Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Disambiguation | ||||
|
Anyone object if I remove all the "in" placements in this essay? Using "in" before most categories and subcategories seems to be an uncommon practice. I'm just wanting to avoid confusion and ensure consistency in the future. There was a brief discussion about it here:
Thanks Dig Deeper ( talk) 17:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I see there's no mention of the People with the surname/given name sections that MOS:DABNAME allows for. Is that intentional? -- Fyrael ( talk) 19:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
There should be a "don't" added in the dos and dont's: a minimum of 2 entries in an individual section (not counting remnant sections like "other" and "see also"). It's kinda pointless to create a subject area and put only one thing in there. This should be self evident but it isn't. There are plenty disambiguation pages with only one item. So I suggest a stronger effort to discourage it by explicitly prescribing it in the rules or recommendations --Loginnigol ( talk) 18:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This essay has some WP:OWNership problems from Swpb. They formulated it as they saw fit (without demonstrating consensus) and revert anything they disagree with with instructions for the objector to "get consensus" or "get strong consensus" (whatever the difference between those things are). Where was the consensus for this version? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
JHunterJ, the guideline to never include characters under People looked correct to me. When do you think it would be appropriate to mix those two? -- Fyrael ( talk) 13:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS:LONGDAB and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#MOS:LONGDAB until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Bagumba ( talk) 09:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Make this page a guideline rather than an explanatory essay. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The page currently gives the following advice:
Order sections alphabetically unless there is a clear reason not to. (This is the easiest order to recognize – importance, for example, is usually too subjective.)
Of course, alphabetical order is a good default, but there are too many situations where different orders would be more appropriate and I don't think it's a good idea to advise against them. For example, thematically similar sections should usually be next to each other: say, if there are separate sections for maths and for science, it's best to keep them one after the other (rather than have "Organisations", "Places" and "People" in-between), or if there are two separate sections for films and for TV series, you don't want them to be separated by everything else in the dab. Another factor is popularity of entries (as judged from clickthroughs [1]): I often find it that a majority of visitors of a dab would come for a small number of entries, and in that case it makes sense to shorten the most common navigational paths by arranging the sections in such a way that those entries will be near the top (rather than buried at the bottom).
I imagine it can be argued that the situations I'm enumerating simply exemplify the clear reason
s for occasionally departing from alphabetical order, but in my experience these are so common that it will be counterproductive to have even weak recommendations against them. –
Uanfala (
talk) 18:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This page ends up with a rather convoluted-looking
table of contents for the example scheme. There are several things that we can do to simplify it, but the most obvious first step is to get the warnings, like [Avoid words like "(popular) culture" and "society"; they are too vague.]
, out of the section headings and into the body of the given section. Any thoughts? –
Uanfala (
talk) 19:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Swpb and I strongly disagree on the organization of Mac and have been reverting each other over the past few days.
I say that Swpb has overly complicated the section structure, which contravenes the purpose of LONGDAB, to simplify things for readers. IMO:
In each case, the status quo on Mac is yes, and I contend that's in line with this guide, both as it was promoted and as it currently stands - particularly the bit about copying the scheme of similar dabs for reader familiarity. I don't feel I need to "justify" a Places or Organizations section; both are standard. It should go without saying that consensus on each of these questions should be decided by someone other than Clarity or myself. Re the "overly complicated" and "redundant" complaints, I consider the questions of whether nested section levels and appropriate repetition of entries are good ways to allow for less reading to have been settled by the promotion of the guideline. — swpb T • beyond • mutual 22:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Table of Contents behavior in Vector 2022. — swpb T • beyond • mutual 15:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be some ownership of this page from the primary author. It is grammatically correct to use "pursuant" but that was reverted with the rationale that it is a lateral change at best. I'm not sure what that even means. Iterresise ( talk) 03:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Disambiguation | ||||
|
Anyone object if I remove all the "in" placements in this essay? Using "in" before most categories and subcategories seems to be an uncommon practice. I'm just wanting to avoid confusion and ensure consistency in the future. There was a brief discussion about it here:
Thanks Dig Deeper ( talk) 17:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I see there's no mention of the People with the surname/given name sections that MOS:DABNAME allows for. Is that intentional? -- Fyrael ( talk) 19:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
There should be a "don't" added in the dos and dont's: a minimum of 2 entries in an individual section (not counting remnant sections like "other" and "see also"). It's kinda pointless to create a subject area and put only one thing in there. This should be self evident but it isn't. There are plenty disambiguation pages with only one item. So I suggest a stronger effort to discourage it by explicitly prescribing it in the rules or recommendations --Loginnigol ( talk) 18:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This essay has some WP:OWNership problems from Swpb. They formulated it as they saw fit (without demonstrating consensus) and revert anything they disagree with with instructions for the objector to "get consensus" or "get strong consensus" (whatever the difference between those things are). Where was the consensus for this version? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
JHunterJ, the guideline to never include characters under People looked correct to me. When do you think it would be appropriate to mix those two? -- Fyrael ( talk) 13:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS:LONGDAB and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#MOS:LONGDAB until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Bagumba ( talk) 09:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Make this page a guideline rather than an explanatory essay. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The page currently gives the following advice:
Order sections alphabetically unless there is a clear reason not to. (This is the easiest order to recognize – importance, for example, is usually too subjective.)
Of course, alphabetical order is a good default, but there are too many situations where different orders would be more appropriate and I don't think it's a good idea to advise against them. For example, thematically similar sections should usually be next to each other: say, if there are separate sections for maths and for science, it's best to keep them one after the other (rather than have "Organisations", "Places" and "People" in-between), or if there are two separate sections for films and for TV series, you don't want them to be separated by everything else in the dab. Another factor is popularity of entries (as judged from clickthroughs [1]): I often find it that a majority of visitors of a dab would come for a small number of entries, and in that case it makes sense to shorten the most common navigational paths by arranging the sections in such a way that those entries will be near the top (rather than buried at the bottom).
I imagine it can be argued that the situations I'm enumerating simply exemplify the clear reason
s for occasionally departing from alphabetical order, but in my experience these are so common that it will be counterproductive to have even weak recommendations against them. –
Uanfala (
talk) 18:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This page ends up with a rather convoluted-looking
table of contents for the example scheme. There are several things that we can do to simplify it, but the most obvious first step is to get the warnings, like [Avoid words like "(popular) culture" and "society"; they are too vague.]
, out of the section headings and into the body of the given section. Any thoughts? –
Uanfala (
talk) 19:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Swpb and I strongly disagree on the organization of Mac and have been reverting each other over the past few days.
I say that Swpb has overly complicated the section structure, which contravenes the purpose of LONGDAB, to simplify things for readers. IMO:
In each case, the status quo on Mac is yes, and I contend that's in line with this guide, both as it was promoted and as it currently stands - particularly the bit about copying the scheme of similar dabs for reader familiarity. I don't feel I need to "justify" a Places or Organizations section; both are standard. It should go without saying that consensus on each of these questions should be decided by someone other than Clarity or myself. Re the "overly complicated" and "redundant" complaints, I consider the questions of whether nested section levels and appropriate repetition of entries are good ways to allow for less reading to have been settled by the promotion of the guideline. — swpb T • beyond • mutual 22:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Table of Contents behavior in Vector 2022. — swpb T • beyond • mutual 15:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be some ownership of this page from the primary author. It is grammatically correct to use "pursuant" but that was reverted with the rationale that it is a lateral change at best. I'm not sure what that even means. Iterresise ( talk) 03:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)