Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 34

message: I haven't found anything on how to disambiguate titles, or whether to do this or not. My prime scope are Tolkien-related articles, and within them, for example, four persons (fictional characters) are titled "the Tall": Galdor the Tall, Maedhros, Elendil and Húrin the Tall. I suppose it is worth noticing such uses, but how can they be introduced into existing dab pages? Súrendil 12:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be aware of WP:NOT#DIR, and consider that this comes close to "repositories of loosely associated topics". Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the resolution of conflicts where more than one topic could have the same natural article title. Your collection does not suffer from this problem, and I don't see where any of them belong on dab pages. Chris the speller 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguating Titles

message: I've gotten into a short edit-war this morning with a user over a disambig standard that I have been enforcing for a long time, and it's time to seek 2nd, 3rd, 4th (etc) opinions instead of continuing the revert war.
The issue has to do with when a disambig is proper, and when a redirect is proper.  My position has always been that disambigs are for navigating between two or more destination articles, and a redirect is the proper form when there is only one destination article on the project.  If a disambig has only one destination link, has one link and several non-linked lines, or has one blue link and one or more red-links, then this is a bad/broken disambig, and a redirect would be the proper way to handle the situation.  I've been converting all these situations to redirects for a long time.  Today I got into a breif revert-war with a user over it.
So we have the general issue of the disambig vs redirect situation, and the specific situation of the multiple (IMHO) broken disambigs being generated by User:Paultyng.  The other interlacing issue is that Paultyng seems to be in essence arguing that, whether they are broken or not, he intends to create the extra articles within a few weeks, so this will be a non-issue by then.  And that may very well be the case, but for now, they are (IMHO) bad and broken, and I do not see why they have to remain bad/broken disambigs for the time it takes him to build the extra articles.  Three examples of the disambigs in question are shown in the links in the previous paragraph.  There were ten in total that we were reverting on, and might be more that I did not find before I stopped the warring.  Discussion between Paultyng and I can be found here and here.
The general issue effects my general MO on handling these things.  I regularly do Short Pages patrol, which is how I generally find these.  Single or short double item disambigs often end up on the report, and if they meet the above conditions, I generally convert them to redirects.  If this is not the proper way to handle these, I need to know so I can adapt how I deal with these pages. - TexasAndroid 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One other thing to point out, is to check the "What Links Here" on the pages (for example ). The pages I changed to disambigs have incoming links that are intending to hit different targets besides the one I created, so by definition typing in that name and going to the one specific page for the redirect can result in confusion for a user when its easily demonstrable that multiple places exist with the same name.  And like TexasAndroid stated above, some of those articles will be created as the bot stubbing them finishes its work. pw 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found: "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject." from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Redlinks, it even has a two entry with one redlink example, so I guess there is a precedent. pw 16:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My (uninvolved) take on the matter: Both of you are right. If, as you say, all the topics are in fact notable enough to get a wiki article, redlinks are fine. The only question that isn't really answered beyond "vague" is: How long does it take for the current redlinks to be turned into stubs, i.e. becoming bluelinks (that's what the bot is for, right?) If it's significantly more than one or two weeks maximum, or if there is the risk that Paul abandons that project (I don't hope so), I would side with TexasAndroid, as such poor dab pages are just distracting for the reader. If it's just a couple of days, then no need to get in a wiki-deadline panic. As I said, my take. (Paul, if it really takes several weeks until the stubs get created, you might want to create a dab page at XYZ (disambiguation), and then swap XYZ with the dab page only after the stubs got created.) – sgeureka t•c 20:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest (but not insist) that pw simply reverse the order of his work - create the articles first then point to them.  Having the red link doesn't help much in the interim (in most cases). (John User:Jwy talk) 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to try to order the article creation by number of things sharing its name, hopefully that will take care of this issue. pw 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambigs vs redirects 

message: I am involved in a dispute at Talk:Haguna. Pages like Haguna and Hrōþirīk(i)az look like article pages, but the editor who contributed most insists on having a disambiguation tag on the page. Would it not be a good idea to state explicitly in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) that disambiguation pages must not have illustration, references, etc. /Pieter Kuiper 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Failing to find support among other editors for the removal of the disamb tag on Talk:Haguna, he is trying to change policy here. It may be a case of Wikipedia:Harassment since he is doing considerable removal of information from articles where I am the main contributor, see Pieter Kuiper's edit history.--Berig 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several articles with potentially ambiguous names. If the page is disambiguating a human name, it should be tagged with the  template. If the page is providing encyclopedic content, it is not a disambiguation page and should not be tagged as such. Per current MOS:D conventions, images should only be used on disambiguation pages when they aid in disambiguating the ambiguous term – see, for example, Mississippi Delta (disambiguation). --Muchness 22:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: MOS:DAB does mention images: "Including images is discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles."  Haguna violates the vast majority of style guidelines for disambig pages, so it is clearly not a disambig page as it clearly stands.  More specific comments on Talk:Haguna. ~ Booya Bazooka 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, that the pages in their present form are not disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 23:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're remaining very narrow minded on one format. If a photo gallery helps sort out the subject matter... or if we had some dissambiguation pages that looked more like wikipedia's main page, or some user pages, we could be looking at a revolution that would totally anoy any conservative such as yourself... but may lead to some inovative methode which remains in line with the spirit of WP:MOSDAB. --CyclePat (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what your point is here, or who it is that you're calling conservative, but you'd best keep such labels to yourself. Regarding images on disambiguation pages, there have been extremely rare cases where images are helpful for the purposes of disambiguation, such as Congo. But in most other cases the images are merely gratuitous and entirely irrelevant for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 04:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, someone who supports the status of the Manual of Style (as is), would be considered a conservative. I'm simply trying to say, in what was probably one of my least elegant of manners, that a photo gallery, perhaps not for all articles and disambiguation pages, may have its place. Along with tables, colours, and other elements ([such as this user page example) which could help distinguish items and remain within the spirit of this Manual of Style a liberal approach is generally good. And no, I'm not saying that we need to change anything with the Manual of Styles, I'm just saying that thinking outside of the box can sometimes lead to better results. Surely there are studies out there that break down the psychology of the best page layout and set-up (I remember studying a little bit in "marketing class" at University) --CyclePat (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about vague generalities, then sure, consensus can change if there is a demonstrated need and a arguable better way to do something. The style of dab pages has evolved over time. At present, the style guidelines have been pretty stable for a while now, so there would likely need to be a correspondingly strong case for change. But guidance shouldn't change based on vaguely expressed notions. Do you have something specific in mind? I don't see anything on [] that I'd even remotely consider a good thing to consider using on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still in the works but I'll give you a little heads up. Check out Help:Sorting. --CyclePat (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declared policy against illustrations on disambiguation pages? 

