Jump to content

Template talk:Disambiguation/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Remove message

The template gives the following message:

I see no need for this message. Disambig pages are generally used in article namespace and are for the benefit of the reader. The message states the obvious ("lists articles associated with the same title") and gives two links that are of interest to editors rather than readers. One of the links (going to Wikipedia:Disambiguation) goes across namespaces which should be avoided where possible Removing the message gives a better separation between content and administration. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambigs are non-articles in the article namespace. I am not certain what problem exists here. If cross-namespace links in navigational non-articles need to be avoided, the cross-namespace link could be removed without removing the message. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, they are not articles but they are content. The problem, although that is too strong a word, is that the massage is redundant and it is for editors. Therefore, since it is in article namespace and used for content it should not be used. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Readers are editors. I'm not sure what the point is of pretending readers and editors are different classes. older ≠ wiser 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but not all readers are editors. Editors are building WP for readers who are by far the largest group visiting WP. Readers should be able to visit a page uncluttered by stuff used for editing. That is why we have the different namespaces. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, and there are all varieties of maintenance template messages intended primarily for editors that nevertheless are displayed on articles, largely because all readers are potential editors. older ≠ wiser 00:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Many of the maint templates serve to warn the reader as well as indicate to editors and potential editors that an article is dodgy and needs work. There needs to be a wider discussion on how we serve the interests of readers and editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the message shown above that appears on dab pages may predate the formation of the Disambiguation WikiProject and all the hard work being done at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. If that is the case the message above is an old relic that needs removing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The text (with some changes over time) is quite old, but so what? The general idea conveyed is still valid. Links to disambiguation pages are usually incorrect links and the message invites reader/editors to participate in improving articles. Is that really something you think needs removing? older ≠ wiser 04:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Alan: The {{disambig}} template does much more than just displaying that text.
  • It categorizes the page as a disambig page.
  • It simplifies the adding of other disambig categories (see Template:Disambig#Parameters.
  • It makes it so the {{disambig editintro}} is displayed when editing a page with this template on.
  • It makes it so the Wikipedia statistics functions know that the page isn't an article, so it doesn't get counted as an article.
Most of these functions are handled by the meta-template {{dmbox}}, which also is used by the other disambig templates so they too get these functions.
So even if we removed the message, we still would need to add a template that does those things. And to make it possible for editors to easily see if the template is there or not, it would have to have some visible appearance. So then it can just as well show a little useful information.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not want to delete the template - I simply want to delete the message (shown above) from the template. I am fully aware of the other function of the template which is why I did not suggest deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh? So what appearance are you suggesting?
--David Göthberg (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Remove the section of the template that creates the message shown above. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Cross-namespace/selfref links are not a problem, as the dmbox is (or at least should be) excluded from print copies (and site mirrors?) via CSS.
You said "The message states the obvious ("lists articles associated with the same title")", but that is only obvious because you/we are familiar with these "disambiguation" pages.
It partially clarifies for the 'reader' that the page is intended to list exact-pattern-matches-only. E.g. They're not going to find a link to Cat herding at Cat (disambiguation).
It encourages readers to become editors, which is the only way we can keep growing/self-sustaining.
Therefor, I object to removing the message, though a discussion about 'tweaking' the message might be warranted. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Since it is not likely that the message will be deleted I propose we change the link currently going to Wikipedia:Disambiguation (a project page ie maint/admin) changed to Help:Disambiguation, which should be set up as a page for reader info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
By all means, create that page and we can certainly discuss it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose complete deletion of the message. It is useful for readers to understand that disambiguation pages are a special kind of page. Something akin to the first sentence should be retained, although it may be appropriate to link to a more reader-friendlt location, if one can be found or created. The fact that "something is (usually) wrong" if an internal link from an article leads to a disambiguation page is also useful for readers to know. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have created Help:Disambiguation as a reader guide. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Alan: I like your Help:Disambiguation, it seems like a very reader friendly explanation of disambiguation pages. But that help page should of course also have a link to the more technical Wikipedia:Disambiguation, probably in its "See also" section.
And regarding our comments further up in this section: I asked "So what appearance are you suggesting?". You answered "Remove the section of the template that creates the message shown above.". But I don't understand your answer, since that would result in this:
That doesn't make any sense. So again, exactly what appearance are you suggesting? Please provide an example that we can look at. If you mean it should have no visible appearance at all, then please say so.
--David Göthberg (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I also like Help:Disambiguation; I tossed in the dabnav box to link to the project, MOSDAB, etc. Josh Parris 14:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
David, I have placed a link to Wikipedia:Disambiguation as a hatnote on Help:Disambiguation. The appearance I would have wanted includes the removal of section you illustrate. It would be redundant without the text. It is all academic anyway since there is a consensus to keep the message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying that. And yes, it's now academic but I got so curios about what you wanted.
And yes, the link to Wikipedia:Disambiguation works fine as a hatnote too, although personally I have a slight preference of placing it at the top of the "See also" section. Since I think readers should first read the easy introduction on Help:Disambiguation, then be offered to go on to the more extensive reading if they want to. Anyway, all looks fine.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

