Dab's and proper articles is that dab's is a list of short entries.  This creates a lot of whitespace and a situation where narrow text columns.  Compare with articles where we should have longer prose. Taemyr (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC right

message: Per above discussions about the purpose of the "letter" disambig pages, I did a cleanup at N (disambiguation), removing those entries which were just abbreviations, just as I have been doing at many other complex pages that needed cleanup.  However, another user disagrees and has been repeatedly reverting me, saying that if something is an abbreviation, it should be included.  I disagree.  (my version) - (his version)
I would appreciate if those editors with an opinion on the matter, could please weigh in at Talk:N (disambiguation) to ensure consensus.  Thanks, Elonka 20:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting comment at [[Talk:N (disambiguation)]]

message: Hi all, despite having been involved in disambiguation for a fairly long time I'm having trouble getting my head around how to deal with Entropy (disambiguation) (talk page).  I'm not asking for backing—I don't think there's an escalated conflict (yet, though I've never been in a full-on edit war before)—just some help from people who are more experienced with application than me.  Version before my recent edits—not insanely out of line, but I'm thinking could be better?  Thanks, Neonumbers (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Entropy (disambiguation)]] 

message: I believe the MOS is wrong in its treatment of lists because it misses the point that there are two types of list:
#Lists where the connection is conceptual, an example is List of cathedrals in England. Such lists are clearly not intended for disambiguation but are of interest to actually read (if you are that way inclined) and maybe zip off to individual cathedral articles, returning time and again to the master list. Such pages impart a lot of comparative information, deserve "article status" and are certainly not DAB pages.
#Lists where the connection is through a keyword, an example is Berg (surname). Lists like this can have no interest as reading material, they serve only one purpose which is to assist readers find the Berg of choice, once they have navigated to the specific article being sought they will not return to the list. The only information in such lists is there to aid navigation. Surely, whatever title we give such pages and whatever the MOS may say, such pages are DAB pages?  
There are probably other mentions of lists, but the one I am interested in atm is on this project page: "Pages only listing persons with certain given names or surnames who are not widely known by these parts of their name otherwise are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply. " Surely this cannot be right? If they are not dab pages, what purpose do they serve?  What do others think?  Abtract (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Straub (surname) and Monica (given name) may give more insight why these are not dab pages. Granted, few surname/given name pages have etymology info, and there is considerable overlap between dab pages and surname pages (I often apply the spirit of MOS:DAB to surname lists), but I still find it an improvement to separate these two/three types of pages from an encyclopedic and organizational standpoint. – sgeureka t•c 11:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO the two you quote should be split into two pages each: an article about the name and a list (dab) of people with the name. Abtract (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the AfD consensus for the latter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica (given name). Surnames are a tricky issue because some people are referred to by their surname (i.e. being dab-worthy), but it has become such a huge mess with is-he-isn't-he-dab-worthy that most regular dab editors prefer to keep people off the dab pages (my impression, I am not claiming to speak for anyone else here). – sgeureka t•c 13:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  Lists of name-holders are not disambiguation pages, although sometimes short lists might be included on dabs if a name article does not (yet) exist.  -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I get the point about steering clear of a sticky area but no-one has yet explained what they are for if, in jhunterj's words, "Lists of name-holders are not disambiguation pages" - people go to the list and decide where to go next, that's all they are for surely?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In theory, they could be seen as primarily providing a disambiguating function, but in practice this has just not worked out. Here is what tends to happen: A list of people gets moved off of a dab page. Someone then nominates the list for deletion with the rationale of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. (Fair enough.) So the list then gets deleted and new editors start adding names again to the original dab page, or the list gets merged back to the dab page, "cluttering" it, as we say—making it harder to navigate. So, in practice what seems to have worked out (and what editors hashed out on this Talk page in the past) is to treat the name pages as articles (which can then fall under the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy and more article content can then be added). --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is entirely pragmatic, OK I can accept that (I don't like it but that's life). It does seem to mean in practice that anyone can get round the dab rules by simply creating a list! Abtract (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, very true. But editors have tried that in the past and, for the most part, those lists got deleted. A bit of an extreme example was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And let's not forget the pure idiocy (IMO) of deleting the Lists of People by Name which was expressly a vehicle for an intelligent mechanism for listing people by name (with a small group of people maintaining it). The deletion was already over and done with before I even knew about it. older ≠ wiser 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists again

