Content deleted Content added
m Corrected unpaired italics |
|||
| (118 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkarchive}}
<div style="background-color: #fed; margin: 0 9em 0 12em; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid">
'''''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.''<sup>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)</sup>
</div>
==Usage==
The [[Template:disambig|<nowiki>{{disambig}}</nowiki> template]] is placed at the bottom of articles which exist to help readers find other articles with similar names (or which perhaps should have the same name). This concept is called [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|Disambiguation]].
Disambiguation is used with common words such as [[Cross (disambiguation)|cross]], [[Life (disambiguation)|life]], and [[work]].
This is the most general-purpose disambiguation template; consider using a more-specific alternative if one exists, such as
*[[:Template:Hndis]], for people's names
*[[:Template:geodis]], for place names
*[[:Template:TLAdisambig]], for [[three-letter acronym]]s
=== For those who can't remember the name ===
For those who can't remember where the name is abbreviated: [[Template:Disambiguation]], a "synonym".
__TOC__
=Discussion=
[[Template talk:Disambig/Archive1]]
Line 45 ⟶ 66:
: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. --<span class="nounderlinelink plainlinks">[[User:Leon2323|<span class="buttonlink" title="User page" style="border-width: 2px; border-color: #999999;white-space:nowrap;background-color:#bbbbbb;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px;color:black;font-size:90%">L</span>]][[User:Leon2323/Esperanza|<span class="buttonlink" title="Esperanza" style="border-width: 2px; border-color: #999999;white-space:nowrap;background-color:#bbbbbb;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px;color:green;font-size:90%">e</span>]][[User:Leon2323|<span class="buttonlink" title="User page" style="border-width: 2px; border-color: #999999;white-space:nowrap;background-color:#bbbbbb;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px;color:black;font-size:90%">on</span>]][[User_talk:Leon2323|<span class="buttonlink" title="Talk page" style="border-width: 2px; border-color: #999999;white-space:nowrap; background-color:#bbbbbb;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px;color:black;font-size:90%">2323</span>]]</span>
19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
== Template-in-a-box ==
Personally I like the trend towards using boxes around templates. Its cleaner than just italic text, and the reader will see that its not part of the article, and also be more likely to read the template. It also gives a clean, professional feel to Wikipedia in general. Thus I support [[User:Cantus]]'s edits to change this template to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Disambig&oldid=5232409 this version], or something similar. I also don't see a need for argument each time this happens, and hope that people can start accepting that design has a place in Wikipedia. [[User:Siroxo| ]]-[[User:Siroxo|<
:I second the motion. I was pleased to see the box appear this afternoon, and disappointed to see it disappear again. It visually sets the disambiguation notice off from the disambiguating text a bit, making the page a little easier to understand. [[User:Kevyn|Kevyn]] 07:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Line 56 ⟶ 80:
::: I don't think there is a need for a box at all, but there certainly is not need for the spotted border on it. It looks unprofessional, and the tiny italic writing on a gray background is very unreadable. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 17:17, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
::::No need for a box, agreed. But I think that it gives a certain separation from the text that mere italics does not. It really shows that we "care" about our articles, and thus we box out text that is not actually part of them! It gives a professionally-designed uniformity to Wikipedia as well. Regarding the current box, I agree it needs work (God i can just see the arguments starting!). I don't see need for smaller text, and the border should be solid. Luckily
::''Within the following contrib, an invocation of [[:Category:Disambiguation]] has been changed (after archiving!) to a visible mention of the means of invoking it.''<sup>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)</sup>
:I also think this needs a nice box and graphic, like a forking symbol. A crude rendition:
Line 76 ⟶ 101:
heading =This is a [[Wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation]] page |
message =This is a navigational aid which lists other 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.}}
<nowiki>[</nowiki>[Category:Disambiguation|{{PAGENAME}}]]
But with a not-ugly-drawn-in-2-minutes picture :-)
Line 91 ⟶ 116:
::::: I've read enough outside comments about Wikipedia to know that new users dislike the various colored boxes in our articles. To make yet-another-one for the simple disambig notice is not the right direction. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 18:52, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
Anotherone here [[Image:Disambig.
==Revertion madness & silly protection==
Line 115 ⟶ 140:
== A couple things ==
I actually came here to ask the second question, but after reviewing the discussion and the edit history of the template, I have to wonder-have people been making edits to a protected page and if so, is that appropriate? The real question I have concerns how this template displays-right now the text is jammed up immediately under the last line of an article's text. I find this extremely annoying and unprofessional looking. I'd like a line of space at the top of the template. It seems that sometimes it does display this way-and looking at the edit history, it seems some people may have been experimenting. As it is, I now manually add <nowiki><br> </nowiki> onto pages with the template, but that strikes me as a rather ineffective approach. Is there a reason why some additional space couldn't be added to the template?
:I agree about the extra space. I fixed this, by adding <nowiki><br style="margin-top:15px"></nowiki> at the top. Unfortunately, [[User:Sarge Baldy]] reverted my change, commenting <nowiki>"rv <br style="margin-top:15px">, italics separates it well enough and the extra space really bugs me"</nowiki> I think it looks much better with the extra space, myself. [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] – [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[User:Quadell/Request for assistance|help]])</sup>[[<nowiki></nowiki>]] 20:53, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Line 180 ⟶ 205:
****<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 [[Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Editing_protected_pages|our policy on the matter]].) It looks like, as of now, the bulk of commenters want to keep the bars. [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] – [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[User:Quadell/Request for assistance|help]])</sup>[[<nowiki></nowiki>]] 01:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
**Sorry, I thought this page was always protected. It's listed as such at [[Wikipedia:Protected pages]]. - [[User:SimonP|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.