plus Added I have added the link to Help:Disambiguation. We could also maybe think about removing the sentence "If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article" because that instruction is only one click away and it would simplify the message for the reader. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree about removing the second sentence. It is redundant because of the "What links here" link. For pages used by readers I believe in the KISS principle. Readers are not simple of course but keeping an uncluttered look, including minimal links, is a good thing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with removal of second sentence. PL290 (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I prefer keeping the second sentence. I don't mind asking readers for help at the bottom of a disambig page. (I wish the clean-up templates would also be put at the bottom of the pages...)
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer the second sentence stayed. It's the help page in a nutshell: "so fix it" and it empowers the reader. Josh Parris 03:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I also oppose removing the second sentence, per Josh Parris. It's not redundant to the "What links here" link, because the template, unlike the link, is suggesting that the user do something. Propaniac (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The reason I prefer the removal of the second sentence is that it's long been criticized for being unclear and confusing (several sections above, for instance, with no good solution found). I honestly think it's an example of information presented which is difficult to understand unless you already know it (meaning you don't need to read it). The whole message has that feel (so I wouldn't object to removal of the whole message), but the juxtaposition of these two unrelated sentences compounds the issue. In any case, I suspect fixing redirects is something users gain awareness of in other ways; I don't think I learned about it from this message. PL290 (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I skimmed this page and while I did see some imperfections with the sentence pointed out, and I doubt it has much benefit, I didn't see any evidence or allegations that it's caused any harm greater than perhaps some mild passing confusion among inexperienced users. To me it seems the benefit outweighs the drawbacks. I admit that part of my rationale is that I think just the short first sentence would look strange by itself, on a visceral level. Propaniac (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Understood, Propaniac, but consider: the possible harm you've identified, only "confusion among inexperienced users", affects precisely those intended recipients of any benefit the message is hoped to bring! That is really why the wording keeps coming up for discussion, and why I now think the most helpful thing is to remove that second sentence entirely. PL290 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Has there been a complaint from one of the hypothetical harmed users? I still see no benefit to removing the second sentence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The message is supposed to benefit users who are savvy enough to understand what an internal link is and how to change one; it may cause some brief confusion among extremely inexperienced users below that level of experience, but such users are likely to be confused by lots of things. I would be more bothered if I thought such confusion would hamper their ability to navigate or enjoy the encyclopedia, but I don't; I think, at worst, they might see it and think "I wonder what that means" before continuing whatever they were doing. As JHJ points out, all of this is purely hypothetical at this point, but even hypothetically I have trouble imagining a user whose utilization of Wikipedia is stymied by that extra sentence; it's much easier for me to imagine a user who is led by the sentence to fix the link that sent them to the page. Propaniac (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This above modified template would be better option? Cited third page (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If the sentence is staying that would be a good modification. An explanation link that is first and in normal font for the reader and a smaller font for the editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if the sentence must stay, that presentation would be a significant improvement. PL290 (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I'd be okay with that. Propaniac (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

