Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 3

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.

Purpose of content-empty leading line?

What is the purpose of having a leading line that merely repeats the item name that is already stated more specifically in the individual entry, and which otherwise only has some empty statement like "may stand for" which is already clear from the disambiguation template and the multiple descriptions of disparate things in each entry? Why not have a disambiguation template that describes what these entries are (if the current one does not), rather than including multiple redundant lines more properly omitted for being needless? - Centrx 15:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's partly for consistency with other article pages, which begin with the topic name in boldface. But primarily it's just a codification of what has already been done on 7,000 dab pages. No way we can change it now. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
What I propose, and what was formerly common practice, includes the relevant names in boldface. Regardless of whether this is a codification of common practice, which is not categorically true, it is quite easy to change it, and it is warranted if it be appropriate in order to implement a better practice. There would be a brief period where disambiguation pages would not be identically formatted, but as with all Wikipedia policies, this is the nature of their implementation as they become more uniform over time. If an alternate practice be better, which I do assert, disambiguation pages in that alternate format will be clearer and more helpful to the reader, and more formally appropriate to an encyclopedia, so that such format is in fact more appropriate to the purpose of Wikipedia and the current dictate is in fact the incorrect one that ought to be changed. Leaving a worse practice as policy simply because it is common is not relevant to this work, and provides only minor, short-term benefits. Rather, what substantive reason is there for continuing to dictate the redundant, less decorous and formal, and less helpful practice when another is more professional at no expense? - Centrx 17:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't see it as unprofessional. I don't understand what your alternative is, I assume it's for the removal of it, which means jumping straight into the links. The sentence fragment at least gives the reader an idea of why they're being faced with a list of links rather than an article, without having to get to the bottom where the template is.
I oppose the removal this leading line. Neonumbers 07:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
First of all, it is quite easy to put the disambiguation template the the beginning of the page. Second, it is rather obvious to the reader that a bulleted list of disparate terms, each with a bold link, in an encyclopedia where links point to more information, indicates a list of possible meanings to which the title of that page "may refer". It is reasonable that a query in a box labelled "search" might result in several results, and it is the practice in, for instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford English Dictionary websites, that such a list of possible results is displayed, and in the case of the Encyclopedia Britannica this is the case for inter-article links and also displays a brief blurb about the subject of the article so that the reader has a better idea of which result to follow. Regardless, a template disambiguation note at the beginning of the page informs the reader of the purpose of the page more usefully than current practice. - Centrx 19:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Proposing that part of your solution is to migrate the disambiguation notice to the top of the page rather than leaving it at the bottom is a non-starter as this has been brought up many times and does not have sufficient support to enable. Could you please reconsider your proposal in the absence of this particular change to disambiguation practice? That would be helpful to my thinking about where this might go.
The practice of bolding the item links would also appear to be a non-starter as the practice of bolding has been brought up, discussed, and resolved ... which does not mean it cannot be reopened for discussion, of course (see below ... I brought up this question recently myself). Proposing a move forward in the absence of this particular aspect of the solution would also be helpful. Thanks. Courtland 19:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I cannot find any discussion about where to put the template disambiguation notice. I find many references to putting the short "dab" (?) note at the top of articles which point to a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation state that the disambig template is put at the bottom of disambiguation pages, but do not give reason. There are several comments in these discussion pages and that for Template talk:Disambig that the template does go, or should go, at the bottom, but no reason. Otherwise, there are two comments, unresolved, in Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_5#Template:Disambig_at_the_top_of_disambiguation_page. The first comment argues that putting the disambig template the top of the page "interrupts the user's search for information and is unnecessary"; I do not think that it "interrupts" the user's search, and I think it baseless that it is flat-out "unnecessary". The second comment argues that the format with a leading line of "FOO can mean", the very same format on the styleguide now, may lead the user to "misunderstand and think that the disambiguation page is the article on FOO". This commenter states that the "template explains what the page really is - a navigational aid to help you find the correct article", and that "the page makes more sense when you understand, up front, what its purpose is". I agree with this latter commenter. So, it does not seem that this is a non-starter, or that it has been discussed at all. Regardless, it might also be reasonable, if 'interruption' is the common response to this proposal, that a shorter note, in the vein of the "dab" (?) notes put at the top of normal articles to point to disambiguation pages be put at the top of each disambiguation page. Such a note could be short and without boundary lines, and would be easier and saving, for it would be uniform and from a template. Nonetheless, the current disambiguation notice is short anyway, and includes the information that someone going to the page should have, and does not absolutely need boundary lines, so the same or similar notice could be used for the purpose I propose, rather than duplicated.