*I '''strongly''' dislike the bars as well. I also dislike that someone edited this page to add them without first discussing their addition for a significant length of time, as they seem to have appeared quite recently with no notice anywhere I could find. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 12:35, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
*Not a fan of the bars either. If there must be a border, it should be 1px all the way around, to remain conistent with everything else in Wikipedia. No bars is fine as well. [[User:Siroxo| ]]—[[User:Siroxo|<
*I also hate the bars (even more than the HRs before them). They make the message stand out more than the page, which is a UI blunder. Was there ever a vote on this? There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus. [[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 02:41, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Line 197 ⟶ 222:
== add link to Special:Allpages ==
:''Within the following contrib, an invocation of [[:Category:Disambiguation]] has been changed (after archiving!) to a visible mention of the means of invoking it.''<sup>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)</sup>
I'd like to add a '''<nowiki>[[Special:Allpages/{{PAGENAME}}]]</nowiki>''' link to the template. This will offer assistance finding additional related pages. Here is a mockup:
<div class="notice metadata" id="disambig">''This is a [[Wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation]] page – a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title ([[Special:Allpages/{{PAGENAME}}|find more]]). If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.''</div><nowiki>[</nowiki>[Category:Disambiguation]]
The results are a little different (and only slightly less useful) if the page is a '''Page Title (disambiguation)''', but I think its still beneficial. Here is one example of how it would work if someone visited [[Aberdeen (disambiguation)]] and used the link [[Special:Allpages/Aberdeen (disambiguation)]]. Fortunately, the disambig page is near the top of the alphabetical listings.
Line 211 ⟶ 236:
** Should the disambiguation templates contain the <nowiki>[[Special:Allpages/{{</nowiki>'''PAGENAME'''<nowiki>}}]]</nowiki> link? Best regards [[User:Gangleri|Gangleri]] | [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Gangleri|action=history}} Th] | [[{{ns:User_talk}}:Gangleri|T]] 03:16, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
: After reading these comments: A [[Wikipedia|bot]] could first modify the pages and call <nowiki>{{</nowiki>disambig<
: Example: <nowiki>{{</nowiki>disambig<
{{disambig|Aberdeen}}
Line 219 ⟶ 244:
==Minor formatting improvement==
Very minor, but the Template would be improved with <nowiki><
:Going to try again, Signori Administrators. Isn't this a reasonable request? — [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 21:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:No. That would be a most un-elegant solution. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 22:23, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Don't take Netoholic's brusque tone personally, Bill. He's that way to everyone. I think your request is a very reasonable one, and it would improve the page. Whenever anyone adds this, however, someone reverts it. (Often Netoholic.) Consensus on the point has not been reached. You're quite welcome to try to find consensus on the point, though. [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] – [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[User:Quadell/Request for assistance|help]])</sup>[[<nowiki></nowiki>]] 23:38, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
::If I may, and pardon me if I am wrong [[User:Netoholic]], I believe that he means ''inelegant'' from the perspective of the coding, that <nowiki></ br></nowiki> is somewhat of a [[kludge]], in that it html is intended to mark[ ]up text to describe its function rather than to style it, and that through the use of stylesheets/.css, anything <nowiki></ br></nowiki> can do, a stylesheet could do better, and that CSS would be the preferable way to approach the issue you have pointed out... which would be the "elegant way" to do it. <nowiki><
:::What's with the stupid space in the tag? [[User:Lysdexia|lysdexia]] 20:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::: He's half-correct in referring to the fact that all XHTML tags must be closed, but the form for a self-closing tag is actually <tag/> (or <tag /> for compatibility). In any event, all forms are converted to the proper XHTML markup by the parser, so the Wikimarkup you use matters not. [[User:Austin Hair|''ADH'']] ([[User talk:Austin Hair|t]]&[[Special:emailuser/Austin Hair|m]]) 00:59, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Line 299 ⟶ 324:
== Image ==
[[Image:Disambig.
:I like it, too. But see above [[Template talk:Disambig#Template-in-a-box]] for disagreement. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 17:55, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Line 315 ⟶ 340:
{| align=left class="notice metadata" style="background-color: inherit; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: .2em; margin-bottom: 3px; width: auto;"
|-
| rowspan=2 style="padding-right: 4px; padding-left: 4px;" | [[Image:Disambig.
|-
| <span style="font-size: 90%">This is a '''[[Wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation]]''' page — a navigational aid which lists other 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.</span>
Line 325 ⟶ 350:
{| style="background-color: inherit;"
|----
|width="45" valign="top"|[[Image:Disambig.
|This is a '''[[Wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation]]''' page — a navigational aid which lists other 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.
|}
Line 365 ⟶ 390:
:Agreed wholeheartedly. I can't really think of a good narrow substitute, though. It's a lot better to say that a term ''is'' the word than to say it's ''named after'' it, but that's horribly clumsy: "several terms that are the same word"? Maybe ''a term with several uses''? [[User:4pq1injbok|4pq1injbok]] 02:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And "Ddisambiguation" (with two leading Ds) is not an English word but a typo. But i'm not in a rush to add editing protected pages to my skills, and in any case it may be tolerable until something else can be fixed at the same time. <br />
--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]·[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 02:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Line 389 ⟶ 414:
{| style=class="toccolours" "border-width: 2px 0 0 0; font-size: 100%; background-color: inherit;"
|-
|width="50" valign="middle"|[[Image:Disambig.
|<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0;">This is a '''[[Wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation]]''' page which serves to distinguish topics that share a common name.</p><p style="margin: 0;"><small>Disambiguation pages are navigational aids which list other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred to this page, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.</small></p>
|}
Anyone else that want to see this change? [[User:Teklund|Teklund]] 09:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why not just vertically center both cells, like this:
Line 401 ⟶ 424:
{| style=class="toccolours" "border-width: 2px 0 0 0; font-size: 100%; background-color: inherit;"
|-
|width="50" valign="center"|[[Image:Disambig.
|valign="center"|This is a '''[[Wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation]]''' page which serves to distinguish topics that share a common name.
<small>Disambiguation pages are navigational aids which list other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred to this page, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.</small>
|}
It's a simpler solution, and avoids inserting the extra space between the two lines of text. --[[User:Poiuytman|Poiuyt Man]] <sup>[[User talk:Poiuytman|talk]]</sup>[[User:Poiuytman|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 11:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Line 412 ⟶ 434:
:I don't really mind which of the three you use, but wouldn't the image look better if its background was the same colour as the background of the box. --[[User:Bjwebb|bjwebb]] 15:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::I disagree with the changes to the template's appearance. The fewer gray boxes per page, the better.
:::I definately prefered it as it was before. I honestly don't see what the image is supposed to symbolise, and I don't see what it adds to the Template. Also, why has this Template been edited so many times today, while it is protected? Doesn't protection mean that changes should be discussed? -- [[User:Ec5618|Ec5618]] 19:15, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Line 456 ⟶ 478:
I liked the image but not the colour. It was awful. I think we should reinstate the design but with a different colour. [[User:Celestianpower|Celestianpower]] 15:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I personally liked the new look, I was dissapointed to see it wasn't there when I added the tag. I feel it makes the page look better, and helps catch the eye of the reader, which then explains the purpose and meaning of "disambiguation". Kind of thought that was the point of using the tag. [[User:Who|<
== Grammar fix needed ==
Line 484 ⟶ 506:
{| class="toccolours" style="border-width: 2px 0 0 0; background-color: inherit;"
|-
|width="50" valign="top"|[[Image:Disambig.
|This is a '''[[Wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation]]''' page which serves to distinguish topics that share a common name.