We can change code of this template now as suggested. Other templates like {{hndis}} etc. can be followed up later, or rather they can be parameterised as suggested in next section below. Cited third page (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Second sentence font-size

The discussion in the above section resulted in using <small> text for the second sentence in this template. But I often see users complaining that <small> text is to small to read on their computers. (Probably due to bad eyesight or using to large screen resolutions.) So I suggest that for the second sentence we instead use font-size 88%, which is between normal text size and <small>. That's the standard size we use for text in small message boxes such as {{tmbox}} and {{ombox}} when right aligned. So I would like to change this:

To this:

We use 88% in the small message boxes since it renders the same in pretty much all browsers, while 90% doesn't.

Size comparison: Some text. Some text. Some text. (small, 88%, normal)

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, but less distinct since the sizes are closer to one another. I think combining that suggestion with de-italicizing the first sentence would be beneficial:
PL290 (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I support either of those suggested changes. Small is too small. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
There is {{Small}}, also the tag <small> is deprecated in HTML5. Small texts are used in other {{ambox}}es, we can use the same here for consistency. Cited third page (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I should perhaps mention that I personally have no problem with the occasional <small> sized text. I brought this up only because <small> is to small for some other users.
Cited third page: The {{small}} template isn't a good alternative, since internally it uses "font-size: smaller;" which at least on my browser gives the same size as <small>.
PL290: I see what you mean. The first sentence is the main one and the second one is mostly a comment, so yeah it would be nice if they differed in some way. But personally I like keeping them both italicised, so then I would rather keep the second sentence as <small>. But I don't think it is enough important to have them differ that much, I think it is more important that both sentences are readable for most users. So I still prefer using 88% and both italicised. (But I am just slightly opposed to having the first sentence in non-italic.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The other disambig templates

Per the discussion in the above section I have updated most of the other disambig templates to link to Help:Disambiguation instead of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. But I didn't change the links in {{disambig-cleanup}} and {{hndis-cleanup}}, since they probably need to link to the explanation about how to edit disambig pages.

While doing the updates of all the disambig templates I noticed some things:

I found several disambig templates that are not listed in the section "Variant templates" in the documentation of {{disambig}}. These ones should probably be added to that section:

The categories of the templates listed above should probably also be added as parameters to {{disambig}}.

Regarding {{fish-dab}}: It used to categorize into Category:Fish common name disambiguation, but that category was renamed to Category:Fish common names per discussion at WP:CFD. I have updated {{fish-dab}} to use the new category. The pages in that category currently instead use {{disambig}} with that category manually added, but that is probably mostly since {{fish-dab}} was broken and wasn't "advertised" in the right places. Since "Category:Fish common names" is not (and perhaps should not be) a sub-category of Category:Disambiguation pages I also added "Category:Disambiguation pages" to {{fish-dab}}.

I also found and updated {{Meta disambig}}, it is currently unused and just like {{WP disambig}} it is meant to be used on pages other than articles. So I think we should redirect {{Meta disambig}} to {{WP disambig}}, and update the text in {{WP disambig}} so it works for all non-article pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Kotniski (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We can sub-categorise those templates into Category:Disambiguation page templates Cited third page (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Cited third page: I agree. All the disambig boxes are currently categorized into Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates together with a lot of disambig hatnotes etc. And the set index message boxes are already in the sub-category Category:Set index article templates. But we already have the unused sub-category Category:Disambiguation message boxes, if we want to categorize the disambig message boxes separately then I suggest we use that category instead.
Here's some background for the curios: When we created the {{dmbox}} meta-template we decided to classify the disambig boxes as "message boxes", even though they only have a top and bottom border. The {{dmbox}} mostly uses the same parameter naming and code as the other message boxes such as {{ambox}}.
Recently those templates were also automatically categorized into Category:Disambiguation message boxes by some code in the meta-template {{dmbox}}. But I removed that "tracking of disambig message box templates" since it caused problems. The code were added by another user. But it is usually a bad idea to have a meta-template categorize templates that use it.
--David Göthberg (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
checkY Done most of it. I will merge {{Meta disambig}} into {{WP disambig}} later.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This was forgotten for almost a year, but I did it a few days ago. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember WP:CJKV which dabs chinese characters... 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

