Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages

Pre-implementation discussion is at /archive1. Archives: /archive2, /archive3, /archive4, /archive5, /archive6, /archive7, /archive8, /archive9, /archive10, /archive11, /archive12

New WikiProject: Disambiguation

A new WikiProject has been created to address some facets of disambiguation template usage in Wikipedia. Please take a moment to click by Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation for more information. Courtland 04:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Italicizing

[Section, & its initial contrib, reformated for clarity. --Jerzy•t 07:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

[Editor Jiy begins by citing this talk page's MoS page (and adding emphasis) as follows:]

There is no need to emphasize the link with bolding or italics, although book titles and the like may be italicized in conformance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles).

[Jiy continues by commenting on that passage as follows:] Based on this, editors often italicize like so:

Avalon (album)

This doesn't seem right. Titles of major works are italicized, but "(album)" is not a part of the title of the work; it has been appended for janitorial reasons and does not exist as part of the title outside of Wikipedia. Some editors, then, italicize using piping, like so:

Avalon (album)

This is more correct, and at the very I think least the Manual needs to be clarified so that if italicizing is to be used, this is how it should be done. Personally, though, I never italisize because disambiguation pages are not articles and so editorial formatting required for articles, such as italicizing titles of major works, is not required. Additionally, simply leaving italicizing out eliminates complicated piping and issues of consistency.
—jiy (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC) [The immediately preceding signed contrib has been interrupted with clarifying notations by Jerzy•t 07:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

A change in the manual to specifically recommend Avalon (album) would be fine by me. (Its removal altogether would not.)
Neonumbers 03:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought that such a change had been added. It would be useful to add if it is not there; it would also be useful to propose exact wording here so it can be hashed out for consensus (wars can start over single words that are seemingly innocuous). Note that such a guideline addition does not seem to be specifically supported by the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy that I can see, which is unfortunate; if a naming policy can be cited to support the addition, that would be good to include (for instance the section on ship names which does include mention of italicization). As an aside, I'd say at least 10% of the edits I've made from something like [[Avalon (album)]] to [[Avalon (album)|Avalon (album)]] get reverted by editors who don't like the change (for a variety of reasons).
User:Ceyockey 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing this for a while, and I don't remember any reverts. It's not necessary, but it does make the page typographically neater. The reason it's not in the general MoS is because the disambiguation part is practically always hidden in articles, but it is explicitly revealed in disambiguation pages. I would support adding a recommendation for this technique, or at least a mention that it is acceptable.
—Michael Z. 2005-12-22 05:57 Z

The page is a list of links. If the Avalon (album) was italicized in the article title, then it would be OK to do so in the link. (But it's not.) Sometimes, folks seem to spend more time tweeking than actually producing anything useful.... William Allen Simpson 13:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?—jiy (talk)
03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page title is not italicized for stylistic consistency and/or due to technical limitations. In most other cases, the titles of major works are italicized.
—Michael Z. 2005-12-24 18:28 Z

_ _ A Dab page is not what WAS implies above. Rather, it is our means of doing two things:

getting a user to an article on (or at least related to) the topic the user had in mind by asking to display a page with the Dab page's title,
avoiding surprising the user with the title of the page they go to.

Slavishly imitating the title of the article as to presence or absence of emphatic typography like ital, bold, underlining, or the liberties Knuth took in naming TeX, is irrelevant to both those goals. Going to Doomsday (film) from a lk that renders as Doomsday (film) is far less surprising than the utterly routine experience of doing so from a lk Doomsday, and no problem whatsoever, except for the most literal-minded and Wiki-naive user, whom we have no hope of satisfying in the short run. On the other hand, the italics where a title is intended help the user Dab more speedily by visually separating the events and fictional characters named Doomsday from the works of fiction named Doomsday.

_ _ (In fact, BTW, Dab pages are neither lists of lks, as WAS states, nor lists of WP article titles, as he assumes.

_ _ (It is true that reasonably often the list within a particular Dab page is indistinguishable from a list of lks. But a Dab-page entry may merely include a lk to an article. It often amounts to either

a lk followed by other material needed to usually ensure Dab'n, or
raw text, reiterating the title of the Dab page, and a grammatically qualifying appositive or adjectivial phrase that actually contains the lk.

Neither of these kinds of entry would appear on a list of lks.

_ _ (In fact, a Dab page is never a list at all, tho what follows the context-setting first line is a list, and the context that first line sets acts to guarantee that article titles are not what make up that list. There is probably still no unity, re, e.g., Doomsday, whether it may be or may mean the things that follow it, but Doomsday neither is nor means the title of any of the "target" articles. Doomsday may be or mean any of the referents of the entries listed, each such entry being a thing, composed work, peson, idea, event, etc., and (yes) the point of the Dab is to get the user to an article covering that or a related topic. As i state above, the user's quick clarity about whether lk'd article covers a composed work or something else is valuable, and the fact the words of the lk are in a context where they refer to the subject rather than the article on it rules out any grammatical offense.)
--Jerzy•t 07:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly disagree with Jerzy. (Or at least the parts that were written clearly in English.) Any list can have additional information, and here we prefer that it be after the link. The only important information is the links themselves. The links in a disambiguation page should match the actual article page as nearly as possible. I agree with Jiy:

the Manual needs to be clarified so that if italicizing is to be used, this is how it should be done.
disambiguation pages are not articles and so editorial formatting required for articles, such as italicizing titles of major works, is not required.
leaving italicizing out eliminates complicated piping and issues of consistency.

Again, a pretty link is no more informative than a page title. I opine that some folks spend an awful lot of time making things pretty.... William Allen Simpson 13:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both WAF & Jyi consider such piping "complicated". I consider that evidence that they haven't learned how to cut and paste. The only simpler piping i can imagine is piping, inside a quotation, to link correctly in spite of a spelling error within it.