<small>Disambiguation pages are navigational aids which list pages that might otherwise share the same title.</small>
Line 492 ⟶ 514:
|
{| class="toccolours" style="background: #f7f8ff; border: 1px solid #8888aa; padding: .5em; margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 95%;"
|[[Image:Disambig.
|This is a '''[[Wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation]]''' page, a navigational aid which lists pages that might otherwise share the same title. You may want to point the link that brought you here directly to the intended page.
|}
Line 542 ⟶ 564:
| Don't like that image (may support a less obtrusive one) and the box is unnecessary.
|-
|| [[User:Who|<
| 1 > 2
| I prefer the ''text layout'' of 2 with the ''wording'' of 1, change vote to remove graphic as possible resource hog.
|-
|| [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
| 3 > 2 > 1
| This should really be decided at [[WP:TS]] rather than here.
Line 566 ⟶ 588:
| 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.
|-
|| —[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...
| 2 > 3 > 1 > 4
| Picture is better than no picture; no box is better than lines are better than box. Small text on 2 is a distinct bonus, as is italicising on 1 (if 3 had been italicised it would probably have topped my vote.
Line 574 ⟶ 596:
| The picture is aesthetically pleasing, and I'd be glad to see it added to the disambig template. If that doesn't work out, a colored box will do. There has been a recent trend towards making templates more vivid (c.f. the [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]].) It's a trend I approve of.
|-
|| <small> [[User:
| 3
| We need some color to take atention, frame seperates it from everything else. Disambig should primarily take attention. People normaly ignore regular wanings these days... Also a break after the period may look a lot better.
Line 596 ⟶ 618:
| 2 > 3 > 1 > 4
|Lots of the other Wikipedias have this, including the German one which I tend to find more professional and a good benchmark for us. I'd rather not have the coloured background, but an icon makes a disambig obvious to the reader at a glance.
|-
||[[User:Gerbrant|Shinobu]] 08:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
| 2 > 3
|I like 2 best, but 3 is okay as well I guess. The icon is a good identifier for a dab page. Actually I think the text on the Dutch wiki is clearer. Also see my comment below.
|}
Line 601 ⟶ 627:
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. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] June 28, 2005 18:06 (UTC)
*I recently noticed the RV of the new design. Has anyone even looked at [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted#Template:.28disambiguation.29|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. [[User:Who|<
**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... - [[User:SoM|SoM]] 29 June 2005 01:12 (UTC)
***Thanks for the clarification on both points, as such I have changed my vote. [[User:Who|<
Somehow this got deleted:<br />
Line 614 ⟶ 640:
:Jerzy, why do you sya that? --[[User:MarSch|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. [[User:Gerbrant|Shinobu]] 08:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
===Change and moving of voting===
Line 622 ⟶ 649:
: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. [[User:Who|<
I agree with a poll split along multiple dimensions as above. i don't have an opnion about which page it should be on. [[User:DESiegel|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. --[[User:MarSch|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. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
**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.--[[User:MarSch|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. [[User:Gerbrant|Shinobu]] 18:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
==Edit function==
Line 638 ⟶ 666:
This template will be easy to make hence the pre-made border with null text. Here is the design below:
<pre style="overflow:auto">{{bordered|1='''This is a [[Wikipedia:disambiguation|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.'''}}</pre>
Will anybody concur with this? --[[User:SuperDude115|SuperDude]] 02:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Line 653 ⟶ 681:
::Thanks then. I was about to reply to SimonP but you answered my question. [[User:Thorpe|• Thorpe •]] 17:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The content should always come first. Readers don't need to read the instructions before they can start using a disambiguation page even once, much less every time; its function is self-evident. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-15 20:23 Z</small>''
== Add "what links here" ==
Line 659 ⟶ 689:
<div class="notice metadata" id="disambig">''This is a [[Wikipedia:disambiguation|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 [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|link here]]).''
</div>
--[[User:Thivierr|rob]] 05:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:Excellent idea! —[[User:Wahoofive|Wahoofive]] ([[User talk:Wahoofive|talk]]) 06:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
== Unprotection request ==
I don't see any reason for this template to be protected. I am listing this template at [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]]. --[[User:Ixfd64|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. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
== Special:Whatlinkshere ==
I've added a link to [[Special:Whatlinkshere]] on the template. If anyone thinks that it can be improved, please feel free to make any changes you see fit. --[[User:Ixfd64|Ixfd64]] 05:52, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
:It needs <nowiki>{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki> rather than <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki> since a small number of disambiguation pages exist outside the main namespace. [[User:Bo Lindbergh|Bo Lindbergh]] 21:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
== Other disambiguation types ==
I am going to do a page move on this template. I want the text message to be uncategorized, however the generic dab template shall use the main text and the generic category. --[[User:SuperDude115|SuperDude]] 00:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
:Please make sure to get a consensus for this first. It's a template too often used. -- User:Docu
::Why remove the category? It will quickly make [[Special:Uncategorized pages]] useless. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 01:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
:It's just that I restored the wrong previous version when, or rather after, trying to move [[Template:Nocatdab]] back. Thank you for restoring it. -- User:Docu
Sigh, I tried to put the history back together, but couldn't get rid of this one to move the prior history back here. I have stored the prior history at [[Template talk:Disambig/History]] until a developer can help. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
== Layout ==
This discussion has been going on, I know, but I just wanted to say that the Dutch version of this template looks way better: cleaner, more professional, as well as providing more clarity on what a dab page is.
<br clear="all" />
<div class="toccolours" style="border-width:2px 0 0 0" id="disambig">
{| style="background:none;"
|width="40" valign="top"|[[Image:Disambig.svg|left|30px]]
|Dit is een '''[[Wikipedia:Doorverwijspagina|doorverwijspagina]]''', bedoeld om onderscheid te maken tussen de verschillende betekenissen en gebruiken van de term ''{{PAGENAME}}''.
