![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
There are a number of distinct meanings for Bugs that aren't the plural of Bug, but equally Bugs may in fact be a link that merely wants the plural. I've just realised that my link from Bugs (disambiguation) to Bug (disambiguation) might not be appropriate, if a DabBot picks it. Should plurals link the the (disambiguation) page or to the ambiguous page? Josh Parris ✉ 04:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm working on Note (disambiguation) presently. In this case the term can be either a noun or a verb, both of which require reference in Wikipedia. I've not seen here or in the MoS article mention of best practice in segregating parts of speech on a disambiguation page and I'm wondering if anyone has given this some thought sufficient for proposal as an addition to the usage guideline. Thanks for the input. Courtland 13:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I modified the lead entry to conform to MoS (see sec. "Linking back to the main article"). But is there any real value in separating the links for the "boot" from the links for "boots"? For two words so closely related, would it not be better to just organize by subject? As an example of what I mean, see Island (disambiguation) which I reorganized and reformatted to MoS standard. The "island" and "islands" are intermingled. — Mike 10:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
This is related to Note (disambiguation). I had bolded the wikilinks on the page as a matter of emphasizing them for users. This was changed back to non-bold by User:Wahoofive.
Could we (risking the label of instruction creepist) have an addition to the guidelines on the main page here that says something like "Font format for entry: Wikilinks to articles that the disambiguation page refers to should be in plain type (not bold, not italics, not underlined). Each such term should appear at the front of a line and font embellishment in addition to first-word placement should not be required for emphasis."
Thanks for considering this.
Courtland 12:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I note that this was a topic of discussion previously ... see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)/Archive_1#Bolding. Courtland 13:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
This might have been addressed elsewhere ...
I previously revised DOI and more recently re-revised it to bring it in line with the stylistic guidelines. My question has to do with the usage of "DoI" in addition to "DOI". In the previous incarnation, I had treated the capitalisation variance as a separate term; in the present format I've incorporated that variance into the proper line item. This is an example of a class of terms, not all of which are acronyms (for instance, "Perl" vs. "perl", "Battleship" (the game) vs. "battleship" (the vessel), etc.). I wanted to bring up this as a point of discussion and see if people have opinions on how it should be treated. It is unlikely that this rises to the level of begging for inclusion in the guideline itelf.
Regards, Courtland 13:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The talk page associated with FAC has discussion on the matter of linking outside the main article space. I'm of the opinion that links outside the article namespace should not be part of the disambiguation article. However, there are cases where it would be useful to provide a navigational aid. Would it be useful, you think, to have a template created that provides a link to Wikipedia space similar in concept and implementation to the Wiktionary link used on many disambiguation pages? Courtland 13:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC) (follow-up: I ended up converting this from a DAB to a REDIRECT pointing at WP:FAC owing to the red-links for the article-space targets. Courtland 00:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC))
See, for example, San Lorenzo and Santa Cruz: long templates down the right-hand side listing other places with "San" or "Santa" in the name. Pointless interference or harmless adornment? –Hajor 20:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
San Ambrosius |
---|
Preceded by: San Ambidextera, San Ambiguosa, San Amblethwaite, San Amblyopia |
Followed by: San Ambulancia, San Amburger, San Ammonium, San Amphetamania |
Personally, I don't mind the navigation template on the right side that much, even if I wouldn't have created it. If it helps maintain the pages and keep them consistent, why not keep it? An alternative might be a saint disambiguation page template (e.g. {{Saintdisambig}}). Pages listing saints with the same and places named after them share some characteristics. For a brief discussion, see Talk:Saint John. -- User:Docu