If you think italics are pretty, or the piping is complicated, don't use them, and your error will be corrected others who understand that they are simple and a form of emphasis and/or of marking boundaries. The italics in question add clarity. They are used here and in standard writing, as are quotes, because the title of a composed work is a syntactic unit whose boundaries are often contrary to those specified by the laws of grammar. The difference between

I wrote as I lay dying a story.

and

I wrote as I lay dying a story.

can be more clearly indicated by other mechanisms, so it is not the perfect example for my point. But the italics under discussion, and the analogous quotation marks for shorter composed works, are standard practice, not affected by WP's practices of displaying the article title at the top of the page (which we do not apply in a other place within the 'pedia).

I think i was the first to ask this question, which was answered consistently with what i've just said. I'll dig it up in the history & post it below.
--Jerzy•t 07:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/archive2#Italicized Dab Targets, dated 2005 July 11 & 12, just after the Dab MoS went into production. The implicit consensus was that italicizing the titles is implicit in what was already stated then, and should be obvious to anyone but a laughable and annoying pedant.

_ _ For some, it will be obvious, from the length of time that passed without need for (IFAIK) any further discussion, the implicit policy is correct and stated with sufficient visibility. Knowing that i am a laughable and annoying pedant, i concurred in the original consensus that no new project-page language was needed. Nevertheless, as such a person, i wouldn't find it excessive to add explicit language endorsing the italics, and support anyone who chooses to does so.
--Jerzy•t 14:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ There are 3 proper responses to colleagues wasting their effort on minutiae:

Ignore it, and work on the larger aspects of the same things they are working on.
Ignore it, and work in other SP areas.
Ignore it, and work on something other that WP.

_ _ Changing what someone else has done, or proposing a change to what they have done, is essential to the many eyes principle of WP. In constrast, disparaging colleagues' choices abt what they work on is a form of non-productive effort. The only reason for mentioning this non-productivity is that it is also a form of opposition to the foundations of WP, and thus worth discouraging.
--Jerzy•t 14:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of redlinks from dab pages

It appears that User:Tedernst has begun on a relatively aggressive campaign to rid disambiguation pages of red-links based on the notion that if there isn't an article, there shouldn't be an entry on the dab page. I'm personally not planning to do anything about this but I thought it should be pointed out considering some of the discussions that have taken place about the appropriateness or lack thereof of including red-links on dab pages. User:Ceyockey 01:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing organized, actually. Some pages just look really ugly and most of the redlinks look sketchy. If someone adds one or more of the redlinks back, I will leave them alone, especially if there's something said about noteability of the particular links. I'm not a zealot, contrary to how some of my edits might make me seem. :-) I'm also a fan of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, for whatever that's worth. Tedernst | talk 03:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at Cabal (disambiguation). I think the only way to stop your wholesale gutting of pages is to produce a lot of redirects to trick you into thinking that there are really articles, perhaps. I suppose it's a matter of whether a sub-article concept (i.e. something that is addressed in part of an article) is worthy of any consideration in the disambiguation universe or not. I would take your actions to mean that you do not believe anything below the level of a full article should be addressed at the dab page level, correct? User:Ceyockey 03:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, if it's addressed in the linked article, I leave it. Tedernst | talk 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the approach you took with Cabal (disambiguation). Bkonrad restored some material, I see, where the term is mentioned in the linked article but you had deleted the links. User:Ceyockey 04:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Here on the general talk page, I'm giving you my general principles. Do I make mistakes? Surely. Do I forget my principles sometimes? Possibly. If there's a problem with a specific page, please correct me and note the reason for your change (partial-revert) in the edit summary and I'll learn from that. If there's a larger issue, certainly we can address it on this page. I'm just not sure what that larger issue is. Tedernst | talk 06:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be a bit more to the point. Consider Uniform (disambiguation), which I just worked on. According to your actions to date, I would anticipate that the "U" entry would be deleted as not associated with an article and therefore not worthy of disambiguation. If I am right then the only way to keep it from disappearing would be to create U (NATO) as a redirect (tagged with {{R to list entry}} most likely) to NATO phonetic alphabet. This redirect creation would seem to be useless because nobody will search for "U (NATO)" nor will they insert and wikilink this text into an article; its only reason for existence would be to allow existence on a dab page as a blue-link. Is this really what you are striving for? Before you answer that, look at NATO phonetic alphabet#Alphabet and pronunciation and consider whether "uniform" is a legitimate term that should be leading to this place in some fashion, be it dab or redirect. User:Ceyockey 03:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no point in having that entry for the letter U, no. What is its purpose? Tedernst | talk 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see -- the word "uniform" is used to represent the letter "U". What is so difficult to understand? older≠wiser 13:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why would anyone search for "uniform" when they mean "U"? Why would anyone link to "uniform" when they mean "U"? You seem to think this is obviously to anyone more intelligent than a potted plant, but I don't see it at all. Tedernst | talk 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While my instinct is to agree with Tedernst that no one would link or search for "uniform" in this case, it's occurred to me that if I wanted more information about this alphabet (for example, I couldn't remember what word corresponded to V), I wouldn't necessarily know what article name to look under. I've heard of "alpha, bravo, charlie" etc. (not to mention abel, baker), but I wouldn't have had the foggiest idea that it's a NATO invention until I read this thread. Although I might be able to find it by starting with "alphabet," another reasonable approach would be to search for whatever words I could remember. When someone's searching an encyclopedia, they're not always certain what they're looking for at first.