As for bolding, the so-called discussion, is rather despairing of reasons why the articles to which the disambiguation page is pointing ought not be in boldface. Two commenters mainly agree that boldface for each item is not absolutely necessary, which sounds to me as unnecessary as many of the prescriptions on this styleguide, but provide no good reason why they ought not remain to help direct the reader. A whit of reason provided is that the bold is somehow "imposing" on certain skins, an assertion with which I find I do not agree after looking at several pages under various skins. Regardless, if the appearance of bold indeed be hideous under certain skins, then it would seem that the problem would be with the skin that does not gracefully handle common formatting, rather than the page that includes that useful formatting. Another person comments that bolding is still "a good idea", and that the different skins didn't seem to have much effect on the appearance of boldface text. He only acquiesces that item-respective boldface may not be "that necessary", if item-lines do not include links to pages other than the primary subject article, a style which itself I think might be unhelpful to the reader. Another comment unsubtly and categorically asserts that "too much bolding makes it difficult to read", which is hardly relevant for a single bolded word (or, when rarely appropriate, phrase) on each line. The actioned conclusion of this collection of comments is that a majority out of only four think that it is not "really necessary" to use item-respective bolding and that a sampling of a few dozen disambiguation pages out of what seems to be the many thousands indicates that such bolding is not common practice, though, of course, common practice would make little difference as to whether it is good practice even if such sampling were of sound methodology. So, I certainly don't think this proposal is a non-starter, and I don't think that it can be said to have been resolved. (After writing this lengthy paragraph, I realize that it is not necessary, but it's already written, and it does summarize, albeit superabundantly, what was before discussed about bolding.) - Centrx 00:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
You do always have the right to go against consensus and ignore both precedents and prior discussion, regardless of whether or not you feel the discussion was either worthy of being called by that name or convincing, as that is the nature of working in Wikipedia. I think by my wording here you can assume I do not agree with your interpretation of the observations that you've made in referring to previously posted material. Courtland 01:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I may be free to make edits which do not follow this styleguide, though others are likely to alter those same pages and resort to this styleguide in any discussion about it, but this has no bearing on what is the best practice for disambiguation pages that should be encouraged in the styleguide.
As for the remainder of your comment, I do not understand what you mean. I make no assumptions about your agreement or disagreement. Based on your comments in this section, it seems that you were referring to discussions which I did not find, in which case it would be appropriate to direct myself and others who view this discussion to those other discussions so that we may know the arguments that have been previously presented and resolved; or possibly you were referring to discussions that did not occur according to your characterization. If you disagree with my interpretation of the discussions I referenced, then you must provide reasons wherefore; my description of these discussions are accurate and thorough and I do not see how these discussions could be construed favorably or adversely, rather than truly described, without a drastic misrepresentation that would be easily discounted by explicit reference to and explanation of the original. - Centrx 04:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Consensus, it seems to me, is against both bolding links and putting that notice at the top. It was I that originally proposed bolding into this manual during its creation, and I was the only one for it. Now I am against it; I only proposed it in the first place because of other random links that hsouldn't be on the dab page, and when they were discouraged, bolding seems pointless. They're clearly links, they're a different colour and to the unregistered user they are underlined. What more could you ask for.
With that notice being at the top, I think it's best make sure the user sees those links first, and therefore the notice second — logical because the links are what they are after. Intelligent people will figure out immediately why the page is just links. Others will figure it out in about ten seconds with or without reading the notice. 99% of dab pages are either short enough to have it in the first screen or can be short enough to have it in the first screen once we remove the dicdefs and other bits of fluff. It is fine in its place at the bottom, where consensus would like it to be.
And with the fragment, no-one seems to have commented on that except me, and the fact remains that on 99% of dab pages it's already there.
I can kind of half see where you're coming from, but I can see where we are now is coming from better. Neonumbers 11:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Consensus isn't really valid if it is based only on some vague premonition rather than sound reason. Your comment is the only one yet that has provided any reason based on what is appropriate for an encyclopedia that people read, rather than advocating the status quo simply because it is current practice, which is a notion that has no bearing on what ought to be, in Wikipedia, and might entrench countless poor practices.
