Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Anti-Red-Lk Template?

_ _ I have started moving rd-lk Dab entries to the dab's talk page, and putting them (along with additional senses i come up with that are not yet used in WP) under this boilerplate (with the hdg == Leads ==)

Note Well: Don't add a Dab entry on a topic until it has at least a mention in a WP article. Unless it is the subject of an article, lk only to the article with the mention (rather than creating a red lk). See the Dab MoS.

Examples are Talk:Rama (disambiguation) and Talk:Walken (disambiguation).
_ _ This reflects the MoS's implicit intent as i understand it; should someone's improved version be a template? Should the template be used as a substitution or (so we can tune all copies of it at once) a transclusion?
_ _ Is "a mention" too loose a restriction? I don't think, e.g., that a mention in a list of candidates in a given election is enough; to me there needs to be at least some kind of context that is specific to the topic before we send people there. (Help for potential authors of the topic's article belongs on a talk page, rather than a Dab where it burdens and confuses users lacking the knowlege or inclination to start a stub.)
--Jerzy•t 16:22, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
Closely related, i am also un-lk'g rd-lk mentions of terms that require Dab'n if they become articles. Linking to the Dab page has the effect if setting up a loop back to the page (unless we forgo the dab-entry lk to the page with the mention!); pre-dabbed rd-lks deserve more thot and familiarity than Dab cleanup does, and are likely to pre-empt titles. (For instance, if Walken (band) were still a red lk, the info that there are both American and Australian bands named "Walken" would be more likely to be available at the time the first one gets an article than the first time someone conceives of a potential article for one of them; the near-orphan status of the article demonstrates it is far from obvious that the article-less Yank band is so much more obscure that Walken (band) could be anything but a bands-only dab page.)
--Jerzy•t 16:22, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

Who exactly is helped by removing e.g. Rama, Herzegovina from Rama (disambiguation)? Someone who wants to know about that town enters it in the search box, arrives at Rama; follows the disamb link at the top; and then ends up at a dead-end. Much better to explicitly show the red link, to say "we don't have an article on this". And what would you do with dab pages that have only 1 blue link?

I don't know which part of the MoS suggests this; if there is one, it should be changed. IMHO. Eugene van der Pijll 16:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, what the MOS says is Redlinks (links to articles not yet written) may be included only if you are confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject.. This is far from a blanket ban. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, I don't know how I overlooked that. I completely agree with that statement.
Eugene van der Pijll 17:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed "far from a blanket ban", but further still from recommending the current promiscuous inclusion of rd-lks on dabs. On the other hand, the language in my proposed template is less permissive than the MoS, namely my careless "Don't" (w/o a mention) and "only" (w/ some kind of article). Better nuancers than i should work on that wording, if the template goes forward. (I don't think the wiggle room obviates the template's purpose.)
  --Jerzy•t 00:36, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

• _ _ I infer you have no objection to

The Rama River, tributary in Herzegovina of the Neretva

in place of

The Rama River, tributary in Herzegovina of the Neretva

(IMO that choice avoids not only the more broadly relevant problem of the premature title-choice, but also a small problem of pedagogy re WP editing, peculiar to mentioned-only-in-much-wider-article cases: namely, from the creation of Rama River to the next maintenance edit, it would leave the impression of the entry being (for some seemingly subtle reason) especially deserving of two (blue) lks.)

_ _ In the Rama, Herzegovina case, i'd prefer to have proofed better and left "Rama, Herzegovina, small region around the town of Prozor" (and still Rama River etc. as separately listed rd-lks) on Talk:Rama (disambiguation), rather than what is there now. But i presume your question would remain the same. IMO, the rd-lk for Rama, Herzegovina

1. provides a false sense of certainty of having exhausted WP on the subject, since the author of Rama, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rama, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rama, Bosnia or Râmã may have no idea that the dab exists and no one else will necessarily have added the article to the Dab; and
2. forces premature title choices as already stated; that may promote reliance on the inadequate expertise of the dab-maintainer, and creation of duplicate articles, one via the Dab and one entirely independent of it. My careless refactoring on the talk page conceals the fact that this particular case is especially vulnerable to that aspect of the problem: note that Rama is not a town, but a "small region around [one]", and i'm aware of no guidance for titling such a topic. So Rama, Herzegovina is my especially ignorant guess, among what will usually be quick, ignorant guesses from sparse evidence.