((Surname)) and ((given name))

I noticed that Mandarax today added {{surname}} to the doc in section "Variant templates", then he reverted himself with the comment "While usually used as a dab template, "Surname" technically isn't one".

He is right in his comment, but I think we should list {{surname}} and {{given name}} here. Those templates are related to the templates listed here, they are kind of set index article templates and we list the set index templates here. Listing {{surname}} and {{given name}} here would make the list more complete and make them easier to find. We just have to add them in a way that makes it clear what they are. I have given it a try. I hope it looks okay?

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your changes look good to me. I obviously thought that listing {{Surname}} would be helpful, before I realized the technicality and reversed myself, and your solution seems just right. It should be very useful in helping people find what they're looking for. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Enforced disambiguation trouble

More than once I have seen instances where a link has been made to a disam page because that page happens to contain a useful sentence or paragraph at the top. That introductory passage provides an overview of the topic, and this overview is in fact the intended target of the link.

But then a disambiguator, a person or a bot, comes along and declares, "This link must be disambiguated! Now!!" The general is then made specific, with some link further down the disam page being selected at random as the new, "corrected" target, and this introduces an error.

What I would like to see is a parameter attachment to the template that acknowledges that the page is a valid termination point on its own, and that it does not need to be refined further by disambiguators acting in good faith.

Is that possible or reasonable?

Varlaam (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete this template

Ok! This is going to create a bit of a stir - which is why I haven't put it up for deletion immediately! Why do we need this template? Does it exist purely because of the way WP has evolved? The template is not needed since it is describing something to readers that is quite obvious, and it gives an exhortation to editors which is generally not a function of non-project pages.

