This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Disambiguation. 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.

After archiving, two clearly unintended invocations of (i.e., assignments to) Category:Disambiguation have been changed to visible mentions of the means of invoking it.^{--Jerzy•t 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)}

Usage

The {{disambig}} template is placed at the bottom of articles which exist to help readers find other articles with similar names (or which perhaps should have the same name). This concept is called Disambiguation.

Disambiguation is used with common words such as cross, life, and work.

This is the most general-purpose disambiguation template; consider using a more-specific alternative if one exists, such as

Template:Hndis, for people's names
Template:geodis, for place names
Template:TLAdisambig, for three-letter acronyms

For those who can't remember the name

For those who can't remember where the name is abbreviated: Template:Disambiguation, a "synonym".

Discussion

Template talk:Disambig/Archive1

Adding Category:Disambiguation to Template:disambig

Would adding [[Category:Disambiguation]] (or perhaps [[Category:Disambiguation pages]]) to Template:disambig be a good idea? I know that disambiguation articles would not instantly show up in Category:Disambiguation, but as they are edited, they would be slowly added to it, and this would be better than adding them all by hand even more slowly (and unreliably)... It would also eventually replace the need to maintain Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages which currently takes forever and a day to even load. (Hint: if you are an admin and agree, edit the protected page for me, thanks.) --ssd 05:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what non-maintenance practical reason this would have? Not against the idea, though, just curious. Dysprosia 09:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It just seems to me like a great way to get all the disambiguation pages in one place and eliminate a maintaince headache. Not everything listed on the disambiguation page is still a disambiguation, and I'm sure there are some not listed there. The only problem I see with it is that it'll give a fairly hard test of the category system when the number of articles starts going up. It'll probably be one of the first pages to need splitting. --ssd 06:25, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are there any cases of a page that should be linked on Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages, but should not have a Template:disambig notice? I dont think there would be. If not, then it seems like a great idea. Just one less[sic] page that people need to take care of manually, and more time for people to update and create actual content! Chuq 10:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They could be placed into the category manually (I.e., have the category put on the page directly, and leave off the template.) if that's really a problem. If they shouldn't be in the category either, they could just be linked from the category description article. A better question would be if there are pages that should have the notice but not be in the category. --ssd 12:29, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- User:Docu

I think it would be a good idea, although I wonder if Category:Disambiguation should have subcategories for each letter as eventually the main category could have thousands of entries. RedWolf 18:38, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

I also wonder similarly. Would a change in implementaiton of the category display to break it into multiple pages be better? --ssd 04:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Div tag

Is there a particular use in having the Div tag? In the Cologne Blue tag the footer is now glued to the last line (e.g. on ASA).

A way to correct this is to add extra space at the beginning. This does appear in other skins, but doesn't matter that much there. I'd rather remove the div tag though. -- User:Docu

The div is there to hold the id, which allows a user style for the message, including not displaying it because there is already the category indication. Compare Template_talk:Stub#Adding_a_div_to_allow_user_css_to_override_stub_display

The effect of div seems a pecularity (or bug?) of the Cologne Blue skin. May be that can be corrected with CSS?--Patrick 10:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I found another way to fix it: I changed div to font. People have to adjust there[sic] CSS if they were referring to div#disambig (not if they refer to just #disambig). --Patrick 10:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks much better now. Thank you for fixing it. -- User:Docu

You're welcome. By the way, I found yet another way: one newline after the div tag. That does not seem to give extra space in other skins. I am not sure what is better, font or div.--Patrick 12:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Div is certainly the "right" tag to use, but it's much of a muchness, unless the Wikipedia is going in for AAA WAI compliance. - OwenBlacker 02:03, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. Div is not the right tag to use. Wiki-markup is the right thing to use. And what's with the horrendous use of

s? --Delirium 22:44, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Unprotect

Please unprotect this template, or I'll be forced to use a new template to disambiguate. Templates should not be protected. Good changes to Template:Protected have been possible because that template is not protected. --Cantus 02:41, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! --Cantus 00:18, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

As it's an often[-]used template, it may not be suitable to be updated once per hour. -- User:Docu

Why did you protect this again? Unprotect please, or I'll create a new disambig template. --Cantus 23:01, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Stub#Unprotect Sep 30, 2004. -- User:Docu

As this is being changed over and over on the same day, I re-protected the template. -- User:Docu

I do not see the need of unprotection. Isn't it ok like this already. Anyway, this template has special features. All pages with this template is added to Special:Disambiguations which is a special page. If you really want to change it, maybe you could create a user subpage and ask for a comment on whether this new version should be used. --L e on 2323

19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Template-in-a-box

Personally I like the trend towards using boxes around templates. Its cleaner than just italic text, and the reader will see that its not part of the article, and also be more likely to read the template. It also gives a clean, professional feel to Wikipedia in general. Thus I support User:Cantus's edits to change this template to this version, or something similar. I also don't see a need for argument each time this happens, and hope that people can start accepting that design has a place in Wikipedia. -siro χ o 05:20, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I second the motion. I was pleased to see the box appear this afternoon, and disappointed to see it disappear again. It visually sets the disambiguation notice off from the disambiguating text a bit, making the page a little easier to understand. Kevyn 07:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On the principle of boxes, I'm somewhat ambivalent-I quite like the boxes-with-pictures scattered across the French wikipedia (List of templates, Stub, Spoilers, NPOV dispute, Copyvio etc[.]), but I also quite like that not all of our templates are quite so in-yer-face. Imho, some templates definitely need to be more noticeable (e[.]g[.] Template:Spoiler), but I'm not convinced that the disambig one does, unless we're gonna move to making all templates be boxed (which is surely a policy discussion that should be held elsewhere).

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that design has a place in the Wikipedia, unless a full policy discussion is held (and one to which all Wikipedians can easily contribute), I vote to leave this template unboxed. - OwenBlacker 09:10, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for a box at all, but there certainly is not need for the spotted border on it. It looks unprofessional, and the tiny italic writing on a gray background is very unreadable. Angela . 17:17, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

No need for a box, agreed. But I think that it gives a certain separation from the text that mere italics does not. It really shows that we "care" about our articles, and thus we box out text that is not actually part of them! It gives a professionally-designed uniformity to Wikipedia as well. Regarding the current box, I agree it needs work (God i can just see the arguments starting!). I don't see need for smaller text, and the border should be solid. Luckily I'll be gone for a few days and will be able to let you all fight this out (: —siro χ o 17:45, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Within the following contrib, an invocation of Category:Disambiguation has been changed (after archiving!) to a visible mention of the means of invoking it.^{--Jerzy•t 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)}

I also think this needs a nice box and graphic, like a forking symbol. A crude rendition:

X---+--->
    |
    +--->
    |
    +--->

Like green with a little filled in box isntead of X. (I don't know why I imagine it as green.) :-)

Like this:

This is a disambiguation page
This is a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

[[Category:Disambiguation|Disambiguation/Archive 2]]

But with a not-ugly-drawn-in-2-minutes picture :-) - Omegatron 17:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

U-G-L-Y. The disambig text should not overwhelm, but just explain. -- Netoholic @ 17:39, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

:-) Well I think the double lines it has now are ugly. - Omegatron 17:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Modify your .css to change its look. -- Netoholic @ 18:18, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I don't care what it looks like to me. I want wikipedia to give a good impression to others. - Omegatron 18:27, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've read enough outside comments about Wikipedia to know that new users dislike the various colored boxes in our articles. To make yet-another-one for the simple disambig notice is not the right direction. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Anotherone here

Revertion madness & silly protection

I don't know what User:Blankfaze thinks he is doing, but 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. Also, some admin, please kindly unprotect this page. --Cantus 23:13, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

The page is protected because it is undergoing an unprofessional edit war. Whoever protected it was right in doing so. Please cease your edits until you have polled the community and recieved a consensus to implement this change. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Be bold" is a Wikipedia policy. No need to poll the community on every single change. That's not the way Wikipedia works. Would you mind explaining to me what a "professional edit war" would be? --Cantus 23:21, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

This is different. A change on this page affects hundreds if not thousands of pages. Getting at least some form of rough consensus or even a bit of discussion is a good idea before embarking on a change with such ramifications. Johnleemk | Talk 11:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

all "edit wars" are unprofessional, in my opinion: consensus can always be reached, if a good-faith effort is being made by all. A good solution can be found for any difficulty if all parties involved are working towards such solution. Correct me if I am wrong.Pedant 22:08, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Proposal

A proposal to unify message boxes. See Template_talk:Protected for the proposal. --Cantus 02:42, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

invalid HTML

in HTML (and XHTML) a tag can only have one class= in it. MediaWiki removes all but the last one. They're supposed to be combined, class="boilerplate metadata". (I'd do it myself but it's protected) Goplat 21:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A couple things

I actually came here to ask the second question, but after reviewing the discussion and the edit history of the template, I have to wonder-have people been making edits to a protected page and if so, is that appropriate? The real question I have concerns how this template displays-right now the text is jammed up immediately under the last line of an article's text. I find this extremely annoying and unprofessional looking. I'd like a line of space at the top of the template. It seems that sometimes it does display this way-and looking at the edit history, it seems some people may have been experimenting. As it is, I now manually add onto pages with the template, but that strikes me as a rather ineffective approach. Is there a reason why some additional space couldn't be added to the template? older≠wiser 20:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree about the extra space. I fixed this, by adding at the top. Unfortunately, User:Sarge Baldy reverted my change, commenting "rv , italics separates it well enough and the extra space really bugs me" I think it looks much better with the extra space, myself. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:53, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please add the extra space back in (see my comment above Template_talk:Disambig#Div_tag as well). -- User:Docu

Please don't change this page without discussing

This template is used on hundreds, maybe thousands, of Wikipedia pages. Changes you make affect all these pages, so changes should be careful and based on consensus. Please only make changes to this page after discussing here. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:17, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

That comment seems very un-wiki. While this text is used on many pages (about 10,000 if you look at the category), improvements can and should be made by anyone that's willing to contribute. What people should not do is revert reasonable edits such that another "war" goes on. That being said, I am going to remove the manual line break since the paragraph tag already includes a margin. I am going to increase the verticle[sic] spacing there to 1em, which should be sufficient. -- Netoholic @ 03:22, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Revert wars are bound to occur when users don't bother to test the waters before making changes that impact the whole of Wikipedia. Use some common sense. Similar problems happened with changes in the spoiler template. Aris Katsaris 21:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The trouble is, Bkonrad could reasonably say he was boldly making an "improvement" when he took out the border. (You would, presumably, say he was "reverting a reasonable edit".) In the same way, someone could say you "reverted a reasonable edit" by taking out the . It's all subjective.