Bolding/Links: What is the reason for having no other links in a line-item, other than that it serves as the special formatting for the relevant link, a purpose which could be otherwise served by a boldface link? I agree that wanton linking is not appropriate for disambiguation pages, but there are words in an item-line that are helpful to link, but do not go to the exact thing that the disambiguation page refers to. In the example given in this styleguide, for instance, it is probably a good idea not to link to "song", "psychedelic", or "rock band", but it is rather likely that a person searching for "Dark Star" might actually be interested in "The Grateful Dead", possibly even more than the song itself. Aside from the possibility that a person searched for some recalled figment in their mind related to what they really wanted, having both linking and bolding provides degrees of relation to the title of the disambiguation page; of the thousands of people who will, sometime in the hopefully long future of Wikipedia, search for "Dark Star", maybe hundreds will be as or more interested in the Grateful Dead than in a single song of theirs, for which there is no reason to impede their search by prescribing "no other links", in an encyclopedia so useful for its links, when allowing boldface primary links would serve well. (Note that the styleguide has a poor example, for Dark Star is just a disambiguation page, which for that item points to Grateful Dead). I have encountered many situations where it is useful have a few relevant links in an item-line; off the top of my head it is useful, for instance, for places, where the reader is likely to be interested in the greater region which includes the place specified in the primary link, those greater regions being highly relevant for including and probably having more information on culture, economy, government, etc. Another situation where this is useful is instantiations, so for example "quartz" is by far the most common "crystal oscillator", and so might be far more relevant to the reader's search. So, it is reasonable that a reader might want to follow both the primary link and another highly relevant link, or that they might be more interested in the highly relevant link rather than the primary link.
Disambig notes: If readers will so easily figure out that what they are looking at is a disambiguation page, what is the reason for having the empty, redundant "may refer to" leading line? Either the content-empty leading line is pointless even in form, or the disambig note is appropriate at the top of the page to inform the reader what they are looking at. Either would be better than current pratice. Also, the disambiguation note does not really impede someone's search by being at the top. For readers who know what the page is for, whether they have seen such a page before or because they figure it out, they are likely to, as you said, just go straight for the links. For readers who do not know what the page is for, the disambiguation page at the top would be quite helpful to them. The only possible disadvantage is that the disambiguation page at the top would displace a couple lines of items off the screen. Yet, as you said this would not happen in 99% of dab pages and, in the remaining 1% of cases, it is only a couple lines in a page of many in exchange for the disambig note serving the use for which it is designed in the remaining 1% of cases which I assume you might be referring to as a problem for not appearing on the first screen.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the fragment", but it makes little difference that it is already on the so many pages if it is not the best practice. It can be changed in the styleguide, disambiguation pages will conform over time, and pages will not be reverted to the worse practice (if it be decided that it is worse) in the name of the styleguide. - Centrx 19:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Just one thing... if you could shorten your posts a bit, make them a bit less, well, long, it gets difficult for me to actually read the entire thing.
It is general practice on Wikipedia to work towards follow consensus. The Manual of Style once said (I don't know if it's still there) that all pages will eventually conform to the manual, or the manual will change to the same effect. When this manual was planned, it was designed to as accurately reflect the majority of disambiguation pages as we possibly could — and then consensus between planners for issues that didn't really have an established way.
Now even if you want to go against the majority of the 31,400 disambiguation pages as they are, the community must still have consensus on what to do. The consensus of the community is what is there now. I back this up by saying that the disambiguation system was well and truly established by the time we got round to this manual. There were already unwritten conventions, despite the flexibility that Wikipedia:Disambiguation used to allow (it no longer does). One of the few things we pulled out there and then, and I'm sure you'd agree with this, was to make all links at the beginning of the line.
There are some things in other places I disagree with, but in Wikipedia you must respect consensus. I could go on about how the current layout makes the page flow, as well as allowing the reader to skim it for his desired link, as well as orientating a temporarily disorientated user. I could go on about how these pages are like all pages and there is some, albeit limited, degree of consistency in that respect. But everything and everyone is for the way it is now (with exceptions). If a good majority (consensus is considered to be about two-third to seven-tenths) want this change, then by all means, let that be done. But that's not how it is. We work in one encyclopedia, one style, and that style is decided by the established consensus of our community. What in the view of a few people is better cannot change that, unless those people are very very persuasive speakers, or should I say writers. Neonumbers 11:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Note: there is a conclusion at the bottom which might be useful to respond to my arguments separately, and as a top-level reference from which you can base forays into the more thorough exegesis of my arguments.
