Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 22

message: I've done a quick look to see if this has been discussed, didn't find anything but feel free to point me to a previous discussion if you know of one.
If the purpose of dab pages is to find the particular article for the keyword, doesn't it make more sense to highlight the context words rather than the word itself?  Maybe the first line should have the keyword bold, but later in the dab page, wouldn't something like the following make more sense?
Epic has several meanings.
In film and literature, Epic can refer to:
* Epic poetry, a style of poetry
* Epic film, a genre of film
* Epic (book), a book by Conor Kostick
In music, Epic can refer to:
* Epic Records, a record label
* Epic metal, a type of heavy metal music
* "Epic" (song), a popular single by the rock band Faith No More
* Epic Mazur, an American rapper
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwy (talk • contribs) 
:What you just described is the current style, except that we would not include a repetition of the title term; we'd just say "In film and literature:".  I've made a couple of tweaks to Epic to better represent the current style.  See MOS:DP#Longer lists.  One extra note; we earlier, I think, decided that acronyms that also make words should collapse into the words' disambig pages; so EPIC's entries should probably move into this page as well. At that point, it will be long enough to where you should probably switch to the sectionalized format instead of the boldface term line format.  --TreyHarris 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I hadn't looked closely enough (or seen such examples).  John (Jwy) 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolding of dab word

message: I would like to add the following bullet under Individual entries:
* Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one link.  Including more than one link can confuse the reader; including no links at all makes the entry useless for further navigation.  (See "redlinks" below for cases where no article yet exists.)
I think this is implicit in the remainder of the guidance on the page, but from a recent discussion on Talk:Lisa, I think it would be good to make it explicit. Any objection? (We could strike the weasely "in almost every case" if the "Break rules" bit is judged to be sufficient.) --TreyHarris 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this does get added, I think it would be important to say something about it in the red links section, since right now the section does not define if there should be other links if a redlink is made. -- Natalya 12:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like a good addition to me. I've had a couple of people ask that, so it helps to have it explicit. Gflores Talk 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there might be exceptions, then returned to a recent dab page where there were red links with no good articles to link to, and after serious thought (yes, I know!) removed the red links, because I really couldn't find material for an article. So now I agree, one good link per line should be the guideline. Chris the speller 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just trying to clarify, when there is information contained in another page but is not a separate article, then just link to the article containing the information and leave out the red link?  I believe that is the idea, which would mean that on a page like AED (disambiguation), the three redlinks in the first section should be removed, and the entries reworded to only link to the valid articles?  -- Natalya 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have said I removed the red-link entries entirely, since they led nowhere, and were not anchors for future articles. Your question is good, though. If no future article can be imagined, but the red-link entry also contains a good link to an article, we should just unlink the red link, making it "AED, the station code of Aulenda, a railway station in India". I wish that in this case editors could resist the temptation to make it a "black link" (bolded). The closest example is in the MoS:DP section "URL anchor notation", as in "the reverse side of a coin". Chris the speller 16:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's how I was feeling too.  It has been corrected.  I guess the only thing that's left is what to do when the red link is a possible future article but is also mentioned elsewhere in a separate article.  It seems like the other two links fit that category.  I would lean towards taking the red links out, since the articles that mention them are already linked to, but I also see reasoning for keeping the red links in.  It just seems rather busy with both the links there, and it seems more important to keep the link to the article with the actual information there. -- Natalya 17:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A consideration for red links is that they may provide an incentive for other editors to create new articles, but it's your call. Chris the speller 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good point, one that will make them stay.  Thanks for your input. -- Natalya 19:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Link instead to Ranger program, which provides an overview of the individual missions. The dab page doen't have to do it all, and the overview article should usually do a better job of providing basic info and helping the user decide among the missions, if it comes to that. Chris the speller 01:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks great!  Well worded. -- Natalya 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional bullet under Individual entries: exactly one link 

message: I would be grateful for advice on issues concerning Ptolemy (disambiguation). I have summarised the editing history and centralised links for discussions at Talk:Ptolemy (disambiguation). If you have any advice or comments, please leave them there. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This note was also left at the WikiProject. For centralisation, discussion can continue there.--Commander Keane 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments invited on Ptolemy disambiguation page 

message: What about articles which consist of sections about various topics related to the title? Hyacinth 09:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I learned earlier, it's called a "multi-stub page".  Apparently, it's not a disambiguation page, but people can take them, break them apart into separate stubs, and turn the original page into a disambiguation page pointing at the new stubs.  This is because it's considered bad form to mix a stub in with a full-fledged article on the same page, or to have more than a few items listed at the top of an article as disambiguation entries.  Such pages do not get a disambig notice, but they may very well have "(disambiguation)" appended to their name, if the primary meaning has been expanded into a full article. --TreyHarris 09:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles about multiple topics

message: Moved to Talk:Poop. GfloresTalk 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Poop]]

message: Likewise, when I nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25, there was little discussion.  However, there was an additional comment by Terence Ong that  pages are somehow different than a "normal disambiguation page".  And BD2412 also seems to want the pages kept as a specialized subset, not as part of .  Unlike ,  does not currently add anything to :Category:Disambiguation. 
There are a few pages that have other things than geographic names, but they are rare.  On those, the other categories can be added.
Also, the project will need to ensure that every single instance of a name in the Wikipedia:Multiple-place names list has either the template or the category.  (Then, that list can be deleted.)
::--William Allen Simpson 11:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  geodis has survived - now what?