The look of this box is obviously a contentious issue. That's why I think it's important to get some consensus here as to what the template should look like. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:35, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I like how the new template says it's a navigational element,[sic] that's a good idea. The margin stuff? Well, that might be a bit too much, but let's try it for a while... The previous comment may be un-whatever, but it's nevertheless common sense,[sic] messing with a template like this one requires some responsibility and it's quite necessary to remind people of that. --Joy [shallot] 11:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wait, what? You yourself made a change to the template without any discussion, adding a blank line at the top that personally annoys me. Personally I like the idea of a simple divider between the end of the article and the disambig message, as it's enough to separate the two things without being too much to annoy people. A spaced line between creates a block of white space I personally find really distasteful. Sarge Baldy 14:03, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I did discuss it, at Template_talk:Disambig#A_couple_things. Three of us agreed that the whitespace is a good idea. No one disagreed. I see now that you do disagree. Ok. I don't know what you mean by "a simple divider"-do you mean a <hr>? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:19, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Where did you discuss it? That seems to be dated September 29th... I reverted the space on the 23rd and modified it into a divider earlier (on the 20th) and the idea wasn't presented in the talk page in either case. And yes, a simple <hr> remains my personal preference. Sarge Baldy 14:30, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

If you were referred here by a link in an article

If you were referred here by a link in an article, you might want to go back and fix the link to point directly to the intended page.

Can we get rid of the over-pretentious language? From passive voice to needless explanation "a link in an article"-as opposed to a link in a what?,[sic] this particular change has acadamese[sic] preference for style over substance and length over brevity written all over it.

I suggest this: If a link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

Aris Katsaris 21:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think I used "in an article" there, as opposed to just "link" because some visitors may be directed to that disambig page from an external link, or search engine. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

It is still superfluous, no need to phrase for all contingencies. How about

You may want to point the link that brought you here directly to the intended page.

--MarSch 11:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Top & bottom borders

No frame, with borders, like this version

No frame, with extra space, like this version

No frame, without extra space, like this version

A line instead, (without extra space above) like this version

I made an edit which added top and bottom double-line borders to the message box, as seen in this edit. I think they look very tasteful, but Bkonrad keeps removing them. I really think some defined separation is needed, since the text does tend to run into the rest of the page. Remembering that any user can modify their[sic] own style sheets to display this message however they[sic] want[sic], do other people think that this is a nice thing to have as a default? -- Netoholic @ 14:14, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

I personally like the double-line top-and-bottom-only border. It's tasteful. The 1em verticle[sic] space is nice too. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:28, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
This one has my support as well. Sarge Baldy 14:32, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
I think a top border would be good enough. The template is used at the bottom of the pages, anyway. Lupo 15:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could you take a shot of the message with a single <hr> line for comparison as well? Sarge Baldy 15:33, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Ok. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Nice screenshots. Three points -
1. Disambigs are frequently used at the top and bottom of pages, so separators on both seems preferable. The "redundant" one tends to disappear from perception.
2. I like the double line mostly because single lines (HRs) are already used as section separators. This message is a notation, not a section in and of itself.
3. I dislike that the fact that User:Docu keeps protecting this template.

-- Netoholic @ 21:32, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

I much dislike the border,[sic] to me it seems like no more than extra clutter. - SimonP 22:09, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Your opinion is noted, but please do not edit protected pages. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 22:19, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
 - Why not? Many others have edited it. - SimonP 22:24, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
 - <sarcasm>Why not vandalize the Feminism page by writing "Femanism suxx!!!" on the top? Other people are doing it.</sarcasm> Others edited this page while it wasn't protected. To edit a semi-protected page, like this one, you should first discuss it on talk and make sure there's a consensus to make the change. (See our policy on the matter.) It looks like, as of now, the bulk of commenters want to keep the bars. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 01:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought this page was always protected. It's listed as such at Wikipedia:Protected pages. - SimonP 21:53, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
I dislike the bars-I think it looks amateurish; however, it is an improvement over having no space and no bars. I prefer space with no bars, but at this point, so long as it doesn't go back to no space, I'm OK with it. older≠wiser 01:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I strongly dislike the bars as well. I also dislike that someone edited this page to add them without first discussing their addition for a significant length of time, as they seem to have appeared quite recently with no notice anywhere I could find. --Delirium 12:35, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Not a fan of the bars either. If there must be a border, it should be 1px all the way around, to remain conistent with everything else in Wikipedia. No bars is fine as well. —siro χ o 23:22, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
I also hate the bars (even more than the HRs before them). They make the message stand out more than the page, which is a UI blunder. Was there ever a vote on this? There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus. Dori | Talk 02:41, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

i.e./that is/—

I think we need to reach a concensus on what to use in the template between "This is a disambiguation page" and "a navigational aid which...". The template is rather constantly shifting between "i.e.", "that is", and "—"; one should be probably be settled on. For what it's worth, I prefer the look of the dashits[sic] cleanest (see the pictures above for two and the current template for the third). Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I prefer spaced ndash – because it separates the words. Don't like mdash—because proper use means the words have no spacing and run together. In either case "; that is," should go away. -- Netoholic @ 00:18, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

How about the grammatically-correct colon? HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 08:15, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic is apparently confusing the emdash with the hyphen. An endash joins a range, or is sometimes used in cases of double hyphenation. An emdash (whether it's represented by —, --, or what have you) is proper here; the colon equally so. ADH (t&m) 00:29, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

add link to Special:Allpages

Within the following contrib, an invocation of Category:Disambiguation has been changed (after archiving!) to a visible mention of the means of invoking it.^{--Jerzy•t 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)}

I'd like to add a [[Special:Allpages/{{PAGENAME}}]] link to the template. This will offer assistance finding additional related pages. Here is a mockup:

This is a disambiguation page – a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title (find more). If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

[[Category:Disambiguation]]

The results are a little different (and only slightly less useful) if the page is a Page Title (disambiguation), but I think its still beneficial. Here is one example of how it would work if someone visited Aberdeen (disambiguation) and used the link Special:Allpages/Aberdeen (disambiguation). Fortunately, the disambig page is near the top of the alphabetical listings.

Since the template is still protected, and admin will have to add it, if people like it. Feel free to suggest alternate wording too, this is more about the added functionality. -- Netoholic @ 21:37, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

en:Oslo, en:Oslo, Minnesota and no en:Oslo, (disambiguation)

- en: has the following titles: Oslo, Oslo, Minnesota and many others see en:Special:Allpages/Oslo but no Oslo, (disambiguation).
- Should the disambiguation templates contain the [[Special:Allpages/{{PAGENAME}}]] link? Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 03:16, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

After reading these comments: A bot could first modify the pages and call {{disambig|TITLE}} where TITLE is PAGENAME or PAGENAME without (disambiguation). This will not harm. If this is done the template could be changed.

Example: {{disambig|Aberdeen}} generates

This disambiguation page lists pages associated with the title Template talk:Disambiguation/Archive 2.
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended page.

Regards Gangleri | Th | T 03:33, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

Minor formatting improvement

Very minor, but the Template would be improved with before the opening italics, to give the call of it some breathing room on the various pages. I notice someone else mentioned it earlier on this page, too. Can someone do this? — Bill 19:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Going to try again, Signori Administrators. Isn't this a reasonable request? — Bill 21:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. That would be a most un-elegant solution. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Don't take Netoholic's brusque tone personally, Bill. He's that way to everyone. I think your request is a very reasonable one, and it would improve the page. Whenever anyone adds this, however, someone reverts it. (Often Netoholic.) Consensus on the point has not been reached. You're quite welcome to try to find consensus on the point, though. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:38, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

If I may, and pardon me if I am wrong User:Netoholic, I believe that he means inelegant from the perspective of the coding, that is somewhat of a kludge, in that it html is intended to mark[ ]up text to describe its function rather than to style it, and that through the use of stylesheets/.css, anything can do, a stylesheet could do better, and that CSS would be the preferable way to approach the issue you have pointed out... which would be the "elegant way" to do it. would actually be incorrect by the way as every tag needs a closing tag,[sic[ "tags which appear as a single tag" need to have this format: </ tagname> rather than <tagname>. I'm pretty sure Netoholic wasn't attacking your sense of style. I think the difficulty of reaching consensus on this comes from a misunderstanding related to this issue.Pedant 00:19, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

What's with the stupid space in the tag? lysdexia 20:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He's half-correct in referring to the fact that all XHTML tags must be closed, but the form for a self-closing tag is actually <tag/> (or <tag /> for compatibility). In any event, all forms are converted to the proper XHTML markup by the parser, so the Wikimarkup you use matters not. ADH (t&m) 00:59, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Footer or Header

I always think that this message should be a footer, but I keep finding articles where it is a header. Why do people do this?? 66.245.127.59 22:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ideally, this message should appear on the page without scrolling down. If that can only be achieved by putting it at the top (because there are a lot of disambig links or descriptions), it makes sense. -- Netoholic @ 23:43, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Well, you can also tell a page is so by looking at the "(disambiguation)" in its article title. 66.245.25.150 23:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

not necessarily-some disambig pages are located just at the article title, like America. so it's important that the notice be visible. Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection?

