Talk:Lake, Wisconsin

Comment

I respectfully disagree with Doncram about reverting the last edit by 32.218.38.24 and referring to this as vandalism. One must consider the format used with disambiguation pages. 32.218.38.24 was assuming good faith with the edit and the format used for disambiguation pages. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the standard formatting for disambiguation pages warrants alphabetical listings and limits excessive description. See Springfield, Wisconsin, for example. My edits were clearly not vandalism. 32.218.47.207 (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing here. The order of entries and the amount of information provided on a dab page vary, per policy/guidelines, according to situation, with overall goal of best serving readers. Here, of the three items, the former Lake in Milwaukee is by far more important and likely for readers to seek. It was much larger and shows up in history. Note it has more inbound links than either of the others, in part because it is mentioned in biographies of people who have lived there. The other two are relatively tiny and their inbound links are almost exclusively from their appearing on templates. This is an encyclopedia not a directory, so the Milwaukee one is best listed first. What matters is importance overall for readers searching in an encyclopedia, not on Google maps.

About the detail, some is needed to help readers arriving from their seeing mention most likely in a biography or old news story. Enough detail needs to be provided so they can tell which is the relevant one, which most likely is the former Milwaukee one. doncram 18:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)