It's a digression from the original topic, but I've noticed series boxes getting used in all sorts of places where I (personal opinion here) think they detract more than add to the page. For example, look at J/24. The two series nav boxes overwhelm the actual text. The page is more about how to get to other related pages (most of which don't even exist yet) than the subject itself. Maybe we need a Wiipedia: Manual of Style (nav boxes), but that's another project. RoySmith 15:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Should each line have a terminating full stop? I thought there was a wiki project running around fixing syntax problems like that, but now I can't find them. Josh Parris ✉ 01:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
In many cases where a disambig has somewhere between five and ten links, it's impractical to organize links by subject area, but IMO it's natural to use a more fundamental distinction: that between common and proper nouns. I've been using the somewhat unwieldly "Common-noun meanings" and "Proper-noun meanings", but I'd like to come up with a better formula. Comments? -- Smack ( talk) 02:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest somehting like: " Foo can have several meanings, including:
Foo is also the name of several people, including:
I hope this suggestion is helpful. DES (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
More from the San/Santa series. Please take a look at these two versions of Santa Rosa:
On this sort of geographical listing, is it preferable to leave the links unpiped, so editors see exactly where they are headed (principle of least astonishment, as on example No. 1), or is it better to pipe the links? I prefer the second approach: additional information can be given (eg, the Brazil listing there on No. 2, which also indicates the state); avoids duplicating information that has already been given (eg, the listing for Santa Rosa, Argentina, which we already know is in Argentina because it's under that heading); and it helps achieve more uniformity in the presentation and layout ("* cityname, provincename, comments," in a logical progression for all the entries). –Hajor 15:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. But please take a look at Santa Rosa as she now stands, with no pipe-links. Under Brazil we have:
And under Colombia:
Which (thank heaven for the US comma convention!) would be the equivalent of:
Hideous mish-mashed presentations like that are going to be common until we agree on a standard naming pattern for other countries' cities (I recently tried: see Talk:Venezuela and Talk:Brazil). They could be hidden by pipe linking, but the Project Page tells me no.
Your warning against "additional information" -- does that apply to the additional info. given there in the Colombian listings (ie, the department name)? Indicating the subnational entity a city's in also strikes me as a particularly good idea when the link is still a redlink -- clicking through to the province is better than having nowhere to go, isn't it? –Hajor 23:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
There are a number of distinct meanings for Bugs that aren't the plural of Bug, but equally Bugs may in fact be a link that merely wants the plural. I've just realised that my link from Bugs (disambiguation) to Bug (disambiguation) might not be appropriate, if a DabBot picks it. Should plurals link the the (disambiguation) page or to the ambiguous page? Josh Parris ✉ 04:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm working on Note (disambiguation) presently. In this case the term can be either a noun or a verb, both of which require reference in Wikipedia. I've not seen here or in the MoS article mention of best practice in segregating parts of speech on a disambiguation page and I'm wondering if anyone has given this some thought sufficient for proposal as an addition to the usage guideline. Thanks for the input. Courtland 13:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I modified the lead entry to conform to MoS (see sec. "Linking back to the main article"). But is there any real value in separating the links for the "boot" from the links for "boots"? For two words so closely related, would it not be better to just organize by subject? As an example of what I mean, see Island (disambiguation) which I reorganized and reformatted to MoS standard. The "island" and "islands" are intermingled. — Mike 10:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
This is related to Note (disambiguation). I had bolded the wikilinks on the page as a matter of emphasizing them for users. This was changed back to non-bold by User:Wahoofive.
Could we (risking the label of instruction creepist) have an addition to the guidelines on the main page here that says something like "Font format for entry: Wikilinks to articles that the disambiguation page refers to should be in plain type (not bold, not italics, not underlined). Each such term should appear at the front of a line and font embellishment in addition to first-word placement should not be required for emphasis."
Thanks for considering this.
Courtland 12:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I note that this was a topic of discussion previously ... see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)/Archive_1#Bolding. Courtland 13:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
This might have been addressed elsewhere ...