If the template was deleted and all the pages placed in Category:Disambiguation pages it would then be a simple matter for readers and editors to click on the category link to get further information. The information at Category:Disambiguation pages should be edited a little better in order to reflect the needs of readers and editors. Deleting it will give a cleaner page layout which is nicer for readers since they arrived at the page for the dab links and not the information presented in this template. I think it exists only as a hangover from pre-categorisation days. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, although this template does do more than simply place the page in one category (there are also the parameters for the different specialized categories). Perhaps the appearance of the template could be changed to make it less intrusive.--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you raise another point. Why place all dab pages in Category:Disambiguation pages? Why not just have them in the subcategories only like we do with articles? What is the point of a category with 126,000 pages in it? It is difficult to navigate through and categories are supposed to facilitate navigation. The parameters used on the template for topics that don't have their own dab template already have their own category. Essentially, all the dab templates are redundant since we now have page categorisation and category pages can have descriptions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it serves a useful function by underlining the purpose of a dab. The visible reminder
  • This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.
may forestall attempts by well-meaning readers to add related info or multiple wikilinks in entries, etc. That said, the visibility becomes less the longer the dab page is. Perhaps the statement should appear at the top. PL290 (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The "well-meaning readers" add stuff not needed on a dab pages even with the presence of the template. I would be adamantly opposed adding the template to the top of the page. That would be extremely intrusive. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
They do indeed add stuff even with the presence of the template. The point that I'm making is: it's reasonable to assume they would do so even more without it. And less if it was more immediately visible. As to "intrusive", remember that a reader arriving at a dab page is, in all likelihood, expecting to see an article: the message there—like a hatnote—would be helpful, not intrusive, as it would give a more immediate context for understanding what's being viewed. PL290 (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The technical folks congregate at MediaWiki talk:Disambiguationspage (and the other dab templates are listed there). I'd recommend leaving a note there, and at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation if you're serious about overhauling the disambiguation templates and standard-practices. HTH.
Personally, I'd agree with making the image a touch smaller (and the images in all amboxes, while we're at it...), but concur with PL290 that the template itself is handy as a visual indicator and explanation that "this is not a normal article". -- Quiddity (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Not only to readers but also to some bots. Wikipedia in several languages (such as German and Russian) have a special class="bkl-link" for internal links which lead to a dab page, a feature that IMHO the English WP ought to have too. More generally, a disambiguation page is not an article and must be labelled in a formal way. Is this topic really silly or it is a bad joke? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This proposal raises two issues. First, should there be a template at all; second, if so, what if any visible message should it display? We could, in principle, have an "invisible" dab-template that just categorized the pages but didn't display any message to readers. My views are:
  1. We need a disambiguation template for maintenance reasons, if nothing else. Both bots and human editors rely on the categorization of disambiguation pages for ongoing projects such as Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, which aims to correct ambiguous links and has been making quite a bit of progress in this effort. (Parenthetically, I'm not entirely clear on what practical purpose it serves to have many articles filed in all three of Category:Disambiguation pages, Category:All disambiguation pages, and Category:All article disambiguation pages; one comprehensive category would suffice.)
  2. A visible message to readers is useful, because disambiguation pages are explicitly intended not to be articles but rather navigational aids to assist readers in finding articles. I think having a message that visually (or otherwise) makes these pages stand out so they are not confused with articles is helpful. And, for novice editors who are trying to become familiar with how Wikipedia works, these messages are a very useful bit of guidance. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I also agree that the template should go at the top of the page. bd2412 T 13:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    I disagree with placing the template at the top of the page. It's not a hatnote directing the readers elsewhere, and it should not displace (lower) the links to the articles that the reader is trying to reach. If its visual representation is eliminated (if adding the template simply adds the category to the page), then I don't care where it is placed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would be better not to displace the content downwards. But not everything that can appear at the top of a page need do that. How about if it appeared on the right like an infobox? PL290 (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason to place it at the top of the page (even in a right-sided infobox, above or below the usual wiktionary box)? Does it help the readers somehow? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think it does help them (and one or two others thought so too above). The point being that the reader will, in all likelihood, be expecting to arrive at an article. Making clear what they have actually arrived at will help them to understand it more immediately. PL290 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the "may refer to:" lede makes that clear. If not, it could be changed to "is ambiguous. You may have been looking for:" without impacting the placement of the targets. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the wording makes it pretty clear already. It's not as if I consider there's a major problem that needs solving, simply that if the template is to remain visible (which seems popular), and does contribute to the reader's understanding of context (which seems axiomatic), an enhancement would be for that to be the case regardless of page length. PL290 (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Replies:
  • My desire to have the template deleted is not a joke - it is a considered opinion on a way to improve WP for readers.
  • Dab pages don't need to be labelled as such since it is obvious (in most cases) that that is what they are. We should credit readers with at least some degree of intelligence. They will realise that they have arrived at a dab page
  • Readers will expect an article when they arrive at a dab page but when presented with a list of options they can then click through to the article they want.
  • A template is not needed for maintenance reasons - categories suffice.
  • A template at the top or even a hatnote is not needed - it is obvious what the page is for. I am vehmently opposed to having the template or a hatnote at the top of the page.
  • An explanation for those who arrive at a dab page need not be on the dab page itself. If readers and potential editors want to get more info about dab pages they can click trough to the project or category.
The majority of those who arrive at a dab page simply want to click through to the article they want and don't want to find out more about dab pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the difference between an article and a disambiguation page is likely to be obvious to the casual reader. It certainly wasn't obvious to me, and I hope you will credit me with at least some degree of intelligence.  :-) And I'm not sure how you would establish what is or is not obvious, anyway. Pretty clearly there is no consensus that the template is unnecessary. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to blur the lines between disambig pages and all else. There are very specific MOS rules for disambig pages, and if you cannot easily distinguish between a disambig, set index, and list then maintaining the disambigs will be a very difficult job. Also, if there's nothing to visually distinguish a disambig from a regular article, how will Joe Editor understand when we ask him not to link to it? The template does not hamper navigation in any way, but removing it will increase confusion. --JaGatalk 09:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambig templates