~~Bkonrad~~Ceyockey, you started this thread with a wholesale accusation about Tedernst. Surely you have more examples than this one. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, where did I make a "wholesale accusation"? While I disagree with some of Tedernst edits, I don't recall making any broad accusations. In another thread I did comment that I thought Tedernst may be a little too hard-line in the approach to editing (and I don't think I was alone in that thought), but I certainly did not intend that as a wholesale accusation. older≠wiser 18:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "wholesale accusation" came from me, not Bkonrad. Let's get our attributions correct, shall we? User:Ceyockey 03:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Apologies to Bkonrad. The accusation is of a relatively aggressive campaign to rid disambiguation pages of red-links. Could you provide examples other than Uniform? —Wahoofive (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform (disambiguation) was brought up as an example where I've asked "what would you do with this one" which is were the "U" material comes from. Examples can be gleaned from Tedernst's contributions page, but the one that started this thread was Cabal (disambiguation). Like Tedernst said, it's not a campaign but an occasional activity which is why I changed the title from the inflammatory "jihad" reference; if you insist on having a list, I'll generate one, but I think that would be counterproductive considering where this thread is going right now. User:Ceyockey 04:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

On the matter of "why would anyone search for uniform when they are looking for U: consider the NATO tranliteration of "cut" which would be "Charlie-Uniform-Tango". It is not unreasonable for anyone familiar with "Charlie = C" as was mentioned above to assume that "Charlie-Uniform-Tango" is another way of saying "CUT". The question is whether one would want to provide the facility for a person to actually check this or not; one method that is available to us to provide such a check is to include the NATO transliterations on the pages Charlie (a dab page), Uniform (disambiguation) (linked from Uniform) and Tango (another dab page). This makes sense to me; it doesn't need to make perfect sense to all persons in order for it to be considered for inclusion on the appropriate dab pages, in my opinion, because inclusion does not violate the notion of the dab page as an assist to navigation. Now, prepare yourself, I'm going to shoot myself down by asking "why shouldn't this go into Wiktionary?" I don't have a good argument against that and it is a reasonable use of the Wikipedia-Wiktionary interlinkages, and I'm a pretty strong proponent of using Wiktionary more vigorously than we usually do. User:Ceyockey 04:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, Wiktionary lists the alphabet as the ICAO spelling alphabet, although it has a Wikipedia cross-link to NATO. I only mention this in regard to a hypothetical user not clear what the alphabet is called, but wanting to look for it. BTW, I tried starting at alphabet and wouldn't have been able to find it if this thread hadn't already clued me in. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've spruced up the Wiktionary:Uniform entry a bit so it might be more helpful now (?). User:Ceyockey 05:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't remove red links! Sometimes, those serve to indicate that an ambiguity is well-known, and a page needs to be written. For example, when there are 4 towns in a country with the same name (or across several countries in the case of the Yugoslavia breakup), it's best to list them all. I've found so many cases where some poor editor links a name, it shows up as existing, and has no idea that the link is to a similarly named place in an adjacent country. Heck, I've sometimes had to check the coordinates visually to ensure that I've found the places. Using disambiguation pages helps editors find the correct article!

I've also run into cases where an overly aggressive editor (cough Ted cough) removes several perfectly valid links, when the linked word doesn't appear in the lede. For example, cities often have several older names in the History section. The older names may even be more commonly used in other articles than the current name. Please don't remove those links, either. It helps editors find the correct article!

Of course, I'm assuming that every editor always checks every link to ensure that it's not going to a disambiguation page, and that it's actually pointing to the correct article....

--William Allen Simpson 13:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please wikify the letter U again. Users may also use Whatlinkshere on the U page. So it's intersting to see that Uniform links there. IMO red links for towns with the same name as pointed out by William are 100% necessary. About wikify alternative names - this can be a problem if they are redirects to the same article. Then users click on the alternativ names and get the same content. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just brought a page to my attention that I'd edited a while back. As a compromise solution to red-link removal from dab pages, I put information on the talk page in the case of Talk:Ai. Just an example of something I've done in the past that fits into this discussion thread. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What if I want to follow the rules rather than break them?

After finding out that I've been doing DAB pages the wrong way, I am now on a crusade to bring all DAB's I come across into conformance with the MOSDAB. So I have one question:

Q. Will my zealous campaign make other editors so mad that they get together and conspire to murder me in my sleep? RlyehRising 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. I notice a sudden upsurge in the interest given to DAB pages. Could this be because I've been putting links to here in the edit summary? I should note that one reason I include those links is to provide a rationale for my changes, but also (and perhaps more importantly) so that other editors can check my work. RlyehRising 03:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the Participants list, the upsurge in activity around here occurred around November - probably not the RlyehRising factor :). Many of us put an edit summary linking here - as a justifcation, and as an education device. To tell you the truth, I didn't even recognise WP:MOSDAB as an available redirect to here. You may wish to consider using the complete "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)" in the edit summary - it's more effective at getting the message across and editors don't have to follow a link to find out what it's all about.

Will you be mudered in slumber? There will certainly be some opposition to your edits (which I have had a quick look at and agree with, the edits that is). Oppostion can come from ignorance of the purpose of a disambiguation page. Opposition can come from those who disagree with this style guideline. I recommend you place pages you edit on your watchlist; more than once my edit to a dab page has been reverted. Finally, when you get dissolutioned you should take a break from the style side of things and work on link repair (that my opinion anyway).--Commander Keane 09:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I get the some push-back and the occasional stubborn reverter, but generally, editors seem to appreciate a disambiguation page that goes from an ugly mess to a neat list of links. I get the sense that linking to the project helps a lot (my usual edit summary is "Disambiguation page style repair (you can help!)"). When a discussion starts up, politely pointing out MOS:DP can often settle it. I usually insist on de-linking non-disambiguating terms, but if other editors restore some red links or questionable items, I'll leave them in as a compromise. Don't bother starting revert wars; there are plenty of other pages to clean up. —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 09:45 Z

That's been my experience too -- a few minor disagreements quickly cleared up, and a few more stubborn issues, some of which can be solved with existing measures (see Congo above), and some which can't. I think in most cases if someone is defending the status quo strongly, it's better to let it go, and go fix up one of the thousands of other dab pages that need help. The page in question will eventually be addressed again by someone (and the more important the page, the quicker that will happen), and either the defender will have moved on, or s/he will see that it's not just an individual crusade of yours. — Catherine\^talk 22:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a dispute, it can also be useful to figure out what aspect of the page is dear to someone, and just clean up the others. Instead of doing a massive reorg/cleanup/link-culling of a disambiguation page, do simple edits whose individual purpose is clear. Useful edit summaries include the following. —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 23:45 Z