I previously revised DOI and more recently re-revised it to bring it in line with the stylistic guidelines. My question has to do with the usage of "DoI" in addition to "DOI". In the previous incarnation, I had treated the capitalisation variance as a separate term; in the present format I've incorporated that variance into the proper line item. This is an example of a class of terms, not all of which are acronyms (for instance, "Perl" vs. "perl", "Battleship" (the game) vs. "battleship" (the vessel), etc.). I wanted to bring up this as a point of discussion and see if people have opinions on how it should be treated. It is unlikely that this rises to the level of begging for inclusion in the guideline itelf.
Regards, Courtland 13:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The talk page associated with FAC has discussion on the matter of linking outside the main article space. I'm of the opinion that links outside the article namespace should not be part of the disambiguation article. However, there are cases where it would be useful to provide a navigational aid. Would it be useful, you think, to have a template created that provides a link to Wikipedia space similar in concept and implementation to the Wiktionary link used on many disambiguation pages? Courtland 13:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC) (follow-up: I ended up converting this from a DAB to a REDIRECT pointing at WP:FAC owing to the red-links for the article-space targets. Courtland 00:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC))
See, for example, San Lorenzo and Santa Cruz: long templates down the right-hand side listing other places with "San" or "Santa" in the name. Pointless interference or harmless adornment? –Hajor 20:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
San Ambrosius |
---|
Preceded by: San Ambidextera, San Ambiguosa, San Amblethwaite, San Amblyopia |
Followed by: San Ambulancia, San Amburger, San Ammonium, San Amphetamania |
Personally, I don't mind the navigation template on the right side that much, even if I wouldn't have created it. If it helps maintain the pages and keep them consistent, why not keep it? An alternative might be a saint disambiguation page template (e.g. {{Saintdisambig}}). Pages listing saints with the same and places named after them share some characteristics. For a brief discussion, see Talk:Saint John. -- User:Docu
It's a digression from the original topic, but I've noticed series boxes getting used in all sorts of places where I (personal opinion here) think they detract more than add to the page. For example, look at J/24. The two series nav boxes overwhelm the actual text. The page is more about how to get to other related pages (most of which don't even exist yet) than the subject itself. Maybe we need a Wiipedia: Manual of Style (nav boxes), but that's another project. RoySmith 15:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Should each line have a terminating full stop? I thought there was a wiki project running around fixing syntax problems like that, but now I can't find them. Josh Parris ✉ 01:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
In many cases where a disambig has somewhere between five and ten links, it's impractical to organize links by subject area, but IMO it's natural to use a more fundamental distinction: that between common and proper nouns. I've been using the somewhat unwieldly "Common-noun meanings" and "Proper-noun meanings", but I'd like to come up with a better formula. Comments? -- Smack ( talk) 02:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest somehting like: " Foo can have several meanings, including:
Foo is also the name of several people, including:
I hope this suggestion is helpful. DES (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
More from the San/Santa series. Please take a look at these two versions of Santa Rosa:
On this sort of geographical listing, is it preferable to leave the links unpiped, so editors see exactly where they are headed (principle of least astonishment, as on example No. 1), or is it better to pipe the links? I prefer the second approach: additional information can be given (eg, the Brazil listing there on No. 2, which also indicates the state); avoids duplicating information that has already been given (eg, the listing for Santa Rosa, Argentina, which we already know is in Argentina because it's under that heading); and it helps achieve more uniformity in the presentation and layout ("* cityname, provincename, comments," in a logical progression for all the entries). –Hajor 15:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. But please take a look at Santa Rosa as she now stands, with no pipe-links. Under Brazil we have:
And under Colombia:
Which (thank heaven for the US comma convention!) would be the equivalent of:
Hideous mish-mashed presentations like that are going to be common until we agree on a standard naming pattern for other countries' cities (I recently tried: see Talk:Venezuela and Talk:Brazil). They could be hidden by pipe linking, but the Project Page tells me no.
Your warning against "additional information" -- does that apply to the additional info. given there in the Colombian listings (ie, the department name)? Indicating the subnational entity a city's in also strikes me as a particularly good idea when the link is still a redlink -- clicking through to the province is better than having nowhere to go, isn't it? –Hajor 23:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)