Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Comments

Feel free to list further suggestions here (the manual is still young, but as always please discuss changes first).

Applying the style

Styles for Recurring Organize-by-category Terms?

Would it be overspecifying to standardize some of these recurring specific cases, and give examples of more general principles (like how to avoid "Other", which may be emerging below) that will work well?
--Jerzy·t 2005 July 5 22:07 (UTC)

"Other" (in these cases, Companies and Schools)

I tried applying the style to a few disambiguation pages, and I ran into some cases for which the style provides no guidance, but it might benefit from. On Abercrombie (disambiguation) and Garfield (disambiguation), I decided to use the organize-by-category method (Longer Lists), as they both had more than ten entries and most of the entries fit neatly into separate categories. Abercrombie had three categories of entries: people, ships, and places; and one straggler, Abercrombie & Fitch Co., which is a company. I thought it looked dumb making a separate category for one entry (Companies: Abercrombie & Fitch Co.), so I just put it at the top of the list, not under a category. Given that the company is relatively prominent, it seemed reasonable to make it the first entry, and I think this approach worked well for this disambiguation page. However, I tried applying the same approach to the Garfield disambiguation page, and it didn't work as well. The straggler Garfield High School looked silly when placed above the president for whom the school is probably named, so I put it at the bottom, under Other:. I think it looks OK, but I thought I would ask here if anyone has a better way to deal with cases like this, and if maybe we should add it to the style. If my approach is deemed desirable, we might describe it like so: "if there is a single entry that doesn't fit into one of the categories, place it at the top of the list, before the first category if it's relatively prominent; otherwise, place it at the bottom of the list in a category labeled Other:." The Abercrombie and Garfield examples I think would be fine illustrations of the principle. Nohat 05:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think those pages look great. A few minor details: on the Garfield page, the second category might as well be "Places in the United States" rather than repeating that on every entry. The last section could be "U.S. High Schools," since I guarantee you there are dozens of other Garfield HS's, so this isn't a unique entry. But even with just the one entry, I'd vote for "U.S. High Schools" over "Other," since it's more descriptive. Make it singular if you prefer.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Re the strike-thru i've added, see my subordinate point within this section. --Jerzy·t 2005 July 5 22:07 (UTC)
Incidentally -- but importantly if it is in the offing to make this a high-schools std -- regardless of the merits of the general point being made about "Other",
  • The natural meaning of "U.S. High Schools" is "high schools operated by, or fully-funded via contract from, the U.S. Federal government", which IIRC exist on some military bases both in and outside the US, and almost surely have existed or do now in some other places like Inuit villages and American-Indian reservations. The meaning intended was probably "High schools in the U.S." (altho grouping those with other (overseas) U.S. [Fed. gov't] high schools might be desirable in this case: IMO "American high schools" is the clearest workably short name for that combination).
  • I think you'll find that for most people a point within a list (even tho it heads a sublist) is so far from being a title that "high school" should be lower cased -- even if (like me) you think (even less pressingly) that <rant> WP is boneheaded for not MOS-ing normal "Title Casing" of section headings (and even for failing to provide a "__UPCASEWORD__" function for indicating casing, as with "__UPCASEWORD 3 5__" for making the displayed title on List of people by name's page be "List of People by Name") in conformance with contemporary standards for titles in English. </rant>
--Jerzy·t 2005 July 5 22:07 (UTC)
The style I was looking for here was to go: "Garfield was also the name of:", "Garfield is also the name of the U.S. places:", and "Garfield may also refer to:". This way, it can flow like a sentence as well as being navigationally sound. From my viewpoint, this is slightly different because we're dealing with people and places, not subject fields like science vs. social science vs. music vs. literature. That's how I interpret the manual as it is now.
So, the page looks good, but being the fussy pedantic person I am, I want to suggest the lines above, or suggest that the manual be changed accordingly. The reason I pushed for this manual's existence was for uniformity in every aspect - ambitious and unrealistic by any standard, but perfection will always be our goal. Neonumbers 7 July 2005 11:15 (UTC)
I don't think we need to dictate what the categories are -- any way which makes sense can be used. You can have a section named "Companies" if you want, and it doesn't matter if there's only one entry. BTW, I accept the correction from "U.S. High Schools" to "High Schools in the U.S." —Wahoofive (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal Names

