Template talk:Disambiguation

Rewording?

I suggest rewording the second sentence in this template and all its relatives. I sort of understand why the word "may" is there—users have the option to change it or not—but wish? There's a very obvious and often implied ending to this sentence: "If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article...but you can just keep wishing, because we're not letting you!"

Simply removing the word "wish" would do wonders: "If an internal link led you here, you may to change the link to point directly to the intended article." This implies that the reader has permission to change the link, whereas the current version implies that the reader has permission to wish that they could change it!

Whether "may" or "can" should actually be used is debatable. May implies the reader has been granted permission, and can implies that they have the ability. All readers both can (unless they are banned or blocked and don't know other methods around it) and may (this includes blocked users, as it is not a retaliatory measure) edit disambiguation pages regardless of their registration status. If I'm wrong about that—perhaps protected or semi-protected dabs exist—just let me know. It doesn't negate my original request.

So, to emphasise this one more time, I'm proposing the following change:

"If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article." →
"If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article." →
"If an internal link led you here, you may change the link to point directly to the intended article."

Please discuss! Oh, and note that this is 100% compatible with the above-mentioned change. —Skittleys (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"You may change" sounds like a grant of permission. I dislike "you may wish to" but it may be the best wording available. However, here are some other possibilities to consider or spark ideas:

• You can change the link...
• To help, you may change the link...
•  ?

Also keep in mind that the wording should preserve the possibility that changing the link may not be warranted, and that the message is supposed to be as brief as possible. —Centrx→talk • 20:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it could be improved. Another thing it lacks is the explicit statement that something probably needs fixing. How about:

• If an internal link led you here, that link may need improving. You can help by checking it, and, if appropriate, pointing it directly to the intended article.

PL290 (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this -- shorter than the current text, and more direct and accurate: This disambiguation page lists articles with similar titles. If a Wiki page linked here, consider changing the link to point directly to the appropriate article. Dovid (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Or even: This page lists articles with similar titles. If a Wikipedia page linked here, consider changing it to point directly to the appropriate article. PL290 (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually think “...you may wish to change...” is completely fine. I personally think its totally fine and should be left alone. Just putting in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.21.180 (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Improve wording and organization

Recently edited the Template:Disambig/doc and was wondering if the formatting of the sections and the wording from that page could be copied and/or edited and added to this main template, which definitely needs some improvement. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please update

{{editprotected}}

Please replace the text of this template with that of {{DAB}} {{disambig/sandbox}}, as discussed at WT:MOSDAB#Update disambig template?. The only effect of the change will be to enable the inclusion of parameters to place the dab page into additional categories (as defined at {{dabcat}}). At the same time, please protect the subtemplate {{dabcat}}.--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

N Not done for now. This needs further discussion, and some technical fixes.

I have the following concerns:

1: Your {{DAB}} {{disambig/sandbox}} template doesn't use the {{main other}} code which means that your code causes any page that only shows/demonstrates these templates to be categorised as disambig pages. Such as talk pages, WikiProject pages and Wikipedia:Template messages/General. The {{main other}} code makes it so only article pages get categorised.

2: Your code uses the {{dabcat}} template that currently is not protected. It first needs to be protected, otherwise these widely used high-risk disambig templates can be easily vandalised.

3: Your code uses the {{dabcat}} template which currently is undocumented. Thus making it unclear what functionality these disambig templates get.

4: Are you aware of that there is also a wiki-technical difference between disambig and set index templates? When a disambig template is placed on a page and you then edit that page the javascript here at the English Wikipedia places an editnotice on top of your edit preview telling you it is a disambig page and some instructions how to edit such pages. When you only place a set index template on a page that editnotice is not shown. It seems to me from your discussions over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and your code at {{dabcat}} that you want to use these disambig templates also as set index templates. Which will cause that editnotice to be shown on set index pages. (Although it is not clear to me how you intend to use all this.)

5: I am not sure that your way of adding extra categories is the best way. It would probably be better to have an extra parameter where one can feed any category name. Although I would have to think more about different usage cases and you should explain how you intend to use it before I/we can know what is the best aproach.

Sorry to be negativistic. And sorry that I probably won't have time to discuss this with you and investigate it, since I am really on a wikivacation. (Busy in real life.) You'll have to ask some of the other editors who understands the technical things around disambig and set index templates for help. And sorry that I right now don't remember who those editors are, you'll have to look around in the page histories and the talk page discussions.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

1: Fixed.

2: Fixed in the amended request.

3: Have made basic documentation. Will update it (and the disambig documentation) when the change gets done.

4: No, set index pages will not carry these templates. Disambig will continue to be used on exactly the same pages it is used on now; the extra parameters will simply cause those pages to be placed in extra categories.