There's a discussion regarding the use of this template vs. the use of the variant templates listed which are in the doc over here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_7#Disambig_templates. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

I've asked for alt text to be added. Discussion is at Template talk:Dmbox#Editprotected to add alternative attribute. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Page title

Why is Template:Disambiguation a redirect to this page, instead of being the title of this page? Would there be any objections to renaming the template in order to avoid the wiki-jargon abbreviation? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a reasonable idea.--Kotniski (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Support from me too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
No objections here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And a resounding "HOORAY" from me! Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

Automatic archiving

I would like to see automatic archiving set up on this page. We don't need discussions from 2008 here! Any objections? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine - or just a manual archive. There's not much activity here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

{{Stub}} Template

Should we add the {{Stub}} template? I cant understand this article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.21.180 (talk • contribs)

This is a template not an article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove AFT

Please add [[Category:Article Feedback Blacklist]] next to the "Disambiguation pages" categorization, in order to remove the Article Feedback Tool from disambiguation pages. --Yair rand (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done, and gladly, although I hope nobody gets upset that the membership of that category is now going from 13 to about 130,000! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
ALL the disambiguation templates need this done to them. I already also added Category:Article Feedback Blacklist to {{hndis}}, {{SIA}}, {{Geodis}}, and several others. {{surname}} is a little tricky however because some pages with that template, in addition to listing surnames, also have actual encyclopedic content about the surname. -- Ϫ 00:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories

It has been pointed out (see Template talk:Geodis#Edit req that this template populates Category:Disambiguation pages as well as subcategories of this category. It might be better to only use this parent category if a more specific subcategory is not available. Comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Add a blank line above the template

If a blank line is added to the top of the template to create some white space the dab pages will look a lot nicer. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As this should be discussed before any changes are made, I've disabled the {{edit protected}} tag. —David Levy 04:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It is a pretty minor change and can always be reverted. Go on! Be BOLD!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Quoth the {{edit protected}} tag: "This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus."
An edit affecting this many pages is not uncontroversial, so please don't reactivate the tag again unless and until consensus for the change is established. —David Levy 01:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh come one. I won't tell any one. It will just be between you and me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a blank line please?

All I want is a blank line inserted above the template to create a bit of white space. Makes the page look a lot nicer. Please can I have it done? Please, please, please? The template is only used on about 130,000 pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugly. Dalit Llama (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Pretty. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a wider case for a space in this place if can face ... reading this and this and this. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something can be done with the master CSS? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide some page as a specimen with intended blank space? It is not polite to ask people about the idea which is not visualized, although it is cheap. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes add a blank line to the dab pages but I would have trouble finding an example. Give it a try in you sandbox. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I did not initially realized that this proposal is nothing but a trolling and blatant violation of the WP:POINT guideline. IMHO other proposals involving expanding or shrinking blank spaces (such as Wikipedia talk:Hatnote‎#Hatnote carriage returns) are not inherently disruptive or pointless, so I took this seriously. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I may have been flippant with my suggestion but it a serious proposal to try and improve usability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Why not? I am ok with gut feelings or judgement calls but if you you have any reasons I am keen to hear them. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove text and graphics

This template and the related ones add something like this to the pages:

The first sentence is redundant since readers (the major group of visitors) are fully aware that it is a disambiguation page. Also, the category name in which the template places the page is an apt description. For example {{hndis}} places pages in a category called "Human name disambiguation pages". If curious reader want to know more they can click on the category page link and they can be edited to have a prominent clink to Help:Disambiguation. It would be an extra mouse click for those that actually do this but my guess is that it is a small portion of WP readership. The majority of WP readers will win out with a mare user friendly page.

