Template talk:Disambiguation/Archive 2

message: After archiving, two clearly unintended invocations of (i.e., assignments to) :Category:Disambiguation have been changed to visible mentions of the means of invoking it.--Jerzy•t 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

message: Please unprotect this template, or I'll be forced to use a new template to disambiguate. Templates should not be protected. Good changes to Template:Protected have been possible because that template is not protected. --Cantus 02:41, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks! --Cantus 00:18, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
As it's an often[-]used template, it may not be suitable to be updated once per hour. -- User:Docu
:Why did you protect this again? Unprotect please, or I'll create a new disambig template. --Cantus 23:01, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Stub#Unprotect Sep 30, 2004. -- User:Docu
:As this is being changed over and over on the same day, I re-protected the template. -- User:Docu
I do not see the need of unprotection.  Isn't it ok like this already.  Anyway, this template has special features.  All pages with this template is added to Special:Disambiguations which is a special page.  If you really want to change it, maybe you could create a user subpage and ask for a comment on whether this new version should be used.  --Leon2323
 19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect

message: in HTML (and XHTML) a tag can only have one class= in it. MediaWiki removes all but the last one. They're supposed to be combined, class="boilerplate metadata". (I'd do it myself but it's protected) Goplat 21:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  invalid HTML 

message: frame|No frame, with borders, like this version
frame|No frame, with extra space, like this version
frame|No frame, without extra space, like this version
frame|A line instead, (without extra space above) like this version
I made an edit which added top and bottom double-line borders to the message box, as seen in this edit.  I think they look very tasteful, but Bkonrad keeps removing them.  I really think some defined separation is needed, since the text does tend to run into the rest of the page.  Remembering that any user can modify their[sic] own style sheets to display this message however they[sic] want[sic], do other people think that this is a nice thing to have as a default? -- Netoholic @ 14:14, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
*I personally like the double-line top-and-bottom-only border. It's tasteful. The 1em verticle[sic] space is nice too.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:28, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
*This one has my support as well. Sarge Baldy 14:32, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
*I think a top border would be good enough. The template is used at the bottom of the pages, anyway. Lupo 15:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
*I much dislike the border,[sic] to me it seems like no more than extra clutter. - SimonP 22:09, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
**Your opinion is noted, but please do not edit protected pages.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 22:19, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
***Why not? Many others have edited it. - SimonP 22:24, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
****<sarcasm>Why not vandalize the Feminism page by writing "Femanism suxx!!!" on the top? Other people are doing it.</sarcasm> Others edited this page while it wasn't protected. To edit a semi-protected page, like this one, you should first discuss it on talk and make sure there's a consensus to make the change. (See our policy on the matter.) It looks like, as of now, the bulk of commenters want to keep the bars.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 01:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
**Sorry, I thought this page was always protected. It's listed as such at Wikipedia:Protected pages. - SimonP 21:53, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
*I dislike the bars-I think it looks amateurish; however, it is an improvement over having no space and no bars. I prefer space with no bars, but at this point, so long as it doesn't go back to no space, I'm OK with it. older≠wiser 01:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top & bottom borders 

message: I suggest the following Wikipedia proposal:
*All dis-ambiguation pages that are too large to reach the bottom, namely, the dis-ambiguation template, without scrolling down to reach it, should have the "Article (disambiguation)" title format. An "Article" title with no suffix is allowed to stay as a re-direct if there are 2 meanings naturally thought of, the one that is more natural than the other depending on the POV, such as Georgia, where there is the country and the US state. Any comments?? 66.32.244.149 21:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest... 

message: Is Cannabis properly categorised as a disambiguation article? The suggestion that links leading to it need fixing seems quite inapproriate.  Cannabis is now effectively and intentionally a link to a reading list. Laurel Bush 10:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation and hub articles 

message: :This is a disambiguation page - a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title.
Is it necessary to say "other pages"? Other than what? Isn't "lists pages that might otherwise share the same title" enough? DopefishJustin (・∀・) 23:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
:It is indeed enough. --Eleassar777 07:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Fixed. Deco 00:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, thought I fixed. When I tried to save it it didn't work. No matter how many times I tried. Crazy software. Will fix ASAP. Deco 00:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other pages"? 