_ _ You must mean, by "dab pages that have only 1 blue link", to continue "... and none of the exceptional rd-lks within Dabs that the MoS remains open to". In either case, another moment's thought may have already led you in the obvious direction: Granting the red/blue division that the template is about implies that the answer to your question is inherant in the answer to "what are the options when there are exactly two articles involved in a Dab'n?" IMO, most cases where a dab page like Foo (disambiguation) has a single blue link can be history-merged with the base article's talk page, Talk:Foo, with the blue link going into a Top-of-Page Dab on Foo, and the typical dab red links going on Talk:Foo under an == Entry Candidates for a Foo (disambiguation) Page == hdg. IMO, deletion of Foo (disambiguation) is not acceptable, and it should become a rdr to Foo. Of course it can be revived as a dab if & when add'l real (not merely potential) targets for the Dab are created, at least in the form of mentions in articles on other topics.

_ _ Another way to think of the examples i've given is retrofitting an approach of not creating the dab page until real articles force you to; that (in light of non-deletion of harmless rdrs) leads to the same answer (including discussion on the talk page in place of what i consider premature dab'n.

--Jerzy•t 00:36, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

• Please leave the red links on disambiguation pages. They do help! -- User:Docu
• Agreed, please leave them. -- Reinyday, 00:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Add to requested articles guideline suggestion

I have been generally opposed to the inclusion of red-links and have in the past moved things to the talk-page that are red-linked. However, I'm coming around to the opinion that red-links are ok to keep as long as the indicated missing articles are subsequently added into the Wikipedia:Requested articles system. This act of requesting the article be written would, to me, suffice to satisfy the "only add a red link if you think an article is forthcoming" criterion. What do you think about replacing the "if you think" criterion to the "add to requested articles" criterion in the Style Guideline? Courtland 12:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I think the wording "if you think" is fine how it is. If the rule was to "add to requested articles", we lose the application of common sense, and instead of removing rediculous red-linked articles from dab pages, editors would just add them to requested articles instead. Also, I think you should only request an article if you think we need it, not because it happens to be red-linked. I can see your reasoning though. --Commander Keane 14:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, every red link in wikipedia is in some sense a "requested article"; the list on Wikipedia:Requested articles is merely a list of those requested articles that are considered important by someone. I don't understand why a redlinked article should get priority because the link was on a disambiguation page, instead of in a proper article. If anything, it should be the other way around. Eugene van der Pijll 14:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Red-links on dab pages are a special class because their existence compounds ambiguity in my opinion. Courtland 15:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Google-test for red-links

I've taken to heart the concerns folks have expressed about filling the Wikipedia:Requested articles system with dab'd red-links. I'm not doing this as a default activity now. What I have taken to doing in the past couple of edits (e.g. AARP (disambiguation) and AAS) is to determine whether the topic of a red-link is detectable via a Google search; this is best applied to organizations or groups that would be expected to either have a website or be mentioned on a website rather than for more esoteric terms. For instance, in the case of AAS, I moved Aeromedical Airlift Squadron out of the main article space to the talk space (see Talk:AAS) because I could not find this term via such a search. A by-product of this process is that informational links can be provided for red-linked items that could assist persons in initiating articles. Thoughts on this practice? Courtland 03:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't really belong here, because it's about when redlinks themselves are legit, which is a bigger topic than dab pages. I searched the WP policies and guidelines for any guidance about the appropriateness of redlinks, but I couldn't find anything. Can anyone? At the very least you might bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links), and maybe on Village Pump, before any implementation here. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you — there should be some guidance for redlinks — but I wouldn't feel comfortable deciding a rule with such wide-ranging implications in this specialized MOS. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think it's too far out of scope to consider the matter of red-links on disambiguation pages as a matter of disambiguation page style, but I understand your concern. Courtland 08:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"Red links", insofar as they link to pages that are appropriate for the purpose of the site, are eminently appropriate for an open wiki, where it is good for a user to recognize an absence in information and be more likely to add it. This is implicitly accepted in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), which includes under the section "Internal links" the following statements (emphasis added):

• Use the links for all words and terms that are relevant to the article.
• Links that follow the Wikipedia naming conventions are much more likely to lead to existing articles, and, if there is not yet an article about that subject, good links will make the creation of a correctly named article much easier for later writers.