Why is this protected? So only admins can edit it? Please unprotect. Wikipedia is becoming a very disappointing place. --Cantus 19:58, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Many of the most-used templates are semi-permanently protected. This makes sure only edits that have the backing of consensus get made. Here's why:

When one page gets changed, then the server cache for that one page has to be refreshed. No big deal. But when a template which is included on ten thousand pages gets changed, the server has to refresh the cashe on all those pages, which is a serious performance hit. And when there's an edit war on a page like this (which there has been recently), it makes Wikipedia noticeably slower for everyone. So protection makes sure this page is updated infrequently.

So, what change were you thinking about making? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:53, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I prefer the following wording. We edit articles and links, we do not fix them as they are neither permanent (fixed) or "broken":

This is a disambiguation page a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If you arrived at this page by following a link, it would be considerate for you to go back and edit the link to point directly to the appropriate page.

or possibly, including User:Netoholic's find more link:

This is a disambiguation page a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. find more If you arrived at this page by following a link, it would be considerate for you to go back and edit the link to point directly to the appropriate page.

comments?Pedant 22:02, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

I suggest...

I suggest the following Wikipedia proposal:

All dis-ambiguation pages that are too large to reach the bottom, namely, the dis-ambiguation template, without scrolling down to reach it, should have the "Article (disambiguation)" title format. An "Article" title with no suffix is allowed to stay as a re-direct if there are 2 meanings naturally thought of, the one that is more natural than the other depending on the POV, such as Georgia, where there is the country and the US state. Any comments?? 66.32.244.149 21:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rewording For Grammar & Clarity

The disambiguation notice currently says:

This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

I suggest:

This is a disambiguation page, a navigational aid listing other pages that could share the same title. If an article link referred you here then you could go back and fix it to point that link directly to the intended page.

— Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 01:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I dislike this suggestion. The first version is grammatically correct; the second is not. (The first sentence becomes a run-on.)

— dbenbenn | talk 15:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the first version is grammatically incorrect (or at least deprecated): it uses "which" where "that" would be appropriate. Constafrequent's rewrite does not contain a run-on. Addressing only the which vs. that error, it would read:

This is a disambiguation page - a navigational aid that lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

That said, the problem I see with the current template is that it assumes it is the only content on the page. I propose:

This page provides disambiguation: one or more links to other pages whose title may be confused with this one. If you were referred here by a link on another page and you know of a page that addresses the topic of that link, you can to back and correct the link on the referring page.

— Dland 21:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation and hub articles

Is Cannabis properly categorised as a disambiguation article? The suggestion that links leading to it need fixing seems quite inapproriate. Cannabis is now effectively and intentionally a link to a reading list. Laurel Bush 10:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Get it right

In all the too-ing and fro-ing I have just read through on this page, someone has still managed to stuff up the message which has been currently agreed upon - can someone with the POWER please edit the template and remove the superfluous 'point'!!

By the way, I think the current message is quite ok - it is perfectly understandable and there is nothing wrong with the style. --Mikeh 13:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Be calm, my son. Peace. Now, what did you mean? Without the word "point", it would say "If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to directly to the intended page." That wouldn't parse. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:26, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

You have missed the 'point'! - there were two of them!!--Mikeh 13:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Possibly you were having a browser problem. dbenbenn | talk 14:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image

Gangleri suggested (on my talk page) that once meta:Image server overload 2005-03 is fixed we could add Image:Disambig.svg to this template (suitably sized, of course). Seems like a good idea to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:46, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I like it, too. But see above Template talk:Disambig#Template-in-a-box for disagreement. - Omegatron 17:55, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I also like it. It's already used in some other language versions.. Ausir 21:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to propose the very same idea when I realized it was already proposed. Of course I support it. German Wikipedia also uses it, so it would be some kind of unification.

The discussion about which text to use started above has also not been finished yet. I would like the version "This is a disambiguation page - a navigational aid that lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page." The image together with this text would be perfect.

--Eleassar777 16:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also to note that the same discussion was recently raised on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Template:Disambig_and_Image:Disambig.png and seems generally supported, as it is here. As a concrete example I suggest changing the template to one of the following; -- Solipsist 21:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


	This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

Disambiguation icon

This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

To repeat what I said at the [[above-linked discussion, I'd seen the disambig image used on other languages' Wikipedias and like it a lot. -- Tetraminoe 06:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Me too. It's great and I'm sure it would be there, if the page wasn't protected. "Call the locksmith!" (quote from Robin Hood: Men in Tights) --Easyas12c 11:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well it is more that the last I heard, we were having some trouble with overloading of the image servers. As such, images in frequently used templates have been temporarily removed. Once that is resolved I doubt there will be much problem with adding an icon to the disambig template. -- Solipsist 14:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The image was added and removed. I strongly support including the image on the page - makes the disambigs instantly recognizable. It looks like en: is the only wiki without the image! --Yurik 28 June 2005 14:51 (UTC)

"Other pages"?

This is a disambiguation page - a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title.

Is it necessary to say "other pages"? Other than what? Isn't "lists pages that might otherwise share the same title" enough? DopefishJustin (・∀・) 23:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed enough. --Eleassar777 07:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Fixed. Deco 00:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Er, thought I fixed. When I tried to save it it didn't work. No matter how many times I tried. Crazy software. Will fix ASAP. Deco 00:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

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! Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 06:54, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

{{disambig}} should go on the bottom of the page. -- User:Docu

Bad CSS

On M$IE 5.5 in default skin (Monobook?), the template is (and makes all pages) a bit wider than the window, no matter what the size it is. Please somebody fix this. --Malyctenar 08:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

A proposal for a new disambiguation template

So many disambiguations have been made; we should either make new templates that will divide the disambiguation category into sets of word starting with a range of or a specific letter so that the category can be more navigatable. Or we could put a variable into the category link. --SuperDude 21:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent change to this template

"Several terms named after the same word" doesn't make much sense. Nohat 02:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. I can't really think of a good narrow substitute, though. It's a lot better to say that a term is the word than to say it's named after it, but that's horribly clumsy: "several terms that are the same word"? Maybe a term with several uses? 4pq1injbok 02:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And "Ddisambiguation" (with two leading Ds) is not an English word but a typo. But i'm not in a rush to add editing protected pages to my skills, and in any case it may be tolerable until something else can be fixed at the same time.
--Jerzy·t 02:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed "between several" from the sentence, because I felt they were unnecessary and were impeachable because:

between has been described in traditional grammars as only acceptable for two items (the -tween has the same root as two). Of course this is nonsense, but text that is seen frequently should be written in utterly unimpeachable language. The usualy alternative among feels strange here, and the verb distinguish subcategorizes for a plural direct object as easily as for a prepositional phrase.
several is not really accurate. There could be as few as two or three items to disambiguate (which is a smaller number than most definitions of several provide for), or as many as 100. I don't see that there's any need to quantify the number of items being disambiguated.

I have also changed the word terms to topics because terms don't have a name; they are the name. Topics, on the other hand, can have a name.

The remaining sentence reads This is a disambiguation page which serves to distinguish topics that share a common name. It is short, to the point, and grammatically and factually impeccable. I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. Nohat 05:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least I've been trying to commit these changes. Changing a template that is included on many pages is apparently too tricky to handle right the first several tries. Nohat 05:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this change. Firstly, the image is now going to appear on many pages, something that has been avoided (the stub template, for example) due to server load problems. Secondly, the template now draws the eye more than the main body of the page - something I don't think is a good idea. violet/riga (t) 09:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New look

I love the new look of this template! The box makes it much clearer. However, there's one thing I don't like about it, and that is that there's more padding at the bottom of the box than at the top. I tried to make some changes in the Wikicode and got the extra padding removed. I don't know if the code is the best, but at least it works.

The current look:

This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

My proposal:

Disambiguation

This is a disambiguation page which serves to distinguish topics that share a common name.

Disambiguation pages are navigational aids which list other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred to this page, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

Anyone else that want to see this change? Teklund 09:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not just vertically center both cells, like this:

Disambiguation

This is a disambiguation page which serves to distinguish topics that share a common name.