"format according to MOS:DP"
"sort according to MOS:DP"
"alpha-sort"
"de-linking non-disambiguating terms "xxx" and "yyy""
"removing non-encyclopedic term "zzz""

Akita

Would anyone like to take a look at Akita and Talk:Akita? Thanks! Tedernst | talk 22:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion - walk away from the page for 20 weeks or more then come back. User:Ceyockey 22:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you (Tedernst) may be taking too hard of a line with your edits. While I generally dislike categorizing dab pages, sometimes it is unavoidable and I don't think there is any hard and fast rule against it. Similarly, some of the "extra" information on that page is helpful for understanding which link is intended. I think the extra links are unnecessary, but the verbiage is not so excessive as to get in the way. older≠wiser 22:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sigh*... I guess Ceyockey's got a good way of going about it. Don't let it discourage you, Tedernst, there are other pages, thousands of them. Neonumbers 23:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks. Good advice. There are plenty of other pages. I'll just move on. Thanks! Tedernst | talk 23:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had a stab at it too, and after a revert (putting back largely pointless Japanese text) I think it's at a pretty reasonable state. Thanks/wangi 23:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's okay the way it is. Remember rule no. 8: MOS:DP#Break rules. —Michael Z. 2005-12-29 18:55 Z

Please don't make a mess of articles in the name of MoS:DP

Take a look at USS Merrimack as of 5 December 2005. Now compare it with the version that "more inline with MoS:DP". All the information has been removed! This is a stupid thing to have done, because (1) the deleted information is what readers needed in order to determine which article they wanted; (2) the deleted information appears nowhere else in Wikipedia. Please, please, don't do this. It's plain vandalism. Gdr 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gdr, the USS Merrimack page is not an article, it is a disambiguation page. Its purpose is to point readers to the actual articles. Disambiguation pages are not dumping grounds for information that should be in other articles - that should be in stub articles. I have created three new stubs containing the information which was on that page and edited the page to conform more closely to the manual of style. Thanks/wangi 18:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're seeing a problem pattern across pages, this should be dealt with at Talk:USS Merrimack. Also, it's not correct to label good-faith editing as vandalism. Editors can disagree without either of them being vandals. Tedernst | talk 19:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gdr's point is valid and appropriate to be brought up in this forum. It has always been my personal policy to ensure that any information I remove from a disambiguation page is either available somewhere else in Wikipedia, or in a dictionary. I'm surprised/disappointed that this is not followed by others. USS Merrimack may very well be an article (of the signpost variety).--Commander Keane 19:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles which list ships of the same name in a navy. These articles occupy an intermediate position between disambiguation pages and articles proper. Remember that the main purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct the reader to the article they are looking for. Quite a lot of information is needed to adequately distinguish ships of the same name: a reader may come to the page knowing a date that the ship was in service, or the name of a notable captain or officer, or a battle in which the ship took part, or what kind of ship it was. A simple list of ships with launch dates or hull numbers is not sufficient to direct the reader to the right article.

A suggested format for ship disambiguation articles is given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. I propose that there should be a note at MoS:DP directing editors to defer to WikiProject Ships for these ship disambiguation articles. Gdr 21:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see ships as a special case at all. The example given on that project page does not tie into the MoS at all - it is wikilinking to various other articles rather than just the articles it is disambiguating between, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries "Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine which page they are looking for; these pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific place". Thanks/wangi 22:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, the multi-stub page is at present a legitimate page type. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now USS Merrimack has been changed back to a bare list. This is useless. Suppose I have a reference to a Merrimack shipwrecked off Cape Cod. How do I find it using this page?

If it would stop useful pages being stripped of their text to conform to some straightjacket of style, perhaps we could remove the {{disambig}} template from these ship index pages? Gdr 00:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gdr, my main beef isn't with the overly long descriptions (although they were far too long - what do you think of the edit i've just done?), but rather with the wikilinking of other terms in the page. Why do you feel this is neccessary? As I said above it goes against the consensus here of only wikilinking to the disabiguated articles. Any other wikilink simply gets in the way. Thanks/wangi

It's better now. But date ranges are not conventional for ships as they are for people: you need to specify "laid down" "launched", "purchased", or "commissioned" for the first date, and "sunk", "decomissioned", "sold", "broken up" or whatever for the second date (we can't just assume "birth" and "death" as we can with people). Also, you are missing the shared information that these are all ships of the United States Navy and that they are all named after the Merrimack River.

The reason for linking in ship index articles are the same as for any other article: a link indicates that the other article exists and provides a quick way of getting there. In my opinion it is a serious mistake for MoS:DP to be so severe on the subject of links. Links in disambiguation pages do no harm and may do some good. After all, someone who has typed "USS Merrimack" in the search box may well be looking for CSS Virginia. Why make that person click twice instead of once? You can see from the complaints above and elsewhere that I'm not the only editor to feel this way.

Maybe a change in the wording of MoS:DP is needed? It could suggest reducing the number of links instead of requiring eliminating them. Gdr 01:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so that's moving on to a much broader topic - by all means start a discussion here about the wikilinking issue and see if you can gain consensus for such a change. However what we normally see doing dab work is folk being very vocal and then once they've read and thought through MoS:DP they start to understand the reasons behind it.