5: This is explained in the discussion (I think). Of course, if someone wants to add another category that isn't handled by the template, or prefers not to use the template, there's nothing to stop them. The updated template simply makes it easier to add some of the more common specific dab categories, that's all. It doesn't really change anything except to make adding categories a bit easier and more intuitive for dab page editors.

I hope I've answered all your concerns, so I'm renewing the request.

--Kotniski (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

6: Okay, I have now spent some time working with your code and adding my own improvements. I hope you like those additions. Among other things I added an error reporting feature that we have used to good effect on among others the mbox templates. I explain a little about that in the doc of {{dabcat}}. The category that the error reporting uses should then have an explanation similar to the one we use in Category:Wikipedia message box parameter needs fixing. I will add that explanation later.

5: I think I am starting to like your approach. But I still have two concerns. First one is that this needs to be properly documented. And for the second concern see the next paragraph. But as you said, you can add the documentation later. But of course, the lack of documentation was one of the reasons your approach was unclear to me, and I expect others to react the same. And thus I could not fulfil your editprotected request.

4: The reason I asked if you know the difference between disambig pages and set index templates is that one of the categories that you have in the {{dabcat}} is for pages that usually instead are set index pages, that is "mountains". Since {{mountainindex}} is a set index box and the pages I have seen it used on are clearly set index pages. Although I have seen mountain disambig pages too. So perhaps we need both for mountains? If so then we should make that clear in the documentation where we will list the "mountains" parameter, that is we should point out that there is also the set index template {{mountainindex}} which has a slightly different meaning.

7: Since we have now added so much code we need to do some testing of the {{DAB}} {{disambig/sandbox}} template before we deploy that code in the {{disambig}} template, since that one is used on more than 100,000 pages. And I recommend you complete the documentation over at {{dabcat}} before we deploy. This will also give others some time to take a look and react. Perhaps also announce this planned extension at some of the related pages. So I think we should wait a day or two (well, this weekend since I will be away most of it), before we deploy it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK< thanks for your work. I'll try and update the documentation and do some testing over the weekend.--Kotniski (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please update (2)

{{editprotected}}

Please replace the text of this template with that of {{DAB}} {{disambig/sandbox}}, as discussed above. The documentation is now in place, and I have tested the template at Test page1 (the page will have been deleted, since I had to test it in main space, but I assume admins can access the deleted history). At the same time, please fully protect the subtemplate {{dabcat}}.--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, wait a little. I have not tested the error reporting feature I added to {{dabcat}} yet. (I know that method works, I just have to test this specific code version of it.) And if there already are pages that feed some invalid parameter to {{disambig}} then those pages will get that error category and people will come there wondering what is going on. So I first have to create that category and add the explanations there, or we will be flooded with questions from editors who wonder what is going on. (I know from experience...) I'll deploy your {{DAB}} {{disambig/sandbox}} code to {{disambig}} when I have fixed that.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - Phew, that was a lot of work:

• I have moved your {{DAB}} test template to {{disambig/sandbox}}, to avoid confusion with {{dab}}. I fixed all pages that linked to {{DAB}}, and then deleted {{DAB}} which at that time was only a redirect to {{disambig/sandbox}}. Using /sandbox and /testcases pages are the standard way to test and develop templates. For instance the green /doc boxes automatically link to such pages if they exist.
• I did some more fixes to {{disambig/sandbox}} and {{dabcat}}, mostly related to the error reporting and to be able to test the categorisation better.
• I created Template:Disambig/testcases and tested everything over there. The error reporting and categorisation works fine.
• I created the Category:Wikipedia disambiguation box parameter needs fixing and added the necessary explanations there.
• I protected {{dabcat}}.
• I deployed it all to {{disambig}} and {{disambig-cleanup}}. So they are still parameter compatible, making it simple for editors to change between the two.
• I updated the documentations of {{disambig}} and {{disambig-cleanup}} accordingly.

So, almost finished. I hope I didn't miss anything...

Next thing is to wait about a week to see if any pages turn up in the error reporting category and fix those cases. Pages only get reported when they are rerendered, and pages are only rerendered when someone visits them. Thus it takes time before most cases are reported. Then after about a week I will make it so that the template also prints a visible error message. I usually wait with adding the visible error message, to see what kind of errors are out there so I can add a better explanation at the error category page. And so we can fix the worst cases (usually cases caused by another template). Experience has taught me that saves us a lot of questions from worried users.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for taking the time to do all that:) I'll leave notes about the new functionality at WP:MOSDAB and the other dab guidelines.--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be a good thing to "advertise" new functionality. If nothing else to get some feedback from people.

So far two pages have been reported to the error category. People were feeding the page name as parameter. At for instance The Hanged Man as {{disambig|Hanged Man, The}}. I guess they thought the parameter sets a disambig category sort order. I fixed the two cases by simply removing the parameter.