I do not intend to discredit consensus per se, only that consensus which is not based on reasonable discussion. That some had spontaneously created similarly formatted pages, on whatsoever whim or consideration might result from a multitude, does not mean that there is actually any concurrence in what ought to be done or what justifies certain formatting. A more reasonable explanation of prediction you mention on the Manual of Style is that the styleguide and practice will converge, and that this convergence is due to an interplay between 1.a) what is decided, by reason, ought to be done on an encyclopedia, and 1.b) experience resulting from trying that style, applying it to the specific circumstances of certain pages and topics; and, conversely, 2.a) developing style for new circumstances (going from the very beginning of having to make all style anew, with no styleguide to guide, to more advanced stages of most style being guided by the styleguide (and modified as appropriate), and only rare areas of editor innovation) where, from complex, myriad, collaborative editing, emerges a stable, workable format, and 2.b) the analysis and alteration of that format in the styleguide, and reasonably justify it so that it is relatively assured to be good practice; and the cycle continues to some limit. It is not reasonably reflective of that predictive maxim, or at all sensible, for the styleguide merely to mirror whatever common practice is, regardless of whether that practice is appropriate for a wiki encyclopedia or whether it is reasonable. Also, note that before this year and maybe the end of last, the format I am advocating was a common format and the current format is more recent, though I am not sure of the preponderance of either; if, under the flawed purely consensus argument I expose above, the disambiguation styleguide had simply been created earlier then that format would now be on the 31,400 disambiguation pages that have been conformed to this styleguide.
But, I am not arguing against consensus, but against the passive acceptance of the status quo that is not sufficient justification for recommended practice in the styleguide. That there is no overt agreement with my arguments in this matter makes little more difference than that there has been little overt disagreement with my arguments, for you have been the only commenter who has even responded the substance of the argument of what ought to be. Consensus (and, in being unknown, passive, undiscussed, it is not even certain that there is agreement in the result/conclusion by more than a couple people) is not sufficient if it apparently might consist mostly of persons who do not make any comment in the discussion at all and a couple who object to even discussing what ought to be in favor of having the styleguide merely describe what is. As I have noted in previous comments, I have not found any significant discussion of these issues in the relevant discussion pages or their archives. If there are any such discussions, then they ought to be pointed out. If not, or in either case, the reasons why my proposal is not appropriate to a wiki encyclopedia ought to be brought forth. From looking at the archives, the extent of the consensus when this page was created (merely a couple months ago) was that there was no objection the these parts of the original proposal, but there was also no presentation of alternate formats in this respect and there was no discussion. There was no positive justification for this style, there was merely a lack of users who discounted it, or thought of doing so, in a discussion that happened so recently on a website where user participation is fluid and fickle generally, and especially so in a specific page that may not have even been noticed by many. The fact remains that there has been no justification of this practice, insofar as there has been no response to its proposed flaws, and that there have been no comments other than yours that have examined its justification other than resorting to the status quo.
Your substantive arguments (a term which I use to distinguish these from arguments about what constitutes consensus and decision-making):
Page flow: I'm not certain what you mean, specifically, about the benefits of this format with regard to page flow. There are many branches this discussion has taken, to the template disambig notice, to the leading line, to bolding and linking and maybe some other things. I don't think you mean that all of these impede page flow, so it's hard to respond, but, in piecemeal: I assert that the leading line impedes page flow because it is empty junk that is useless to someone looking for the page they want. If you mean the template notice, I assert that the template notice, or a possible alternative, shorter, template notice, does not impede page flow any more than the current leading line does, and would have the added benefit of actually having useful information.
Eminent links for easy skimming: Having bolding in addition to having a few multiple links would solve the problem of users looking for a quick link to the page they want. Also, note that if what the reader wants is not directly and exactly related to the search or link that brought up the disambig page, then having appropriate additional links that are related to the page name, but less so, would help the skimming user (who would also not have to separately type the pagename in).
Orientation of disoriented user: The much more descriptive disambiguation notice at the top would be much better at orienting a user than the leading line would. Also, there seems there may be a disconnect in this line of argumentation: the reason you give above why it be fine to put the template notice at the bottom is that it is easily noticeable there in nearly every disambig page, in which case removing the leading line would not be a problem. Yet, if the leading line is needed to orient the user, then putting the template notice at the top (or an alternative, shorter, but still formal one) would be much more informative and uniform.
Consistency: If the current practice be wrong, there ought to be no justification for an editor reverting changes to right practice by resorting to the styleguide. The question of what ought to be done rests on whether the practice is appropriate for a wiki encyclopedia, not on whether the practice is the status quo or that changing it will, briefly, make these pages not uniform. That inconsistency will be brief, too, the pages will over time conform to the styleguide, and they will be especially brief in comparison to the life of the encyclopedia. If the practice be wrong, then it should not be let stand for dozens of years just because 'that's the way it is done', rather it ought to be changed now so that the disambiguation pages will be more useful, helpful, uniform, and professional in the perpetuity that I hope such a free encyclopedia lasts. Also, note that for bolding and linking, for instance, and also for the guided format of "Term, this is a term" rather than "A Term is a term for identifying terms", the styleguide recommendation actually may be less common than the practice in the page-trenches (in which case, of course, by the status quo arguments presented from a few commenters would dictate that the styleguide be changed to reflect having bolding and linking in the item lines and not having offset descriptions like "A, this is a kind of B"). So, changing the styleguide to recommend bolding and more linking would actually result in more consistency; though, of course, I do not think this is not a reason for doing it, but it does nullify, or reverse, the argument of consistency in in these areas.