I've added info re the USN and river to the dab page. I still can't see that a dab page requires the level of detail on dates that you imply. Thanks/wangi 01:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not level of detail, it's plain accuracy. You can't just put dates next to some noun and expect the reader to understand what they mean unless there's a commonly understood convention, which there is in the case of people, but not in the case of ships. Gdr 11:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gdr, the issue of secondary wikilinks on dab pages has come up over and over and over again. The current suggestion in the guideline that there be one link per line has survived many discussions up to this point. As far as bare links on a dab page, it is a terrible mistake to have bare links on a ship-topic disambiguation page for exactly the reasons you've provided; the point is that the dab page is a navigational aid and there should be sufficient information on the page to provide people with ammunition enough to make the right choice for them at any particular time. Having additional wikilinks does not assist in this choice making process, but longer than average descriptive lines does. I do disagree with wangi on the matter of ship names not being special; ship names are special because it appears that the need for disambiguation hits a FAR higher % of article titles in this topic space than any other that I've seen, so much so that disambiguation seems almost the rule rather than the exception. Considering the magnitude of the ship name issue I don't see a problem in carving out some special space for this topic in the dab universe ... but I wouldn't go so far as relaxing the one-link-per-line guideline. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any fact about the subject of an article may be the one that disambiguates this thing for a particular reader, but responding to that would require putting the full articles on a disambiguation page! The disambiguation page needs enough information to make the difference clear. If someone still can't tell which article they seek, then they will just have to click on two or more links and do a bit of reading. Perhaps this will prompt them to disambiguate the link which brought them to the dab page in the first place. Remember: a link to a disambiguation page is a broken link. —Michael Z. 2005-12-31 19:47 Z

Why do I have difficulty finding a "suggested format for ship disambiguation articles ... given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships"? Or is the ship index page another name for a disambiguation page? No wonder we can't agree on very much. If they are different things, why should a ship index page have a disambiguation template? Should we have a different template, so people trying to clean up disambiguation pages don't 1) waste their time and energy and 2) get vilified for it ("stupid thing to have done")? I'm a volunteer, and I wouldn't put up with such abuse even if I were being paid. Can't we make this easier? Chris the speller 04:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page meant was Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), which is linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Naming conventions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That has not answered my question. Those two ship pages use "index page" here, and "disambiguation page" there, not making it clear which is which. Or are they the same thing, in which case why do we need two names for the same type of page? If they are different things, and a "index page" for ships has a format different from that of a "disambiguation page", is there a template other than "disambig" for use on a ship's "index page"? That would be a clue for disambig-fixers to steer clear. At the very least, any disambig page that needs a different format because it is a ship should include a nondisplayable comment at the top to warn dismbig-fixers. Chris the speller 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The multi-stub page is described on WP:D, even though it's something totally different from any pages described by this MOS — and that's what these ship pages are. Maybe they need a different name. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships has a suggested format for a page listing several ships with the same name. Please bear in mind that this format was worked out long before people started to get picky about disambiguation page format, so it's not reasonable for you to expect the ship index page format to conform to the disambiguation page rules.

So how do we stop editors blindly (but in good faith) making a mess of ship index articles and other pages which have more text or links than the straightjacket of MoS:DP demands? It would be nice not to have to change the {{disambig}} template on thousands of ship index pages: after all, it was there long before MoS:DP was written. It would be much better to change the MoS:DP guidelines. Perhaps a simple note of this form: "WikiProjects have their own guidelines for disambiguation pages; for example many articles listing ships with the same name follow the format recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Please respect the conventions of these WikiProjects when editing these disambiguation pages." Gdr 02:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar problem on Akira to those outlined above. The initial edit by Tedernst (t c) was very severe, removing far too much information, including nearly all context of the dab entries and removing the page from its category. I reverted and left a note for Ted on his talk page. We then discussed the situation on Talk:Akira, but did not come to a reasonable compromise until others stepped in. The initial very severe edit was overly strict in my opinion, since it removed far too much information. While I believe Ted did it in good faith, and we had a clear and reasonable discussion about it, I don't think this kind of cleanup is advisable for most disambig pages. If the policy or MoS supports these kinds of edits, it needs to be revised. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freakofnurture reverts of Tedernst: mediation needed?

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Freakofnurture reverts of Tedernst: mediation needed?

TLA discussion

moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories#TLA discussion

TLA poll

moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories#TLA poll

Disambiguation subcategory and template poll

moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories#Disambiguation subcategory and template poll

Why multiple wikilinks in dab pages are evil

Here's a good example that I just tripped over. I was looking for some information on Network Time Protocol. I typed NTP into a search box and got to this dab page. Great, the first entry is exactly what I'm looking for, an article called Network Time Protocol (computer science). So I clicked on it and got taken to Computer science. Wrong place! -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your saying that you clicked fast and therefor clicked wrong, correct? That having only one link on a line would not present a "speed bump" in your progress to the desired article, yes? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying (I'll admit, I was somewhat vague in my original comment) is that I didn't even realize there were two different links. I saw a bunch of blue underlined text, and I clicked on it. There was no visual indication that it was actually two links, one to Network Time Protocol, and the other to Computer science. Had there just been a single link to Network Time Protocol (as there is now), there wouldn't have been any confusion. This was a particularly egregious example, since there were not only two links, but two links abutting each other with no visual indication that they weren't a single link. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was a particularly badly-formatted example, masquerading as a series of disambiguated article titles. The MOS also says you should have more text than links, and this is good practice in general—when nothing separates linked words, it starts to get hard to tell what you're clicking on. —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 23:42 Z

Parallel policy

This is a parallel policy to Wikipedia:Disambiguation and should be deleted. The amount this policy has drifted is unbelievable and the results are horrible. The standard example for disambiguation used to be mercury. Go to talk:mercury for further discussion. Bensaccount 16:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of this policy do you feel contradict Wikipedia:Disambiguation? By your recent edits at Mercury, it seems you don't understand the way a disambiguation page is supposed to work as an interface for resolving ambiguous links. By "supposed to" I mean what is supported by the consensus. —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 17:50 Z

What is presented here is not policy but guideline; what is presented at Wikipedia:Disambiguation is also not policy, but guideline. Let's not get too twisted out of shape for something that, because it is not policy is inherently only a suggestion and only marginally enforcable (except with clubs and strong words, as has been happening recently - which I think we (myself included) have taken too far, unfortunately). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I'd like to know which part of the guideline Bensaccount thinks justifies deleting this page. —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 23:44 Z