More explicitly, in Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, which is prominently linked to from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), under the section "What should be linked:" it is stated that links yet without articles should be linked (emphasis present in original):

• Anything you think there should be an article about (except as noted below). Linking enough times gets it on the Most Wanted list.

- Centrx 02:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Revision of "A1" based on "Manual of Style (disambiguation)"

Are there parts of this manual which suggest the following revisions?

1. a short stub (A1 (Switzerland)) is converted into a redirect and flagged as a Wikipedia:Redirects with possibilities
2. the A1 (Switzerland) link is removed from A1 and replaced with:
   • <u>A1</u> in Switzerland ''see [[Transportation_in_Switzerland#List_of_highways|List of highways section of the "Transportation in Switzerland" article]]''

The redirecting is admittedly debatable, but I'm not sure what would suggest the removal of a Redirect with possibilities or the underline in the formatting of the replacement. The selection of the red links appears to be somewhat arbitrary (A1 freeway (France) is listed as its on Transportation_in_France#Highways, A1 freeway (Poland) was removed as its not on Roads_and_expressways_in_Poland#Expressways). --- User:Docu

• Docu refers to edits I made recently.
  • inconsistencies: thanks for pointing out the (obvious) inconsistencies in the page section; edits have been made now to make it more consistent ... much more consistent. Thank you.
  • creation of redirect: this is out of scope for the present talk-page topic (sorry to be blunt...this is a personal editing style matter and not a MoS matter).
  • usage of underlining: not noted in the MoS ... and removed (and will remove from other recent edits). I had added this embellishment in order to avoid the "bolding link" trend but realize now it wasn't any better. The term when not wikilinked can stand bare.
  • avoiding linkage to a R-with-possibilities: I agree that maintaining a linkage to an R-with-possibilities might encourage an editor to expand it. I dropped the link to the redirects as a stylistic matter related to the function of the dab page as a navigational aid rather than an editorial aid, though. I'll not change this on the pages I've edited myself, but am open to the notion of classing R-with-possibilities as a redirect worthy of direct linkage from a dab page, where other links to redirects are to tbe avoided as a matter of guideline.
  • roads as a sterotyped section in dabs: there are many instances like "A1" where a short abbreviation refers to many roads in different countries. What I'm trying to do (and why the inconsistency was there in the first place) is to work out a sterotyped method for listing these many similar but distinct linkages in a consistent manner across dab pages. This is also a driver behind my mergist attitude toward things like the A1 (Switzerland) article which was a stub and is now a section portion, as well as edits to the several "Transportation in country" articles that were brought in ugly and raw from a CIA fact book.
  • WikiProject Highways: I have added a discussion thread at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways about this to stimulate discussion there; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways#Disambiguation_pages

  Courtland 13:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • It would be much easier if the names for the roads and the sections of the transportation by country articles were easier to predict. Personally I think it's a good thing to have them in a separate section (or indented list) and all linked in a similar way. -- User:Docu

I have rebuilt the stub and relinked it. Instead of changing it to a redirect, either expand the stub or use what the German's have written (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn_1_%28Schweiz%29) and adapt it to fill out the stub. Also, I'll mention that I like the symbols used on the German page better than the arrows used on the English A2 (Switzerland). —Mike 18:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• This is an editorial style choice, using a redirect to information rather than supporting stub proliferation; both serve to provide a linkage to the information directly, one in context, the other as a fragment for which context need be sought. Courtland 18:58, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • It's a reasonable choice IMHO. It's just that if it's a redirect with possibilities, that redirect should be listed on A1. BTW the French version could easily be imported. -- User:Docu

Confusing "Piping" explanation

The current article has the following line describing the use of piping:

• If exceptionally a word of the description is wikified, you may use piping in the description.