The second sentence is an exhortation to editors. This should not be in a content page and it is not necessary given all the work that is done behind the scenes to address the issue.

I would like to the text and graphics shown above removed the complete set of disambiguation templates (listed in the documentation page). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I disagree with the statement that "readers (the major group of visitors) are fully aware that it is a disambiguation page." What on Earth leads you to assert this? Personally, I doubt that many readers have any concept of what a "disambiguation page" is, but I'm not aware of any research that would support either of our views on this. And the second sentence is no more out of place on a content page than numerous other cleanup templates (which frankly are far more prominent and distracting than this one). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This proposal is only the latest in a series of I DON'T LIKE IT attempts to refashion this template. So far as I can tell, there is nothing new in this proposal that has not already been addressed in earlier discussions on this page (for example #Remove message and #Delete this template). older ≠ wiser 12:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ambox

Convert this to Template:Ambox. AnnaHendren (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with R'n'B. The distinctive purpose of this family of infoboxes merits having their own classification. bd2412 T 19:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, are we giving reasons now? The OP didn't so I didn't think anyone else had to. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A rewording proposal

Instead of "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title", how about "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title or concept"? I just made Trading band and notice that while it's a useful disambig, leading to articles on three different kinds of trading bands, they are not "associated with the same title". Or is there a better way I should handle this kind of ambiguity? And should a disambig include a reference such as this to support the idea that the term really does have these different meanings within the same basic concept? Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If the titles are not actually ambiguous, this sounds more like a broad concept article than a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, see WP:CONCEPTDAB. If there is a unifying concept rather than an ambiguous title, there probably could be an article about that concept. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
PS, and while references are appropriate for a broad concept article, they would not be for a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 21:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Done: Trading band. Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove Category:Article Feedback Blacklist

Hi. Please undo this edit. The article feedback tool is now opt-in per-article. The blacklist category is no longer necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request ... or perhaps clean up

I was looking at Template:Disambiguation and Template:Disambiguation/doc a little while ago, and I found an issue that might have been accidentally caused by a category deletion in conjuction with the move discussed/suggested at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 37#Category:Chemistry disambiguation pages and Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages; per the doc, the {{Disambiguation|molform}} tag puts the tagged article into the non-existent Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages; I tested this syntax as well, and found that it did put the article in the aforementioned category. Unfortunately, I am both not very versed in how to find out how this link is happening in the source code for Template:Disambiguation, nor can I edit this template since I am not an administrator. Would someone be able to take a look at Template:Disambiguation and see if the syntax causing that tag to link to Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages could be removed? Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The category is mentioned in Template:Disambiguation/cat. It looks a simple enough change, but that page is also protected. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Since I now understand I requested this edit on the wrong talk page, I have moved this request to Template talk:Disambiguation/cat#Edit request on March 30 2013. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of shipindex template on disambiguation pages

Please see question I raised at Template talk:Shipindex#Use of template on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 15:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Extension:Disambiguator

mw:Extension:Disambiguator will be enabled with 1.22wmf8 on June 27. This adds the __DISAMBIG__ mhagic word. --  Gadget850 talk 01:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - use disambiguation-specific category names

Most of the categories populated by this template are clearly categories specifically for dab pages, but there are a few exceptions. I've just created Category:Plant common name disambiguation pages and Category:Fish common name disambiguation pages. Please can the template be changed to place pages in these categories rather than the current locations which are categories whose names do not contain the word "disambiguation" ? DexDor (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I just came across these categories, and am seconding the request. I'm working with the stuff in Category:Plant common names a lot, and it would be useful to have the dabs categorized more clearly. Plantdrew (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on October 25, 2013