I just read on User talk:Wahoofive where User:Bensaccount has blamed Wahoo for "creating a huge mess out of disambiguation" as a general activity. I think User:Bensaccount needs to explain this attack here. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:D says "Don't wikilink any other words", and MoS:DP says "don't wikilink any other words in the line". The edits by Bensaccount depart completely from both pages, and from the consensus of the disambig-fixers, then he complains that the two guidelines disagree, and that one should be obliterated. One who does not cooperate with the group should not expect the group to do an immediate about-face and follow him. Chris the speller 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else cares to have a look. Bensaccount has restored to Mercury what he calls "context", replete with multiple links and heavy use of bolding. older≠wiser 01:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was it written in stone that these highly flawed "styles" must be applied so that disambiguation pages no longer provide context, just a random association of words? (My estimate is around Oct 20). Bensaccount 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages should provide context, and in my experience most of them do. In fact, this guideline explicitly says that. However, excessive context hurts readability, which is harmful since a disambiguation page is merely a stepping stone to the page the user actually wanted. Similarly, disambiguation pages should link to other pages only when the page might be what the user wanted. The normal Wikipedia policy of liberal use of links is not desirable as this detracts from the user finding the correct page quickly. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 02:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it explicitly say that? Even if it did say that (which it doesn't) all the examples are of context being explicitly removed in favour of a vague, unexplained association of words. Also, most disambiguation pages were made before this flawed 'style guide' was written. Bensaccount 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a specific entry is indeed a "vague, unexplained association of words", improve it. However, your behavior here and there is not conducive to improvement of Wikipedia. If you don't like something, explain why — in detail. And be prepared for disagreement. For policy to have changed, enough people must have thought the changes a good idea, after all. Having a fit involving "I want everything put back the way I remember it!" doesn't really advance the discussion. Conciseness and to-the-point-ness are important goals in a disambiguation page, and the current guidelines have helped that a great deal. It must be stressed that readers don't want to be at a disambiguation page. It's our job to get them to the page they wanted as quickly as possible. Certainly, guidelines can always be improved upon; I hope you'll help in that process. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is so terribly important, but the earliest version of this page from May 2, 2005, is not that terribly different than it is now. The biggest difference is that bolding of terms has been deprecated. And from the very first day of its existence, April 5, 2002, Wikipedia:Disambiguation contained the following text:

If a disambiguating page is merited, it can be as simple as a bullet list of specific articles with links and perhaps a brief one-line description of each (saving details for the specific articles), or it might have some explanatory text of its own if differences need to be explained, or if there is interesting history of the term itself independent of the specific topics.

This was about the greatest extent of stylistic guidance provided on that page. There was very little elaboration on this for the next two years or so. As I recall, the MoS page was initially an attempt to provide some suggestions for persons creating dab pages, as over time a large degree of stylistic variations had arisen. The general idea motivating the style guide (and which is the raison d'etre for most style guides) is that too much stylistic variation gives an impression of poor quality control. The guideline is not intended to be a hard and fast rule, but through extensive discussions amongst a number of interested parties, some understanding and conventions have arisen. There's still lots of disagreement over the details, but there has been relatively little objections to the general outline of the stylistic guidelines here. older≠wiser 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The basic motivator (as, I see, has already been noted) was to avoid variation in dab page formatting. It was intended to reflect a reasonable amount of disambiguation page formattings at the time: bullet points, for example. Guidelines on the project page became generally intended to make the reader's search as fast as possible — within seconds. Hence, the placing of links as the first word of the line, without piping, for example, is encouraged.

There is a fundamental difference between WP:DAB and this page. WP:DAB explains what disambiguation is, and how it works. This page recommends a formatting for the pages themselves.

We assume the reader knows what he is looking for. Place names, therefore, require nothing mroe than a link. Concepts and objects are meant to have a short description after them. Nothing more than what is necessary for a reader to find his place quickly is included. A disambiguation page is not intended to foster exploration, and it is certainly not intended to teach. It is intended to get a reader to where he wants to be.

As we all understand, exceptions arise from time to time and the manual must be applied with a degree of elasticity.

I, by the way, was the one who initially brought up the idea of standardising dab pages (though my activity in the project quickly became severely limited, to say the least). Neonumbers 04:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standardising some entries

Just wondering, could some of descriptions for the entries be standardised throughout disambig pages? Items such as novels, albums, songs and films could both be consistent and concise at the same time. Revolving around a ficticious and hypothetical band, I suggest implementing something like this:

Untitled (album), a 1990 music album by Big Shot Band
Untitled's Greatest Hits, a 2001 compilation album by Big Shot Band
15 Years Later, a 2005 boxset by Big Shot Band
Untitled: A Biography, a 2003 biography written by Stephen King
Untitled in the Movies!, a 2006 film directed by John Woo based on the above book

And another question that I have here is that since entries like albums are supposed to be in italics, should songs also be in quotation marks and piped (not masked) at the same time, per the MoS? :) Regards, Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 18:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's particularly worthwhile to try to standardize the appearance of entries any more rigidly. There are just too many exceptions, and few entries really could fit in the format of (date) (genre) by (artist). We're having a hard enough time enforcing the standards we already have.
It's possible to go too far with the italicization and stuff. The WP:MOS guidelines (as well as dead-tree style manuals) are intended for use in text, not lists or tables (which these dab pages are). Furthermore, the entry Untitled (album) in this context isn't the name of an album; it's the name of an article. We're providing a list of articles, so the typesetting rules are different. However, italics are certainly appropriate with an entry like

Lasagna (song), a song from the 2007 musical Garfield Goes to Mars

—Wahoofive (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. :) From my observation, actually most music albums do fit in the category of (year) (type of album) by (artist), genre and whether it's the debut/second/third/fourth album need not be mentioned. This is the case for disambig pages that have quite a number of albums and songs in the list, like Music (disambiguation) or Island (disambiguation). For individual entries that fall into the albums/songs/novels/films category, we could have a guideline for them and avoid the problems as seen earlier in this talk page. Anyways if amending the MoS doesn't seem like a good idea, adding a few more examples about albums should be enough I suppose. If we're having a hard time enforcing it, it's all the more to write it down in stone. :)

I see what you mean, then the issue of italics and quotation marks for albums and songs respectively should be mentioned in the MoS I believe, as I have been refering with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) for my edits all of these while. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 20:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though, if there was just a note saying, it might be worth including the year of release of an album/single/film, just like there is for people's birth/death dates, would that be a worthwhile addition? I'd find the year of release helps.

