Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 20

Why multiple wikilinks in dab pages are evil

Here's a good example that I just tripped over. I was looking for some information on Network Time Protocol. I typed NTP into a search box and got to this dab page. Great, the first entry is exactly what I'm looking for, an article called Network Time Protocol (computer science). So I clicked on it and got taken to Computer science. Wrong place! -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your saying that you clicked fast and therefor clicked wrong, correct? That having only one link on a line would not present a "speed bump" in your progress to the desired article, yes? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
What I'm saying (I'll admit, I was somewhat vague in my original comment) is that I didn't even realize there were two different links. I saw a bunch of blue underlined text, and I clicked on it. There was no visual indication that it was actually two links, one to Network Time Protocol, and the other to Computer science. Had there just been a single link to Network Time Protocol (as there is now), there wouldn't have been any confusion. This was a particularly egregious example, since there were not only two links, but two links abutting each other with no visual indication that they weren't a single link. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that was a particularly badly-formatted example, masquerading as a series of disambiguated article titles. The MOS also says you should have more text than links, and this is good practice in general—when nothing separates linked words, it starts to get hard to tell what you're clicking on. Michael Z. 2006-01-2 23:42 Z

Parallel policy

This is a parallel policy to Wikipedia:Disambiguation and should be deleted. The amount this policy has drifted is unbelievable and the results are horrible. The standard example for disambiguation used to be mercury. Go to talk:mercury for further discussion. Bensaccount 16:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Which parts of this policy do you feel contradict Wikipedia:Disambiguation? By your recent edits at Mercury, it seems you don't understand the way a disambiguation page is supposed to work as an interface for resolving ambiguous links. By "supposed to" I mean what is supported by the consensus. Michael Z. 2006-01-2 17:50 Z
What is presented here is not policy but guideline; what is presented at Wikipedia:Disambiguation is also not policy, but guideline. Let's not get too twisted out of shape for something that, because it is not policy is inherently only a suggestion and only marginally enforcable (except with clubs and strong words, as has been happening recently - which I think we (myself included) have taken too far, unfortunately). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, then I'd like to know which part of the guideline Bensaccount thinks justifies deleting this page. Michael Z. 2006-01-2 23:44 Z
I just read on User talk:Wahoofive where User:Bensaccount has blamed Wahoo for "creating a huge mess out of disambiguation" as a general activity. I think User:Bensaccount needs to explain this attack here. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:D says "Don't wikilink any other words", and MoS:DP says "don't wikilink any other words in the line". The edits by Bensaccount depart completely from both pages, and from the consensus of the disambig-fixers, then he complains that the two guidelines disagree, and that one should be obliterated. One who does not cooperate with the group should not expect the group to do an immediate about-face and follow him. Chris the speller 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone else cares to have a look. Bensaccount has restored to Mercury what he calls "context", replete with multiple links and heavy use of bolding. olderwiser 01:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when was it written in stone that these highly flawed "styles" must be applied so that disambiguation pages no longer provide context, just a random association of words? (My estimate is around Oct 20). Bensaccount 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages should provide context, and in my experience most of them do. In fact, this guideline explicitly says that. However, excessive context hurts readability, which is harmful since a disambiguation page is merely a stepping stone to the page the user actually wanted. Similarly, disambiguation pages should link to other pages only when the page might be what the user wanted. The normal Wikipedia policy of liberal use of links is not desirable as this detracts from the user finding the correct page quickly. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 02:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Where does it explicitly say that? Even if it did say that (which it doesn't) all the examples are of context being explicitly removed in favour of a vague, unexplained association of words. Also, most disambiguation pages were made before this flawed 'style guide' was written. Bensaccount 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


