Talk:88th Regiment of Foot

Transclusion

Could someone explain the transclusion issue? Tedernst | talk 03:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know all the details. I recall some discussion about this some while back on one of the disambiguation-related talk pages. I think the idea was that an article such as this one could serve double-duty by being BOTH a disambiguation page AND, through transclusion, also appear within the article List of Regiments of Foot. I just happened to stumble across that article today and noticed that it was in Category:Disambiguation, even though it was not a disambig page. I traced the category back to this article. I hve edited this article so that the category was bracketed by <noinclude></noinclude> tags. It appears that that stops the category from appearing in the list article, but still allows it in this article.

As for whether this is worth pursuing further, I don't know. It seems a rather specialized case. There are probably some other cases where it could be used, but there's a risk that someone might come along and blithely ignore the hidden instructions and reformat in a way that makes it unusable in the list article. older ≠ wiser 03:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ted, the "transclusion issue" as you put it was implemented here by me to attempt to remove the need to doubly list content between this list and a separate disambiguation page, allowing the dab page to serve "double duty". There are a small but significant number of instances involving geographical places, military units and personal names that could benefit from something like this, but I'd not worked out all of the potential consequences to my satisfaction to implement the solution further. Another place where it could come in handy is in nested dab pages such as "townsend" and "townsend township", for instance ... there are some cases where multiple listing among dab pages seems to be the norm and that adds overhead to the maintenance. Be happy, though ... I'm not pursuing this further nor anything else related to disambiguation at the present time. Do with the page what you feel is best ... and thanks to Bkonrad for fixing one of the consequences of the transclusion solution. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I love the idea, actually, if it were possible to format it correctly both here and in the article. Not sure if it's possible to do in a way that's clear to editors how they're to interact with such a beast. Tedernst | talk 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)