On Talk:Bliss i explained what i did on the corresponding article (with an attempt to redirect discussion to here), as follows:

The following is very precisely worded:
  • People named "Bliss", appearing in a List of people by name: Bl-Bn
    (if it is their surname, but otherwise only if they are better known as simply "Bliss" than by their surname)
to avoid distraction but reflect that there is a place on List of people by name: Mad-Mam#Mad for Madonna -- even tho i trashed, without a moment's hesitation, the lk to Bliss Carman from List of people by name: Bl-Bn#Bliss. (And no, he doesn't belong on this talk page's corresponding Dab "article" either; his given name is so pointless an access path to his bio that accomodating that purpose on a Dab in any way is simply clutter.)

The first clause of the fine-print sub-point is directed at people with names like Madonna, Constant and Gregory who could actually have appropriately titled surname-less bio articles, each based on the given name of its subject.
I would go so far as to suggest a template (at least when the parameterization of the lk works, if doesn't work now):

* People named "{{{1}}}", appearing in a [[List of people by name: {{{2}}}#People named {{{1}}}|List of people by name: {{{2}}}]]
*:<small>(if it is their surname, but otherwise only if they are better known as simply "{{{1}}}" than by their surname) </small>

(While the "People named ..." format i include in the proposed template but not in Bliss is not in use at the moment for Bliss, it is standard as needed (needed for reasons that needn't be discussed here) elsewhere on LoPbN, and could be used re Bliss and other Dab-ed names without real problems.)
--Jerzy·t 2005 July 5 22:07 (UTC)

_ On Dick, i used this format, and another editor trimmed the pipe string from "List of people by name: Di" down to "List of people by name". On reflection, i agree, and find it consistent with the intent (tho not the letter) of the MoS: LoPbN and its subsidiary main-namespace pages are far from being articles in any reasonable sense; i argue that these pages have no real title-worthy individual identities (and LoPbN has it only as a stand-in title for the collection of "LoPbN pages" as a whole), and that their titles are a mere implementation convenience that constrasts with the guidance against naming with subpages, as if one article were subsidiary to another. Well, such a subsidiary relationship is precisely the case with LoPbN's tree of pages. IMO, List of people by name: Di's identity as a separate page is essentially as worthy of being hidden by piping as is its section headed "People named Dick".
_ How much of that is worth saying on the project page is not clear to me, but i urge that
the piping of subsidiary pages of LoPbN (and other lists divided into pages by alpha range) to refer explicitly only to the page that links to the whole alphabet
be interpreted as effectively mandated by the MoS.
_ Thus i am anticipating a Template:dabname reading:
* People named "{{{2}}}", appearing in a [[List of people by name: {{{1}}}#People named {{{2}}}|List of people by name]]
*:<small>(if it is their surname, but otherwise only if they are better known as simply "{{{2}}}" than by their surname) </small>
_ Your thoughts please: should this template be subst-ed in or dynamically transcluded?
_ (Note that since the user has to find and often modify the markup at, e.g., List of people by name: Di#People named Dick in order to make use of the template, reversing the order of the parameters (as here) from what i first suggested is likely to reduce confusion.
_ (And i am also contemplating a template, to be subst-ed rather than transcluded, to do most of the work in the often-needed LoPbN edit; more will follow here.)
--Jerzy·t 2005 July 7 19:19 (UTC)
    • Your template doesn't seem to sit well with an enty I required:
    • People named Bridge, from List of people by name: Bre-Bri#Bria - Brie
But, I'm very much in favour of a template. Josh Parris ✉ 8 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
I think a such a list should be directly on the dab page, with of course some exceptions where the list of people with that *surname* is really really long. Neonumbers 8 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
Then two lists need to be kept up to date, and let's face it, that's not going to happen. Josh Parris ✉ 07:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Geographic names

On Bliss, i used "Geographic names" as a top-level grouping, replacing someone's "Settlements", for several reasons:

  • "Settlements" (and perhaps even "Settled places") can be construed as excluding incorporated geo entities
  • Named geological features, bodies of water, and uninhabited zones (How's the Empty Quarter do as an example?!) fit in fairly naturally.