<small>Op deze pagina staat een uitleg van de verschillende betekenissen van ''{{PAGENAME}}'' en verwijzingen daarnaartoe. Bent u hier via een pagina in Wikipedia terechtgekomen? Pas dan de verwijzing naar deze doorverwijspagina aan, zodat toekomstige gebruikers direct op de juiste pagina terechtkomen.</small>
|}
</div>
<nowiki>
<includeonly>
[[Categorie:Doorverwijspagina]]
</includeonly>
</nowiki>
The text reads: This is a disambiguation page, intended to disambiguate between various meanings and usages of the term xyzzy.
The small text reads: On this page is an explanation on the different meanings of xyzy and links to xyzzy. Did a link from another page land you here? In that case, please correct that link so future readers may be directed to the correct page directly.
Compared to the nice-looking template above, ours is just, well... primitive. [[User:Gerbrant|Shinobu]] 23:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
: It is pretty but it suffers from the following problems:
:* This is much too visually prominent—it is bigger and bolder than the actual content of many disambiguation pages
:* The text is much too long—again, many pages would have more meta than data
:* It explains the word ''disambiguation'' using the word "disambiguate"—an inefficient and unenlightening definition for an unusual word
:* We don't need our templates to be more "advanced-looking". If a page is well designed its function will be self-evident, and meta-elements like this can disappear altogether.
: Please: less interface and more encyclopedia. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-15 19:09 Z</small>''
:: But I don't mind having an icon; although I would make it smaller and much more subdued in colour. Readers won't ever read a disambiguation notice more than once or twice, and having an icon makes it easier to spot and ignore. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-15 20:28 Z</small>''
@much too visually prominent: Perhaps you're right. I wouldn't mind having the entire text between small-tags.
@text is too long: I'm not sure. I don't think it matters much, since one usually skips it if one has seen a dab-page before.
@explains the word ''disambiguation'' using the word "disambiguate": I'm afraid something is lost in translation. However, perhaps the entire first sentence is superfluous; that would solve point 2 as well.
@advanced-looking: the point is not that it looks "advanced", whatever that means. The point is that it looks considerably less ugly. A single rule on the top and a subtle(!) background color do a great job at seperating the dab-text from the rest.
I agree with you on the icon. Perhaps we can have a look at other wikis too and see how they manage. [[User:Gerbrant|Shinobu]] 23:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
== reverted to October 9 version for now ==
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. --[[User:Ixfd64|Ixfd64]] 09:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
== problem with Google & multi-word titles ==
For multi-word titles, PAGENAMEE has an underscore between words & Google would prefer to see a space. I like the concept, though. --[[User:Big iron|Big_Iron]] 11:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, in the URL passed to Google, I think that it would prefer to see + characters rather than _s between words. --[[User:Big iron|Big_Iron]] 11:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
::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. [[User:FT2|FT2]] 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
== Re-wording ==
I think we better discuss changes to the wording of the template. At the moment it says "a list of meanings associated", which indicates that the page is a dictionary entry - contrary to wikipedia policy. "Which lists articles that may otherwise share the same title" was the best wording in my opinion. I'm going to revert back to that now - considering I've just spent 6 months removing dicdefs from dab pages. I'm happy for change - after discussion.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 15:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:Your interpretation of "list of meanings" is not what I intended. I'm merely attempting to convey the fact that some disambiguation pages contain brief references to alternative connotations that lack Wikipedia articles. For example, see [[Hamlet (disambiguation)|this disambiguation page]]. It contains a notation of the fact that "Hamlet" is a "brand-name for a cigar," but no link to an article about Hamlet cigars.
:I'm trying to devise a different method of allowing for this possibility. So far, the best that I've come up with is the following:
<div class="notice metadata" id="disambig">''This is a [[Wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation]] page — a list of articles and/or potential articles associated with the same title. If an [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|internal link]] referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.''</div>
:The phrase "potential articles" does address the fact that some disambiguation pages contain red links, but I'm open to alternative suggestions.
:In any case, there's no need to throw out the baby with the bath water; "list of _____ associated with the same title" is more accurate than "_____ that may otherwise share the same title," because many disambiguation pages contain links to articles with far wider scopes than the search term. (In other words, the applicable connotation of the disambiguation page's title composes only a portion of the article.) —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 16:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::I know I harp on the same point every time, but "articles associated with" indicates that anything remotely to do with the page should be included - which is incorrect as per MoS.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 17:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::The problem with the phrase "may otherwise share the same title" is that it clearly conveys that a disambiguation page should only list articles that relate strictly to the term contained within the disambiguation page's title (and therefore could reasonably use such a title). This simply isn't true. It's common to link to a page that covers a broader topic, with only one section or less dedicated to the applicable connotation of the disambiguation page's title.
:::It's very difficult to be 100% specific without being ''too'' specific, but we definitely should be accurate. The current wording doesn't describe a disambiguation page as "a list of '''''all''''' articles associated with the same title," so it is accurate in this respect. In context, I believe that the intended function is clear. —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 17:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
''Less interface, please!'' Remember that the disambiguation page gets ''between'' the reader and what he's seeking. And once they've seen it once or twice, they'll never read the text again.
The note should be self-explanatory, without requiring a link to [[disambiguation]]. That page is for editors, and we don't need to distract readers with a page full of incidental information. If it's absolutely necessary; link the phrase [[disambiguation page]], to indicate that the link describes the function of this page, rather than defining the word ''disambiguation''.
"Potential articles" is superfluous: it's like explaining what red links mean on every encyclopedia page; they are self-explanatory for anyone who's clicked on one.
The message doesn't have to be an exhaustive canonical definition of disambiguation pages, just give the reader the general idea. How about the following? ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-15 19:23 Z</small>''
----
This disambiguation page lists articles with similar names<br />
<small>Links can be updated to skip this page</small>
Or with an icon, to make it easier to identify and ignore:
----
<div style="width:28px; float:left; margin:.75em 1em .5em 0;">[[Image:Disambig gray.svg|28px|none| ]]</div>
This disambiguation page lists articles with similar names<br />
<small>Links can be updated to skip this page</small><br style="clear:both;" />
Better yet, give it ''no'' interface. The first line and structure of a disambiguation page gets the whole point across, and the [[:Category:Disambiguation]] link at the bottom of the page already provides an avenue to all the meta-explanation. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-15 19:48 Z</small>''
:<span style="color:#00A650;">''"Less interface, please! Remember that the disambiguation page gets between the reader and what he's seeking."''</span>
:That's why it's important that he/she understand its purpose.
