Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 4

message: From the village pump
I've noticed that there are pages on Wikipedia that are articles that include, sometimes at the top, but usually way down at the bottom, alternative "definitions" of the article name.  These pages are not disambiguation pages because the common use of the word is overwhelmingly the one most people would be seeking. Nonetheless, the alternative word use, separated by a 4-dash line, is sometimes completely lost below the main article.  Some Wikipedians solve this problem by putting a one line link to the alternative at the very top, but this is a distraction.  I've set up a sidebar box under Elm as a proposed alternative for these situations.  As long as the alternatives link out (do not expand on page into another article), this would seem to separate the links from the article text while affording them a bit more visibility. Any comments? - Marshman 18:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine in IE6, but the whole page is squashed up in Mozilla. It seems to work in both if you put the table in a div. Angela 19:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Angela. Someone fixed it so -- Marshman
Move in discussion from my talk page on this subject. I can move it all back later; but better exposure/participation here I think
sorry but the floating sidebar on elm is no good -- most  screens are simply not wide enough to support it. -- Tarquin 18:53, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: I realize that I have a high resolution screen and therefore will not encounter that problem. But how does the other sidebar on that page not cause an identical problem?  The sidebar I suggest (as presented at Elm) is right justified and will expand as far left as needed to accomodate text. Use of <BR> can control that to keep it from filling across screen. - Marshman 19:00, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: it's best to use tables as little as possible; as for the line, I don't really see how right-aligning it is any better. It's only an extra formatting convention we would now have to replicate throughout wikipedia, and it's ugly markup that confuses the novce editor. Simple is best, in my opinion -- Tarquin 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: If we do not use table formatting as you suggest, I think a standard <DIV> "right" format with bullets or similar at the top would still be preferable to the current practice of dividing lines and bottom billing for these minor alternatives. Of course a disambiguation page is a better solution, but obviously needs to be used only where there is a clear need to split articles.  The problem with the bottom billing once the lead artyicle gets large is that a person looking for the minor word use is not going to scroll down through the text he is not interested in (human nature). - Marshman 19:36, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: I agree that bottom billing is no good, but I think right-align is needless clutter -- Tarquin 19:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: At least in IE6, if you have the standard wikipedia sidebar set to right hand side, it overlays the "disambiguation sidebar", no matter what the window width is. This is very ugly. DrBob 23:22, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: How about this? Why not use colour for a change? CGS 20:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm. I can see (in edit) you added gray, but does not look like anything different in my IE6.  I'm trying to run a line between having the "secondary" or minor term be right up front (a distraction for most users) and being hidden on the bottom (unnoticeable by the few actually looking for it).  At present only top-mounted side-bar box or similar shifted right seems suitable, despite Tarquin objection that this complicates formatting. Eliminating the box simplies formatting a bit, and maybe color is an answer. But shifting right seems necessary to get it separated from main text. - Marshman 22:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: The English spelling of grey was used which seems to be accepted by Mozilla but ignored by IE. I changed it to #C0C0C0 which will be recognised by both. This might be a bit too light though. Angela 22:58, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: At the bottom is not hidden, hence not a problem, as long as it is in the TOC. - Patrick 00:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer it at the top. It's clear enough why it is there that it is not going to confuse people wanting info on trees. Not all pages that this applies to have a TOC and a quick glimpse at the article would suggest that it is about trees so people aren't going to scroll down just in case there is an unrelated topic at the bottom. I agree with Tarquin and Eloquence about the HTML issue. It's more trouble than it's worth. Angela 00:24, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Sidebar for minor use of terms

message: If, in the course of events, you come across two different uses of the same word, both of which are wiki-linked, does it make sense to pro-actively create a disambiguation page? The result would be a disambig page with no unbroken links out of it. This would hide, on the pages with the original links, the fact that the articles for those links do not exist.
::-Anthropos 00:59, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that yes, this would be acceptable. And it doesn't need to hide the emptiness of the links, since after the disambiguation page has been made, you can change the links on the original page (or you can contact me and have Robbot do it for you). Andre Engels 09:58, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that makes perfect sense! -Anthropos 13:26, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Active Disambiguation? 

message: Moved here:
You may want to add a link to List_of_people_by_name:_Ti-tle.
I don't think that's a good idea. This moves us further away from the disambiguation purpose and closer to the search index purpose. If people want to know who is named X, they should enter "X" and click "search".—Eloquence
:RE: List of people by name: I'm not sure how many pages there are listing people of the same name, but I tend to think that List of people by name isn't used as much as it could. Obviously, it's only recently that it had been expanded [and once there is a way to build them automatically, everyone would want to use it ;-) ]. 
:If you think it will be used anyway, maybe we don't need the link. -- User:Docu
:: I think disambig pages are the wrong place to advertise it. I've personally never used it even though I know that it exists. If I look for a person I'd rather simply search for that person's name. If I don't know the name, but the profession, the generic list is the wrong place to look. If I'm unsure about the spelling, I usually try Google's spellchecker or check for a redirect. When do you think people should use that list?—Eloquence 13:28, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
:If it's incomplete, one wont. In cases where one isn't sure about the exact name .. but one is better served with a working search engine (even better, if one could limit the selection to biographies) and articles like Strauss or John (name) could simply drop the disambiguation notice. -- User:Docu
::Lol, just two minutes ago Strauss used to be a short list  -- User:Docu
It's not grafitti. Did you follow the link?168... 05:58, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to lists 

message: I always thought the disambig message belonged at the top. That is where I typically see it and where I put it when I make a disambiuation page. But today, I came across a page Granada where someone moved the notice to the bottom. I moved it back to the top and left a somewhat imperious edit note about the usual placement. Then, coincidentally, I happened to notice discussion on Truth where someone moved the notice to the bottom and claimed that was the standard. So I thought I had better check it out, since I had not reviewed this page carefully recently and may have made an unwarranted assumption based on all the other disambiguation pages I have noticed. 
So I see that currently the policy does indeed state that the  should go at the bottom of a disambiguation article; while a shorter notice can be placed at the beginning of an article about the most prominent meaning of a term. 
I saw in the diffs for this page that this change was made relatively recently (around March 2). But I couldn't find any discussion about this. Did I simply miss the discussion? Is this actually recommended practice now (there are so many pages with the notice at the top, I find this hard to believe)? And specifically, even if the  should go at the bottom, in the specific cases of Granada and Truth, since those are short notices in actual articles (rather than disambiguation pages), should the notice be placed at the top. Does it make much of a difference one way or the other? Like I said, I prefer it at the top, but I'm not going to get militant about it. Bkonrad | Talk 19:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top or bottom? 

message: from village pump
If an article says something like "in the film version of The Wizard of Oz", should the link be disambigged to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz or The Wizard of Oz (1939 movie)? The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is technically what the article is talking about, but most users would probably want The Wizard of Oz (1939 movie). Eurleif 01:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
*Would something like "in the film version of The Wizard of Oz" do? - Nunh-huh
;This one gets my vote; if they wish to pursue the novel, a link will be found on that page.
*How about "in the film version of The Wizard of Oz"? - कुक्कुरोवाच
*Or leave it as it is and let readers choose which article they prefer to pursue... Formerly the article about the book was on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and all links to The Wizard of Oz lead to the movie article. Seeing as the title of the book has also been shortened in most editions since 1913, and that several wiki links seemed to be referring to the book but sending to the movie page, I thought it necessary to disambig. I may not have done this in the optimal way, though right now I can't think of a better way to disambiguate. --Woggly 13:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question