As for the length of my posts, the problem that is the reason for this is two-fold. First, this discussion has ballooned into multiple different, but interconnected, areas of formatting. For example, the leading line and the template notice placement are different issues, yet the justifications for having a leading line interrelate with justifications for having the template notice. For example, using bolding in each line is a somewhat different issue than having more links, yet the argument for ease of identification/skimming connects them such that more linking, by this argument, ought to be used only if there is also bolding. So, while it would be a much clearer discussion to split these up into separate section, it is not so easy and each comment leads to more interconnections. I will try to reorganize everything into clear, crisp proposals and counter-arguments. Related, because some commenters question whether there ought to be any substantive discussion at all as to what ought to be recommended, with one even suggesting that I might just disregard the styleguide and do whatever I want, there appears to be no expressed acceptance of even basic propositions, which means that I must, in response, thoroughly unfold the argument from basic to complex with each possible premise I can think of accounted for, where I could otherwise condense my comments using premises that were accepted in previous comments. This might also be helped by splitting the discussion into formal propositions, etc. Similarly, there are so few commenters, and the almost all comments that are here don't address the substantive purpose of the styleguide, that I both a) have only one person presenting arguments against mine, from which to base commonly agreed premises and refine the discussion (and even that in a relatively undeveloped phase of argument); and b) have no one agreeing with me who might develop simpler, more comprehensive arguments, or orient arguments so that they are more understandably by various parties who could then agree. This again makes it difficult to synthesize this discussion into clear formal propositions: there has just been so little substantive discussion that would develop sophisticated proposals that would actually simplify the argument rather than resulting in ever more complex add-ons. Note also that for this post I have put in some bold to make elements of my comment easier to recognize, ironically enough.
In conclusion: 1) consensus that is valid to this encyclopedia must come from discussion of that which the consensus decides, not merely by a lack of stated objections to the status quo or even by a simple undiscussed vote; 2) a) The elements that I propose improve page flow by deleting empty junk, b) they improve easy identification of links relevant to the reader's search, with two levels of relevance so that a reader can more easily find important related they might want, c) they, if anything, improve orientation of the reader by providing for a disambiguation description at the top of the page, whether a simple description or more complex, d) consistency is not an end in itself, for it can establish unhelpful practices that would under this argument remain for the many years and millions of readers that will use Wikipedia, which it would be better for editors and readers for the wiki encyclopedia to change, and some of my proposals are, in fact, actually more common practice than the recommendations of the styleguide, making transition less problematic in that respect; and 3) the length of my posts is largely due to the solitary burden of fully explaining the reasoning of a variety of interrelated issues without the benefit of the acceptance or discounting of premises and reasoning that would come with a substantive discussion with more than two persons, and the problems of which will be improved by formalizing clear propositions, though this itself is impeded by a lack of discussion, and hopefully with the help of astute respondents who develop the argument toward conclusion.
- Centrx 16:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I do hope you'll excuse me for only reading your conclusion. That post was longer than the previous ones: what I was trying to say is get to the point(s) and stick to it.
In my judgement, consensus is to include a leading line of some sort and the dab notice at the bottom. Moving the template has been brought up and failed, over and over. We shortened the leading line already by making it a fragment, not a sentence. The status quo, in my judgement, already represents consensus, otherwise it would not have been the status quo when we made this archive less than two months ago, when disambiguation had already spent a good three years in development.
Deleting empty junk, we all agree, is important, within limitations. We cannot jump straight into the links, and the fragment will show that list of links are possibilities — without having to know it's called a dab page. A fragment is shorter than the template. They needn't know anything except that we're redirecting them, unless they're like me and they like to know everything.
I don't get point 2b. Point 2c addressed in above paragraph. And yes, the manual must be applied with some degree of elasticity, like all manuals of style.
There must of course be some balance in the writing of this, and there was when we wrote it, between representing existing usage and making disambiguation pages what they're intended to be.
I will not comment on the length of your posts except to plead that your posts be about one quarter as long and to beg that if necessary, you proof-read your post to remove anything that's a side-thought or a second example or anything like that. I beg and plead, I do not ask nor challenge.