And I noticed you added "plant: for Category:Plant common names" to the /doc. Although not strictly a disambig category it is used on disambig pages so seems to be useful here. So I added the code for that to {{dabcat}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There was some dispute over including the plants category - I was meaning to bring it up with the user who objected. Anyway, I guess it can stay for now.--Kotniski (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that dispute in the edit comments. But {{disambig-plants}} uses that category and I took a quick look at that and it seems okay. So I think we have to supply the category through your parameter system or it would be inconsistent.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Today I found a handful of {{disambig}} cases in the error reporting category. Most of them again where cases where people were feeding the page names like this {{disambig|Big One, The}}. But there were also one case of {{disambig|cleanup}} which I of course fixed to be {{disambig-cleanup}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Shared error reporting with ((SIA))

I have renamed the error reporting category to Category:Wikipedia disambig or set index box parameter needs fixing, since I will apply similar error reporting for the generic set index article template {{SIA}}. My experience is that it is best to share an error reporting category between all similar templates. Since that keeps the number of error reporting categories low, thus making it much easier when I/we every now and then take a look if any of the error categories have reports.

{{SIA}} also has a feature to categorise, but it works slightly different from the system Kotniski applied to {{disambig}} (see previous two sections). It seems there are currently only 7 set index article categories, and only one is used at a time in {{SIA}}. But I will first deploy a hardcoded error reporting in {{SIA}} to find out if there are more categories than the 7 I am aware of. Then we should perhaps change {{SIA}} to use a more strict system like the one Kotniski made for {{disambig}}. Or I'll just make it error report if people feed a parameter to it that points to a non-existing category. Both systems has their pros and cons so I'll think about it for a while. We anyway have to wait a week for {{SIA}} to report which categories are used with it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. In principle, I suppose, we would only expect a set-index article to be in one category, since by definition it lists only items of a specific type. So I wouldn't see a need to support more than one parameter at a time (though maybe there are some exceptional cases).--Kotniski (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And since we don't have a {{SIA-cleanup}} or similar there are only one SIA template that needs that code. Thus I think we don't need to use a sub template for that. Instead I will put that code directly into {{SIA}}. And by the way: I'll make the error category a hidden category while I do the first run of error reporting from SIA, since there might be more valid categories used with SIA than we currently know about. So that people don't think something is wrong when it perhaps isn't. I have found 11 such categories so far, and I have marked those that missed it with Category:Set indices. (One is already a subcategory of Category:Set indices on Russia so not visible directly in Category:Set indices.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that I added full error reporting to {{SIA}} on 11 February. And I have not seen any {{SIA}} reports in the error report category yet.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet another branch

I just came across Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation, which had been removed from the disambiguation hierarchy back in May 2008. Many of these look like straight forward disambiguation pages, although I suppose a claim could be made for being set indexes. In any case, the instructions at the categories are to use {{disambig}} with the category. Seems this could perhaps be accommodated with a few new parameters here. Note: Apparently this usage replaces the deprecated {{hurricane disambig}}, which perhaps should be deleted. older ≠ wiser 14:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

1: I see no reason why {{hurricane disambig}} should be deprecated. I have brought that up for discussion over at Template talk:Hurricane disambig#Reasons for removal of this template.

2: Bkonrad: I assume you mean we should add a "cyclone/hurricane/typhoon" parameter to {{disambig}}, so that we can use for instance {{disambig|cyclone|airport|road}} when a disambig page lists several other things under the same name. And the parameter "cyclone" should make {{disambig}} categorise the page into Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation. Right? And yes, I think it is probably a good thing to add that parameter.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re 2, yes. Although on looking at several more of the pages, there is a lot of inconsistency -- many pages include a lot of information and extra links that would not be appropriate on a typical dab page. These (at least the better examples) look more like a set index similar to ships or mountains. If that is the case, then I'd suggest some renaming may be in order, such as {{hurricane disambig}} to something like {{hurricane index}} and Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation (and subcategories) to something like Category:Set indices on tropical cyclones. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Template talk:Hurricane disambig.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:All disambiguation pages

There is now a discussion about how this template and other disambig, set index and name boxes should categorise pages. See the discussion over at Template talk:Dmbox#Category:All disambiguation pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

Would you add this interwiki, please [[arz:قالب:توضيح]]. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please add it to the documentation page. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - Only some Wikipedias use the /doc system, so editors from other Wikipedias often don't understand that they should add the interwikis to the unprotected /doc pages. So I added that Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia interwiki for Mahmudmasri.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Player Manager

Please, somebody in the know, stop by there, and fix that. My intention is obvious. It takes me half an hour to read all that shyte in the help files. Thanks, Oalexander-En (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Add line advising editors not to indiscriminately wikilink

Could we add a brief line advising people to check MoS before editing, and in particular not to indiscriminately wikilink? Such as:

• When editing this page, note that each entry should only contain a single wikilink. For further guidance, see here.