Disambiguation pages are navigational aids which list other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred to this page, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

It's a simpler solution, and avoids inserting the extra space between the two lines of text. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 11:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't really mind which of the three you use, but wouldn't the image look better if its background was the same colour as the background of the box. --bjwebb 15:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the changes to the template's appearance. The fewer gray boxes per page, the better. — Dan | Talk 16:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I definately prefered it as it was before. I honestly don't see what the image is supposed to symbolise, and I don't see what it adds to the Template. Also, why has this Template been edited so many times today, while it is protected? Doesn't protection mean that changes should be discussed? -- Ec5618 19:15, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not too happy about the new version I'm loathed to revert a protected template. I do agree, however, that it shouldn't have been changed in the first place. If there is more support for a reversion I will do it. violet/riga (t) 19:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There has been a fair bit of prior discussion on the inclusion of the arrow image in the disambig template, both on the Village Pump and above at Template talk:Disambig#Image. Personally, I'm in favour of the arrow icon, but the current template is overly prominent. I've two subtler options suggested above. -- Solipsist 19:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I strongly dislike the image; and I doubt I'm alone. If any image is to be widely imposed, it should be variable, like the skin. Please don't. Septentrionalis 21:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the image, as long as it doesn't break the servers, but I don't think much of putting the template inside a box. Boxes in articles indicate a problem in need of fixing and are given prominence because readers need to be warned of these problems before using a page. Disambig pages are pretty self-explanatory and the message does not need such highlighting. - SimonP 22:15, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

For the log: I like the new suggestion and in particular the image / pictogram. -- mkrohn 20:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also love that 3-way image and I think a real box looks way better than the fake box we have now.--MarSch 11:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

meta:Image server overload 2005-03

Isn't meta:Image server overload 2005-03 still a problem? In that case we shouldn't add yet an image to disambiguation pages. -- User:Docu

Not really, because this is the exact same template used on the German Wikipedia, and there have been no reported problems there. Páll 15:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The page is still live and it might just be the images in German Wikipedia need removal as well. If we have to choose between 500 illustrated articles and a 30,000 disambiguation pages with an image, I'd rather have the illustrated articles. -- User:Docu

Let's figure out what we're doing first

I think we need to get more of a consensus before deciding what changes we want to make. For a protected template used on many pages (possibly with an included image), frequent edits are undesirable. I'm not sure how I feel about the image, but clearly people are not ready to agree that the changed layout was an improvement. Please figure out something that people believe is a definite improvement first.

With respect to the editing of the text, I propose this version, which adopts some of the changes already made:

This is a disambiguation page which serves to distinguish topics that share a common name. This page exists to help navigate to your desired destination. If an article link brought you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

That's a proposal as far as the text only, not how it should be presented in terms of the unresolved layout issues. --Michael Snow 21:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like both the text, and the italics. We could use a line above or below the text, though it's perhaps not necessary. I don't think we need an image, German wiki be damned. -- Ec5618 22:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this predilection for decorating templates like stubs and disambigs with little images. I think they all look silly. -- Anonymous, 00:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. I quite liked the image and the layout! Much cleaner. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what improvement this change seeks to make. Michael's suggestion says the same thing as the current version, just in a slightly more verbose way. I really like the current version (used since Nov 2004). -- Netoholic @ 13:15, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

I liked the image but not the colour. It was awful. I think we should reinstate the design but with a different colour. Celestianpower 15:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I personally liked the new look, I was dissapointed to see it wasn't there when I added the tag. I feel it makes the page look better, and helps catch the eye of the reader, which then explains the purpose and meaning of "disambiguation". Kind of thought that was the point of using the tag. <>Who ?¿? 18:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grammar fix needed

The wording This is a disambiguation page which... (which now seems to have been adopted, although when I view Template:disambig itself I see the old wording) is ungrammatical as punctuated. A "which" or "that" clause not set off by a comma should be restrictive (it would tell what type of disambig page "this" is). The actual wording is intended to be a non-restrictive clause, and therefore must have a comma before "which". -- Anonymous, 00:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New image

Even though there has been objections to the new disambiguation tag; we could add the little picture from it to the current tag. --SuperDude 00:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The pictue serves to identify the template at a glance, without having to read. Just like pictures on stub templates help checking stubs for a stub template.--MarSch 12:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the image draws the eye to the disambig notice much more than we would want. This notice is not the most important part of the page and shouldn't demand attention. I've always liked the idea of having an image though, so my suggestion is that a light, greyscale version is made.

The second point to consider is whether this template is covered by the decision to remove images from massively common templates. Is this massively common? If so, we should hold back from using any image until we have the go ahead to use them on all such templates. violet/riga (t) 22:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote on version

Below is a list of versions of this template. Version 3 was modeled on Template:Current. Feel free to add alternatives if you think this is necessary. Please vote in the table below. --MarSch 28 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)

I've just started a brief framework idea about how to organise template standardisation for article templates. That would hopefully sort out (part of) this issue. I'm a little worried about the structure of this vote. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:37 (UTC)

1

This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

2

Disambiguation

This is a disambiguation page which serves to distinguish topics that share a common name.

Disambiguation pages are navigational aids which list pages that might otherwise share the same title.

3

This is a disambiguation page, a navigational aid which lists pages that might otherwise share the same title. You may want to point the link that brought you here directly to the intended page.

4

This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

Voting

Voting on versions
signature	approved versions	comments
MarSch 28 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)	3 > 2	I prefer 3, but I prefer a picture over none
SoM 28 June 2005 15:07 (UTC)	1	It's to go at the bottom of a page, not the top, and in that context 1 looks best.
DES 28 June 2005 15:25 (UTC)	4> 1 > 3	I see no value in the picture, which is not a standard symbol for anything. I think the wording of three is the best of the lot, and the ungrammatical wording of two is the worst. I Like the box on 2 & 3 -- My preference is really for 3 without the picture. So I added a case for that, now option 4.
Teklund 28 June 2005 16:17 (UTC)	3 > 4	The image will immediately let you see it's a disambig page, no need to read the text. Also the box in versions 3 and 4 makes it clear that the box isn't part of the content of the article.
— Dan \| Talk 28 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)	1 > 2 > 3 >4	This poll is unnecessarily confusing.
SimonP June 28, 2005 17:58 (UTC)	1 > 2 > 3 >4	Strongly oppose anything that puts the message in a box
Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 18:01 (UTC)	1	Frivolous use if images as icons are an unnecessary burden on the server, and colored boxes offend my eyes. I find that the current (#1) version is just about the most perfect article-space template made. If you don't like it fix it in your personal CSS.
violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)	1	Don't like that image (may support a less obtrusive one) and the box is unnecessary.
<>Who ?¿? 29 June 2005 00:36 (UTC)	1 > 2	I prefer the text layout of 2 with the wording of 1, change vote to remove graphic as possible resource hog.
R adiant _>\|< June 29, 2005 07:50 (UTC)	3 > 2 > 1	This should really be decided at WP:TS rather than here.
IByte 29 June 2005 18:10 (UTC)	3 > 1 > 4	Image and layout of 3, wording of 1 (equal to 4). The box with the image identifies the page as disambiguation at a first glance.
Splash June 30, 2005 15:16 (UTC)	3 > 1	I like the image, but dislike the rest of 2. If having images removes 3 and 2, then I prefer 1 to 4. I share some of the concerns about the structure of this vote, however.
Jerzy·t 30 June 2005 21:22 (UTC)	----	The most important issue in this "vote" is that votes of this kind do not measure consensus in accordance of WP policy on voting, and that all policies decided on in this fashion justify undermining of efforts to enforce them.
—Mulad (talk) July 2, 2005 09:58 (UTC)	3 > 1	The border is nice on 3, and the picture seems pretty good to me, and is used in Wikipedias in other languages if I recall correctly. I don't like the weird small text and stuff in 2, so otherwise I'd just prefer to keep things the way they are.
—Grutness...wha? 10:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)	2 > 3 > 1 > 4	Picture is better than no picture; no box is better than lines are better than box. Small text on 2 is a distinct bonus, as is italicising on 1 (if 3 had been italicised it would probably have topped my vote.
Ardonik.talk()^* 16:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)	3 > 2 > 4 > 1	The picture is aesthetically pleasing, and I'd be glad to see it added to the disambig template. If that doesn't work out, a colored box will do. There has been a recent trend towards making templates more vivid (c.f. the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.) It's a trend I approve of.
Cat ^chi? 12:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)	3	We need some color to take atention, frame seperates it from everything else. Disambig should primarily take attention. People normaly ignore regular wanings these days... Also a break after the period may look a lot better.
Mysidia 13:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)	2, 3	I prefer version 3; There needs to be good spacing and a picture, otherwise this notice blends in.
Scriberius 16 July 2005	2	No. 2 looks ok, definetely with that symbol (a lot of other Wikipedias have it, too).
--Viperch 19:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)	3	No. 3 looks good, definetely with that symbol (a lot of other Wikipedias have it, too).
Trilobite 19:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)	2 > 3 > 1 > 4	Lots of the other Wikipedias have this, including the German one which I tend to find more professional and a good benchmark for us. I'd rather not have the coloured background, but an icon makes a disambig obvious to the reader at a glance.
Shinobu 08:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)	2 > 3	I like 2 best, but 3 is okay as well I guess. The icon is a good identifier for a dab page. Actually I think the text on the Dutch wiki is clearer. Also see my comment below.