Please list your exact proposals or provide an example of what you think a page should look like. Bolding and non-dab links can be left to the discussion "Wikilinking", so please leave those out. Neonumbers 06:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
1. Where are these discussions?: As I've noted repeatedly above, I can find no discussion about the location of the template with more extensive a counterargument than 'This is general convention' or a mere repeated assertion that 'The disambiguation template goes at the top'. If there is an actual substantive counterargument to my arguments above, please make that argument here or point me to the location where it can be found.
2. Status quo: That, merely two months ago, the initial styleguide had a certain format to which there was no objection in that discussion does not mean that the initial styleguide reflected the most common disambiguation practice, or that there was no objection to that format among the many who were not alerted to the incipient styleguide. If Wikipedia consensus or common practice were a valid reason for page formatting, it is nevertheless quite possible that the styleguide created at that time reflected a relatively minor practice, or one of many common practices, and that those who would have objected to that format were either not aware of the discussion or were away from Wikipedia in that time period. The "good three years in development" of disambiguation pages may not have culminated in the format that appeared in the styleguide. Moreover, it is actually rather likely that the styleguide format was a product of only six months or a year of "development", and that a different format had been refined over the previous two years, or over all three years. The common practice changes; that the styleguide happened to be created on June of this year is not a reason that the prevailing format of that time, if it indeed had been the prevailing format, ought to prevail forever. All this merely points to the fact that the format ought to be premised on the principles of the wiki encyclopedia and justified with reason, rather than accepted merely for being commonplace. If the format on the styleguide be good for the wiki encyclopedia then reason can be provided wherefore that is the case, which should be especially easy with the benefit of a supposed three years of development.
3. "We cannot jump straight into the links": First of all, it is not a "jump" such as might be compared to the reader jumping in and struggling with the unfamiliar cool of a lake. The disambiguation page is well within the confines of what is clearly a repository of hyperlinked information. The disambiguation page is clearly a bulleted list of separate items, unlike any article. So, a) why is a preface needed? b) why is the current leading line a better preface than the current disambig template or another template of to-be-determined length and content?
4. Linking and Bolding: Point 2b. is explained in the body of my comment near the heading "Eminent links for easy skimming": bolding the main term in each item line makes it easier for the reader to "skim it for his desired link", a benefit you mention in your previous comment, and having more than one link for appropriate items makes it easier for the reader to find articles that are highly relevant to his search; so, with both bolding and additional links, there can be for an item two levels of relevant links, with the bolded link being the primary link that directly corresponds to the name of the disambiguation page and any unbolded links being highly related (The example I gave a few comments back was of a secondary link to the article for a music band in the disambiguation page for one of their songs. It so happens in that case, and in many others, that this is far more helpful to the reader, as the song article to which the disambiguation page primarily links is yet another disambiguation page--one which then points to the band article.).
5. Examples: Here are a couple of examples of what a disambiguation page under this format would look like and some of the practical benefits. Of course, do not conform these pages to the styleguide; they would not then make for very good examples. In DOS (disambiguation), note the first item, which in addition to disk operating system also links to operating system, highly related articles; though the page directly correponds to the former disk operating system article, that article is mainly about history, whereas the reader might actually be interested in general operating systems. Note also that "DOS" is the usual abbreviation for the many disk operating systems, so much so that a person referring to "DOS" is probably referring to "MS-DOS" more than to any generic disk operating system, so the terms for those specific DOS's are bolded and linked. In the second item, I think the links are helpful to the reader but I would be amenable to delinking them; they are not as highly relevant as I am arguing here with regard to links, nor as highly relevant as, for instance the DOS's. The "network" link in the third item is somewhat more relevant, for it is what a denial of service attack occurs on and the reader might be very interested in that; it must always be remembered that the user may have gotten to the page by typing in a term they happened to read somewhere, and may have no knowledge on the subject at all. So, at the very least these links are helpful to the reader until every Wikipedia article is perfectly accessible to a layman, at least introductorily. The fourth and fifth items are also good examples for highly relevant links, a) density of states is a small part of the condensed matter physics in which someone might be interested, indeed, a person not versed in condensed matter physics would be more interested in the general introductory matter on the subject than some specific property; b) here is a case of a band, where the members really do make the band, note also that until recently there was not an article about the band so, for example, it would be far better to link to both members of the band than just the one that would be dictated by the current styleguide. There are other good example disambiguation pages, some for instance have a bolded, but unlinked term, that directly corresponds with the title of the disambiguation page, and a link to the page the user wants, a distinction not allowed under the current styleguide. Cheers; - Centrx 19:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Response to point 3: How about if we just call it 'good style' and move on? —Mike 05:37, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