If a specific entry is indeed a "vague, unexplained association of words", improve it. However, your behavior here and there is not conducive to improvement of Wikipedia. If you don't like something, explain why — in detail. And be prepared for disagreement. For policy to have changed, enough people must have thought the changes a good idea, after all. Having a fit involving "I want everything put back the way I remember it!" doesn't really advance the discussion. Conciseness and to-the-point-ness are important goals in a disambiguation page, and the current guidelines have helped that a great deal. It must be stressed that readers don't want to be at a disambiguation page. It's our job to get them to the page they wanted as quickly as possible. Certainly, guidelines can always be improved upon; I hope you'll help in that process. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Not that it is so terribly important, but the earliest version of this page from May 2, 2005, is not that terribly different than it is now. The biggest difference is that bolding of terms has been deprecated. And from the very first day of its existence, April 5, 2002, Wikipedia:Disambiguation contained the following text:
If a disambiguating page is merited, it can be as simple as a bullet list of specific articles with links and perhaps a brief one-line description of each (saving details for the specific articles), or it might have some explanatory text of its own if differences need to be explained, or if there is interesting history of the term itself independent of the specific topics.
This was about the greatest extent of stylistic guidance provided on that page. There was very little elaboration on this for the next two years or so. As I recall, the MoS page was initially an attempt to provide some suggestions for persons creating dab pages, as over time a large degree of stylistic variations had arisen. The general idea motivating the style guide (and which is the raison d'etre for most style guides) is that too much stylistic variation gives an impression of poor quality control. The guideline is not intended to be a hard and fast rule, but through extensive discussions amongst a number of interested parties, some understanding and conventions have arisen. There's still lots of disagreement over the details, but there has been relatively little objections to the general outline of the stylistic guidelines here. olderwiser 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The basic motivator (as, I see, has already been noted) was to avoid variation in dab page formatting. It was intended to reflect a reasonable amount of disambiguation page formattings at the time: bullet points, for example. Guidelines on the project page became generally intended to make the reader's search as fast as possible — within seconds. Hence, the placing of links as the first word of the line, without piping, for example, is encouraged.

There is a fundamental difference between WP:DAB and this page. WP:DAB explains what disambiguation is, and how it works. This page recommends a formatting for the pages themselves.

We assume the reader knows what he is looking for. Place names, therefore, require nothing mroe than a link. Concepts and objects are meant to have a short description after them. Nothing more than what is necessary for a reader to find his place quickly is included. A disambiguation page is not intended to foster exploration, and it is certainly not intended to teach. It is intended to get a reader to where he wants to be.

As we all understand, exceptions arise from time to time and the manual must be applied with a degree of elasticity.

I, by the way, was the one who initially brought up the idea of standardising dab pages (though my activity in the project quickly became severely limited, to say the least). Neonumbers 04:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Standardising some entries

Just wondering, could some of descriptions for the entries be standardised throughout disambig pages? Items such as novels, albums, songs and films could both be consistent and concise at the same time. Revolving around a ficticious and hypothetical band, I suggest implementing something like this:

And another question that I have here is that since entries like albums are supposed to be in italics, should songs also be in quotation marks and piped (not masked) at the same time, per the MoS? :) Regards, Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 18:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. I don't think it's particularly worthwhile to try to standardize the appearance of entries any more rigidly. There are just too many exceptions, and few entries really could fit in the format of (date) (genre) by (artist). We're having a hard enough time enforcing the standards we already have.
  2. It's possible to go too far with the italicization and stuff. The WP:MOS guidelines (as well as dead-tree style manuals) are intended for use in text, not lists or tables (which these dab pages are). Furthermore, the entry Untitled (album) in this context isn't the name of an album; it's the name of an article. We're providing a list of articles, so the typesetting rules are different. However, italics are certainly appropriate with an entry like
Wahoofive (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. :) From my observation, actually most music albums do fit in the category of (year) (type of album) by (artist), genre and whether it's the debut/second/third/fourth album need not be mentioned. This is the case for disambig pages that have quite a number of albums and songs in the list, like Music (disambiguation) or Island (disambiguation). For individual entries that fall into the albums/songs/novels/films category, we could have a guideline for them and avoid the problems as seen earlier in this talk page. Anyways if amending the MoS doesn't seem like a good idea, adding a few more examples about albums should be enough I suppose. If we're having a hard time enforcing it, it's all the more to write it down in stone. :)
I see what you mean, then the issue of italics and quotation marks for albums and songs respectively should be mentioned in the MoS I believe, as I have been refering with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) for my edits all of these while. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 20:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Though, if there was just a note saying, it might be worth including the year of release of an album/single/film, just like there is for people's birth/death dates, would that be a worthwhile addition? I'd find the year of release helps.
I think, but I am not sure, that by convention, song names go in quotation marks and album names go in italics. I'm not sure, and this is a bit unrelated (an addition to the manual will only be sought if this statements is actually true) — but is that how things work? Neonumbers 05:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's it; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music#Albums, bands, and songs. — Catherine\talk 06:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Acronyms and words