Comments

This vote is really flawed (yes, even more than the weird use of tables). If it was even necessary, we should be voting separately on wording as opposed to formatting. It's otherwise too hard to tell what is being measured here. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 18:06 (UTC)

I recently noticed the RV of the new design. Has anyone even looked at Tfd disambiguation? As there was a decision before this vote began, it seems. This vote started on 28JUN and the Tfd was finalized 23JUN, unless this vote is due to the Tfd. It was only recently changed because it was earlier protected. If so, please ignore. Thanks. <>Who ?¿? 29 June 2005 00:29 (UTC)

- This vote is due to the TFD. And remember that most stub templates have had their images removed because they're a strain on the server, and the disambig template is used on more pages than any stub bar bio-stub, I believe. And the stub templates are the most appropriate match for this, I believe, and they're not boxed... - SoM 29 June 2005 01:12 (UTC)

- - Thanks for the clarification on both points, as such I have changed my vote. <>Who ?¿? 29 June 2005 04:55 (UTC)

Somehow this got deleted:

DES, you said you liked the wording of 3 but without the picture. Why then did you copy the wording of 1?--MarSch 28 June 2005 17:50 (UTC)

--MarSch 29 June 2005 17:05 (UTC)

SimonP, if you strongly oppose (colored) boxes, then you should vote (1 > 2) or something. Not (1>2>3>4), since that means that you can live with 3 and also 4. --MarSch 29 June 2005 17:14 (UTC)

Jerzy, why do you sya that? --MarSch 1 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)

@And remember that most stub templates have had their images removed because they're a strain on the server: No doubt because they're all different images. One single image for all dabs will end up in the cache (both client and server side I assume). If this is not the case, I suggest we should ditch the (much larger) logo at the top-left as well. Shinobu 08:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Change and moving of voting

I agree with Radiant and Dan. This should really be on WP:TS and this current vote is too confusing, as there are too many options and modifications. I like ones layout but wording of another. I think, before the vote gets too large, it should be changed to accomodate several layouts and wording structures. Example:

Pic: Yes/No

Text Layout choices: 1/2/3/4

Format Layout choices: 1/2/3/4 (as in Heading/sub heading, or one long sentence; etc..)

Wording choices: 1/2/3/4

Color choices: 1/2/3/4

I know this may seem to make it more difficult than it is, but I think its getting more complicated as it precedes anyhow. <>Who ?¿? 29 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)

I agree with a poll split along multiple dimensions as above. i don't have an opnion about which page it should be on. DES 29 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)

I don't see why this should be decided at WP:TS. Once it is decided there that templates should be standardized and what that standard is, we should try to standardize, but what one template looks like should be decided on its talk page. I don't mind if anyone wants to split this poll into several subpolls. --MarSch 30 June 2005 11:26 (UTC)

The point is that if there's an existing standard (e.g. coffee roll) then this template should look like that (e.g. have a brown box). We can debate the text and the icon here, if we want. But this debate is actually about the fact that some people prefer a purple box, or no box, to the coffee roll. And that's a standardisation issue. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 07:56 (UTC)
- The coffee roll is onyl for talk templates not for article templates. There is no standard yet for article templates. Discussing that standard should take place at TS.--MarSch 1 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

I suggest we vote on a separte page, e.g Template talk:Disambig/Design vote. We can link it here and on TS and everyone would be happy and we could finally actually vote. Shinobu 18:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit function

I strongly disagree that Wikipedians are not able to edit a page if there's no "vandalism" such as this one. Changes of contents are key issues to a open source project. Isn't it a FREE encyclopedia? Scriberius 22:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

redesign proposal

In spite of a new bordered template with null text, I was proposing a change for this disambiguation template. The last redesign was reverted due to less accurate text. This one should retain the same text therefore will have a higher chance of surviving.

This template will be easy to make hence the pre-made border with null text. Here is the design below:

{{bordered|1='''This is a [[Wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation]] page — a navigational aid which lists pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.'''}}

Will anybody concur with this? --SuperDude 02:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Box overuse. There is nothing wrong with the template in its current state. -- Netoholic @ 00:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree - we shouldn't use boxes for permanent, high-use templates. violet/riga (t) 09:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Thanks then. I was about to reply to SimonP but you answered my question. • Thorpe • 17:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The content should always come first. Readers don't need to read the instructions before they can start using a disambiguation page even once, much less every time; its function is self-evident. —Michael Z. 2005-11-15 20:23 Z

Add "what links here"

I would like to see a link to "What links here", to encourage people to fix *all* of the articles that need to be disambiguated, not just the one that lead them there:

This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page (along with other pages that link here).

--rob 05:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent idea! —Wahoofive (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection request

I don't see any reason for this template to be protected. I am listing this template at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Ixfd64 06:51, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Too bad it wasn't left protected. That would have saved us the hassle caused by that move. Noel (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere

I've added a link to Special:Whatlinkshere on the template. If anyone thinks that it can be improved, please feel free to make any changes you see fit. --Ixfd64 05:52, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

It needs {{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}} rather than {{PAGENAME}} since a small number of disambiguation pages exist outside the main namespace. Bo Lindbergh 21:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Other disambiguation types

I am going to do a page move on this template. I want the text message to be uncategorized, however the generic dab template shall use the main text and the generic category. --SuperDude 00:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please make sure to get a consensus for this first. It's a template too often used. -- User:Docu

Why remove the category? It will quickly make Special:Uncategorized pages useless. - SimonP 01:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It's just that I restored the wrong previous version when, or rather after, trying to move Template:Nocatdab back. Thank you for restoring it. -- User:Docu

Sigh, I tried to put the history back together, but couldn't get rid of this one to move the prior history back here. I have stored the prior history at Template talk:Disambig/History until a developer can help. Noel (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Layout

This discussion has been going on, I know, but I just wanted to say that the Dutch version of this template looks way better: cleaner, more professional, as well as providing more clarity on what a dab page is.

Dit is een doorverwijspagina, bedoeld om onderscheid te maken tussen de verschillende betekenissen en gebruiken van de term Disambiguation/Archive 2.

Op deze pagina staat een uitleg van de verschillende betekenissen van Disambiguation/Archive 2 en verwijzingen daarnaartoe. Bent u hier via een pagina in Wikipedia terechtgekomen? Pas dan de verwijzing naar deze doorverwijspagina aan, zodat toekomstige gebruikers direct op de juiste pagina terechtkomen.

<includeonly> [[Categorie:Doorverwijspagina]] </includeonly>

The text reads: This is a disambiguation page, intended to disambiguate between various meanings and usages of the term xyzzy.

The small text reads: On this page is an explanation on the different meanings of xyzy and links to xyzzy. Did a link from another page land you here? In that case, please correct that link so future readers may be directed to the correct page directly.

Compared to the nice-looking template above, ours is just, well... primitive. Shinobu 23:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It is pretty but it suffers from the following problems:

This is much too visually prominent—it is bigger and bolder than the actual content of many disambiguation pages
The text is much too long—again, many pages would have more meta than data
It explains the word disambiguation using the word "disambiguate"—an inefficient and unenlightening definition for an unusual word
We don't need our templates to be more "advanced-looking". If a page is well designed its function will be self-evident, and meta-elements like this can disappear altogether.

Please: less interface and more encyclopedia. —Michael Z. 2005-11-15 19:09 Z

But I don't mind having an icon; although I would make it smaller and much more subdued in colour. Readers won't ever read a disambiguation notice more than once or twice, and having an icon makes it easier to spot and ignore. —Michael Z. 2005-11-15 20:28 Z

@much too visually prominent: Perhaps you're right. I wouldn't mind having the entire text between small-tags.

@text is too long: I'm not sure. I don't think it matters much, since one usually skips it if one has seen a dab-page before.

@explains the word disambiguation using the word "disambiguate": I'm afraid something is lost in translation. However, perhaps the entire first sentence is superfluous; that would solve point 2 as well.

@advanced-looking: the point is not that it looks "advanced", whatever that means. The point is that it looks considerably less ugly. A single rule on the top and a subtle(!) background color do a great job at seperating the dab-text from the rest.

I agree with you on the icon. Perhaps we can have a look at other wikis too and see how they manage. Shinobu 23:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

reverted to October 9 version for now

I've reverted the template to the October 9th version for now. While the Google link was nice, it didn't seem to format properly when the template was used in an article. --Ixfd64 09:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

problem with Google & multi-word titles

For multi-word titles, PAGENAMEE has an underscore between words & Google would prefer to see a space. I like the concept, though. --Big_Iron 11:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, in the URL passed to Google, I think that it would prefer to see + characters rather than _s between words. --Big_Iron 11:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a mediawiki variable to return the page name in escaped format, sutable for inserting in a URL such as a search engine link? With possible manual adjustments to remove underscores (common) or words like "disambiguation" if needed, and make sure no incorrect double-escaping? Then this would be easy. FT2 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Re-wording

I think we better discuss changes to the wording of the template. At the moment it says "a list of meanings associated", which indicates that the page is a dictionary entry - contrary to wikipedia policy. "Which lists articles that may otherwise share the same title" was the best wording in my opinion. I'm going to revert back to that now - considering I've just spent 6 months removing dicdefs from dab pages. I'm happy for change - after discussion.--Commander Keane 15:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Your interpretation of "list of meanings" is not what I intended. I'm merely attempting to convey the fact that some disambiguation pages contain brief references to alternative connotations that lack Wikipedia articles. For example, see this disambiguation page. It contains a notation of the fact that "Hamlet" is a "brand-name for a cigar," but no link to an article about Hamlet cigars.

I'm trying to devise a different method of allowing for this possibility. So far, the best that I've come up with is the following:

This is a disambiguation page — a list of articles and/or potential articles associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

The phrase "potential articles" does address the fact that some disambiguation pages contain red links, but I'm open to alternative suggestions.

