Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Disambiguation subcategories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A number of discussion topics and straw polls on the future of disambiguation subcategories. Thanks/wangi 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TLA discussion

[edit]

I'm sure this has been discussed before. If so, please point me to that discussion. The MoS:DP currently reads:

If a disambiguation page title is composed of three letters only (such as ABC, CDC, or PDQ), use {{TLAdisambig}} instead of {{disambig}}. Use this even if not all the entries are abbreviations or acronyms.

There are plenty of other useless dab templates, but this is the only one I see on the page. Is there truly consensus about it's use? Tedernst | talk 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/archive10#Abbreviations ? Thanks/wangi 22:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wangi. Yes, this is perfect. The problem I see with that discussion is that it didn't come to any conclusion. How do we set up a proposal and a vote? For example (someone help me with this?):

I propose disambig and disambig-cleanup be the only "approved" dab templates and that MoS:DP be updated to reflect this usage. Tedernst | talk 22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. There may be enough support to pass it, but the proposal should be widely publicized on the Disambiguation Wikipedia and MOS pages so that we can do away with TLAdisambig fair and square, once and for all.—Michael Z. 2005-12-30 22:59 Z
I want to get rid off TLAdisambig too. There should only be too allowable templates: {{disambig}} and {{disambig-cleanup}}.--Commander Keane 23:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At some point in the past, when I tried to "enforce" the MoS(DP), I was rebuffed with a comment along the lines of the DAB project being the wrong place to set policy, and WP:RFC being the correct venue. I don't know if I agree with that, but if putting an announcement on RFC lends authority to the result, then it's probably a good idea. So, wherever the discussion ends up happening on the fate of TLA, post a notice on WP:RFC and make sure we get buy-in from the whole community. This issue has been festering for a long time; my personal opinion is that TLA should go away, but one way or another, it's time we got consensus and put a fork in the issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I'm all for it too. I'd say this is the right place to have the discussion but it would be useful to post a pointer on WP:RfC, WP:VPP and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Remember too that any decision we come two will also get further scrutinised when it comes to deleting the templates at WP:TFD. So, who wants to summarise that past discussion and start the ball rolling? Thanks/wangi 01:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm a proponent of keeping TLA (or 2 and 3 LA), but not 4LA, etc. But I'll do my best to keep the poll language clean and unbiased. --William Allen Simpson 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories versus Lists

[edit]

The first poll responder made a comment that surprised me! Categories are expressly and specifically designed to make automatic indexes, instead of the older list methods. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes are supposed to be complementary, and lists are specifically recommended where the list must be annotated. What's the need for annotatation here?

--William Allen Simpson 14:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An advantage of using a list is that you can have a comprehensive listing of all two-letter (aa) and three-letter (aaa) and letter-number (1a, a1, 1aa, a1a, aa1) combinations without the need for actually having articles for them; I see this as an advantage, but there are many who feel that is an unnecessarily crufty approach to the problem. My argument in favor of this (even for four-letter) is that it is a type of almanaic content that is permissible within the remit of Wikipedia that some find useful. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What's the use of this listing? What's the need for annotation? Why would anybody want to know which combinations haven't been used yet? Wouldn't it be better to start with a (sub-)category (automated list) of the ones that have been used, where the alphabetization will make it obvious which ones haven't been used?

--William Allen Simpson 06:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try looking at it from the perspective of almanac-type content, William. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Methodology

[edit]

The poll below is so confusing and vague that most of the questions are useless. Clearly, if we are going to have templates for acronyms with three or more letters, and they are separate (not merged into one), the naming should be consistent. We need to figure out first if we want to have acronym templates at all, and then what the maximum number of characters should be. Once those questions are settled, it will be a lot easier to work out a consistent naming scheme.--Srleffler 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second Srleffler's opinion that the entire poll structure below should be scrapped and redone. Part of the problem is the issue doesn't decompose nicely into "Support/Oppose" questions; trying to force that just makes the confusion worse. I seriously considered adding just added a poll question about whether the poll is confusing/premature. Pre-emptive reply: Yes, yes, we can figure it all out, given enough time. That's not the point. Point is a poll should not be a rhetorical maze. --DragonHawk 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are asked: "Do you want a hamburger or a hotdog?" and you answer "Maybe." That answer is not a useful outcome. Where in the world did you learn your survey methodology? The choice of "support" or "oppose" is standard and clear, and each question that has positive alternatives asks that supporters indicate a particular preference. (A real survey would have 4 or 5 levels of support, this only has two, in keeping with Wikipedia:Straw polls.)