What is this supposed to mean? I'd rewrite it to sound more like native-speaker English, but don't understand the point it's trying to make. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

See if it looks better now. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Thank you very much. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

On that note, was there meant to be a provision for italics for things such as film titles in this manual, thus ''Romeo and Juliet'' (1995 movie) not Romeo and Juliet (1995 movie)? (Or, on that note, is it already there and, writing this while a bit tired and sleepy, I didn't see it?) Neonumbers 11:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Use of the see also section for related dab-pages

I've started using a modified "see also" section on a couple of dab pages titled "See also (disambiguation pages)"; for instance see Aaron Ward and A1. This section is meant to provide ready access to related dab-pages and I've in the examples here merged the content of these see-also-directed pages into the main dab-page while leaving the more specific dab-page intact.

I'm wondering if this practice is something that you would think is useful more broadly. If so, then I'd suggest testing it out for a while as a "tolerated practice" until enough examples are in place to have worked out the kinks, at which time a guideline addition might be made.

Courtland 02:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I use just "See also" as section header, but link to disambiguation pages only through a redirect, e.g. USS A-1 (disambiguation). I would omit the section in cases where all links are already included. -- User:Docu

I only use "See also", but am indifferent if consensus goes the other way. But instead of creating a redirect, I would just use "USS A-1 (disambiguation)" instead. I don't think there is any advantage to redirecting in that case.

As for merging the content, this should probably only be done on limited cases when the number of items is small. For example, you wouldn't want to merge Washington County into Washington (disambiguation). Though for the most part, I would avoid merging unless necessary. —Mike 19:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

In that particular case I wouldn't list that link on the Aaron Ward page at all — it has no use and is therefore cluttering — and would stick a link to Aaron Ward on USS Aaron Ward under a see also section. I wouldn't put the "(disambiguation pages)" part in, I reckon that's unnecessary text. Neonumbers 07:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Category link

What is the feeling about links to categories in dab pages? Eg: at Transformers there is the link "Transformers category in Wikipedia". --Commander Keane 09:11, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

If you ask me, I say stick it in the "see also" section. Neonumbers 07:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't like to see non-mechanical (i.e. semantic) categories affixed to disambiguation pages; most dab pages could appear in a dozen very different categories easily. However, if all the disambiguations on a page are in the same topic area, then I'd say add the category as it would be added to a "normal" article, not in the See also section. Courtland 00:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Piping for anchors?

The MoS says, Use piping if you're linking to an anchor point on the target page, but what exactly does that mean? Let's say you want to link to [[Foo#Bar]]. Should that be [[Foo#Bar|Foo]] or [[Foo#Bar|Bar]]. --RoySmith 12:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It has always puzzled me too, and I can't understand why you need to "trick" a reader by using piping for the achor point case. Perhaps the "#" is destracting, but is a pipe pretending that an article exists appropriate? --Commander Keane 16:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

The syntax for anchors is abstruse and distracting, and it often makes the link distractingly long. It's possible to do something like "bla bla #foobar (section) bla bla." --Smack (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Depending on the context, I will sometimes use the format "bla bla bar section in the Foo article bla bla" or "bla bla bar (see Foo) bla bla". Courtland 01:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Or "(see bar, a section of foo)". --Smack (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Bolding links

I removed the following proscription of bolding and/or italics in disambig pages:

• There is no need to emphasize the link with bolding or italics, although book titles and the like may be italicized in conformance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles).