message: On M$IE 5.5 in default skin (Monobook?), the template is (and makes all pages) a bit wider than the window, no matter what the size it is. Please somebody fix this. --Malyctenar 08:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad CSS 

message: So many disambiguations have been made; we should either make new templates that will divide the disambiguation category into sets of word starting with a range of or a specific letter so that the category can be more navigatable.  Or we could put a variable into the category link. --SuperDude 21:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal for a new disambiguation template 

message: I think we need to get more of a consensus before deciding what changes we want to make. For a protected template used on many pages (possibly with an included image), frequent edits are undesirable. I'm not sure how I feel about the image, but clearly people are not ready to agree that the changed layout was an improvement. Please figure out something that people believe is a definite improvement first.
With respect to the editing of the text, I propose this version, which adopts some of the changes already made:
:This is a disambiguation page which serves to distinguish topics that share a common name. This page exists to help navigate to your desired destination. If an article link brought you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.
That's a proposal as far as the text only, not how it should be presented in terms of the unresolved layout issues. --Michael Snow 21:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like both the text, and the italics. We could use a line above or below the text, though it's perhaps not necessary. I don't think we need an image, German wiki be damned. -- Ec5618 22:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand this predilection for decorating templates like stubs and disambigs with little images.  I think they all look silly. -- Anonymous, 00:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't agree. I quite liked the image and the layout! Much cleaner. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's figure out what we're doing first 

message: The wording This is a disambiguation page which... (which now seems to have been adopted, although when I view Template:disambig itself I see the old wording) is ungrammatical as punctuated.  A "which" or "that" clause not set off by a comma should be restrictive (it would tell what type of disambig page "this" is).  The actual wording is intended to be a non-restrictive clause, and therefore must have a comma before "which". -- Anonymous, 00:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar fix needed 

message: Even though there has been objections to the new disambiguation tag; we could add the little picture from it to the current tag. --SuperDude 00:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The pictue serves to identify the template at a glance, without having to read. Just like pictures on stub templates help checking stubs for a stub template.--MarSch 12:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: Voting on versions
signature                                       	approved versions	comments
MarSch 28 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)                 	3 > 2            	I prefer 3, but I prefer a picture over none
SoM 28 June 2005 15:07 (UTC)                    	1                	It's to go at the bottom of a page, not the top, and in that context 1 looks best.
DES 28 June 2005 15:25 (UTC)                    	4> 1 > 3         	I see no value in the picture, which is not a standard symbol for anything. I think the wording of three is the best of the lot, and the ungrammatical wording of two is the worst. I Like the box on 2 & 3 -- My preference is really for 3 without the picture. So I added a case for that, now option 4.
Teklund 28 June 2005 16:17 (UTC)                	3 > 4            	The image will immediately let you see it's a disambig page, no need to read the text. Also the box in versions 3 and 4 makes it clear that the box isn't part of the content of the article.
— Dan | Talk 28 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)     	1 > 2 > 3 >4     	This poll is unnecessarily confusing.
SimonP June 28, 2005 17:58 (UTC)                	1 > 2 > 3 >4     	Strongly oppose anything that puts the message in a box
Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 18:01 (UTC)           	1                	Frivolous use if images as icons are an unnecessary burden on the server, and colored boxes offend my eyes.  I find that the current (#1) version is just about the most perfect article-space template made.  If you don't like it fix it in your personal CSS.
violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)        	1                	Don't like that image (may support a less obtrusive one) and the box is unnecessary.
<>Who?¿? 29 June 2005 00:36 (UTC)        	1 > 2            	I prefer the text layout of 2 with the wording of 1, change vote to remove graphic as possible resource hog.
Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 07:50 (UTC)     	3 > 2 > 1        	This should really be decided at WP:TS rather than here.
IByte 29 June 2005 18:10 (UTC)                  	3 > 1 > 4        	Image and layout of 3, wording of 1 (equal to 4). The box with the image identifies the page as disambiguation at a first glance.
Splash June 30, 2005 15:16 (UTC)                	3 > 1            	I like the image, but dislike the rest of 2. If having images removes 3 and 2, then I prefer 1 to 4. I share some of the concerns about the structure of this vote, however.
Jerzy·t 30 June 2005 21:22 (UTC)                	----             	The most important issue in this "vote" is that votes of this kind do not measure consensus in accordance of WP policy on voting, and that all policies decided on in this fashion justify undermining of efforts to enforce them.
—Mulad (talk) July 2, 2005 09:58 (UTC)    	3 > 1            	The border is nice on 3, and the picture seems pretty good to me, and is used in Wikipedias in other languages if I recall correctly.  I don't like the weird small text and stuff in 2, so otherwise I'd just prefer to keep things the way they are.
—Grutness...wha? 10:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: This vote is really flawed (yes, even more than the weird use of tables).  If it was even necessary, we should be voting separately on wording as opposed to formatting.  It's otherwise too hard to tell what is being measured here. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 18:06 (UTC)
*I recently noticed the RV of the new design. Has anyone even looked at Tfd disambiguation? As there was a decision before this vote began, it seems. This vote started on 28JUN and the Tfd was finalized 23JUN, unless this vote is due to the Tfd. It was only recently changed because it was earlier protected. If so, please ignore. Thanks.  <>Who?¿? 29 June 2005 00:29 (UTC)
**This vote is due to the TFD. And remember that most stub templates have had their images removed because they're a strain on the server, and the disambig template is used on more pages than any stub bar bio-stub, I believe. And the stub templates are the most appropriate match for this, I believe, and they're not boxed... - SoM 29 June 2005 01:12 (UTC)
***Thanks for the clarification on both points, as such I have changed my vote.  <>Who?¿? 29 June 2005 04:55 (UTC)
Somehow this got deleted:
:DES, you said you liked the wording of 3 but without the picture. Why then did you copy the wording of 1?--MarSch 28 June 2005 17:50 (UTC)
--MarSch 29 June 2005 17:05 (UTC)
:SimonP, if you strongly oppose (colored) boxes, then you should vote (1 > 2) or something. Not (1>2>3>4), since that means that you can live with 3 and also 4. --MarSch 29 June 2005 17:14 (UTC)
:Jerzy, why do you sya that? --MarSch 1 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)
:::@And remember that most stub templates have had their images removed because they're a strain on the server: No doubt because they're all different images. One single image for all dabs will end up in the cache (both client and server side I assume). If this is not the case, I suggest we should ditch the (much larger) logo at the top-left as well. Shinobu 08:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I agree with Radiant and Dan. This should really be on WP:TS and this current vote is too confusing, as there are too many options and modifications.  I like ones layout but wording of another.  I think, before the vote gets too large, it should be changed to accomodate several layouts and wording structures. Example:
:Pic: Yes/No
:Text Layout choices: 1/2/3/4
:Format Layout choices: 1/2/3/4 (as in Heading/sub heading, or one long sentence; etc..)
:Wording choices: 1/2/3/4
:Color choices: 1/2/3/4
I know this may seem to make it more difficult than it is, but I think its getting more complicated as it precedes anyhow.   <>Who?¿? 29 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)
I agree with a poll split along multiple dimensions as above. i don't have an opnion about which page it should be on. DES 29 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)
:I don't see why this should be decided at WP:TS. Once it is decided there that templates should be standardized and what that standard is, we should try to standardize, but what one template looks like should be decided on its talk page. I don't mind if anyone wants to split this poll into several subpolls. --MarSch 30 June 2005 11:26 (UTC)
*The point is that if there's an existing standard (e.g. coffee roll) then this template should look like that (e.g. have a brown box). We can debate the text and the icon here, if we want. But this debate is actually about the fact that some people prefer a purple box, or no box, to the coffee roll. And that's a standardisation issue. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 07:56 (UTC)
**The coffee roll is onyl for talk templates not for article templates. There is no standard yet for article templates. Discussing that standard should take place at TS.--MarSch 1 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)
::I suggest we vote on a separte page, e.g Template talk:Disambig/Design vote. We can link it here and on TS and everyone would be happy and we could finally actually vote. Shinobu 18:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Change and moving of voting