:<span style="color:#00A650;">''"And once they've seen it once or twice, they'll never read the text again."''</span>
:In that case, why is it big deal if it takes them slightly longer to read?
:<span style="color:#00A650;">''"The note should be self-explanatory, without requiring a link to [[disambiguation]].''"</span>
:Readers aren't ''required'' to click on the link; it's additional information for editors.
:<span style="color:#00A650;">''"That page is for editors, and we don't need to distract readers with a page full of incidental information."''</span>
:Any reader is a potential editor, and there's no reason why we shouldn't make such information as readily available as possible. I don't see how this is any more of a distraction that the "edit this page" link that appears throughout the encyclopedia (and applies only to editors).
:<span style="color:#00A650;">''"If it's absolutely necessary; link the phrase [[disambiguation page]], to indicate that the link describes the function of this page, rather than defining the word disambiguation."''</span>
:The link leads to [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]], which pertains to more than merely disambiguation ''pages''.
:<span style="color:#00A650;">''"Potential articles" is superfluous: it's like explaining what red links mean on every encyclopedia page; they are self-explanatory for anyone who's clicked on one.''</span>
:I wasn't referring strictly to red links. I'm trying to come up with a phrase that also includes notations such as the one that I referenced from [[Hamlet (disambiguation)|this disambiguation page]]. [[Hamlet Cigars]] is a potential article, despite the fact that it isn't red-linked there.
:<span style="color:#00A650;">''"The message doesn't have to be an exhaustive canonical definition of disambiguation pages, just give the reader the general idea."''</span>
:In my opinion, the existing wording is appropriately succinct.
:<span style="color:#00A650;">''"How about the following?''</span>
::<span style="color:#00A650;">''This disambiguation page lists articles with similar names<br />''</span>
::<span style="color:#00A650;">''<small>Links can be updated to skip this page</small>"''</span>
:Again, disambiguation pages list far more than "articles with similar names." Someone might arrive at a disambiguation page called "ABCDEFG" (representing a term with multiple meanings). One of these meanings might be a relatively minor subset or element of "12345," which has a dedicated article. In such an instance, the link directs readers to [[12345]], which does not (and should not) have a title similar to [[ABCDEFG]].
:Also, I don't know why you decided that the periods were "unnecessary punctuation."
:<span style="color:#00A650;">''"Better yet, give it no interface."''</span>
:That would cause considerable confusion among many readers (who would mistake disambiguation pages for articles).
:<span style="color:#00A650;">''"The first line and structure of a disambiguation page gets the whole point across"''</span>
:There is no standard "first line," and inexperienced Wikipedia readers might not recognize the structure.
:<span style="color:#00A650;">''"and the [[:Category:Disambiguation]] link at the bottom of the page already provides an avenue to all the meta-explanation."''</span>
:You just got done arguing that we shouldn't "distract readers with a page full of incidental information," and now you're saying that we should require them to follow a link to a page full of incidental information (for want of a basic description, which currently is displayed directly in front of them). —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:: The page structure: a bold term, at the head of a list of self-explanatory links—that's the structure. How can "inexperienced Wikipedia readers" or any readers at all ''not'' recognize this structure?
:: The template: it's ''not'' necessarily important that a reader understand a disambiguation page's purpose in the editorial context; the purpose of the list of links is self-evident; you click the one you want—this doesn't need instructions. Why is it a big deal if there's an explanation, or if it's longer?—because it's one more item of page clutter: it potentially distracts the reader from the task. Of course readers aren't required to click a link, but that link is ''yet another'' distracting interface element. The "edit this page" link is not a similar example—it is a self-documenting ''task-oriented'' item; it sends a reader/editor ''directly into a task'' without having to be decorated by a long notice. In fact, the body of a disambiguation page is just like that, too. In contrast, the disambiguation explanation and link are ''ancillary'' items which distract from the reader's task on a disambiguation page.
:: "Articles and/or potential articles" or any other comprehensive formula just leads to more questions. The potential inventory of items on a disambiguation page is complex, so better to briefly indicate the concept. The configuration, link colour and phrasing of the disambiguation list items should make each link self-explanatory, as ''‘'Hamlet’ is the brand-name for a [[cigar]].'' clearly is. If Hamlet Cigars is just begging for an article, then perhaps that line should read ''[[Hamlet Cigars]], a [[cigar]] brand.'' or just ''[[Hamlet Cigars]]''. Again, self-explanatory.
:: The link: yes, [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]] also talks about other aspects of disambiguation in addition to disambiguation pages, but only linking the word "disambiguation" doesn't tell the reader that anyway; it just looks like a general link, perhaps an encyclopedia article or dictionary definition. The question that occurs to a reader of the sentence "This is a disambiguation page—..." is "what is a disambiguation page?" Linking the phrase indicates that the answer to this Wikipedia-oriented question is there. Try to think of this from the point of view of the reader which this notice is aimed at, not from the POV of an experienced editor such as yourself.
:: Far too many readers and editors mistake disambiguation pages for articles already, and fill them up with inappropriate links and text. The current notice doesn't do anything to help that; it's just another distraction from the reader's objective—to get to the right article. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-16 23:34 Z</small>''
:::<span style="color:#00A650;"> ''"The page structure: a bold term, at the head of a list of self-explanatory links—that's the structure. How can 'inexperienced Wikipedia readers' or any readers at all ''not'' recognize this structure?"''</span>
:::Wikipedia articles are full of self-explanatory links. The fact that a disambiguation page is not an ordinary article should be conveyed as clearly as possible.
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"The template: it's not necessarily important that a reader understand a disambiguation page's purpose in the editorial context; the purpose of the list of links is self-evident; you click the one you want—this doesn't need instructions."''</span>
:::This is a wiki. We want readers to become editors, and link correction is a perfect way to start. This, of course, helps other readers by eliminating an extra step between articles. We shouldn't accost casual readers with pages full of meta-information, but a simple, two-sentence tag (which offers the opportunity to learn more) is well within reason.
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"Why is it a big deal if there's an explanation, or if it's longer?—because it's one more item of page clutter: it potentially distracts the reader from the task."''</span>
:::I disagree with this assertion. Readers are more able to complete their task when they understand what's occurring. A concise explanation written plain English is a helpful addition, even for non-editors. How is this template more of a distraction than the numerous links that are unrelated to the reader's desired article?