PL290 (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Such instruction already appears above the edit box when editing a page with the disambig tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So it does. Most comprehensive too, once pointed out. I've never noticed it in that location. When starting an edit, the eye is drawn to the text about to be edited, so I think it may be being overlooked, rather than ignored per your edit summary. Thoughts on placing it at the foot of the page itself, as part of the disambig text already there? PL290 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Variant template/parameter wording is confusing

Excerpted from the template doc:

Variant templates

For disambiguation pages requiring cleanup, use {{disambig-cleanup}}.

More specific, alternative templates exist, for disambiguation pages or set index articles whose entries are limited exclusively to items of a particular type.

[List of alternative templates for various classes]

Parameters
If a general dab page includes more than one item in any of the above classes, then {{disambig}} should still be used, but parameters can be added in order to place the page additionally into the above categories.

I spent quite awhile trying to figure out what this wording was trying to say. My confusion was: if I have a disambiguation page where all the entries belong to one of the listed classes, then obviously the page must include more than one item in that class. So am I supposed to use the variant template for that class, or the disambig template with the parameter for that class?

Finally, as I was getting ready to post this, I noticed that the Parameter instructions referred to a "general" dab page. I take it that's supposed to tell me that it's only talking about pages with multiple types of items, and not pages where all the entries are in a single class. But can't we make that a lot clearer instead of assuming that a) the user knows what a "general" dab page means and b) the user will see that one subtle word and recognize that it's the key to understanding which method you're supposed to be using?

Suggested rephrase of the Parameters section intro: "If a disambiguation page includes multiple items in one of the above classes in addition to other items not of that class, then..." Propaniac (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's the intended meaning, and it would be good to change the wording to make it clearer, as you suggest.--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the old wording was wrong. Propaniac's versions were good but didn't cover it completely. So I took a shot at it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Placement

Why is {{disambig}} placed at the bottom of a page? Shouldn't a reader be notified of a disambiguation page as a first priority, as in at the top of the page? Pyxzer (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The drawback would be the link to the page the reader was looking for would be moved farther down. What would be the benefit to the reader's navigation? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the first line and the page content makes it obvious as to what the page is for. If it was placed at the top the appearance would suffer. It would make the page a little cluttered. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove message

The template gives the following message:

I see no need for this message. Disambig pages are generally used in article namespace and are for the benefit of the reader. The message states the obvious ("lists articles associated with the same title") and gives two links that are of interest to editors rather than readers. One of the links (going to Wikipedia:Disambiguation) goes across namespaces which should be avoided where possible Removing the message gives a better separation between content and administration. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambigs are non-articles in the article namespace. I am not certain what problem exists here. If cross-namespace links in navigational non-articles need to be avoided, the cross-namespace link could be removed without removing the message. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, they are not articles but they are content. The problem, although that is too strong a word, is that the massage is redundant and it is for editors. Therefore, since it is in article namespace and used for content it should not be used. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Readers are editors. I'm not sure what the point is of pretending readers and editors are different classes. older ≠ wiser 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but not all readers are editors. Editors are building WP for readers who are by far the largest group visiting WP. Readers should be able to visit a page uncluttered by stuff used for editing. That is why we have the different namespaces. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and there are all varieties of maintenance template messages intended primarily for editors that nevertheless are displayed on articles, largely because all readers are potential editors. older ≠ wiser 00:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of the maint templates serve to warn the reader as well as indicate to editors and potential editors that an article is dodgy and needs work. There needs to be a wider discussion on how we serve the interests of readers and editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the message shown above that appears on dab pages may predate the formation of the Disambiguation WikiProject and all the hard work being done at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. If that is the case the message above is an old relic that needs removing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The text (with some changes over time) is quite old, but so what? The general idea conveyed is still valid. Links to disambiguation pages are usually incorrect links and the message invites reader/editors to participate in improving articles. Is that really something you think needs removing? older ≠ wiser 04:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• All the hard work being done by Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links wouldn't be necessary if editors cleaned up after themselves. After a stellar year, the number of links to dab pages has dropped from 1.3 to to 1.1 million. Leave the message as is, it encourages repair work. Josh Parris 04:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Alan: The {{disambig}} template does much more than just displaying that text.

• It categorizes the page as a disambig page.
• It simplifies the adding of other disambig categories (see Template:Disambig#Parameters.
• It makes it so the {{disambig editintro}} is displayed when editing a page with this template on.
• It makes it so the Wikipedia statistics functions know that the page isn't an article, so it doesn't get counted as an article.

Most of these functions are handled by the meta-template {{dmbox}}, which also is used by the other disambig templates so they too get these functions.

So even if we removed the message, we still would need to add a template that does those things. And to make it possible for editors to easily see if the template is there or not, it would have to have some visible appearance. So then it can just as well show a little useful information.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to delete the template - I simply want to delete the message (shown above) from the template. I am fully aware of the other function of the template which is why I did not suggest deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh? So what appearance are you suggesting?