Perhaps you're still in school, and used to multiple guess questions with (a), (b), ..., (e) none of the above. That's not good survey technique, as it doesn't give an indication of support. This is supposed to be finding consensus, not "right" and "wrong" answers.

--William Allen Simpson 08:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought I'd plenty of real world experience designing poll questions. (heavy sigh) Good poll questions are sentences, without interpolating Meta issues.

  • When the question is "Should ... be named ...?" — that's exactly what it means! Support one or oppose them all as a group. Yes/No doesn't fill the field. So there's no vagueness problem, each question is pedantically specific, stripped of any PoV!
  • Moreover, there are already corresponding Meta questions: "Should ... be removed?" Somebody else added "... be merged?" Nice and specific alternatives.

Too many folks in the computer science mode of thinking "all problems can be solved by another level of indirection." There's no more need for Meta issues, and indirection, and taking a poll to decide whether to have a poll. These are the variants already in use. Support them, or oppose them (or suggest more variants of your own and gather support for them). That will give the project a direction to proceed.

--William Allen Simpson 07:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What harm?

[edit]

I'm undecided on this issue myself, but I note that the opposition's major objection to the *LA* template thing appears to be that they simply categorize abbreviations by the number of letters. Now, personally, I don't see the benefit to that, but maybe somebody finds them useful. So, I have to ask: What harm does it cause? --DragonHawk 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excellent point Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So useful that there are thousands of instances. But some folks around here have been actively deleting them, causing much disharmony. Thus, we are trying to gauge the temperature (or temperament).
--William Allen Simpson 08:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hurm. I'm not saying we should strive for the perfect set of poll questions. Quite the opposite, really. I believe that a better discussion of the issues involved, a clearer breakdown of what the issues are, will tend toward a consensus which will make the poll below obsolete. m:Polls are evil says what I'm trying to say here very well. And as I said above, for the purposes of my enlightenment, I would like to see an answer to the question: What harm does it cause? --DragonHawk 07:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through a great deal of the archives here, I'd say no harm has ever been demonstrated. But it has been discussed ad nauseum. The folks calling for more discussion seem to be the ones that haven't yet discussed it here themselves. There's really no need for more discussion until the direction has been chosen.
-William Allen Simpson 08:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. When I went and read the past and present discussion, I saw the same thing. The past discussion, in fact, kept leading me back to this very page! I saw lots of people asking "Why have dab categories?" The only answer I saw was "They might be useful.", which, while vague, is not invalid. I also saw lots of people asking "Why should we avoid dab categories?". I never saw an answer to this. My conclusion (different then yours, obviously) was not that we needed a vote, but to say, in effect: Before we have a vote, we need a reason to vote. If the only objection anyone can come up with is "I don't like them", well, that's not a very Wikipedian reason. --DragonHawk 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The harm I see is complexity. Complexity makes it harder for readers to become editors. If all dab pages were to have either disambig or disambig-cleanup, it would be very easy for readers to become editors. If there are multiple dab templates with sub-cats, we set the bar much higher. I'm not saying complexity is never appropriate. I just see no benefits whatsoever and a fairly significant harm from having sub-cats. The harm I see is much less for 2 and 3 letter combinations since they are finite. Tedernst | talk 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ted, by that logic, there wouldn't be any articles about cities!
  • I've never had a particular problem adding categories to geographical articles, as those are reasonably well organized.
  • Whereas folks keep changing the organization of rome/romans/ancient rome, so that has been a problem sometimes.
  • These categories are relatively well organized so far, except 2. And should be kept that way.
  • Relying on manually maintained lists instead of automatically maintained categories is just asking for trouble. Most of the "List of" that I've seen are setup by somebody with intensive development, then fall by the wayside as they move on to something else, and rapidly become obsolete.
  • Categories work much better for the average editor!
--William Allen Simpson 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
agree Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. What purpose is there in navigating by the dab subcats? Dabs are to help people get to the intended article, not to surf through. A person might be interested in articles about Rome, but not about articles about human name disambiguation. Tedernst | talk 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if you don't want to surf, you don't need too. I may find it interesting to see all ambigous townships Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't confuse disambiguation pages with Category:Disambiguation.
  • Categories are explicitly for "surfing". Categories are just as useful as the index in a book.
  • Some of us have been around long enough to remember that categories were a cool new feature!
  • You'd be surprised what interests people. One of the expert editors here is legendary partly because he maintains a database of where politicians are buried. I happen to know that he also has compiled frequency of street names in the US, frequency of birth names by year, and other fascinating projects. He loves history and demography.
  • Clearly, somebody wanted to index duplicate township names. Although I think that would automatically fall out of geodis, never-the-less it's a perfectly valid use of (sub-)categories.
  • Just because YOU don't browse the categories doesn't mean nobody else does. Apparently, there are some people who read and use the *pedia, rather than dashing quickly from article to article editing them ;-)
--William Allen Simpson 08:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone created sub-categories for township disambiguation pages doesn't mean that anyone ever intended to surf that category like someone would with other categories. Some people saw it as problematic that the disambiguation category was growing so large, and the obvious solution with any other category (creating sub-cats) creates more problems than it solves, IMO. Dabs are not articles. If we keep that in mind, I really feel some of this sub-cat argument falls away.
what can we learn from the statement that dabs are not articles? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On top of all of this, I don't actually have a fundamental problem with disambiguation pages being categorized (parallel to have disambig on them). If we really want to index ambiguous township names (I don't, I'm using "we" to mean "someone", then perhaps there should be category: ambiguous townships that's added in addition to the disambig tag. Does that solve anything? I still don't feel it's needed, but if others want to us it, fine. The problem I do have is with the proliferation of disambig tags and variations. The confusion seems so unnecessary to me! Tedernst | talk 08:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The former is a fallacious tautology. Since somebody created the sub-categories, then somebody intended to browse them. That's as much intent as we can ever discover.
  • The latter proposal (for the umpteenth time) is already being polled, although I didn't write the question. I'll add a qualifier, as Ted is confused.
  • However, I'm not confused about sub-categories, and nobody else seems to be confused, either. Maybe folks should try editting other types of articles than disambiguation pages for awhile, until they begin to comprehend categories and sub-categories.
--William Allen Simpson 16:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
agreee! Try editing something more usefull. - Nevertheless I like parts of the dab cleanup, like unpiping and unbolding. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abolishing Category:Disambiguation