message: I see this commonly done, and I added the passage:
:It may be useful to bold the last use of Flibbygibby, to assist the reader's eye and mark that it is not to be redlinked, and that links to this meaning should be piped to noodle. 
to summarize what seem to me its advantages. I don't really care either way; but let us discuss. 
This would permit 
:
Flibbygibby may refer to:
* Flibbygibby (architecture), a flamingo motif used on cornices
* Flibbygibby, a type of noodle
Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) I dislike any bolding on dab pages (except for the first word) for style reasons, personally. (2) If you start bolding at one place, then people will start bolding other entries, and that makes the problem much worse than anything before. So, no, let's not add this to the MOS. – sgeureka t•c 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not really too fond of bolding entries like that, mainly because I don't like the look of it and I think it makes the page more complicated than it needs to be.  The reader's eye is generally meant to be drawn towards the link itself—if it's really well designed, the reader doesn't actually have to read the page to know which one to click (though he might need to for further clarification).  There is no need to mark that something is not to be redlinked for readers, if it is necessary for editors it should be marked with an invisible comment.  Neonumbers 00:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Sgeureka and Neonumbers. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) encourages us not to overdo it with boldfacing, and I think that this is a case where it is not needed. (Contrary to Pmanderson, I have not found this to be a common practice, although sometimes it happens that someone has attempted to link to a term that is actually the title of the very page it is on—as might happen in the Flibbygibby example—and the software translates that into the appearance of bold formatting rather than a self-link.) --Paul Erik 03:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably begins with Paul's examples, and spreads by imitation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I, for one, would be happy if this "feature" were turned off, but it's makes navbox templates that get included on multiple pages look nice e.g. here. Ewlyahoocom 03:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur with Sgeureka and Neonumbers. And will Paul Erik - the bolding practice is quite rare. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolding non-redlinks

message: It would be really helpful if thumbnail images. Human is a visual animal, he can pick up visual things fast. It is tedious to go through text. Giving due weight to topics in dab, default size(180px) thumbnail images would be much easy to navigate to desired page. We skip non-free images in dab pages, but images are essential for disambiguation i think. Lara_bran 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also tedious to go through dozens of small images. Due weight is/should be given by the order of the entry by importance. I have the feeling if we would allow even thumbnail images on dab pages, we'd have the same problems as WP:FLAGS, i.e. it clutters, is used for decoration instead of navigation help, and sets a bad precedent. I think the KISS principle works best here. – sgeureka t•c 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thumbnail, i meant [[image:imagename.jpg|thumb|right, which is syntax "thumb". This "thumb" parameter sets default imagewidth 180px. We can keep it so or even reduce it to 125px. I was not referring to small thumbnail images as interpreted by User:Sgeureka. Thanks. Lara_bran 07:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, should have checked how big 180px are before I replied. But now I have difficulty seeing the use of such huge images on dab pages. Like, what kind of images would you propose for Bambi (disambiguation) that would make it easier for the user to find the entry he is looking for? Or Spinner? Or Dominion (disambiguation)? Honest question. – sgeureka t•c 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 180px is default image size, if not specified in articles, even 120 or 100 would be sufficient in dab pages. I saw those disambig pages, maybe i should show by inserting images in one of those pages. I will post link to here in WP:VP also. Lara_bran 10:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It will be posting lead images of all articles that dab page links to. With appropiate caption beside text on right hand side. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: An extreme case: "bird (disambiguation)", (singular, no article), up against "The Birds"   (plural, definite article). Although few sensible people would type "bird" while seeking the Aristophanes play, or "The Birds" to find Charlie "Bird" Parker, someone has found it logical to merge these. To save you from having to look, "birds" redirects to "bird" (the feathered critter), and that seems fine to me. Note that "bird (disambiguation)" was already a cesspool of anything that had those 4 letters, in that order, in the title. Before I clean out such entries that are at variance with WP:D#Lists, should I act on my impulse to separate these again? Should the guideline mention whether singular and plural should be combined, or is it just another can of worms like "TITLE" and "Title", or "Tîtlé" with diacritical marks and without? Chris the speller 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would split them up and have mutual see alsos.  They both probably have reasonably distinct articles they can disambiguate. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first thing I would do is clean up the page e.g. one blue link per line. (I'll do that now.) Ewlyahoocom 01:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably also a good idea to seperate the person entries into a seperate page. As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28disambiguation_pages%29#Given_names_or_surnames. Taemyr 07:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps, I agree with John. Neonumbers 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate disambig pages for singular and plural?