What are folks opinions on what to do in the case of, for example SAGE and Sage? One an acronym and another a word - one disambig page or two? We're having a discussion on a proposed merge at Talk:Sage (disambiguation). Thanks/wangi 21:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer one. Tedernst | talk 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations:
Usually, there should be just one page for all cases (upper- or lower-case), e.g. MB for MB, mB, mb, Mb.
If you disagree, contest it there or at WP:D. But note the term "usually" allows for exceptions, and none of the cited examples is a stand-alone word like "sage". —Wahoofive (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the case of the stand-alone word should be pointed out explicitly, as it is currently ambiguous. I have started a discussion on Wikipedia Talk:Disambiguation and abbreviations. --TreyHarris 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

dab subcategories

Please vote in the polls here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories Tedernst | talk 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Leading line

The leading line is not necessary. State what you think its purpose is here. Bensaccount 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For readers of Wikipedia, especially ones who read it rarely, it is useful as a user interface component: it looks like an entry you might come across in a reference book. Without the leading line, the user will not know what he or she is looking at until reading the dab template at the bottom. You yourself seem to feel that head-weighting of context is important, from your other comments. It holds even more true for the entire page than it does for individual lines on the page.
I'm reverting you. This is not a change that should happen without discussion. --TreyHarris 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
For those that are not familiar with dab pages, the leading line serves as a short introduction to accomodate the user and make the page more accessible. In short, it helps the user to more quickly realize the purpose of the page. Even for those who are familiar with dab pages, such as myself, I think it is a welcome addition. --Pagrashtak 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Link in first word

If people knew which link they wanted they would have typed it directly into the search box or link. The reason they are at the disambig page is because they don't know the name of the article about the subject they are looking for. Putting the context first allows them to figure it out without having to decipher the meaning of links (which often aren't very self-explanatory). Bensaccount 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Putting context first just creates more text that a user must wade through before getting to the actual link. By presenting unpiped links in general, users can usually scan the links themselves and find the correct article without having to read any context whatsoever. If I'm looking for an article about a specific book, which of these makes it easier to find the article I want?
  • XXXXX (video game)
  • XXXXX (novel)
  • XXXXX (plumbing fixture)
  • XXXXX (movie)
or
  • Released in 1985, XXXXX is a video game about lighting fixtures
  • Written by Shakespear's brother, XXXXX is a classic story about the life of pigeons
  • Sinks drain twice as fast when equipped with XXXXX fixtures
  • Alfred Smith plays the character of Rusty Bottles in XXXXX, a western set in the east
?? In the first example, I can go right to the desired link with great speed. In the second example, I have to wade through a bunch of stuff I don't care about to find the article I do care about. In short, placing the unpiped link at the start of each item makes the dab page incredibly easy to use. --Pagrashtak 02:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, putting the links at the start of the line makes an easily scannable list of links, and text descriptions should also ideally be short enough to scan easily. I do sometimes make sure context is near the front of the line if it's not part of the link text, i.e.: "Gerbleflop, in electrical engineering, is....", but only when it adds clarity rather than clutter. — Catherine\talk 02:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Short, meaningful context is fine after the unpiped link, with restrictions on what is linked within. I didn't include it in the example above only because the unpiped links are enough in that case. --Pagrashtak 02:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, making an easily scannable list of links was the purpose of having all links as the first word in the line to begin with. Furthermore, the unpiped link is often, though not always, enough; just in case the reader needs that extra bit of help, we put a short description after the link. Neonumbers 05:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
One more reason: usability studies have found that rows or columns of links are easier for less accomplished computer users to manage than links spread throughout text. The current dab page style gives a nice long column of links to click, so that readers (especially those with disabilities or the elderly) don't have to feel like they're playing a shooter game to click on the right one. I'm sure somebody has logs that could verify this, but I'll bet that a large fraction of our readers (as opposed to editors) just jump on, look something up, and then go away again. They're not "exploring" or clicking on too many links. We should make using Wikipedia easy for this type of reader, too. --TreyHarris 05:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Unpiped links up front are sufficient in many, many cases, and make it easy to scan down the page. For an example of how easy it is to leave readers out in the cold by ignoring MoS:DP, look at my message about Freddie Mercury at Talk:Mercury. Chris the speller 06:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. Such a volume of explanation, repeating what the WP and MOS already say. All to appease one editor, who has read them, and refuses to agree. Michael Z. 2006-01-4 08:17 Z