In any case, there's no need to throw out the baby with the bath water; "list of _____ associated with the same title" is more accurate than "_____ that may otherwise share the same title," because many disambiguation pages contain links to articles with far wider scopes than the search term. (In other words, the applicable connotation of the disambiguation page's title composes only a portion of the article.) —Lifeisunfair 16:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I know I harp on the same point every time, but "articles associated with" indicates that anything remotely to do with the page should be included - which is incorrect as per MoS.--Commander Keane 17:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the phrase "may otherwise share the same title" is that it clearly conveys that a disambiguation page should only list articles that relate strictly to the term contained within the disambiguation page's title (and therefore could reasonably use such a title). This simply isn't true. It's common to link to a page that covers a broader topic, with only one section or less dedicated to the applicable connotation of the disambiguation page's title.

It's very difficult to be 100% specific without being too specific, but we definitely should be accurate. The current wording doesn't describe a disambiguation page as "a list of all articles associated with the same title," so it is accurate in this respect. In context, I believe that the intended function is clear. —Lifeisunfair 17:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Less interface, please! Remember that the disambiguation page gets between the reader and what he's seeking. And once they've seen it once or twice, they'll never read the text again.

The note should be self-explanatory, without requiring a link to disambiguation. That page is for editors, and we don't need to distract readers with a page full of incidental information. If it's absolutely necessary; link the phrase disambiguation page, to indicate that the link describes the function of this page, rather than defining the word disambiguation.

"Potential articles" is superfluous: it's like explaining what red links mean on every encyclopedia page; they are self-explanatory for anyone who's clicked on one.

The message doesn't have to be an exhaustive canonical definition of disambiguation pages, just give the reader the general idea. How about the following? —Michael Z. 2005-11-15 19:23 Z

This disambiguation page lists articles with similar names
Links can be updated to skip this page

Or with an icon, to make it easier to identify and ignore:

This disambiguation page lists articles with similar names
Links can be updated to skip this page

Better yet, give it no interface. The first line and structure of a disambiguation page gets the whole point across, and the Category:Disambiguation link at the bottom of the page already provides an avenue to all the meta-explanation. —Michael Z. 2005-11-15 19:48 Z

"Less interface, please! Remember that the disambiguation page gets between the reader and what he's seeking."

That's why it's important that he/she understand its purpose.

"And once they've seen it once or twice, they'll never read the text again."

In that case, why is it big deal if it takes them slightly longer to read?

"The note should be self-explanatory, without requiring a link to disambiguation."

Readers aren't required to click on the link; it's additional information for editors.

"That page is for editors, and we don't need to distract readers with a page full of incidental information."

Any reader is a potential editor, and there's no reason why we shouldn't make such information as readily available as possible. I don't see how this is any more of a distraction that the "edit this page" link that appears throughout the encyclopedia (and applies only to editors).

"If it's absolutely necessary; link the phrase disambiguation page, to indicate that the link describes the function of this page, rather than defining the word disambiguation."

The link leads to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which pertains to more than merely disambiguation pages.

"Potential articles" is superfluous: it's like explaining what red links mean on every encyclopedia page; they are self-explanatory for anyone who's clicked on one.

I wasn't referring strictly to red links. I'm trying to come up with a phrase that also includes notations such as the one that I referenced from this disambiguation page. Hamlet Cigars is a potential article, despite the fact that it isn't red-linked there.

"The message doesn't have to be an exhaustive canonical definition of disambiguation pages, just give the reader the general idea."

In my opinion, the existing wording is appropriately succinct.

"How about the following?

This disambiguation page lists articles with similar names

Links can be updated to skip this page"

Again, disambiguation pages list far more than "articles with similar names." Someone might arrive at a disambiguation page called "ABCDEFG" (representing a term with multiple meanings). One of these meanings might be a relatively minor subset or element of "12345," which has a dedicated article. In such an instance, the link directs readers to 12345, which does not (and should not) have a title similar to ABCDEFG.

Also, I don't know why you decided that the periods were "unnecessary punctuation."

"Better yet, give it no interface."

That would cause considerable confusion among many readers (who would mistake disambiguation pages for articles).

"The first line and structure of a disambiguation page gets the whole point across"

There is no standard "first line," and inexperienced Wikipedia readers might not recognize the structure.

"and the Category:Disambiguation link at the bottom of the page already provides an avenue to all the meta-explanation."

You just got done arguing that we shouldn't "distract readers with a page full of incidental information," and now you're saying that we should require them to follow a link to a page full of incidental information (for want of a basic description, which currently is displayed directly in front of them). —Lifeisunfair 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The page structure: a bold term, at the head of a list of self-explanatory links—that's the structure. How can "inexperienced Wikipedia readers" or any readers at all not recognize this structure?

The template: it's not necessarily important that a reader understand a disambiguation page's purpose in the editorial context; the purpose of the list of links is self-evident; you click the one you want—this doesn't need instructions. Why is it a big deal if there's an explanation, or if it's longer?—because it's one more item of page clutter: it potentially distracts the reader from the task. Of course readers aren't required to click a link, but that link is yet another distracting interface element. The "edit this page" link is not a similar example—it is a self-documenting task-oriented item; it sends a reader/editor directly into a task without having to be decorated by a long notice. In fact, the body of a disambiguation page is just like that, too. In contrast, the disambiguation explanation and link are ancillary items which distract from the reader's task on a disambiguation page.

"Articles and/or potential articles" or any other comprehensive formula just leads to more questions. The potential inventory of items on a disambiguation page is complex, so better to briefly indicate the concept. The configuration, link colour and phrasing of the disambiguation list items should make each link self-explanatory, as ‘'Hamlet’ is the brand-name for a cigar. clearly is. If Hamlet Cigars is just begging for an article, then perhaps that line should read Hamlet Cigars, a cigar brand. or just Hamlet Cigars. Again, self-explanatory.

The link: yes, Wikipedia:Disambiguation also talks about other aspects of disambiguation in addition to disambiguation pages, but only linking the word "disambiguation" doesn't tell the reader that anyway; it just looks like a general link, perhaps an encyclopedia article or dictionary definition. The question that occurs to a reader of the sentence "This is a disambiguation page—..." is "what is a disambiguation page?" Linking the phrase indicates that the answer to this Wikipedia-oriented question is there. Try to think of this from the point of view of the reader which this notice is aimed at, not from the POV of an experienced editor such as yourself.

Far too many readers and editors mistake disambiguation pages for articles already, and fill them up with inappropriate links and text. The current notice doesn't do anything to help that; it's just another distraction from the reader's objective—to get to the right article. —Michael Z. 2005-11-16 23:34 Z

"The page structure: a bold term, at the head of a list of self-explanatory links—that's the structure. How can 'inexperienced Wikipedia readers' or any readers at all not recognize this structure?"

Wikipedia articles are full of self-explanatory links. The fact that a disambiguation page is not an ordinary article should be conveyed as clearly as possible.

"The template: it's not necessarily important that a reader understand a disambiguation page's purpose in the editorial context; the purpose of the list of links is self-evident; you click the one you want—this doesn't need instructions."

This is a wiki. We want readers to become editors, and link correction is a perfect way to start. This, of course, helps other readers by eliminating an extra step between articles. We shouldn't accost casual readers with pages full of meta-information, but a simple, two-sentence tag (which offers the opportunity to learn more) is well within reason.

"Why is it a big deal if there's an explanation, or if it's longer?—because it's one more item of page clutter: it potentially distracts the reader from the task."

I disagree with this assertion. Readers are more able to complete their task when they understand what's occurring. A concise explanation written plain English is a helpful addition, even for non-editors. How is this template more of a distraction than the numerous links that are unrelated to the reader's desired article?

"Of course readers aren't required to click a link, but that link is yet another distracting interface element."

You seem to believe that everything related strictly to editors is an unwarranted distraction. Again, this is a wiki. We have meta-links all over the place, and they enable the site to function.

"The 'edit this page' link is not a similar example—it is a self-documenting task-oriented item; it sends a reader/editor directly into a task without having to be decorated by a long notice."

I was comparing the "edit this page" link not to the template, but to the "disambiguation" link. Both lead to editor-specific content.

"In fact, the body of a disambiguation page is just like that, too. In contrast, the disambiguation explanation and link are ancillary items which distract from the reader's task on a disambiguation page."

Again, I strongly disagree.

"'Articles and/or potential articles' or any other comprehensive formula just leads to more questions."

Are you suggesting that ignorance is bliss? We should assume that our readers are unable to wrap their minds around basic concepts?

"The potential inventory of items on a disambiguation page is complex, so better to briefly indicate the concept."

Two sentences is quite brief.

"If Hamlet Cigars is just begging for an article, then perhaps that line should read Hamlet Cigars, a cigar brand. or just Hamlet Cigars."

You missed the point. I'm not suggesting that the existence of a Hamlet Cigars article is justified. I'm merely providing a random example of a disambiguation page that contains an item other than an article. I'm referring to this as a "potential article," for want of a better term. (I tried a couple of others, but they were too easily mistaken for descriptions of dictionary definitions and/or full-fledged write-ups.)

"The link: yes, Wikipedia:Disambiguation also talks about other aspects of disambiguation in addition to disambiguation pages, but only linking the word 'disambiguation' doesn't tell the reader that anyway; it just looks like a general link, perhaps an encyclopedia article or dictionary definition."