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"Of course readers aren't required to click a link, but that link is yet another distracting interface element."''</span>
:::You seem to believe that everything related strictly to editors is an unwarranted distraction. Again, '''this is a wiki'''. We have meta-links all over the place, and they enable the site to function.
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"The 'edit this page' link is not a similar example—it is a self-documenting task-oriented item; it sends a reader/editor directly into a task without having to be decorated by a long notice."''</span>
:::I was comparing the "edit this page" link '''''not''''' to the template, but to the "[[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|disambiguation]]" link. Both lead to editor-specific content.
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"In fact, the body of a disambiguation page is just like that, too. In contrast, the disambiguation explanation and link are ancillary items which distract from the reader's task on a disambiguation page."'' </span>
:::Again, I strongly disagree.
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"'Articles and/or potential articles' or any other comprehensive formula just leads to more questions."''</span>
:::Are you suggesting that ignorance is bliss? We should assume that our readers are unable to wrap their minds around basic concepts?
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"The potential inventory of items on a disambiguation page is complex, so better to briefly indicate the concept."''</span>
:::Two sentences is quite brief.
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"If Hamlet Cigars is just begging for an article, then perhaps that line should read [[Hamlet Cigars]], a [[cigar]] brand. or just ''[[Hamlet Cigars]]''."''</span>
:::You missed the point. I'm not suggesting that the existence of a [[Hamlet Cigars]] article is justified. I'm merely providing a random example of a disambiguation page that contains an item other than an article. I'm referring to this as a "potential article," for want of a better term. (I tried a couple of others, but they were too easily mistaken for descriptions of dictionary definitions and/or full-fledged write-ups.)
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"The link: yes, [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]] also talks about other aspects of disambiguation in addition to disambiguation pages, but only linking the word 'disambiguation' doesn't tell the reader that anyway; it just looks like a general link, perhaps an encyclopedia article or dictionary definition."''</span>
:::Again, as you correctly noted, that link is for editors (and aspiring editors). Clicking on it immediately reveals content that a non-editor will simply ignore.
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"The question that occurs to a reader of the sentence "This is a disambiguation page—..." is "what is a disambiguation page?""''</span>
:::. . . which is why the remainder of the sentence answers that question (to the extent that a reader is concerned).
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"Linking the phrase indicates that the answer to this Wikipedia-oriented question is there."''</span>
:::Linking the word "disambiguation" indicates that information pertaining to disambiguation is there.
:::The other way would be fine too, but I believe that the current link is preferable.
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"Try to think of this from the point of view of the reader which this notice is aimed at, not from the POV of an experienced editor such as yourself."''</span>
:::Ditto.
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"Far too many readers and editors mistake disambiguation pages for articles already, and fill them up with inappropriate links and text."''</span>
:::Didn't you '''just''' express your disbelief that "any readers at all [would] not recognize this structure"?!
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"The current notice doesn't do anything to help that;"''</span>
:::How do you know that? I find it ''extremely'' difficult to believe that this template's presence hasn't prevented countless instances of disambiguation pages being mistaken for articles (which you just acknowledged is a frequent occurrence).
:::Your argument is analogous to saying that some people ignore traffic signals, so we might as well abolish them.
:::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"it's just another distraction from the reader's objective—to get to the right article."''</span>
:::Again, there's a reason why this site's name isn't "Pedia." —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 02:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: ''"How is this template more of a distraction than the numerous links that are unrelated to the reader's desired article?"''—those links are the ''content'' of this page, the template is not. (although disambiguation pages are meta-content, pointing the reader to actual content, so this is a meta-meta-template)
:::: ''"I was comparing the "edit this page" link not to the template, but to the "disambiguation" link. Both lead to editor-specific content."''—yes, I was responding to that. I'll rephrase:
::::# "Edit this page" is a button which launches an editor directly into a chosen task—its name is its function, even newbies know what it does: a compact self-documenting interface.
::::# Similarly, a link on the disambiguation page will take the reader directly to the page she has chosen to read—if well-written and concise, it is self-explanatory and easy to find among the other links.
::::#* ''But. . .'' in this case it is also accompanied by an ancillary note at the bottom of the page, with two double rules attracting attention to itself, containing two sentences: one with a parenthetic dash and a complex conjunction formed with a slash, as well as a link to a page explaining a term in the sentence in 2,500 words; the other is a conditional sentence hinting to inexperienced editors that they may wish to do something without explaining why they would want to, with its conditional clause linking to a baffling list of links to a meta-template. Meta³. ''And absolutely none of that is content''.
:::: ''"Are you suggesting that ignorance is bliss? We should assume that our readers are unable to wrap their minds around basic concepts?"''—the opposite; readers already know how to use a list of links without needing an instruction label.
:::: ''"You missed the point. I'm not suggesting that the existence of a Hamlet Cigars article is justified. I'm merely providing a random example . . ."''—I got the point, and gave examples of how this item could be self-explanatory, without requiring an instruction label.
:::: ''"Clicking on it immediately reveals content that a non-editor will simply ignore."''—yes, yes, exactly!
:::: ''"Linking the word "disambiguation" indicates that information pertaining to disambiguation is there."''—yes, but the reader is looking for "Hamlet" or whatever, not "disambiguation". Just give them Hamlet!
:::: ''"Didn't you just express your disbelief that "any readers at all [would] not recognize this structure"?"''—it gets more difficult when the structure is watered down with a graphically bold but cryptically-written instruction label.
:::: ''"Your argument is analogous to saying that some people ignore traffic signals, so we might as well abolish them."''—this template is analogous to [http://www.richardfawcett.net/newyear2004/49.jpg this]. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-17 03:22 Z</small>''
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"those links are the content of this page, the template is not."''</span>
:::::The template is relevant to the reader's situation. Those links are not.
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"'Edit this page' is a button which launches an editor directly into a chosen task—its name is its function, even newbies know what it does: a compact self-documenting interface."''</span>
:::::All of this is true, and all of it is beside the point (which is that this is a wiki, so we can't hide editor-only functions from readers).
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"Similarly, a link on the disambiguation page will take the reader directly to the page she has chosen to read—if well-written and concise, it is self-explanatory and easy to find among the other links."''</span>
:::::Yes, and this is true of links throughout Wikipedia. It's important that readers understand the difference between an article and a disambiguation page.
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"But. . . in this case it is also accompanied by an ancillary note at the bottom of the page, with two double rules attracting attention to itself,"''</span>
:::::The lines serve as demarcation.