Please change This [[Help:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] page lists articles associated with the same title to This [[Help:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] page lists {{NAMESPACE}} pages associated with the same title. This would be useful as there are disambig pages in the portal namespace, the user namespace, and the project namespace (but I can't find an example). Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think those would be better served by new templates. Actual WP:DISAMBIGUATION pages are for articles, not portal pages or user pages. I see why these pages exist, but they parallel article disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with JHunterJ - that is a good reason to create namespace-specific templates. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I also agree, to deny this request, but expand some related templates instead. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Expand as related dab templates: We need to create or expand the related templates as separate concerns, so that restrictions for user/portal names will not affect the use of article names:
Please help work on those templates. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Anomalous behavior between template:split dab and template:disambig|split

There are two pages in [[Category:Disambiguation pages in need of being split]].

  • Chai enters the category because it includes {{disambig|geo|given name|callsign|split}}
  • NED enters the category because it includes {{split dab}}

The anomaly is that only NED displays at the top "It has been suggested that this disambiguation page be split into multiple pages. (Discuss)". If there are to be different templates that have the effect of putting a page in this category, they ought to behave the same in how they affect the display of pages where they are used.

I also posted this at Template Talk:Split dab and I suggest that further comments go here, because this is the template that should probably be fixed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation template for multiple titles?

Recently two disambiguation pages were merged to the Capital City disambiguation, after BD2412 and AjaxSmack claimed at Talk:Capital Cities (band)#Requested move there was substantial overlap (although whether there was is debatable, as all apart from Capital city are proper names such as Capitol City, Colorado). This disambiguation template, which states that it lists "articles associated with the same title", is inaccurate in situations such as this, where names derived from plurals and homophones are included. Is there another template that can be used? Peter James (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe "topics that this term could refer to" (wording partly based on WP:DAB) would be more accurate. DexDor (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It would be if changed to "these terms". Peter James (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change - removal of "Set index" section

The list of SIA templates has now been placed at WP:SIA. As WP:DAB says, a set index article is not a dab page so it is unncessary for this template to list SIA templates. I suggest that section of the template documentation be removed. DexDor (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Done - I forgot that I can edit documention myself. DexDor (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to template - new parameter for ships

I propose that this template (and the documentation) be changed to add a "ship" parameter that would place a page in a new category named "Ship name disambiguation pages" (other names for the category could be considered; at present the dab page categories aren't consistently named). Note: I don't propose to have a separate template for those dab pages where every entry is a ship (for one thing, most such pages are tagged as SIAs rather than as dabs).

Some examples of pages that would use this parameter are Aguila, Ariel, Bluejacket, Dover Hill, Maloja, Rockaway and Tarmo (note: in most/all of these cases the Shipindex template would be removed; a page shouldn't be both a dab and a SIA). The new category and the category for ship SIAs should be cross-linked. Note: Generally, I'm not in favour of more reader-side categories for dab pages, but in this case (because many ship names have a SIA) the lack of such a category means that pages like Santísima Trinidad are being incorrectly tagged as a ship SIA rather than as a dab - one consequence of this is that inlinks to such pages don't get automatically flagged up. I.e. this parameter would enable more consistent categorization of dab pages. DexDor (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: There doesn't yet seem to be a consensus for this change. If this discussion results in a consensus, feel free to reactivate the edit request template. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I think no objection to the change would be adequate. But in any event, I support DexDor's request. The shipindex templates should be removed from dabs regardless, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. This is certainly that will need a consensus from a discussion had by more than just a couple editors. Please feel free to make a proposal on VPR and reactivate this request once a consensus has emerged. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 Done per the consensus above, which happens not to need more editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not at the top?

Wouldn't it be better moving the template to the top of the pages, like in the Italian Wikipedia?--Mauro Tozzi (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would it be better moving the template to the top of the pages? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Because it would be more visible.--Mauro Tozzi (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Making disambiguation templates more visible would make the disambiguation page entries less visible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
At this point they are all at the bottom; moving them to the top for tens of thousands of disambiguation pages would be a pretty massive undertaking. bd2412 T 17:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_5&oldid=1146813064"