Disambiguating people, Walker

It so happens that I am looking for a biochemist named Walker who is known for certain protein motifs (Walker motifs A and B). Perhaps you can help me, heres the link Walker. Bensaccount 02:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that person is not on the list? No "Walker" is listed at List of geneticists and biochemists or at List of biochemists or Category:Biochemists. I assume you're referring to John E. Walker. Not that this would have helped, but I think it is a mistake that the John Walker disambig page is not linked to from the Walker disambig page. And it is certainly a mistake that you could not get to J.E. Walker (either directly or indirectly) from the Walker page. But a missing link has nothing to do with the stylistic guidelines of the MOS. olderwiser 02:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this points out an area we do need to develop some guidance on (or maybe it's is there and I have missed it). I know this has been talked about before, for example by linking to an index of person articles by sorted by last name. I mean, not only is the list of John Walkers on Walker very incomplete, but so are the George Walkers and there appears to be some discrepency with the list at David Walker (disambiguation) and Michael Walker shows an even bigger disconnect. Then there is also Scott Walker and William Walker, which also show discrepencies. olderwiser 02:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't notice it was the same John E Walker involved in DNA discovery. Bensaccount 03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
We've been over this so many times it makes me snooze. Walker should NOT have a list of everyone whose first name or last name happens to be Walker. That belongs on the List of people by name. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If so, WP:MOSDAB is confusing on this matter. This section specifically says how to format dab pages for names. If it has been agreed upon to use LoPbN instead, perhaps you can help revise this section, as it makes no mention of LoPbN currently. --Pagrashtak 03:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:D says:
Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion).
However, when there is a separate list article, it makes sense to have a link to it in a "See also" section. For example, List of people whose first name is Michael should have a link from Michael.
We've had many a battle about the page Michael and I got tired of fighting it long ago. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a see also would be useful there, it requires subsectons to be formatted properly. Done. However, while I'm not generally opposed to lists that actually provide substantive information, it has always seemed to me that LoPbN is a huge waste of time, merely doing what Categories should handle automatically, and what a search engine will find in the articles themselves. What's the best category for names?
--William Allen Simpson 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not generally include people on single-name dab pages like Walker, and move them to LoPbN if I find them; instead, I leave a pointer to LoPbN. If the name is common enough to have a surname article, like Smith and Anderson which I cleaned up recently, I put it in an indented entry on the main list. If not, I've been putting it in a See Also section (see Benjamin (disambiguation)). What do you think? — Catherine\talk 06:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Some proposed wording for MoS:DP

So how do we stop editors blindly (but in good faith) making a mess of ship index articles and other pages which have more text or links than the straightjacket of MoS:DP demands? I can see two plausible solutions:

  1. Change the {{disambig}} template on ship index pages to something different. This would be somewhat tedious (there are thousands of such pages), and a bit of a shame: after all, it was there long before MoS:DP was written.
  2. Change the MoS:DP guidelines. Perhaps a simple note of this form: "WikiProjects may have their own guidelines for disambiguation pages; for example many articles listing ships with the same name follow the format recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Please respect the conventions of these WikiProjects when editing these disambiguation pages."

Thoughts? Gdr 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gdr, perhaps you could give us an example of a "model" ship disambiguation page, because I thought we reach a consensus above with USS Merrimack? In your example perhaps you could explain the need for any differences to the DP MoS guideline? Thanks/wangi 13:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think HMS Resolution, HMS Cornwall, HMS Hermione, and USS Enterprise are about right in their level of detail and use of links (though years could be unlinked without harm, and Resolution probably ought to say a bit more about which wars and battles the ships are notable for taking part in). Multi-stub pages like HMS Newcastle could probably be split if someone were willing to put in the time and effort.

Remember that these pages are not "pure" disambiguation pages, but capsule histories of the use of a ship name in a navy. That's why it's appropriate to make more links than a pure disambiguation page. If this means that the {{disambig}} template is no longer inappropriate, then I think that's a shame, but it would be possible to change it. Gdr 15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me these articles you cite would be better as "History of XXX" and leave the main name to be an actual dab, with links just to the ships and the history page. Tedernst | talk 16:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be a pointless duplication of work. The current design for ship index articles allows the same article to do both jobs well. Gdr 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gdr, I'll focus on HMS Cornwall - can you compare the original page and a version I have edited to be more in line with the guidelines at User:Wangi/HMS Cornwall? Why do you think it neccessary to include additional wikilinks, hide the disambiguated ship name using piping and not list the disambiguated link first? These guidelines are part of MoS:DP, and I cannot see any reason to ignore them in this instance.
The whole point of this guideline is consistency, and I cannot see any reason why it doesn't work in this case. Thanks/wangi 16:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to defend every comma of this page; everything can be improved. However:

  1. You've cut the "first, second, third". (Numbering the list will work in this case, but not in many other cases.)
  2. You've lost the meaning for the date. Launched, purchased, commissioned, or captured?
  3. You've cut the links. What's a Monmouth-class cruiser? What happened at the Dardanelles? What was the Spanish Succession?