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"containing two sentences: one with a parenthetic dash and a complex conjunction formed with a slash,"''</span>
:::::I haven't added the phrase "and/or potential articles" to the actual template, and I'm hoping to come up with a better alternative.
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"as well as a link to a page explaining a term in the sentence in 2,500 words;"''</span>
:::::Again, that's intended for editors.
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"the other is a conditional sentence hinting to inexperienced editors that they may wish to do something without explaining why they would want to,"''</span>
:::::Isn't it obvious? The reader just arrived at an incorrect page, and the template suggests that he/she replace the existing link with one to the correct page. It's an entirely straightforward suggestion, not a hint.
:::::You give the readers enough credit to understand what a disambiguation page is without ever having been told, but you don't think that they're capable of comprehending two simple sentences.
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"with its conditional clause linking to a baffling list of links to a meta-template."''</span>
:::::How is that remotely baffling? Do you believe that most of our readers are unintelligent?
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"And absolutely none of that is content."''</span>
:::::On the contrary, it most certainly ''is'' content. It simply isn't encyclopedic content.
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"readers already know how to use a list of links without needing an instruction label."''</span>
:::::1. I agree. So why did you just describe a "list of links" as "baffling"?
:::::2. The issue is ''not'' that readers won't be able to follow the correct link; it's that they won't always be able to discern the nature of the disambiguation pages (which often resemble articles in many respects).
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"I got the point, and gave examples of how this item could be self-explanatory, without requiring an instruction label."''</span>
:::::No, you '''''still''''' don't get the point. I'm '''''not''''' suggesting that such disambiguation pages (containing unlinked items) should be altered in any way. In fact, I believe that they should remain the same. The issue is that the template's current wording ignores their existence. I'm not claiming that this causes confusion, but merely that it results in inaccuracy.
:::::<span style="color:#FBAF5D;">''"Clicking on it immediately reveals content that a non-editor will simply ignore."''</span>
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"—yes, yes, exactly!"''</span>
:::::So what's the problem?
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"yes, but the reader is looking for 'Hamlet' or whatever, not 'disambiguation'. Just give them Hamlet!"''</span>
:::::Many readers are new or aspiring editors, attempting to learn the proper procedures. Again, this is a wiki.
:::::<span style="color:#FBAF5D;">''"Didn't you just express your disbelief that "any readers at all [would] not recognize this structure"?"''</span>
:::::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"—it gets more difficult when the structure is watered down with a graphically bold but cryptically-written instruction label."''</span>
:::::1. I'm astounded by your claim that the template is "cryptically-written."
:::::2. Are you asserting that the template actually '''''causes''''' readers to mistake disambiguation pages for articles?! —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 04:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::: This has generated way too many words, and I'm still not sure you understand what I write at all: "The template is relevant to the reader's situation. Those links are not."—"Those links" are the main list of links on a disambiguation page. You ''must'' be thinking of something else if you write that they are not relevant. If you removed them, then all disambiguation pages would be identical. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-25 18:39 Z</small>''
:::::::Why are you quoting me out-of-context?
:::::::The phrase "those links" refers to "the numerous links that are unrelated to the reader's desired article." Typically, most of the disambiguation links pertain to topics other than the one for which the reader searched or clicked. That's why a disambiguation page exists!
:::::::I am '''''not''''', however, suggesting that the list of links be removed! My point was that the template is no more of a distraction than these irrelevant links are. (In other words, all of this is important, and should remain.)
:::::::Also, I'm waiting for you to answer question #2. Here's a review of the chronology:
:::::::1. I asserted that the template assists readers in understanding the nature of a disambiguation page (the structure of which they might not recognize).
:::::::2. You replied by expressing your disbelief that "any readers at all [would] not recognize this structure."
:::::::3. You then acknowledged that "far too many readers and editors mistake disambiguation pages for articles already, and fill them up with inappropriate links and text," directly contradicting your claim that the structure is easily recognizable.
:::::::4. I noted the disparity between your two comments.
:::::::5. You replied by explaining that "it gets more difficult when the structure is watered down with a graphically bold but cryptically-written instruction label," thereby implying that the template actually '''''causes''''' readers to mistake disambiguation pages for articles.
:::::::Do you stand behind this contention? —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 20:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
==Icons and text==
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. - [[User:SoM|SoM]] 21:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:Also, [[:Image:Disambig.svg|the original icon]] appears to be copyrighted, so I don't think that Michael is legally entitled to release [[:Image:Dab icon.png|a derivative work]] into the public ___domain. —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 22:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::It obvious that we won't be including any picture/icon - community consensus dictated this earlier in the year.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:The template can be used at the top of articles, very effectively. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 16:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the terms of the original licence; I've changed it to GFDL (that's acceptable, right?). Regarding usage in this template; whatever. But why is "widely-used" an issue? Every page has the Wikipedia logo on it (11,974 bytes), but this one takes only 836 bytes at the 28-pixel size. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-16 08:01 Z</small>''
@Commander Keane: You must be mistaken. There was much ado about the structure of the last thing that resembled a vote (and I support most of it) but one thing was clear: there was a small majority in support of the icon, and some arguments against having an icon were since rebutted. If you don't like the icon, please just say so, but don't dictate with community consensus where either none exists or it isn't clear what the consensus is ''now''. In any case I still support a ''proper'' vote (see one of the topics above for a possible page to contain that vote). [[User:Gerbrant|Shinobu]] 00:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
== Proposal ==
You can read about some of the pros and cons of this in my discussion with User:Lifeisunfair, above. I've changed the wording so that it is aimed to be a response to the reader's situation, suggesting an action first, explaining second. I would also like to write a simple explanation at [[Help:Disambiguation pages]]. What do you think of the following simplified disambiguation template? ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-25 19:02 Z</small>''
----
<div style="width:28px; float:left; margin:.75em 1em .5em 0;">[[Image:Disambig gray.svg|28px|none| ]]</div>
Looking for one of the articles on this page?<br />
<small>This is a [[Help:Disambiguation pages |disambiguation page]], listing articles which could share the same title. Links should be updated to skip this page.</small><br style="clear:both;" />
I'll address your proposed setup, one element at a time:
*[[Image:Disambig gray.svg|28px]]
The community has rejected the use of an icon. If we ''were'' to include one, it should be the colored version (which stands out more, particularly to people with visual impairments).
*Looking for one of the articles on this page?
This sentence is extraneous and syntactically incomplete.
*<small>This is a [[Help:Disambiguation pages|disambiguation page]], listing articles which could share the same title.</small>
1.Your use of the word "which" in a restrictive relative clause is grammatically incorrect. It should be "that."