[edit]

Tedernst claims that nobody "surfs" Category:Disambiguation. Since categories are indexes intended for browsing, it logically follows that Ted is in favor of abolishing the main category. I look forward to Ted's explanation on why and how this would be in the best interest of *pedia.

--William Allen Simpson 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No page on wikipedia is supposed to be without a category. I'm not sure exactly why that's so, but it is. Since disambiguation pages are not articles and don't need to be browsed, having category disambiguation makes the most sense to me, if categories are required. In addition, the work taking place at WP:DPL can only happen if dabs are in a category (as far as I know). If there's some other way for that work to carry on without categories, then I see no reason for keeping the category. Tedernst | talk 19:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of WP:DPL, how do sub-categories affect that work? Tedernst | talk 19:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup requirements

[edit]

Should any subcategories be eliminated, they will need to remain until new subcategories elsewhere are implemented, and the new templates gradually moved, so that the utility of the existing browsing system isn't impaired.

And while I'm thinking about it, should any subcategories be eliminated, folks proposing their elimination are signing up to set a new category in each and every article currently listed in the disambiguation pages. Just to keep the workload in perspective; folks shouldn't propose work that they aren't willing to do themselves.

--William Allen Simpson 17:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if this goes through what will be needed is that in every one of those articles, the *LA template will need to be replaced with {{disambig}}. The categories will take care of themselves as this is done.--Srleffler 02:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are incorrect. The editors of these topics desired subcategories. If they aren't subcategories of disambiguation, they must be subcategories of something else. And if they aren't placed in the disambiguation page, then they have to be in each article. That's going to be a lot more work than just deleting or replacing a template. Folks shouldn't just go around deleting things without doing all the related work.
--William Allen Simpson 10:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*LAdisambig cleanup

[edit]

First poll results are in, and there's going to be a massive cleanup required. Apparently, all the *LAdisambig templates will be removed. Also, GraemeMcRae found {{LND}} for "letter number disambiguation".

They'll need to be reclassified into super categories that aren't Disambiguation.

I've already removed {{TLAdisambig}} from the MoS:DP.

--William Allen Simpson 01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on long-standing Wikipedia:Disambiguation#TLAs and Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations, Abbreviations pages replace disambiguation pages.