Again, as you correctly noted, that link is for editors (and aspiring editors). Clicking on it immediately reveals content that a non-editor will simply ignore.

"The question that occurs to a reader of the sentence "This is a disambiguation page—..." is "what is a disambiguation page?""

. . . which is why the remainder of the sentence answers that question (to the extent that a reader is concerned).

"Linking the phrase indicates that the answer to this Wikipedia-oriented question is there."

Linking the word "disambiguation" indicates that information pertaining to disambiguation is there.

The other way would be fine too, but I believe that the current link is preferable.

"Try to think of this from the point of view of the reader which this notice is aimed at, not from the POV of an experienced editor such as yourself."

Ditto.

"Far too many readers and editors mistake disambiguation pages for articles already, and fill them up with inappropriate links and text."

Didn't you just express your disbelief that "any readers at all [would] not recognize this structure"?!

"The current notice doesn't do anything to help that;"

How do you know that? I find it extremely difficult to believe that this template's presence hasn't prevented countless instances of disambiguation pages being mistaken for articles (which you just acknowledged is a frequent occurrence).

Your argument is analogous to saying that some people ignore traffic signals, so we might as well abolish them.

"it's just another distraction from the reader's objective—to get to the right article."

Again, there's a reason why this site's name isn't "Pedia." —Lifeisunfair 02:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"How is this template more of a distraction than the numerous links that are unrelated to the reader's desired article?"—those links are the content of this page, the template is not. (although disambiguation pages are meta-content, pointing the reader to actual content, so this is a meta-meta-template)

"I was comparing the "edit this page" link not to the template, but to the "disambiguation" link. Both lead to editor-specific content."—yes, I was responding to that. I'll rephrase:

"Edit this page" is a button which launches an editor directly into a chosen task—its name is its function, even newbies know what it does: a compact self-documenting interface.
Similarly, a link on the disambiguation page will take the reader directly to the page she has chosen to read—if well-written and concise, it is self-explanatory and easy to find among the other links.
- But. . . in this case it is also accompanied by an ancillary note at the bottom of the page, with two double rules attracting attention to itself, containing two sentences: one with a parenthetic dash and a complex conjunction formed with a slash, as well as a link to a page explaining a term in the sentence in 2,500 words; the other is a conditional sentence hinting to inexperienced editors that they may wish to do something without explaining why they would want to, with its conditional clause linking to a baffling list of links to a meta-template. Meta³. And absolutely none of that is content.

"Are you suggesting that ignorance is bliss? We should assume that our readers are unable to wrap their minds around basic concepts?"—the opposite; readers already know how to use a list of links without needing an instruction label.

"You missed the point. I'm not suggesting that the existence of a Hamlet Cigars article is justified. I'm merely providing a random example . . ."—I got the point, and gave examples of how this item could be self-explanatory, without requiring an instruction label.

"Clicking on it immediately reveals content that a non-editor will simply ignore."—yes, yes, exactly!

"Linking the word "disambiguation" indicates that information pertaining to disambiguation is there."—yes, but the reader is looking for "Hamlet" or whatever, not "disambiguation". Just give them Hamlet!

"Didn't you just express your disbelief that "any readers at all [would] not recognize this structure"?"—it gets more difficult when the structure is watered down with a graphically bold but cryptically-written instruction label.

"Your argument is analogous to saying that some people ignore traffic signals, so we might as well abolish them."—this template is analogous to this. —Michael Z. 2005-11-17 03:22 Z

"those links are the content of this page, the template is not."

The template is relevant to the reader's situation. Those links are not.

"'Edit this page' is a button which launches an editor directly into a chosen task—its name is its function, even newbies know what it does: a compact self-documenting interface."

All of this is true, and all of it is beside the point (which is that this is a wiki, so we can't hide editor-only functions from readers).

"Similarly, a link on the disambiguation page will take the reader directly to the page she has chosen to read—if well-written and concise, it is self-explanatory and easy to find among the other links."

Yes, and this is true of links throughout Wikipedia. It's important that readers understand the difference between an article and a disambiguation page.

"But. . . in this case it is also accompanied by an ancillary note at the bottom of the page, with two double rules attracting attention to itself,"

The lines serve as demarcation.

"containing two sentences: one with a parenthetic dash and a complex conjunction formed with a slash,"

I haven't added the phrase "and/or potential articles" to the actual template, and I'm hoping to come up with a better alternative.

"as well as a link to a page explaining a term in the sentence in 2,500 words;"

Again, that's intended for editors.

"the other is a conditional sentence hinting to inexperienced editors that they may wish to do something without explaining why they would want to,"

Isn't it obvious? The reader just arrived at an incorrect page, and the template suggests that he/she replace the existing link with one to the correct page. It's an entirely straightforward suggestion, not a hint.

You give the readers enough credit to understand what a disambiguation page is without ever having been told, but you don't think that they're capable of comprehending two simple sentences.

"with its conditional clause linking to a baffling list of links to a meta-template."

How is that remotely baffling? Do you believe that most of our readers are unintelligent?

"And absolutely none of that is content."

On the contrary, it most certainly is content. It simply isn't encyclopedic content.

"readers already know how to use a list of links without needing an instruction label."

1. I agree. So why did you just describe a "list of links" as "baffling"?

2. The issue is not that readers won't be able to follow the correct link; it's that they won't always be able to discern the nature of the disambiguation pages (which often resemble articles in many respects).

"I got the point, and gave examples of how this item could be self-explanatory, without requiring an instruction label."

No, you still don't get the point. I'm not suggesting that such disambiguation pages (containing unlinked items) should be altered in any way. In fact, I believe that they should remain the same. The issue is that the template's current wording ignores their existence. I'm not claiming that this causes confusion, but merely that it results in inaccuracy.

"Clicking on it immediately reveals content that a non-editor will simply ignore."

"—yes, yes, exactly!"

So what's the problem?

"yes, but the reader is looking for 'Hamlet' or whatever, not 'disambiguation'. Just give them Hamlet!"

Many readers are new or aspiring editors, attempting to learn the proper procedures. Again, this is a wiki.

"Didn't you just express your disbelief that "any readers at all [would] not recognize this structure"?"

"—it gets more difficult when the structure is watered down with a graphically bold but cryptically-written instruction label."

1. I'm astounded by your claim that the template is "cryptically-written."

2. Are you asserting that the template actually causes readers to mistake disambiguation pages for articles?! —Lifeisunfair 04:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This has generated way too many words, and I'm still not sure you understand what I write at all: "The template is relevant to the reader's situation. Those links are not."—"Those links" are the main list of links on a disambiguation page. You must be thinking of something else if you write that they are not relevant. If you removed them, then all disambiguation pages would be identical. —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 18:39 Z

Why are you quoting me out-of-context?

The phrase "those links" refers to "the numerous links that are unrelated to the reader's desired article." Typically, most of the disambiguation links pertain to topics other than the one for which the reader searched or clicked. That's why a disambiguation page exists!

I am not, however, suggesting that the list of links be removed! My point was that the template is no more of a distraction than these irrelevant links are. (In other words, all of this is important, and should remain.)

Also, I'm waiting for you to answer question #2. Here's a review of the chronology:

1. I asserted that the template assists readers in understanding the nature of a disambiguation page (the structure of which they might not recognize).

2. You replied by expressing your disbelief that "any readers at all [would] not recognize this structure."

3. You then acknowledged that "far too many readers and editors mistake disambiguation pages for articles already, and fill them up with inappropriate links and text," directly contradicting your claim that the structure is easily recognizable.

4. I noted the disparity between your two comments.

5. You replied by explaining that "it gets more difficult when the structure is watered down with a graphically bold but cryptically-written instruction label," thereby implying that the template actually causes readers to mistake disambiguation pages for articles.

Do you stand behind this contention? —Lifeisunfair 20:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Icons and text

There was a big barney about adding an icon to this template a couple of months back. Between the server strain inherent in putting an image on such a widely-used template and the fact that it wasn't really required, do we need that again?

Oh, and since the template's used at the bottom of dab pages, does it really matter if it contains two whole sentences. Its unobtrusive format and placement makes it easy for Wikiveterans to skip, and it conveys the meaning of a disambig as-is. - SoM 21:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the original icon appears to be copyrighted, so I don't think that Michael is legally entitled to release a derivative work into the public domain. —Lifeisunfair 22:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It obvious that we won't be including any picture/icon - community consensus dictated this earlier in the year.--Commander Keane 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The template can be used at the top of articles, very effectively. Rich Farmbrough 16:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the terms of the original licence; I've changed it to GFDL (that's acceptable, right?). Regarding usage in this template; whatever. But why is "widely-used" an issue? Every page has the Wikipedia logo on it (11,974 bytes), but this one takes only 836 bytes at the 28-pixel size. —Michael Z. 2005-11-16 08:01 Z

@Commander Keane: You must be mistaken. There was much ado about the structure of the last thing that resembled a vote (and I support most of it) but one thing was clear: there was a small majority in support of the icon, and some arguments against having an icon were since rebutted. If you don't like the icon, please just say so, but don't dictate with community consensus where either none exists or it isn't clear what the consensus is now. In any case I still support a proper vote (see one of the topics above for a possible page to contain that vote). Shinobu 00:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

You can read about some of the pros and cons of this in my discussion with User:Lifeisunfair, above. I've changed the wording so that it is aimed to be a response to the reader's situation, suggesting an action first, explaining second. I would also like to write a simple explanation at Help:Disambiguation pages. What do you think of the following simplified disambiguation template? —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 19:02 Z

Looking for one of the articles on this page?
This is a disambiguation page, listing articles which could share the same title. Links should be updated to skip this page.