If this be a valid, effective argument--though it is not, and I disagree that it is patently 'bad style' to not have a preface--then it must be said that the current leading is emphatically not "good style" and so ought to be changed. - Centrx 16:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Response to point 4: Your example here isn't very good. Instead of linking to the other dab page, you should be linking to the specific song for the band you are referencing. However if you had multiple songs with the same title you may be better off to say something like this: "Song title (song), any one of several songs." (Where the link Song title (song) would be the link to the other dab page.) —Mike 05:37, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
As for this being a bad example, note that it is the example given on the styleguide (Dark Star). There is no article about the song. It is even probable that there ought not be an article about the song, because it is only a single song so what little information there is about it would be more probably placed in the article about the album, or maybe the band. Are you asserting that the disambiguation line for this at Dark Star ought to read: "Grateful Dead, a song by the Grateful Dead" as though the article name pointed to, which is according to the styleguide placed at the beginning, is the song, or like "Grateful Dead, a band in 1960s", which is utterly confusing and appears totally misplaced, without reference to the song? I think the better solution is to have the song name bolded, so the topic of the line is clear, and the band article linked (or the album article) - Centrx 16:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The way it appears now, the Dark Star page just doesn't really look that good to me. But as for songs, one could argue that we should only disambiguate them if they have their own pages. If however we do disambiguate all song titles, for a minor song I would expect to see an entry without a leading link: "Box of Rain, a song by the Grateful Dead."; or maybe even "Box of Rain, a song by the Grateful Dead on their 1970 album American Beauty." —Mike 17:24, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neonumbers: Why is the common practice and the "three years of development" a good reason to have the current leading line at the top and the disambig template at the bottom, yet common practice that has actually been common practice for three years, and universally so, is not a good reason to have more relevant links? - Centrx 16:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that so many unrelated topics are combined in this thread. As for putting at the bottom/top, look at Template talk:Disambig, among other places. For bolding, since that's a departure from the link style elsewhere in Wikipedia, the burden is on you to find consensus to add bolding in this case. I definitely agree that the Dark Star example (which I wrote originally) is not well chosen; I encourage someone to write a better one. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Bolding is akin to the commonplace, styleguide-prescribed article subject bolding: Bolding the subject of an article is nearly universal on Wikipedia, and is directed in the Manual of Style here: Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout, with the following text:
The subject of the article should be mentioned in bold text (subject) at a natural place in the first sentence, or at least the first paragraph. The name of the subject may appear slightly different from the title of the page, or may include variations, but normally it is identical to the page title.
Certainly, disambiguation differ from regular articles, but the difference is that the disambiguation page contains several subjects equally correspondent. It is in this respect a page of several miniature redirect articles and the use of bolding referred to in this discussion is to bold the the name of the subject and its few variations, by the same criteria as the first line of an article would be bolded.
Also, note that the burden on me is to demonstrate that bolding and other proposals are reasonable and proper to a wiki encyclopedia such that commenters would be logically compelled the consensus of reason. If the burden is merely to have enough votes on a page, such a "consensus" is just vulnerable to a calculus of summoning the most users: Wikipedia has a lot of registered users so unless "consensus" consists of having a vote of the entire registered userbase, it would not be difficult for anyone here to suggest one-sided reasons to an other user that they should support a certain position; then that user, without the benefit of proving his thoughts by a discussion, could simply come here and vote. Nay, that will not lead to a reasonable conclusion. It may be important when action must be very quick, as with a directorate or an executive, who is nevertheless vetted and proven or decided by others to be fit for the post, but it is by no means appropriate for an open-ended userbase without the urgency of matters of state or business.
Directed to Template talk:Disambig for past discussion, nothing found: In addition to Template talk:Disambig and its archives, I have looked through the discussion pages and their archives at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation) and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and found no substantive discussion. For Template talk:Disambig, for example, I will now delineate all comments I found which even mention this topic, by searching for "top" and "bottom", with links to each section:
  • In Template talk:Disambig#Revertion madness & silly protection:
    • "...his argument that because this message is usually placed at the bottom of pages it should not be inside a box, is all but ridiculous. Actually, this message should be placed at the top of the page, the same way other messages are placed at the top of the page..." - Cantus 23:13, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • After this comment, directly pertaining to the location of the disambig template, there is some back and forth about how consensus can and should be reached before making changes to such a widely used template.
