Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 20

message: There seems to be a rigid rule against external links in disambig pages. But there are times when linking one alternative of a disambig to an external link instead of to a Wikipedia page, is the most compact and tidiest way to provide the information. A recent example is that in a reference in this version of the page Lake effect snow I found a link to COMET, which proved not to mean anything at that time pointed to by COMET or comet or comet (disambiguation). So I did this:-
* Redirect COMET to comet.
* Transfer COMET's previous #redirect link to comet, accompanied by a new link for the meaning meant in Lake effect snow:-
==Acronyms==
COMET can be:-
* COmmunication by MEteor Trails: see Meteor scatter#Military use.
* Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education, and Training.
but someone at once, and twice, deleted the external link line. One of them suggested "make the disambig page point to a Wikipedia page, which points to the external link.". But the resulting new page Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education, and Training would be not much more than the external link and thus vulnerable to being quickly speedy-deleted or AfD'ed, thus losing the link to the external information about that meaning of the acronym COMET. So (without getting sidetracked here into discussion about whether the external link in question is notable), please, it would be useful to be allowed to make a disambig line point to an external link.
If the objection is that it would cause trouble for disambig-handling bot software, then that software should be set up to allow for external links in disambig lines.
Anthony Appleyard 09:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even know what your argument is yet but I think can summarize one reason against as disambig pages being primarily navigational tools, rather than intended as sources of information in themselves.  The link should go in the article for the subject, and if the subject isn't worth including in an article, why are we including a link to it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NOT a directory of external links, though, so if there couldn't be an article, we don't include it in the disambig.  We need not include links to every possible meaning of a term, only those that meet our standards.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Night Gyr, if the article is not worth having, we don't need a dab page entry for it, and if the article is worth having, take a couple of minutes to create a stub article for it, just a sentence or two, with the external link in the ==External link== or ==References== section. It would help if the stub contained a link or two to real articles, and if one or two of those articles pointed back to the stub; then its deletion would be unlikely. If nobody thinks it's worth a couple of minutes, I think we can get along without it (until someebody does). Chris the speller 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Well put. -- Natalya 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The obvious CSDs that might be involved are G11 (not applicable if you're trying to provide information without spamming) and A3 (not applicable if you write a couple of sentences), so deletion is unlikely to be too much of a problem. --ais523 17:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links in disambiguation pages? 

message: This template has been on the project page for I don't know how long, and was abruptly removed. I put it back and called for a discussion. Since then it has been abrubtly removed again. I have no special interest or personal stake in this template, but I can imagine cases where it might be handy, and I thought that a polite editor might ask others if it is useful before removing it. Please comment; if its removal makes Wikipedia better, I have no objection. Chris the speller 04:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the template talk page. This is cludge; Talk page guidelines, Don't bite the newcomers, etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with this page, yet the pages that do, for example the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages and WikiProject Disambiguation, are not there. This is just a duplication of the List of guidelines; that other pages are "Guidelines" has nothing to do with whether it would be useful to navigate to them from this page. There are select policies, help pages, Manual of Style subguidelines, and Wikiprojects that are highly relevant to navigation, but most guidelines are not. One size fits none. —Centrx→talk • 04:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've readded it.  It's perfectly relevant to anyone who wants to navigate among our guidelines.  Centrx, if you don't like the navigation template, take it to TFD or the template talk page first, instead of pulling it off of every page and leaving them without an easy way to get ot other guidelines. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is on the template talk, and I haven't been removing it from "every page". I removed it on this one because I came here for a quick link to the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages, but found that in the "navigation" template, the most highly relevant other page was not to be found there, despite it being a long list supposedly for helping navigation. Also, the template itself does not warrant deletion, so it doesn't warrant TfD; it has its uses but those uses are not to be put on every guideline page (it is on several user pages and user "toolboxes", and is clearly useful for that). For navigating amongst guidelines, there is a list of guidelines at Wikipedia:List of guidelines, and we can have a link to that list, but that does not mean that anyone is for some reason specially interested in "Sign your posts on talk pages" yet for some reason totally disinterested in "Neutral point of view", which like many other useful pages that people might want "an easy way to get to", is nowhere to be found on this list. —Centrx→talk • 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is a policy, not a guideline.  Policies are linked from the bottom of that list. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? It would be just as useful to have it listed for easy navigation, and it is much more important than these guidelines, and no more or less relevant to disambiguation than the others. There is already a "guideline" header that denotes that something is a guideline, which links to the page about guidelines and therefrom the list of guidelines. —Centrx→talk • 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline_list