I'll address your proposed setup, one element at a time:

The community has rejected the use of an icon. If we were to include one, it should be the colored version (which stands out more, particularly to people with visual impairments).

Looking for one of the articles on this page?

This sentence is extraneous and syntactically incomplete.

This is a disambiguation page, listing articles which could share the same title.

1.Your use of the word "which" in a restrictive relative clause is grammatically incorrect. It should be "that."

2. As I have noted more than once, disambiguation pages also list articles that could not reasonably share the same title.

Links should be updated to skip this page.

This merely informs readers that something should be changed; it fails to mention that they are capable of doing so.

—Lifeisunfair 20:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Why add colour? The current version of the template is already the most prominent element on the page. The icon is also bigger, visually different, and more prominent than any other element, except perhaps a wiktionary link box. The purpose of adding it is merely to unambiguously identify the template at a glance, not to attract more attention.

Wikipedia:Disambiguation defines disambiguation as ". . . two or more different topics have the same "natural" title", and ". . . different pages that might reside under the same title". If this basic explanation is good enough for the manual page on the topic, isn't "articles that could share the same title" or some variation more than sufficient for this notice which links to a more detailed description?

How about the following version? —Michael Z. 2005-11-26 17:19 Z

Were you looking for one of the articles on this page?
This is a disambiguation page, listing articles that could share the same title.

I think you are battling on too many fronts with this version. Firstly, the community has previously decided that there is not going to be an image on the template. Secondly, that wording is close to the previous version, which was debated above. Also, the retorical question is unencyclopaedic, confusing and redundant.--Commander Keane 17:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"Why add colour? The current version of the template is already the most prominent element on the page. The icon is also bigger, visually different, and more prominent than any other element, except perhaps a wiktionary link box. The purpose of adding it is merely to unambiguously identify the template at a glance, not to attract more attention."

The use of color would assist people in unambiguously identifying the template at a glance — particularly people with visual impairments. (I've taught such individuals how to use computers, so I know this for a fact.) Of course, this is assuming that we use an icon. (I like the idea, but there are legitimate arguments against it.)

"Wikipedia:Disambiguation defines disambiguation as ‘. . . two or more different topics have the same 'natural' title’, and ‘. . . different pages that might reside under the same title’."

Thank you for bringing this incomplete description to my attention. I've corrected the page. —Lifeisunfair 19:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I still prefer the colored version (for the reason cited above).

Were you looking for one of the articles on this page?

Still extraneous.

This is a disambiguation page, listing articles that could share the same title.

Still inaccurate.

And now you've removed the link correction notation entirely!

—Lifeisunfair 19:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

@Commander Keane's statement about not using an icon: I have responded on this issue before, but apparently he didn't read my response; it's in the previous topic. Shinobu 07:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't read your previous discussion, I'll go back and have a closer look. --Commander Keane 07:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sorry I forgot to sign; I've replaced the unsigned template with my signature for our convenience. Shinobu 01:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Image Discussion of forking arrows

I've read a few discussions concerning thi throughout this talk page, but it seems like they were all abondoned. While translating a page from de.wikipedia, i stumbled across this as a disambig template. i liked it a LOT as a footer to an actual disambig page (they used it also on the top of articles, where we use "this page is about the __________. For other uses, see _________ (disambiguation)." While i like our text-only version for the top of articles, i like this as an option for the bottom of actual disambiuation pages. Why is it that this discussion was aborted? jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 10:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in what the text of the German {{disambig}} says, could you translate? I think if you want change, then you should attempt to change either the text or design (including icon) seperately, it will keep things simpler. Obviously, discuss changes here first. Changing the template invalidates it on the cache, so will create a temporary peak load (considering there are >30,000 pages using this template).--Commander Keane 14:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, here's my translation of it. Note the two versions - a direct(straight text) and an anglicized (italicized). The anglicized also is partially my interpretation, as not everything translates directly. However, the "direct" also entails a few "interpretations" Although i did my best to keep it entirely direct (including condensing english phrases such as "in note form" and "in the event" to one word, as these phrases are one word in german), there are some words (particularly adjectives) that have more than one meaning. Thus, i picked the one I felt made the most sense. However, bear in mind that this is, at least partially, a personal interpretation. :
This page is a Term clarification to differentiate terms denoted by the same word.
This site is a Termclarification to the differences of more with the same word denoted terms

The entries should restrict themselves to a specific definition and each entry should only be linked to one article. In the event that you arrived here from a link in another Wikipedia article, go back to that article and change the link you followed to the correct article from the above list.
The entries should themselves to one innoteform definition restrict and per meaning should only one article with one distinct name linked be. Intheevent you from an other Wikipedia-article here arrived are, go please there back and change the link, that you followed are, to the correct article outof the above list.

Now, I'm not advocating a new text - i like it as it is just fine - i just like the visual layout from their template a little better, and when I came here it looked as though it was brought up but no conclusion was reached. jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 15:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks to me like a conclusion's been reached, and the community (a) doesn't want an icon and (b) likes the current layout - SoM 16:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That could very well be. What I read seemed to suggest either a.) the idea of an image was supported or b.) there was a lack of consesnsus. Now, this talk page (and it's corresponding archives) are massive, and I'd be lying if i said i sifted through every single discussion, so there's a very good chance i missed a discussion that DID come to a conclusion. If you could direct me to said conclusion, that'd be great. Thanks, jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Search Function

I am trying to add a search function to the template, but I am having trouble. My efforts are here. Could someone please help me?--God_of War 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You should always test changes on a sandbox page before updating a major template that is in use on thousands of pages. That being said, the search function won't work because if your search term matches a page that exists, you will be redirected to it. So to use PAGENAME would just send you right back. I doubt that would even be particularly useful if it even worked. -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Links to Disambiguation Pages - color code?

I didn't look through all the archives here, but has anyone suggested that the rendering code be "tweaked" to show a different color (say green) if the linked page is a disambiguation page - or would that be too much overhead? That way, people might be trained to look more closely when the link things. (or is there a better place for such discussions). John (Jwy) 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been discussion of it at WP:DPL and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, although orange was mentioned as the colour (green is already used for external links in some browsers apparently). I am very enthusiastic about the idea, but don't know how to progress it. I asked on #mediawiki and no exact figure on the overhead is available. However, when a page is loaded every wikilink is checked for existing (blue) or non-existing (red) so maybe it is feasible. Where do we go to get this idea rolling?--Commander Keane 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The overhead of checking for a page's existence (redlink/bluelink) is nothing compared to actually parsing the content to look for the {{disambig}} template. The only way to make it possible would be to create a Disambiguation: namespace, which has also been proposed. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like a developer to look at it, are you sure that you need a different namespace, or is that just a guess?--Commander Keane 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not intimate with the wiki software in particular, but I know how SQL databases work. They could add a flag to each record (article) indicating whether or not it's a dab page (which could be updated each time the page is edited), but considering the wiki software is supposed to operate hundreds of other applications, not just Wikipedia, I imagine the developers have to be careful how many WP-specific features they add to it. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. the other issue is redirects, which is why the namespace idea fell flat. If you're putting a dab page at Disambiguation:Mercury, presumably you'd want Mercury to be a redirect to it. Asking the software to know that a link to a redirect goes eventually to a dab page is asking a lot. Yes, it could be done, but only if dab pages are the most important thing on their plate. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good excuse for me to download the code and look at it. Been planning to for a while. John (Jwy) 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest moving this thread to either Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation or WP:VPT... since the topic doesn't really involved changes to this template specifically, but to MediaWiki. -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Using this template on other wikipedias

Why can i not use the disambig-template exactly with the design with 2 lines on other wikipedias? What is the source code for id="disambig" in html? Thank. --Off! 11:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Because other wikis may have decided that they don't like the two lines. If you want to create a dab, use the template supplied by your local wiki and accept what it looks like or try to convince people that it must be changed. Shinobu 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the id="disambig" info is stored in the MediaWiki:Common.css of each particular Wikipedia. So if you want to use id="disambig" then you'll need to change MediaWiki:Common.css on your Wikipedia.--Commander Keane 16:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Usage

For those who can't remember the name

Discussion

Adding Category:Disambiguation to Template:disambig

Div tag

Unprotect

Template-in-a-box

Revertion madness & silly protection

Proposal

invalid HTML

A couple things

Please don't change this page without discussing

If you were referred here by a link in an article

Top & bottom borders

i.e./that is/&mdash;

add link to Special:Allpages

Minor formatting improvement

Footer or Header

Protection?

I suggest...

Rewording For Grammar & Clarity

Disambiguation and hub articles

Get it right

Image

"Other pages"?

Other templates

Bad CSS

A proposal for a new disambiguation template

Recent change to this template

New look

meta:Image server overload 2005-03

Let's figure out what we're doing first

Grammar fix needed

New image

Vote on version

Voting

Comments

Change and moving of voting

Edit function

redesign proposal

Where is it placed?

Add "what links here"

Unprotection request

Special:Whatlinkshere

Other disambiguation types

Layout

reverted to October 9 version for now

problem with Google & multi-word titles

Re-wording

Icons and text

Proposal

Image Discussion of forking arrows

Search Function

Links to Disambiguation Pages - color code?

Using this template on other wikipedias

i.e./that is/—