Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 18

message: Having looked at William's history in more depth now, I agree with some of his points, although not the manner that he went forward against objections.  I never felt that strongly about rejoining the *LC subcategories, because I don't generally work on them myself (I have more fun with broad complicated words like Star and Knot and Point), but if there ARE people who work on these regularly, I didn't hear any strong arguments from them supporting subcatting.  This is one of the problems with voting as opposed to discussion -- most people in the straw poll only listed their names, not their reasons.
However, one point I found in buried among the links provided, which I hadn't considered before, is that it may be useful to separate the abbreviations/acronyms etc. into a separate section in a print encyclopedia -- if someone had mentioned that in previous discussions, I might have chosen differently.
I propose some solutions:
# Given the cleaning up that William has accomplished, allow the *LC categories (and only those categories) as subcats of Category:Disambiguation, as it was with TLA before.
# Include :Category:Disambiguation on the *LC templates so that these pages are included in that cat as well.  This allows link disambiguation via automated means (bot, Nav popups, etc) to function without requiring reprogramming for each subcat.  Since this is an administrative cat, it doesn't matter that it violates the "don't use both parent and child cat" guideline.
# Stipulate that the MoS:DP should apply to these pages.  These articles should look as uniform and consistent as other disambig pages, for the same reasons -- minimal wikilinks and description do aid readers.  (I do agree that Tedernst has often gone too far in trimming these pages.)
## If there are reasons that certain different guidelines should apply to *LC pages, then let's work out what they are and add a section about them here in the MoS.
This would satisfy most of my problems.  Does anyone else agree with me?  — Catherine\talk 17:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly do.  I especially agree with your second and third points.  If I understand correctly, by also having the *LC templates be in :Category:Disambiguation , they would both be able to be categorized by their *LC status (a concern of one side), and still be considered disambiguation pages (a concern of another side).  And I especially agree with your third point - even if they do function as a dualy-categorized pages, they should look the same as disambiguation pages, because they have similar function (and generally look the same anyway). -- Natalya 17:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a violation of categorization guidelines to have pages be in both a category (i.e. *LC) and its parent category (disambiguation). The guideline does allow for exceptions, but you might want to tread carefully. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, this is an administrative category, never meant as a user-browsing category.  It's already breaking cat guidelines by having 30,000 some-odd items in it.  :)  Other than that, does this solution sound workable to you?  — Catherine\talk 19:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed solution 

message: Template:Interstatedis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Interstatedis. Thank you.  (also a few redirects)  Tedernst | talk 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Interstatedis 

message: I had a demonstration going at Aurora (disambiguation), and the only comment was that 2 '==' and 5 '=====' didn't make any difference, especially with the semi-colon ';' sub-headings.  Should we stick with 2?
:--William Allen Simpson 11:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --William Allen Simpson 16:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section level 

message: The current example uses wiki-bold (3 primes) followed by a colon.  This colon seems superfluous with the colon on the "may be:" lede. Semicolon bold list headings will not allow a trailing colon. Also, for wiki-section (2 or more equal), these don't usually have a trailing colon.
Uniformity would suggest no colon on any heading.
:--William Allen Simpson 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bold subject headings 

message: Based on today's Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation at "Replace Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages" (a direct link doesn't seem to work with two # in it), I spent a couple of hours swapping text.  Now most of the details about the page style is exclusively here.  Also, I re-ordered the sections in the same order as the page is composed, and alphabetized some sections (where a couple of things had been added out of order).  
Since the text was merged here mostly "as is", there are probably some additional details to clean up.  But knowing the folks here, it seemed time to take a breather and let folks look at it.
:--William Allen Simpson 04:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  swapped text with [[WP:D]]