2. As I have noted more than once, disambiguation pages also list articles that could '''''not''''' reasonably share the same title.
*<small>Links should be updated to skip this page.</small>
This merely informs readers that something should be changed; it fails to mention that '''''they''''' are capable of doing so.
—[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 20:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
: Why add colour? The current version of the template is already the most prominent element on the page. The icon is also bigger, visually different, and more prominent than any other element, except perhaps a wiktionary link box. The purpose of adding it is merely to unambiguously identify the template at a glance, not to attract more attention.
: [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]] defines disambiguation as ". . . two or more different topics have the same "natural" title", and ". . . different pages that might reside under the same title". If this basic explanation is good enough for the manual page on the topic, isn't "articles that could share the same title" or some variation more than sufficient for this notice which links to a more detailed description?
: How about the following version? ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-26 17:19 Z</small>''
----
<div style="width:28px; float:left; margin:.75em 1em .5em 0;">[[Image:Disambig gray.svg|28px|none| ]]</div>
Were you looking for one of the articles on this page?<br />
<small> This is a [[Help:Disambiguation pages|disambiguation page]], listing articles that could share the same title.</small><br style="clear:both;" />
::I think you are battling on too many fronts with this version. Firstly, the community has previously decided that there is not going to be an image on the template. Secondly, that wording is close to the previous version, which was debated [[Template_talk:Disambig#Re-wording|above]]. Also, the retorical question is unencyclopaedic, confusing and redundant.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 17:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"Why add colour? The current version of the template is already the most prominent element on the page. The icon is also bigger, visually different, and more prominent than any other element, except perhaps a wiktionary link box. The purpose of adding it is merely to unambiguously identify the template at a glance, not to attract more attention."''</span>
::The use of color would assist people in unambiguously identifying the template at a glance — particularly people with visual impairments. (I've taught such individuals how to use computers, so I know this for a fact.) Of course, this is assuming that we use an icon. (I like the idea, but there are legitimate arguments against it.)
::<span style="color:#00A650;">''"[[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]] defines disambiguation as ‘. . . two or more different topics have the same 'natural' title’, and ‘. . . different pages that might reside under the same title’."''</span>
::Thank you for bringing this incomplete description to my attention. I've corrected the page. —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 19:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Image:Disambig gray.svg|28px]]
I still prefer the colored version (for the reason cited above).
*Were you looking for one of the articles on this page?
Still extraneous.
*<small>This is a [[Help:Disambiguation pages|disambiguation page]], listing articles that could share the same title.</small>
Still inaccurate.
And now you've removed the link correction notation entirely!
—[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 19:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
@Commander Keane's statement about not using an icon: I have responded on this issue before, but apparently he didn't read my response; it's in the previous topic. [[User:Gerbrant|Shinobu]] 07:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:I didn't read your previous discussion, I'll go back and have a closer look. --[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 07:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I'm sorry I forgot to sign; I've replaced the unsigned template with my signature for our convenience. [[User:Gerbrant|Shinobu]] 01:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
== Image Discussion of forking arrows ==
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 [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Begriffskl%C3%A4rung 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? [[User:Jfg284|jfg284]] <sup>[[User talk:Jfg284|you were saying?]]</sup> 10:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:I'm interested in what the text of the German {{tl|disambig}} 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).--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 14:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, here's my translation of it. Note the two versions - a direct(straight text) and an anglicized (italicized). The anglicized also is partially my interpretation, as not everything translates directly. However, the "direct" also entails a few "interpretations" Although i did my best to keep it entirely direct (including condensing english phrases such as "in note form" and "in the event" to one word, as these phrases ''are'' one word in german), there are some words (particularly adjectives) that have more than one meaning. Thus, i picked the one I felt made the most sense. However, bear in mind that this is, at least partially, a personal interpretation. :
<br />This page is a '''Term clarification''' to differentiate terms denoted by the same word.
<br />''This site is a'' '''''Termclarification''''' ''to the differences of more with the same word denoted terms''
<br />The entries should restrict themselves to a specific definition and each entry should only be linked to one article. In the event that you arrived here from a link in another Wikipedia article, go back to that article and change the link you followed to the correct article from the above list.
<br />''The entries should themselves to one innoteform definition restrict and per meaning should only one article with one distinct name linked be. Intheevent you from an other Wikipedia-article here arrived are, go please there back and change the link, that you followed are, to the correct article outof the above list.''
<br />Now, I'm not advocating a new text - i like it as it is just fine - i just like the visual layout from their template a little better, and when I came here it looked as though it was brought up but no conclusion was reached. [[User:Jfg284|jfg284]] <sup>[[User talk:Jfg284|you were saying?]]</sup> 15:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:Looks to me like a conclusion's been reached, and the community (a) doesn't want an icon and (b) likes the current layout - [[User:SoM|SoM]] 16:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
::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, [[User:Jfg284|jfg284]] <sup>[[User talk:Jfg284|you were saying?]]</sup> 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
==Search Function==
I am trying to add a search function to the template, but I am having trouble. My efforts are [[User:God_of_War/Disambig|here]]. Could someone please help me?--[[User:God_of_War|God_of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]] 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
: 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. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 05:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
== Links to Disambiguation Pages - color code? ==
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). [[User:Jwy|John (Jwy)]] 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
: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?--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::The overhead of checking for a page's existence (redlink/bluelink) is nothing compared to actually parsing the content to look for the {{tl|disambig}} template. The only way to make it possible would be to create a [[Disambiguation:]] namespace, which has also been proposed. —[[User:Wahoofive|Wahoofive]] ([[User talk:Wahoofive|talk]]) 04:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I would like a developer to look at it, are you sure that you need a different namespace, or is that just a guess?--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::::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. —[[User:Wahoofive|Wahoofive]] ([[User talk:Wahoofive|talk]]) 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::::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. —[[User:Wahoofive|Wahoofive]] ([[User talk:Wahoofive|talk]]) 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sounds like a good excuse for me to download the code and look at it. Been planning to for a while. [[User:Jwy|John (Jwy)]] 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest moving this thread to either [[Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation]] or [[WP:VPT]]... since the topic doesn't really involved changes to this template specifically, but to MediaWiki. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
== Using this template on other wikipedias ==
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. --[[User:Off!|Off!]] 11:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Gerbrant|Shinobu]] 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::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.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 16:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
| |||