message: Another editor and I disagree over whether Old Jail Museum disambiguation page should be combined with List of jail and prison museums. Discussion is at Talk:List of jail and prison museums. This is a pretty tightly focused issue and we hope to come to a conclusion soon. Someone with familiarity with disambiguation pages would be welcome at the discussion. Noroton (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting comment on combining a disambiguation page with a list

message: There's an RFC in progress at Talk:Loli that may be of interest to editors active on disambiguation pages. --Muchness (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation-related RfC

message: I recently posted this in the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Special:Disambiguations, but am not sure wether it is better suited to be posted here: 
"I recently came across an odd situation: in most cases, a disambiguation page links to other pages, therefore verifying / citing the infromation on the disambiguation page itself. So, if you can't link to a page about the information you put on the disambiguation page, do you put a references section on the bottom of the disambiguation page. If you're confused, here's my case: There is a lesser known but notable (was praised by various magazines as the best grunge band to come out of Orange County) band, Smile. But, the page Smile (band) is about the 60's band, not the aforementioned, which is a 90's grunge band. I couldn't find information on wether or not to include references sections in disambiguations pages, there is nothing on this in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), or its discussion section, I might put it in there, but I don't want to leave 3 blunders everywhere (1. Adding the reference and references section to the disambiguation page, 2. Adding this question here 3. Adding the question twice over there.) The disambiguation page in question is Smile (disambiguation)." Nnnudibranch (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't link to a Wikipedia article about the information you are considering putting on the disambiguation page, you should first create the appropriate Wikipedia article Smile (grunge band) (or similar) with the citations, and then disambiguate it on Smile (disambiguation).  (If no appropriate Wikipedia article can be created, then there isn't a Wikipedia article to be disambiguated.) Disambiguation pages don't list everything associated with the title of the dab page; they only list Wikipedia articles that need to be disambiguated. It's covered more by WP:D than by this guideline, although this guideline does indicate it by stressing one blue link per line. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, a friend suggested leaving an external link to the corresponding Allmusic page until more information can be found to create a page for the band, and that is how it's currently sitting there, until  I can find more information. Nnnudibranch 04:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Use of References Sections on Disambiguation Pages 

message: This page has been on the cleanup list for awhile. It needs work, but it's not obvious what needs to be done with it.  I posted a note to the talkpage suggesting that we break out the "military" designations to a separate disambig page.  No one else has commented, but, before I decide to be WP:BOLD and tackle it, does anyone else have suggestions on how best to proceed? --Elonka 04:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better now, thanks!  :) --Elonka 21:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad I could help. Abtract (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Officer]]

message: In cleaning up the Jesse James (disambiguation) page, I was not sure if articles about the primary topic should be listed above the rest of the articles. This page is not clear where literature on the primary topic should be listed. I believe it should be listed immediately after the primary topic and above "Articles with a clarifier in parentheses" in the order of entries. Thoughts? --Old Hoss (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My unhelpful advice: it doesn't really matter on such short disambiguation pages. The dab editor is completely free to decide what works best. – sgeureka t•c 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took a stab at that and it seemed that having three groupings with one of them being 'other uses' didn't make sense, so i moved the non-people names up with the film in the 'may also refer to' section. Then changed the other section heading to 'is the name of' as they are all names. Then, reordered the name to be firstname/lastname, then firstname/middlename, then stagename. Thoughts? Gwguffey (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, it seems that the order of articles with clarifiers should be presented in alphabetical order to aid in quick scanning unless there is a specific common sense reason (or overwhelming popularity) on a particular dab page. I don't feel that preference for literature related the primary topic should be given as their relation to the primary topic should actually make them less likely to need disambiguating....but I could be way off. Gwguffey (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles related to primary topic