Of course, in most of the cases where the broader term is "needed", some std name like "Settlements" or "Settled places" should probably be the first sub-point, leaving a few oddballs to handle analogously to whatever std applies to top-level miscellany. --Jerzy·t 2005 July 5 22:07 (UTC)

I'm just going to apply my interpretation of the style to Bliss, which has no real difference except that in my opinion it's more skimmable, which was part of my goal for this manual - for a user to be able to skim a page without having to filter out anything. I hope you don't mind - I just want to clear the style up a bit and show what I had in mind when the manual was implemented for its first time. Neonumbers 8 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)
And about that, I'm not sure what the policy is for people - shouldn't all those people in that list be listed here as well? The reason I say this is because the list of people by name is for people to look at a list by name, whereas this is a disambiguation page and users shouldn't have to go through another link.
The main change I made was the removal of bullet points - the visual aid of having bullet points for and only for actual entries is (imo) important. Neonumbers 8 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
_ _ I don't mind the bold editing, which IMO is far more useful than trying to visualize the proposed change.
_ _ I also acknowledge, on re-reading, that yours is closer to what the MoS says (even if only bcz i came on the scene later).
_ _ I don't like the result on Bliss in the (non-customized) skin i use, if only bcz you've introduced for me two blank lines for every bullet you've eliminated, and perhaps bcz in the skin i've chosen the deeper levels of bullet are not just more deeply indented but also change appearance (true bullet (= disc), circle (= hollow), square,...) & i think w/ this skin the distinction between hdgs and entries is quite clear enuf. And i think keeping the dabs short, and in some cases single page, is a high priority.
_ _ When you say "more skimmable" i picture you as wanting to ignore the "headings" on groups of entries. Perceptual styles are not universal, and it may be that for some people the headings may be an intrusion. But (and especially to the degree that users will shift style in response to the style of e.g., the dab page in our case, and even learn to use new styles in response to repeatedly meeting them) i favor styles that facilitate efficiency. It is a mathematical fact that avoiding a "linear search" (reading every entry) becomes more efficient, despite the person's individual difference, above some number of sub-points per main point. (If skipping interferes more for you, that raises the number of skippable points before it's worth your giving in and skipping, but for everyone there's a number of points where it does.) That doesn't make you wrong, but IMO it's why we can have opposite inclinations on this without either of us being wrong.
_ _ But i've said what i have to say abt it, unless it develops that i've been unclear.
--Jerzy·t 06:15, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

I also notice that both our versions are much less mechanical than the "A recommended order is..." passage under "Order of entries", and i suspect something much more permissive should replace it.
--Jerzy·t 06:15, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

The word "recommended" was chosen specifically to allow flexibility in the order of entries. But I think you have it backwards with regard to Neo's reference to "more skimmable." Surely you want to look at the headers first, since you know whether you're looking for a person, place, thing, computer language, etc., so reading the left-justified headers allows you to skip groups of bullet points which are the wrong sort. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Italicized Dab Targets

IIRC the letter of the MoS says that where the "target" of the dab page explicitly includes the word being Dab-ed, don't pipe it. My implementing that was altered to pipe the exact name but add italics where MoS would otherwise require it. I think i agree.
--Jerzy·t 06:15, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

I do too - because the page you go to is the same link you click on - no surprises. Josh Parris ✉ 13:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Yea, that's a good idea, I agree. Neonumbers 08:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Wikipedia:How to link to Wikimedia projects#Wiktionary provides two easy to use templates that seem to be appropriate for disambiguation pages - {{WiktionaryWord|Juice}} and {{Wiktionary}}, the first form is appropriate on Juice (disambiguation) and the second for Juice.

Wikipedia:How to link to Wikimedia projects#Wiktionary provides an easy to use template that seems to be appropriate for disambiguation pages - {{Wiktionarypar|juice}}, which allows for Wiktionary's case sensitivity.