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove the section of the template that creates the message shown above. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cross-namespace/selfref links are not a problem, as the dmbox is (or at least should be) excluded from print copies (and site mirrors?) via CSS.

You said "The message states the obvious ("lists articles associated with the same title")", but that is only obvious because you/we are familiar with these "disambiguation" pages.

It partially clarifies for the 'reader' that the page is intended to list exact-pattern-matches-only. E.g. They're not going to find a link to Cat herding at Cat (disambiguation).

It encourages readers to become editors, which is the only way we can keep growing/self-sustaining.

Therefor, I object to removing the message, though a discussion about 'tweaking' the message might be warranted. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it is not likely that the message will be deleted I propose we change the link currently going to Wikipedia:Disambiguation (a project page ie maint/admin) changed to Help:Disambiguation, which should be set up as a page for reader info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

By all means, create that page and we can certainly discuss it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose complete deletion of the message. It is useful for readers to understand that disambiguation pages are a special kind of page. Something akin to the first sentence should be retained, although it may be appropriate to link to a more reader-friendlt location, if one can be found or created. The fact that "something is (usually) wrong" if an internal link from an article leads to a disambiguation page is also useful for readers to know. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have created Help:Disambiguation as a reader guide. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Alan: I like your Help:Disambiguation, it seems like a very reader friendly explanation of disambiguation pages. But that help page should of course also have a link to the more technical Wikipedia:Disambiguation, probably in its "See also" section.

And regarding our comments further up in this section: I asked "So what appearance are you suggesting?". You answered "Remove the section of the template that creates the message shown above.". But I don't understand your answer, since that would result in this:

That doesn't make any sense. So again, exactly what appearance are you suggesting? Please provide an example that we can look at. If you mean it should have no visible appearance at all, then please say so.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I also like Help:Disambiguation; I tossed in the dabnav box to link to the project, MOSDAB, etc. Josh Parris 14:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

David, I have placed a link to Wikipedia:Disambiguation as a hatnote on Help:Disambiguation. The appearance I would have wanted includes the removal of section you illustrate. It would be redundant without the text. It is all academic anyway since there is a consensus to keep the message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying that. And yes, it's now academic but I got so curios about what you wanted.

And yes, the link to Wikipedia:Disambiguation works fine as a hatnote too, although personally I have a slight preference of placing it at the top of the "See also" section. Since I think readers should first read the easy introduction on Help:Disambiguation, then be offered to go on to the more extensive reading if they want to. Anyway, all looks fine.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Added I have added the link to Help:Disambiguation. We could also maybe think about removing the sentence "If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article" because that instruction is only one click away and it would simplify the message for the reader. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree about removing the second sentence. It is redundant because of the "What links here" link. For pages used by readers I believe in the KISS principle. Readers are not simple of course but keeping an uncluttered look, including minimal links, is a good thing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with removal of second sentence. PL290 (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer keeping the second sentence. I don't mind asking readers for help at the bottom of a disambig page. (I wish the clean-up templates would also be put at the bottom of the pages...)

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the second sentence stayed. It's the help page in a nutshell: "so fix it" and it empowers the reader. Josh Parris 03:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose removing the second sentence, per Josh Parris. It's not redundant to the "What links here" link, because the template, unlike the link, is suggesting that the user do something. Propaniac (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I prefer the removal of the second sentence is that it's long been criticized for being unclear and confusing (several sections above, for instance, with no good solution found). I honestly think it's an example of information presented which is difficult to understand unless you already know it (meaning you don't need to read it). The whole message has that feel (so I wouldn't object to removal of the whole message), but the juxtaposition of these two unrelated sentences compounds the issue. In any case, I suspect fixing redirects is something users gain awareness of in other ways; I don't think I learned about it from this message. PL290 (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I skimmed this page and while I did see some imperfections with the sentence pointed out, and I doubt it has much benefit, I didn't see any evidence or allegations that it's caused any harm greater than perhaps some mild passing confusion among inexperienced users. To me it seems the benefit outweighs the drawbacks. I admit that part of my rationale is that I think just the short first sentence would look strange by itself, on a visceral level. Propaniac (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, Propaniac, but consider: the possible harm you've identified, only "confusion among inexperienced users", affects precisely those intended recipients of any benefit the message is hoped to bring! That is really why the wording keeps coming up for discussion, and why I now think the most helpful thing is to remove that second sentence entirely. PL290 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Has there been a complaint from one of the hypothetical harmed users? I still see no benefit to removing the second sentence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The message is supposed to benefit users who are savvy enough to understand what an internal link is and how to change one; it may cause some brief confusion among extremely inexperienced users below that level of experience, but such users are likely to be confused by lots of things. I would be more bothered if I thought such confusion would hamper their ability to navigate or enjoy the encyclopedia, but I don't; I think, at worst, they might see it and think "I wonder what that means" before continuing whatever they were doing. As JHJ points out, all of this is purely hypothetical at this point, but even hypothetically I have trouble imagining a user whose utilization of Wikipedia is stymied by that extra sentence; it's much easier for me to imagine a user who is led by the sentence to fix the link that sent them to the page. Propaniac (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This above modified template would be better option? Cited third page (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If the sentence is staying that would be a good modification. An explanation link that is first and in normal font for the reader and a smaller font for the editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the sentence must stay, that presentation would be a significant improvement. PL290 (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd be okay with that. Propaniac (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