It simply doesn't make any sense to me, except that it happens to be tradition. Dab pages are supposed to be navigational aids, and some of them have grown quite large. I don't see how bolding article links would make these pages less useful. Keep in mind that all of the disambiguated links are supposed to be a sort of extremely concise mini-leads in of themselves, making it very logical to stress this by bolding the link.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I've put the text back. I don't recall any discussion about this, let alone reaching a consensus on making the change. The goal of a style sheet is to encourage uniformity of presentation, and a fair part of that is codifying tradition. If you really don't like the style, come join Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation and discuss your ideas. --RoySmith 14:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and this type of reflex-revert to status quo is completely contrary to this idea, Roy. You completely ignore my objections and simply revert on the basis of this being tradition, which is quite disrespectful. Major discussion can't be demanded in order to present every minor change to guidelines, especially if justifiaction has been presented.

Furthermore, this is the relevant talkpage, not some semi-obscure project talkpage and I've left a note over there informing of this discussion.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Peter, it's fine to challenge the guidelines but not to change them unilaterally. However, you're right that this is the correct page to use, not the WikiProject. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm cool with discussing it here, and you're probably right that this is the correct place. I was just thinking that if you're interested enough in dab pages to want to change the style, you might also be interested enough to join the project cleaning them up. I'm also sorry that you felt my reversion was bureaucratic or disrespectful; it was meant as neither.

In any case, I disagree (respectfully) with the idea that wikilinks in dab pages should be bolded. The fact that they are links already sets them off visually from the rest of the text. Perhaps depending on what skin you're viewing the page in, they'll be something like blue and underlined. Making them bold doesn't add much. But, more than that, non-bold is already the accepted style, and the majority of the dab pages use that style. If the accepted style were to change to say that wikilinks should be bolded, that would impose a very large amount of work on the janatorial staff to go fix up all those zillions of non-bolded links. Such a change should not be made lightly. --RoySmith 21:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Combining bold text and wikilinked text in headers is frowned on in the WP:MOS, and we often go through all sorts of semantic gymnastics to pull it off and get the link we want into the first paragraph of bodytext instead. I'd always assumed that instruction was because in most combinations of fonts, screen colours, browser, skin, etc, etc., boldlinks are simply considered disagreeable to the eye. –Hajor 22:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that boldlinks are unattractive, particularly if gathered together in large numbers. At any rate, if people followed the MoS, they would be unnecessary. The MoS requires that there be only one link per line, with some rare exceptions. Since links already stand out (as Hajor points out), this obviates the need to emphasize them further by bolding. --Smack (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Unnattractive according to rumor or individual whim? Utterly irrelevant and completely subjective. Dab pages are navigational aides, not FACs. They're supposed to be practical and easy to use. The boldlinks are essential, because you're never, ever going to stop people from wikifying them just as much as your average article lead, which is perfectly natural and very sensible unless you cook up phony esthetic arguments against bolded links. If you're seriously thinking about stopping people from linking more than you personally deem is necessary, you need to read what our stance is on not being a bureaucracy.

I didn't come up with the bolding scheme. I saw it much earlier in a dab page I can't recall right now, and if you're going to try to proscribe practice that is already in use with good results, then the MoS is not going to be respected when it matters. Focus on keeping all the arbitrary trivia links out instead of digging your heels into the ground about these trivialities.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you follow that link, you will find the advice that, Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion. So far, all you have managed to contribute to the discussion is effectively, I think links should be bolded, and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong. I notice that on your user page, you describe yourself as passionate, elitist, opinionated, and too poor a diplomat; these are not the kinds of qualities which make it easy to work well in a collaborative environment. --RoySmith 12:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You're lowering yourself to the level of citing my own statements out of relevant context by saying that I'm not even fit for editing in Wikipedia at all? Quite a feat for someone who's concerned about a collaborative environment.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

RoySmith: I agree with the first few things you said, but the ad hominem jab is counterproductive and out of place.