I think, but I am not sure, that by convention, song names go in quotation marks and album names go in italics. I'm not sure, and this is a bit unrelated (an addition to the manual will only be sought if this statements is actually true) — but is that how things work? Neonumbers 05:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music#Albums, bands, and songs. — Catherine\^talk 06:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms and words

What are folks opinions on what to do in the case of, for example SAGE and Sage? One an acronym and another a word - one disambig page or two? We're having a discussion on a proposed merge at Talk:Sage (disambiguation). Thanks/wangi 21:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer one. Tedernst | talk 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations:

Usually, there should be just one page for all cases (upper- or lower-case), e.g. MB for MB, mB, mb, Mb.

If you disagree, contest it there or at WP:D. But note the term "usually" allows for exceptions, and none of the cited examples is a stand-alone word like "sage". —Wahoofive (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case of the stand-alone word should be pointed out explicitly, as it is currently ambiguous. I have started a discussion on Wikipedia Talk:Disambiguation and abbreviations. --TreyHarris 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dab subcategories

Please vote in the polls here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories Tedernst | talk 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leading line

The leading line is not necessary. State what you think its purpose is here. Bensaccount 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For readers of Wikipedia, especially ones who read it rarely, it is useful as a user interface component: it looks like an entry you might come across in a reference book. Without the leading line, the user will not know what he or she is looking at until reading the dab template at the bottom. You yourself seem to feel that head-weighting of context is important, from your other comments. It holds even more true for the entire page than it does for individual lines on the page.

I'm reverting you. This is not a change that should happen without discussion. --TreyHarris 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those that are not familiar with dab pages, the leading line serves as a short introduction to accomodate the user and make the page more accessible. In short, it helps the user to more quickly realize the purpose of the page. Even for those who are familiar with dab pages, such as myself, I think it is a welcome addition. --Pagrashtak 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link in first word

If people knew which link they wanted they would have typed it directly into the search box or link. The reason they are at the disambig page is because they don't know the name of the article about the subject they are looking for. Putting the context first allows them to figure it out without having to decipher the meaning of links (which often aren't very self-explanatory). Bensaccount 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting context first just creates more text that a user must wade through before getting to the actual link. By presenting unpiped links in general, users can usually scan the links themselves and find the correct article without having to read any context whatsoever. If I'm looking for an article about a specific book, which of these makes it easier to find the article I want?

XXXXX (video game)
XXXXX (novel)
XXXXX (plumbing fixture)
XXXXX (movie)

or

Released in 1985, XXXXX is a video game about lighting fixtures
Written by Shakespear's brother, XXXXX is a classic story about the life of pigeons
Sinks drain twice as fast when equipped with XXXXX fixtures
Alfred Smith plays the character of Rusty Bottles in XXXXX, a western set in the east

?? In the first example, I can go right to the desired link with great speed. In the second example, I have to wade through a bunch of stuff I don't care about to find the article I do care about. In short, placing the unpiped link at the start of each item makes the dab page incredibly easy to use. --Pagrashtak 02:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, putting the links at the start of the line makes an easily scannable list of links, and text descriptions should also ideally be short enough to scan easily. I do sometimes make sure context is near the front of the line if it's not part of the link text, i.e.: "Gerbleflop, in electrical engineering, is....", but only when it adds clarity rather than clutter. — Catherine\^talk 02:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short, meaningful context is fine after the unpiped link, with restrictions on what is linked within. I didn't include it in the example above only because the unpiped links are enough in that case. --Pagrashtak 02:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, making an easily scannable list of links was the purpose of having all links as the first word in the line to begin with. Furthermore, the unpiped link is often, though not always, enough; just in case the reader needs that extra bit of help, we put a short description after the link. Neonumbers 05:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more reason: usability studies have found that rows or columns of links are easier for less accomplished computer users to manage than links spread throughout text. The current dab page style gives a nice long column of links to click, so that readers (especially those with disabilities or the elderly) don't have to feel like they're playing a shooter game to click on the right one. I'm sure somebody has logs that could verify this, but I'll bet that a large fraction of our readers (as opposed to editors) just jump on, look something up, and then go away again. They're not "exploring" or clicking on too many links. We should make using Wikipedia easy for this type of reader, too. --TreyHarris 05:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unpiped links up front are sufficient in many, many cases, and make it easy to scan down the page. For an example of how easy it is to leave readers out in the cold by ignoring MoS:DP, look at my message about Freddie Mercury at Talk:Mercury. Chris the speller 06:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk tsk. Such a volume of explanation, repeating what the WP and MOS already say. All to appease one editor, who has read them, and refuses to agree. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 08:17 Z

It so happens that I am looking for a biochemist named Walker who is known for certain protein motifs (Walker motifs A and B). Perhaps you can help me, heres the link Walker. Bensaccount 02:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that person is not on the list? No "Walker" is listed at List of geneticists and biochemists or at List of biochemists or Category:Biochemists. I assume you're referring to John E. Walker. Not that this would have helped, but I think it is a mistake that the John Walker disambig page is not linked to from the Walker disambig page. And it is certainly a mistake that you could not get to J.E. Walker (either directly or indirectly) from the Walker page. But a missing link has nothing to do with the stylistic guidelines of the MOS. older≠wiser 02:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this points out an area we do need to develop some guidance on (or maybe it's is there and I have missed it). I know this has been talked about before, for example by linking to an index of person articles by sorted by last name. I mean, not only is the list of John Walkers on Walker very incomplete, but so are the George Walkers and there appears to be some discrepency with the list at David Walker (disambiguation) and Michael Walker shows an even bigger disconnect. Then there is also Scott Walker and William Walker, which also show discrepencies. older≠wiser 02:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't notice it was the same John E Walker involved in DNA discovery. Bensaccount 03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this so many times it makes me snooze. Walker should NOT have a list of everyone whose first name or last name happens to be Walker. That belongs on the List of people by name. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, WP:MOSDAB is confusing on this matter. This section specifically says how to format dab pages for names. If it has been agreed upon to use LoPbN instead, perhaps you can help revise this section, as it makes no mention of LoPbN currently. --Pagrashtak 03:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed wording for MoS:DP