  • In Template talk:Disambig#Other templates:
    • "Normally it's fine if you put two templates on the same page. But try putting Template:Disambig and Template:Wiktionary, for example, on the same page, at the top!" - Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 06:54, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
    • ""{{disambig}} should go on the bottom of the page." - User:Docu
  • In Template talk:Disambig#Vote on version:
    • "It's to go at the bottom of a page, not the top, and in that context 1 looks best." - SoM 28 June 2005 15:07 (UTC)
  • In Template talk:Disambig#Top & bottom borders:
    • "Disambigs are frequently used at the top and bottom of pages, so separators on both seems preferable." - Netoholic @ 21:32, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
  • In Template talk:Disambig#Where is it placed?:
    • "Some disambiguation pages have the template the top and some at the bottom. Which is the correct position?" - • Thorpe • 16:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "The bottom of the page is the most common by a considerable margin, but I'm not sure if there is an official policy." - SimonP 16:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • "The old discussion, and my personal preference, is to place it preferably at the bottom of the page, but to ensure it is visible immediately when the page loads at most resolutions. For very long disambig page, it should up top, so that scrolling isn't necessary." - Netoholic @ 17:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not know where to find the old discussion to which Netoholic refers.
  • I found no references in Template talk:Disambig/Archive1.
So, there was no "discussion" of anything more substantive than a statement that the template "should" go at the bottom of the page, and an assertion that the bottom is the common placement. Of course this was not a very good use of time, but I have little other recourse when: a) it is asserted that the current styleguide ought to be retained because it was reached by consensus; b) there is no presentation or pointer to such past discussion; and c) it is not accepted that I found no such discussion by looking through the pages. If you are so confident that there was indeed a past discussion, it should not be difficult to either find it and point it out, or recall the reasoning that informed that discussion and present that reasoning here.
- Centrx 01:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, look. Consensus isn't nearly such a small factor that you make it to be; without consensus nothing on Wikipedia can be done; it is not a democracy and it is not a dictatorship either. And with some things, the plain and simple overall fact is that whichever way you choose doesn't really make a difference. Sure, some people have preferences, but some things are trivial — the placement of quotation marks, the Oxford comma, digits vs. words for numbers 11 to 99 — and at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. What matters in these cases is that we remain consistent. That is what style is for. We could effectively flip a coin to decide, but it is much easier to see what's going on now.
That sentence fragment is one of these things. Bolding of links is another. The placement of the template is another because on almost all pages, whether it goes at the top or the bottom, it will be seen in the first screen of text. The use of extra wikilinks is not — this is actually debatable.
I'm short on time, so I have to round up here. My point is, some things aren't really that big. I'm not saying they're not worth discussion, I'm just saying it's not worth one or two people pushing it against everyone else for a prolonged period of time. Neonumbers 20:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not denigrate consensus in itself. Please define what you mean by "consensus" for your comment to have any meaning. If by consensus you mean "what the majority agrees", what population is the majority of? and what indicates that majority? If the majority is decided by "a vote with more votes on one side than the other side", how is any arbitrary decision prevented when there is an infinite voter population that is not required to understand the issues at all in order to vote? Nay, consensus requires agreement, which requires an understanding of the subject at hand, which requires a discussion about that subject. I assert that there have been no past discussions on these matters, and that only a handful of users expressed any choice for one position or another, and did so in the briefest of trite terms. Also, why is it consistency good in itself? Why would uniform implementation of bad style be better than partial implementation of good and bad style? If all that matters is "what's going on now", would it be alright if I took the burden on myself to go through every disambiguation page to change the style?
Note that bolding links is corrollary to adding additional links. It is almost pointless if there is only one link per item, but rather necessary if there are additional links. - Centrx 01:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Consensus = general agreement. This rarely requires a vote. If a vote is really that necessary, then in my opinion, 70 percent. It often involves compromise. If there is existing general agreement that something should be some way, then that forms consensus.
With things such as quotation marks, spaces after sentences, spelling out of numbers, there is no real "good" or "bad" style, only preferences. I, for example, prefer two spaces after sentences, all numbers up to 99 spelt out in words. Others disagree. That's no big deal. If everyone seems to like numbers up to 99 as numbers, then that's what I'll do (btw, that discussion never reached consensus, at least not to my knowledge).
With other, more important things, say, the number of links on a dab page, those will need some in-depth discussion. But bolding and template location aren't some of those things. There are pros and cons but the decision doesn't have that much impact. So, can we please accept that bolding (without extra links) and moving the prescribed location of the template to the top will not happen, because they are trivial matters that already have almost everyone against? The guideline on wikilinks is changeable.
And I agree that if other wikilinks are permitted then bolding should be mandated too. That makes perfect sense. Neonumbers 05:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)