We can change code of this template now as suggested. Other templates like {{hndis}} etc. can be followed up later, or rather they can be parameterised as suggested in next section below. Cited third page (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Y Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Second sentence font-size

The discussion in the above section resulted in using <small> text for the second sentence in this template. But I often see users complaining that <small> text is to small to read on their computers. (Probably due to bad eyesight or using to large screen resolutions.) So I suggest that for the second sentence we instead use font-size 88%, which is between normal text size and <small>. That's the standard size we use for text in small message boxes such as {{tmbox}} and {{ombox}} when right aligned. So I would like to change this:

To this:

We use 88% in the small message boxes since it renders the same in pretty much all browsers, while 90% doesn't.

Size comparison: Some text. Some text. Some text. (small, 88%, normal)

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, but less distinct since the sizes are closer to one another. I think combining that suggestion with de-italicizing the first sentence would be beneficial:

PL290 (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I support either of those suggested changes. Small is too small. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is {{Small}}, also the tag <small> is deprecated in HTML5. Small texts are used in other {{ambox}}es, we can use the same here for consistency. Cited third page (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I should perhaps mention that I personally have no problem with the occasional <small> sized text. I brought this up only because <small> is to small for some other users.

Cited third page: The {{small}} template isn't a good alternative, since internally it uses "font-size: smaller;" which at least on my browser gives the same size as <small>.

PL290: I see what you mean. The first sentence is the main one and the second one is mostly a comment, so yeah it would be nice if they differed in some way. But personally I like keeping them both italicised, so then I would rather keep the second sentence as <small>. But I don't think it is enough important to have them differ that much, I think it is more important that both sentences are readable for most users. So I still prefer using 88% and both italicised. (But I am just slightly opposed to having the first sentence in non-italic.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The other disambig templates

Per the discussion in the above section I have updated most of the other disambig templates to link to Help:Disambiguation instead of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. But I didn't change the links in {{disambig-cleanup}} and {{hndis-cleanup}}, since they probably need to link to the explanation about how to edit disambig pages.

While doing the updates of all the disambig templates I noticed some things:

I found several disambig templates that are not listed in the section "Variant templates" in the documentation of {{disambig}}. These ones should probably be added to that section:

• {{Callsigndis}} – Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages
• {{Disambig-Chinese-char-title}} – Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles
• {{Fish-dab}} – Category:Fish common names and Category:Disambiguation pages
• {{LatinNameDisambig}} – Category:Latin name disambiguation pages
• {{Letter disambig}} – Category:Disambiguation pages
• {{Letter-NumberCombDisambig}} – Category:Letter-number combination disambiguation pages
• {{MolFormDisambig}} – Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages and Category:Molecular formulas

The categories of the templates listed above should probably also be added as parameters to {{disambig}}.

Regarding {{fish-dab}}: It used to categorize into Category:Fish common name disambiguation, but that category was renamed to Category:Fish common names per discussion at WP:CFD. I have updated {{fish-dab}} to use the new category. The pages in that category currently instead use {{disambig}} with that category manually added, but that is probably mostly since {{fish-dab}} was broken and wasn't "advertised" in the right places. Since "Category:Fish common names" is not (and perhaps should not be) a sub-category of Category:Disambiguation pages I also added "Category:Disambiguation pages" to {{fish-dab}}.

I also found and updated {{Meta disambig}}, it is currently unused and just like {{WP disambig}} it is meant to be used on pages other than articles. So I think we should redirect {{Meta disambig}} to {{WP disambig}}, and update the text in {{WP disambig}} so it works for all non-article pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Kotniski (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We can sub-categorise those templates into Category:Disambiguation page templates Cited third page (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cited third page: I agree. All the disambig boxes are currently categorized into Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates together with a lot of disambig hatnotes etc. And the set index message boxes are already in the sub-category Category:Set index article templates. But we already have the unused sub-category Category:Disambiguation message boxes, if we want to categorize the disambig message boxes separately then I suggest we use that category instead.

Here's some background for the curios: When we created the {{dmbox}} meta-template we decided to classify the disambig boxes as "message boxes", even though they only have a top and bottom border. The {{dmbox}} mostly uses the same parameter naming and code as the other message boxes such as {{ambox}}.