I suggest that on appropriate pages (like fraction (disambiguation)) the guideline suggests adding in the Wiktionary link. That way we can avoid whacking in dictionary definitions for simple words. Josh Parris ✉ 05:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where should the {{Wiktionary}} link go? I've tried a few places, and right up at the top, before the "blah may refer to:" line seems to be the best place. Should we add that to the style suggestion? --RoySmith 4 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)

So very right. And there's more information too - wiktionary is case sensitive. Changed. Josh Parris ✉ 4 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)

Redlinks

I was thinking, as a corollary to don't wikilink any other words in the line:

Redlinked terms are encouraged to wikify the definition of the term - to aid the user finding something relating to the term, even if an article is not available at that time.

This would require a cleanup after the fact, when the redlink turns into an article. How does this affect the DabBots? I assume one link per bullet point helps the DabBots no end, but an entry like this... Josh Parris ✉ 08:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but "encouraged" seems a little strong. If I search for "receiver" and get to a dab page with the entry
that wikilink will help me if and only if telephone actually contains information on receivers. But if it does, there's no reason to make a redlink. In fact, the only reason I can think of to have both a redlink and a general article link is if the term is redlinked in the related article itself; that is, if telephone has a redlink for Receiver (phone). This would happen often with songs, albums, and the like, but I'm afraid that to "encourage" this will lead to more "Dark Star" examples. —Wahoofive (talk) 14:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the bottom??

It says here that the template goes at the bottom, but people are saying that the top is okay. Any comments about editing?? Georgia guy 20:09, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

General convention is to put it at the bottom, but I've seen a few pages with it at the top and heard a few people who reckon it should be at the top. Most dab pages have the template at the bottom.
It's preferable not to allow either-or; the whole point of a manual is to encourage consistency. Neonumbers 09:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about the {{disambig}} template. My understanding is that it should be visible when the page first pops up. So if it's a short dab page, the bottom is ideal, because it doesn't affect the reading of the page. However, on a longer page it would need to go near/at the top. Josh Parris ✉ 12:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
There's no good definition of "short page". Different sized windows, different sized fonts, maybe even spoken text for a vision-impaired user. The {{disambig}} template is boilerplate, and contains boring administrative stuff like urging the reader to fix links that point here. I don't see any reason why that stuff should ever go at the top. Also, I agree with Neonumbers about the consistency thing. RoySmith 09:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
If you look at bug (disambiguation) you see the {{disambig}} near the top - I think the page might be more confusing with it at the bottom. Or perhaps not. But for a dab page it is pretty long. And long dab pages are unusual. Josh Parris ✉ 00:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
There are some long disambiguation pages that are sectionized but lack a table-of-contents box; addition of a TOC-box would provide a logical place for the dab-template (above the TOC-box) and separation of the template message from the article content. What is your thought on adding such tables-of-content and indicating that plus dab-template at top as part of a guideline for "long" (yes, it's fuzzy) dab pages? Another thing to consider is that long dab-pages can sometimes be pared down by aggressive exclusion of related items or information that is useful but not an essential part of the dab-page with respect to its role. Courtland 02:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Bug (disambiguation) shouldn't be that long anyway. The descriptions are meant to be half a line, one at the most, not two or three lines on my 1280x1024 resolution screen. Neonumbers 07:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Bug is a poor example, because it's not a true disambiguation page, rather a multi-stub page. John Smith is a better example.
Here's my take on the top-vs-bottom debate, though: how essential is it that a first-time viewer know immediately that they're at a dab page and not an article? Is it so bad if they scroll down the article looking for some particular content and then, at the bottom, discover that they're at a sort of index page rather than a true article? I mean, suppose a non-Wikipedian Googles the phrase "John Smith mathematician" and gets the John Smith page. Won't they scroll down looking for information on the mathematician? Even if they miss the name (since they're looking for paragraphs, not lists), they'd discover the dab notice at the bottom. They might not read it, of course, but that's true if it's at the top as well. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. That sentence fragment should do something to help with that too. I'm for the bottom on all pages. Neonumbers 10:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Sentence fragment good. Josh Parris ✉ 04:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)