message: In spite of a new bordered template with null text, I was proposing a change for this disambiguation template.  The last redesign was reverted due to less accurate text.  This one should retain the same text therefore will have a higher chance of surviving.
This template will be easy to make hence the pre-made border with null text.  Here is the design below:

Will anybody concur with this? --SuperDude 02:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Box overuse.  There is nothing wrong with the template in its current state. -- Netoholic @ 00:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - we shouldn't use boxes for permanent, high-use templates.  violet/riga (t) 09:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  redesign proposal 

message: Some disambiguation pages have the template the top and some at the bottom. Which is the correct position? • Thorpe • 16:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The bottom of the page is the most common by a considerable margin, but I'm not sure if there is an official policy. - SimonP 16:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
The old discussion, and my personal preference, is to place it preferably at the bottom of the page, but to ensure it is visible immediately when the page loads at most resolutions.  For very long disambig page, it should up top, so that scrolling isn't necessary.  -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks then. I was about to reply to SimonP but you answered my question. • Thorpe • 17:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is it placed? 

message: I would like to see a link to "What links here", to encourage people to fix *all* of the articles that need to be disambiguated, not just the one that lead them there:
This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page (along with other pages that  link here).
--rob 05:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea! —Wahoofive (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "what links here"  

message: I don't see any reason for this template to be protected. I am listing this template at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Ixfd64 06:51, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
: Too bad it wasn't left protected. That would have saved us the hassle caused by that move. Noel (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection request 

message: I've reverted the template to the October 9th version for now. While the Google link was nice, it didn't seem to format properly when the template was used in an article. --Ixfd64 09:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted to October 9 version for now 

message: For multi-word titles, PAGENAMEE has an underscore between words & Google would prefer to see a space. I like the concept, though. --Big_Iron 11:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in the URL passed to Google, I think that it would prefer to see + characters rather than _s between words. --Big_Iron 11:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a mediawiki variable to return the page name in escaped format, sutable for inserting in a URL such as a search engine link? With possible manual adjustments to remove underscores (common) or words like "disambiguation" if needed, and make sure no incorrect double-escaping? Then this would be easy. FT2 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with Google & multi-word titles 