Recently those templates were also automatically categorized into Category:Disambiguation message boxes by some code in the meta-template {{dmbox}}. But I removed that "tracking of disambig message box templates" since it caused problems. The code were added by another user. But it is usually a bad idea to have a meta-template categorize templates that use it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Y Done most of it. I will merge {{Meta disambig}} into {{WP disambig}} later.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This was forgotten for almost a year, but I did it a few days ago. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember WP:CJKV which dabs chinese characters... 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

((Surname)) and ((given name))

I noticed that Mandarax today added {{surname}} to the doc in section "Variant templates", then he reverted himself with the comment "While usually used as a dab template, "Surname" technically isn't one".

He is right in his comment, but I think we should list {{surname}} and {{given name}} here. Those templates are related to the templates listed here, they are kind of set index article templates and we list the set index templates here. Listing {{surname}} and {{given name}} here would make the list more complete and make them easier to find. We just have to add them in a way that makes it clear what they are. I have given it a try. I hope it looks okay?

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your changes look good to me. I obviously thought that listing {{Surname}} would be helpful, before I realized the technicality and reversed myself, and your solution seems just right. It should be very useful in helping people find what they're looking for. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Enforced disambiguation trouble

More than once I have seen instances where a link has been made to a disam page because that page happens to contain a useful sentence or paragraph at the top. That introductory passage provides an overview of the topic, and this overview is in fact the intended target of the link.

But then a disambiguator, a person or a bot, comes along and declares, "This link must be disambiguated! Now!!" The general is then made specific, with some link further down the disam page being selected at random as the new, "corrected" target, and this introduces an error.

What I would like to see is a parameter attachment to the template that acknowledges that the page is a valid termination point on its own, and that it does not need to be refined further by disambiguators acting in good faith.

Is that possible or reasonable?

Varlaam (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete this template

Ok! This is going to create a bit of a stir - which is why I haven't put it up for deletion immediately! Why do we need this template? Does it exist purely because of the way WP has evolved? The template is not needed since it is describing something to readers that is quite obvious, and it gives an exhortation to editors which is generally not a function of non-project pages.

If the template was deleted and all the pages placed in Category:Disambiguation pages it would then be a simple matter for readers and editors to click on the category link to get further information. The information at Category:Disambiguation pages should be edited a little better in order to reflect the needs of readers and editors. Deleting it will give a cleaner page layout which is nicer for readers since they arrived at the page for the dab links and not the information presented in this template. I think it exists only as a hangover from pre-categorisation days. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, although this template does do more than simply place the page in one category (there are also the parameters for the different specialized categories). Perhaps the appearance of the template could be changed to make it less intrusive.--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you raise another point. Why place all dab pages in Category:Disambiguation pages? Why not just have them in the subcategories only like we do with articles? What is the point of a category with 126,000 pages in it? It is difficult to navigate through and categories are supposed to facilitate navigation. The parameters used on the template for topics that don't have their own dab template already have their own category. Essentially, all the dab templates are redundant since we now have page categorisation and category pages can have descriptions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it serves a useful function by underlining the purpose of a dab. The visible reminder

• This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.

may forestall attempts by well-meaning readers to add related info or multiple wikilinks in entries, etc. That said, the visibility becomes less the longer the dab page is. Perhaps the statement should appear at the top. PL290 (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The "well-meaning readers" add stuff not needed on a dab pages even with the presence of the template. I would be adamantly opposed adding the template to the top of the page. That would be extremely intrusive. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They do indeed add stuff even with the presence of the template. The point that I'm making is: it's reasonable to assume they would do so even more without it. And less if it was more immediately visible. As to "intrusive", remember that a reader arriving at a dab page is, in all likelihood, expecting to see an article: the message there—like a hatnote—would be helpful, not intrusive, as it would give a more immediate context for understanding what's being viewed. PL290 (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The technical folks congregate at MediaWiki talk:Disambiguationspage (and the other dab templates are listed there). I'd recommend leaving a note there, and at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation if you're serious about overhauling the disambiguation templates and standard-practices. HTH.

Personally, I'd agree with making the image a touch smaller (and the images in all amboxes, while we're at it...), but concur with PL290 that the template itself is handy as a visual indicator and explanation that "this is not a normal article". -- Quiddity (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only to readers but also to some bots. Wikipedia in several languages (such as German and Russian) have a special class="bkl-link" for internal links which lead to a dab page, a feature that IMHO the English WP ought to have too. More generally, a disambiguation page is not an article and must be labelled in a formal way. Is this topic really silly or it is a bad joke? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This proposal raises two issues. First, should there be a template at all; second, if so, what if any visible message should it display? We could, in principle, have an "invisible" dab-template that just categorized the pages but didn't display any message to readers. My views are:

1. We need a disambiguation template for maintenance reasons, if nothing else. Both bots and human editors rely on the categorization of disambiguation pages for ongoing projects such as Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, which aims to correct ambiguous links and has been making quite a bit of progress in this effort. (Parenthetically, I'm not entirely clear on what practical purpose it serves to have many articles filed in all three of Category:Disambiguation pages, Category:All disambiguation pages, and Category:All article disambiguation pages; one comprehensive category would suffice.)
2. A visible message to readers is useful, because disambiguation pages are explicitly intended not to be articles but rather navigational aids to assist readers in finding articles. I think having a message that visually (or otherwise) makes these pages stand out so they are not confused with articles is helpful. And, for novice editors who are trying to become familiar with how Wikipedia works, these messages are a very useful bit of guidance. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I also agree that the template should go at the top of the page. bd2412 T 13:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  I disagree with placing the template at the top of the page. It's not a hatnote directing the readers elsewhere, and it should not displace (lower) the links to the articles that the reader is trying to reach. If its visual representation is eliminated (if adding the template simply adds the category to the page), then I don't care where it is placed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better not to displace the content downwards. But not everything that can appear at the top of a page need do that. How about if it appeared on the right like an infobox? PL290 (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason to place it at the top of the page (even in a right-sided infobox, above or below the usual wiktionary box)? Does it help the readers somehow? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does help them (and one or two others thought so too above). The point being that the reader will, in all likelihood, be expecting to arrive at an article. Making clear what they have actually arrived at will help them to understand it more immediately. PL290 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the "may refer to:" lede makes that clear. If not, it could be changed to "is ambiguous. You may have been looking for:" without impacting the placement of the targets. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the wording makes it pretty clear already. It's not as if I consider there's a major problem that needs solving, simply that if the template is to remain visible (which seems popular), and does contribute to the reader's understanding of context (which seems axiomatic), an enhancement would be for that to be the case regardless of page length. PL290 (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Replies:

• My desire to have the template deleted is not a joke - it is a considered opinion on a way to improve WP for readers.
• Dab pages don't need to be labelled as such since it is obvious (in most cases) that that is what they are. We should credit readers with at least some degree of intelligence. They will realise that they have arrived at a dab page
• Readers will expect an article when they arrive at a dab page but when presented with a list of options they can then click through to the article they want.
• A template is not needed for maintenance reasons - categories suffice.
• A template at the top or even a hatnote is not needed - it is obvious what the page is for. I am vehmently opposed to having the template or a hatnote at the top of the page.
• An explanation for those who arrive at a dab page need not be on the dab page itself. If readers and potential editors want to get more info about dab pages they can click trough to the project or category.

The majority of those who arrive at a dab page simply want to click through to the article they want and don't want to find out more about dab pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the difference between an article and a disambiguation page is likely to be obvious to the casual reader. It certainly wasn't obvious to me, and I hope you will credit me with at least some degree of intelligence.  :-) And I'm not sure how you would establish what is or is not obvious, anyway. Pretty clearly there is no consensus that the template is unnecessary. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to blur the lines between disambig pages and all else. There are very specific MOS rules for disambig pages, and if you cannot easily distinguish between a disambig, set index, and list then maintaining the disambigs will be a very difficult job. Also, if there's nothing to visually distinguish a disambig from a regular article, how will Joe Editor understand when we ask him not to link to it? The template does not hamper navigation in any way, but removing it will increase confusion. --JaGa^talk 09:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambig templates

There's a discussion regarding the use of this template vs. the use of the variant templates listed which are in the doc over here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_7#Disambig_templates. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

I've asked for alt text to be added. Discussion is at Template talk:Dmbox#Editprotected to add alternative attribute. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Page title

Why is Template:Disambiguation a redirect to this page, instead of being the title of this page? Would there be any objections to renaming the template in order to avoid the wiki-jargon abbreviation? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a reasonable idea.--Kotniski (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support from me too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No objections here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Y Moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And a resounding "HOORAY" from me! Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

Automatic archiving

I would like to see automatic archiving set up on this page. We don't need discussions from 2008 here! Any objections? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine - or just a manual archive. There's not much activity here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

{{Stub}} Template

Should we add the {{Stub}} template? I cant understand this article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.21.180 (talk • contribs)

This is a template not an article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove AFT

Please add [[Category:Article Feedback Blacklist]] next to the "Disambiguation pages" categorization, in order to remove the Article Feedback Tool from disambiguation pages. --Yair rand (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done, and gladly, although I hope nobody gets upset that the membership of that category is now going from 13 to about 130,000! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ALL the disambiguation templates need this done to them. I already also added Category:Article Feedback Blacklist to {{hndis}}, {{SIA}}, {{Geodis}}, and several others. {{surname}} is a little tricky however because some pages with that template, in addition to listing surnames, also have actual encyclopedic content about the surname. -- œ^™ 00:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories

It has been pointed out (see Template talk:Geodis#Edit req that this template populates Category:Disambiguation pages as well as subcategories of this category. It might be better to only use this parent category if a more specific subcategory is not available. Comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)