You are, of course, correct. I should, and do, know better, and I apologize for letting emotion get the better of me. --RoySmith 13:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Peter: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but neither is it an anarchy. Yes, I do want to stop people from needlessly linking words in dab entries. It has been decided, "through consensual discussion" as WP:NOT puts it, that there should be only one link per line and that link should not be bolded. If you're familiar with the arguments presented on these topics, you have some new considerations, and you want to reopen discussion, as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to it. However, as far as I can tell you're denouncing this policy as whimsical and unenforceable for the sole reason that you don't like it. --Smack (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

But it still doesn't make any sense... It assumes that everyone shares the opinions on page layout held by the participants of the WikiProject, that people shouldn't wikilink as much as they obviously want to (this is particularly disagreeable to me) and because it's tradition. In most cases the latter argument is among the worst threats to any wiki. And trying to fight people's urge to wikify very relevant words is hopeless and doomed to fail unless you want to fight a never-ending battle by reverting perfectly reasonable and helpful linkage. What makes me so vehemently opposed to this is that it's being defended by applying circular or completely subjective arguments like "it's tradition", "it's ugly" and "it's an MoS". Please provide just a single argument that is actually based on practical concerns that aren't entirely esthetic.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This has become something of a let's assume people will break the guideline argument ... "we must bold the main link because we can't stop people from making links other than the main link". It seems that you (User:Karmosin) have two dislikes: the absence of secondary links and the absence of bolding primary links. If we must assume that people will go against a guideline, then it's not a guideline at all but just whistling in the wind, right? So let's back up and ask the question ... do you believe that the "one link per dab line" is reasonable or not? ... setting aside the notion that people will inevitably violate it, which is an unsupported assumption. I hasten to point out also that where you indicate that we can't live without bolding, I believe we can live without bolding. That's not a fallback to ugliness or tradition or MoS precedent, it's a nod to why do more work in authoring a page than you need to in order to get the job done. Courtland 00:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't feel that "one link per dab line" is at all reasonable. Making a guideline that assumes that people will limit the usage of wikilinks this much in a wiki is not realistic to me. People can and will link as much as possible and I frankly don't see why they shouldn't as long as the dab lines are kept short, to the point and don't bloom out into full-fledged leads. (I recently tried to stifle this tendency at English and Spanish, for example.) The bolding is to me a very logical consequence of letting people do what a wiki was intended for, namely provide wikilinks. And how much extra work are we talking about here, really? A few more apostrophes isn't my idea of a great sacrifice of man hours.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of a disambiguation page is to get a reader to their desired location (which will hopefully be full of the information they want) as quickly and painlessly as possible. Do you agree with this Peter?

If there are 5 targets in a dab and 5 links, the choices available to a reader are clear. If we decided to wikilink unnecessarily then there could be 20 links for a user to process - taking longer. Sure, new users might go ahead and wikilink everything in a dab, but mostly, when you tell them about the efficency aspect they agree its a good idea not to put in excess wikilinks.

I don't quite know what a "full-fledged lead" is. The lead should give enough info for a reader to figure out if the article is want they want, nothing more.

About bolding. Why do something that is uncessesary? The blueness of the word makes it clear that it's the wikilink, what purpose does bolding serve? --Commander Keane 08:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's worth reiterating that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a wiki second; it could have used other technologies to achieve a similar end, but wiki technology was chosen. Which should we be driven by then, the possibilities of a wiki or the requirements of an encyclopedia (this encyclopedia in particular)? Those requirements are spelled out in policies and guidelines, and those policies and guidelines have both supporters and detractors. "Tradition" or the less loaded term "inertia" is a useful thing when one is trying to achieve a certain level of consistency. It would seem that you (Peter) are arguing against consistency in a non-article, help-oriented page type; consistency in such a page type is useful in that it presents a known quantity to those who encounter it and hopefully won't impede the flow of inquiry that a person is following. There are some who argue that the flow should be disrupted in order to provide options for people to explore; sure, we could make a page like that, but it wouldn't be a disambiguation page, it would be a different type of page, and there is enough pressure for those "churn pages" or "brainstorm pages" or "anti-dab" pages or "AHA!" pages that maybe a new page type needs to be considered, a new piece of functionality to add to the encyclopedia. What I'm suggesting is that disambiguation pages have a purpose as part of the Wikipedia information infrastructure, and so would the new page type if it could be developed with a guideline set around it, a style type, and some format. I think there'd be a significant sub-culture of folks who would support that line of activity. Courtland 00:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)