message: There was a big barney about adding an icon to this template a couple of months back. Between the server strain inherent in putting an image on such a widely-used template and the fact that it wasn't really required, do we need that again?
Oh, and since the template's used at the bottom of dab pages, does it really matter if it contains two whole sentences. Its unobtrusive format and placement makes it easy for Wikiveterans to skip, and it conveys the meaning of a disambig as-is. - SoM 21:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the original icon appears to be copyrighted, so I don't think that Michael is legally entitled to release a derivative work into the public domain.  —Lifeisunfair 22:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It obvious that we won't be including any picture/icon - community consensus dictated this earlier in the year.--Commander Keane 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The template can be used at the top of articles, very effectively. Rich   Farmbrough 16:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Icons and text

message: I've read a few discussions concerning thi throughout this talk page, but it seems like they were all abondoned.  While translating a page from de.wikipedia, i stumbled across this as a disambig template.  i liked it a LOT as a footer to an actual disambig page (they used it also on the top of articles, where we use "this page is about the __________.  For other uses, see _________ (disambiguation)."  While i like our text-only version for the top of articles, i like this as an option for the bottom of actual disambiuation pages.  Why is it that this discussion was aborted?  jfg284 you were saying? 10:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested in what the text of the German  says, could you translate? I think if you want change, then you should attempt to change either the text or design (including icon) seperately, it will keep things simpler. Obviously, discuss changes here first. Changing the template invalidates it on the cache, so will create a temporary peak load (considering there are >30,000 pages using this template).--Commander Keane 14:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks to me like a conclusion's been reached, and the community (a) doesn't want an icon and (b) likes the current layout - SoM 16:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That could very well be.  What I read seemed to suggest either a.) the idea of an image was supported  or b.) there was a lack of consesnsus.  Now, this talk page (and it's corresponding archives) are massive, and I'd be lying if i said i sifted through every single discussion, so there's a very good chance i missed a discussion that DID come to a conclusion.  If you could direct me to said conclusion, that'd be great.  Thanks,  jfg284 you were saying? 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Discussion of forking arrows 

message: I am trying to add a search function to the template, but I am having trouble. My efforts are here. Could someone please help me?--God_of War 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You should always test changes on a sandbox page before updating a major template that is in use on thousands of pages.  That being said, the search function won't work because if your search term matches a page that exists, you will be redirected to it.  So to use PAGENAME would just send you right back.  I doubt that would even be particularly useful if it even worked. -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Search Function

message: I didn't look through all the archives here, but has anyone suggested that the rendering code be "tweaked" to show a different color (say green) if the linked page is a disambiguation page - or would that be too much overhead?  That way, people might be trained to look more closely when the link things. (or is there a better place for such discussions).  John (Jwy) 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been discussion of it at WP:DPL and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, although orange was mentioned as the colour (green is already used for external links in some browsers apparently). I am very enthusiastic about the idea, but don't know how to progress it. I asked on #mediawiki and no exact figure on the overhead is available. However, when a page is loaded every wikilink is checked for existing (blue) or non-existing (red) so maybe it is feasible. Where do we go to get this idea rolling?--Commander Keane 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The overhead of checking for a page's existence (redlink/bluelink) is nothing compared to actually parsing the content to look for the  template. The only way to make it possible would be to create a Disambiguation: namespace, which has also been proposed. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like a developer to look at it, are you sure that you need a different namespace, or is that just a guess?--Commander Keane 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not intimate with the wiki software in particular, but I know how SQL databases work. They could add a flag to each record (article) indicating whether or not it's a dab page (which could be updated each time the page is edited), but considering the wiki software is supposed to operate hundreds of other applications, not just Wikipedia, I imagine the developers have to be careful how many WP-specific features they add to it. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. the other issue is redirects, which is why the namespace idea fell flat. If you're putting a dab page at Disambiguation:Mercury, presumably you'd want Mercury to be a redirect to it. Asking the software to know that a link to a redirect goes eventually to a dab page is asking a lot. Yes, it could be done, but only if dab pages are the most important thing on their plate. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good excuse for me to download the code and look at it.  Been planning to for a while. John (Jwy) 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Disambiguation Pages - color code? 

message: Why can i not use the disambig-template exactly with the design with 2 lines on other wikipedias? What is the source code for id="disambig" in html? Thank. --Off! 11:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because other wikis may have decided that they don't like the two lines. If you want to create a dab, use the template supplied by your local wiki and accept what it looks like or try to convince people that it must be changed. Shinobu 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the id="disambig" info is stored in the MediaWiki:Common.css of each particular Wikipedia. So if you want to use id="disambig" then you'll need to change MediaWiki:Common.css on your Wikipedia.--Commander Keane 16:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using this template on other wikipedias