The last point is really the key. Someone reading the history of HMS Cornwall is very likely to be interested in these events (I know I am). Why make me click on the link for the ship, search through the article to find the relevant event (which may be described in a different way), and then click on a link there? The beauty of wikitext is that we can put links in to explain names and other references. Gdr 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am completely in favor of changing "diambig" templates to "shipindex" or "shipdisambig" templates, and am willing to help in the grunt work of switching them, if that is what we decide. Too many editors will miss the ship exception notices in WP:D and MoS:DP if we don't do something to make a ship index page look less like just another disambig page. Chris the speller 17:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Gdr, I think you're missing the point of a disambiguation page - it's only trying to give enough info to let the reader proceed to the page they want. It's not an article. Wikilinking all over the shop on a disambig page only helps to cloud the issue and confuse matters.
Chris, what are the differences you see here - I cannot see a reason for ship articles to be a special case (other than an easy ride!) when the main reason for this guideline is consistency and it seems applicable... Thanks/wangi 17:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
If shipindex is created, it should NOT be a subcat of disambig. If there are disambig pages, then just use this MoS and leave it at that. Tedernst | talk 17:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds to me like a short article on Ships named Cornwall is desirable. A standard disambiguation page could have this article as its first entry, or linked from the introduction line. Michael Z. 2006-01-4 17:37 Z

If it is now considered that the only point of a disambiguation page is to link to the articles that share the name, then ship index pages are no longer disambiguation pages and I guess we should change them.

But if your main justification is consistency, I think that's pretty weak. I'd rather be able to find out what happened at the Dardanelles in one click than have a consistent lack of links. Gdr 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ship index articles are not disambig in the new, strict sense that has evolved. "Ships named Cornwall" seems a silly duplication of work that has already been done. I'm leaning towards the "shipindex" type of template, if the MoS for the disambig are unrelenting. (The jab about an "easy ride" is just weird, Wangi. I have no idea why you think that the work that has been done was in any way easy or unnecessary.) Jinian 02:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The ship indexes shouldn't contain any dab template if we aren't going to consider them to be real dab pages. We don't use a template like this for lists or articles, so why bother using any kind of template for non-dab ship indexes? —Mike 06:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel that ship names can usually be successfully disambiguated using the MoS:DPT style, but there are enough editors who want to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), and MoS:DP even says to make that exception, so I will cooperate. But it seems necessary to use a different template, because "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)" specifies something between a multi-stub page and a disambig page, closer to the former. (What scares me is Nautilus (disambiguation), which has some entries in ship index style on a true disambig page.) Chris the speller 04:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

When you say Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), I think you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships.
I won't object if you edit Nautilus (disambiguation) to make it more like MoS:DP; it's not a ship index page. However, think of the utility to the reader. It seems to me that there is a good chance that someone searching for "Nautilus" may be looking for Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. Why make them click twice? Gdr 13:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Jinian said above: "The jab about an "easy ride" is just weird, Wangi. I have no idea why you think that the work that has been done was in any way easy or unnecessary". I did not intend this as a jab, its simply a statement of fact - the easy option is retain the status quo. A more productive result of this discussion would be to either format the "shipindex" page as per the MoS:DP guideline, or to re-tag tham all as some other page type. The current (and recently updated by Gdr) opt-out in the guidelines for "shipindex" pages wouldn' seem to have consuensus in this discussion. Thanks/wangi 13:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

index to archives

I've just attempted an indexing of themes. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/index of archives This includes everything now in archives 1-10. It does not include talk about specific pages unless the conversation was more general as well (and I might've missed the general issues in the specific conversations). Is this a useful tool for avoiding talking about the same issues over and over again? I'll attempt to keep it updated as more archive pages are created. Of course others are welcome to help. Tedernst | talk 18:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tedernst. I've changed it a bit to a format I thought might work better, feel free to revert.
I'll try to index archives when I make them, but if I don't — you don't mind too much, do you? Neonumbers 06:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added 11 and 12. btw, the reason each link has the full "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/" before it is to save space (and work) in the edit page (you'll see when you open the edit page). I don't know a way around it except piping. Neonumbers 06:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like that format better. I went back and forth on formatting, but never came across your solution. And no, I don't mind if you or anyone else helps keep this page updated. It just seems like a helpful thing to have as some of these conversations aren't ever "finished" and it's great to be able to easily point back to previous versions. Thanks! Tedernst | talk 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)