So how do we stop editors blindly (but in good faith) making a mess of ship index articles and other pages which have more text or links than the straightjacket of MoS:DP demands? I can see two plausible solutions:

Change the {{disambig}} template on ship index pages to something different. This would be somewhat tedious (there are thousands of such pages), and a bit of a shame: after all, it was there long before MoS:DP was written.
Change the MoS:DP guidelines. Perhaps a simple note of this form: "WikiProjects may have their own guidelines for disambiguation pages; for example many articles listing ships with the same name follow the format recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Please respect the conventions of these WikiProjects when editing these disambiguation pages."

Thoughts? Gdr 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gdr, perhaps you could give us an example of a "model" ship disambiguation page, because I thought we reach a consensus above with USS Merrimack? In your example perhaps you could explain the need for any differences to the DP MoS guideline? Thanks/wangi 13:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think HMS Resolution, HMS Cornwall, HMS Hermione, and USS Enterprise are about right in their level of detail and use of links (though years could be unlinked without harm, and Resolution probably ought to say a bit more about which wars and battles the ships are notable for taking part in). Multi-stub pages like HMS Newcastle could probably be split if someone were willing to put in the time and effort.

Remember that these pages are not "pure" disambiguation pages, but capsule histories of the use of a ship name in a navy. That's why it's appropriate to make more links than a pure disambiguation page. If this means that the {{disambig}} template is no longer inappropriate, then I think that's a shame, but it would be possible to change it. Gdr 15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me these articles you cite would be better as "History of XXX" and leave the main name to be an actual dab, with links just to the ships and the history page. Tedernst | talk 16:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a pointless duplication of work. The current design for ship index articles allows the same article to do both jobs well. Gdr 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gdr, I'll focus on HMS Cornwall - can you compare the original page and a version I have edited to be more in line with the guidelines at User:Wangi/HMS Cornwall? Why do you think it neccessary to include additional wikilinks, hide the disambiguated ship name using piping and not list the disambiguated link first? These guidelines are part of MoS:DP, and I cannot see any reason to ignore them in this instance.

The whole point of this guideline is consistency, and I cannot see any reason why it doesn't work in this case. Thanks/wangi 16:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to defend every comma of this page; everything can be improved. However:

You've cut the "first, second, third". (Numbering the list will work in this case, but not in many other cases.)
You've lost the meaning for the date. Launched, purchased, commissioned, or captured?
You've cut the links. What's a Monmouth-class cruiser? What happened at the Dardanelles? What was the Spanish Succession?

The last point is really the key. Someone reading the history of HMS Cornwall is very likely to be interested in these events (I know I am). Why make me click on the link for the ship, search through the article to find the relevant event (which may be described in a different way), and then click on a link there? The beauty of wikitext is that we can put links in to explain names and other references. Gdr 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely in favor of changing "diambig" templates to "shipindex" or "shipdisambig" templates, and am willing to help in the grunt work of switching them, if that is what we decide. Too many editors will miss the ship exception notices in WP:D and MoS:DP if we don't do something to make a ship index page look less like just another disambig page. Chris the speller 17:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gdr, I think you're missing the point of a disambiguation page - it's only trying to give enough info to let the reader proceed to the page they want. It's not an article. Wikilinking all over the shop on a disambig page only helps to cloud the issue and confuse matters.

Chris, what are the differences you see here - I cannot see a reason for ship articles to be a special case (other than an easy ride!) when the main reason for this guideline is consistency and it seems applicable... Thanks/wangi 17:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If shipindex is created, it should NOT be a subcat of disambig. If there are disambig pages, then just use this MoS and leave it at that. Tedernst | talk 17:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like a short article on Ships named Cornwall is desirable. A standard disambiguation page could have this article as its first entry, or linked from the introduction line. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 17:37 Z

If it is now considered that the only point of a disambiguation page is to link to the articles that share the name, then ship index pages are no longer disambiguation pages and I guess we should change them.

But if your main justification is consistency, I think that's pretty weak. I'd rather be able to find out what happened at the Dardanelles in one click than have a consistent lack of links. Gdr 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ship index articles are not disambig in the new, strict sense that has evolved. "Ships named Cornwall" seems a silly duplication of work that has already been done. I'm leaning towards the "shipindex" type of template, if the MoS for the disambig are unrelenting. (The jab about an "easy ride" is just weird, Wangi. I have no idea why you think that the work that has been done was in any way easy or unnecessary.) Jinian 02:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

index to archives

I've just attempted an indexing of themes. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/index of archives This includes everything now in archives 1-10. It does not include talk about specific pages unless the conversation was more general as well (and I might've missed the general issues in the specific conversations). Is this a useful tool for avoiding talking about the same issues over and over again? I'll attempt to keep it updated as more archive pages are created. Of course others are welcome to help. Tedernst | talk 18:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a dab page or something else?

Given the recent discussions, I wonder where opinions will lie regarding Grosse Pointe. It obviously departs considerably from the MOS. I think I originally created this as a simple dab page, but it has accumulated a lot of information since then, that is pretty much all directly relevent to the topic. This term may be somewhat unique in that all of the uses of the term are really tied to a single geographic area. Perhaps this should remain as an article and a separate Grosse Pointe (disambiguation) be set up that conforms more closely to the MOS? older≠wiser 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dab page. Unlike real dab pages all the meanings are closely related. Most of the information on the page could refer to any of the meanings. I'd suggest taking off the disambig template and, if desired, reorganizing it (although there's no rule that a non-dab page can't resemble a dab). —Wahoofive (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]