It appears that the first step to removing the Disambiguation sub-categories will be to replace:

Where there are other references on the page, presumably these are moved to the appropriate "XX (disambiguation)" page.

Anything I missed?

--William Allen Simpson 17:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the xLC templates categorize articles in "Lists of x-letter combinations". Is that the most appropriate category name? If one wanted to change the category names, now is the time, before the massive template shift is done.
It looks like your intent is to separate letter combinations, acronyms, and initialisms from actual words, with the words on a separate page from the rest. The text of the xLC templates indicates that those pages include English and foreign words. These need to be consistent: either the pages list abbreviations and words together, or they do not, and there is a clear link to the page for the word(s) if necessary.
Otherwise, the scheme above looks good: it replaces the current mess with a consistent standard, and satisfies the people who don't want disambiguation subcategories by completely removing abbreviations and acronyms from the disambiguation scheme. --Srleffler 21:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like shipindex, this removes these pages from Disambiguation. Historically, both the guidelines that I referenced above clearly state these are not disambiguation pages. Apparently, the editors of those documents were smarter (or more cautious) than the later Grand Unified Theory of Everything folks. Trying to include anything that "looks like" disambiguation under the same rubric generated considerable discontent, time and time again.

  1. "Lists of" (plural) was chosen because each is a category containing pages that are a "list" in their own right, following the usual naming convention.
  2. "x-letter" to match existing article titles.
  3. "combinations" to combine all the variants of abbreviation, acronym, initialisms, et alia, bypassing past argument about 2LA versus 2LC, and what should be in TLA. (Such as, are 3GL and 4GL TLA?)
  4. Word lists are referenced because they already exist as lists. This is an attempt to salvage what exists, rather than create something new and controversial out of whole cloth.
  5. The categories (and pages in the categories) list words together with all other combinations, unlike the annotated word lists. Categories are merely indexes, word lists are for annotations, they have different purposes and different content.
--William Allen Simpson 09:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed {{4LA}}, {{5LA}}, and {{LND}} for deletion. I'm holding off on the 2s and 3s, since there are so many of them. When they are closer to being converted, I'll list them, too.

--William Allen Simpson 03:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I listed Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms for deletion as well. Tedernst | talk 03:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that was jumping the gun. You're not supposed to delete until the templates that reference it are deleted. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Closing #5. I'd already listed it in the TfD, as you would know since you supported deletion within minutes or seconds after I posted them. Patience is a virtue. It may be many months before these are finished.
--William Allen Simpson 14:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw you listing it in the TfD, but since it's a category, it seemed to need a CfD. And it's empty. Tedernst | talk 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might have been true yesterday, but this morning it had 11. And this moment it has another 10.... That's why you have to wait until the templates are deleted!
--William Allen Simpson 23:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I run a bot to do all the above replacements? Martin 15:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, all the pages with "(disambiguation)" in them need to be handled differently. I'm working on them first, in concert with an effort over on the disambiguation project page. Once those that require preparations and thought are done, yes, a bot might be helpful!
--William Allen Simpson 23:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*dis cleanup

[edit]

In some respects, this might be easier or harder.

Based on long-standing Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages, folks were supposed to be adding these names to lists. Now, it's being forced, as there will be no more subcategories.

It appears that the second step to removing the Disambiguation sub-categories will be to:

Where will {{numberdis}} be listed?

In some cases, the listing work will already be done. In other cases, more than one type may be on the page, so it should be in more than one list. But every case has to be checked.

--William Allen Simpson 17:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TLA poll

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived result of the poll below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was remove all *LAdisambig templates, with no consensus on several related templates, and remove for templates 5LA through 9LA. --William Allen Simpson 00:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-poll: This poll is premature and/or confusing

[edit]

See discussion above and complaints below. See also WP:Consensus, WP:Straw polls, m:Polls are evil, and recall that Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'm not saying we shouldn't ever poll on this stuff; just that this poll is too unfocused and disorganized to yield results useful for decision-making. Further discussion is needed first.

Support (oppose rest of poll)
  1. DragonHawk 05:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) initiate meta-poll[reply]
  2. Srleffler 07:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (support rest of poll)
  1. William Allen Simpson 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC) -- already discussed ad nauseum[reply]

Should all *LA* letter templates be removed?

[edit]

This is a major change to the guidelines.

Support
  1. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (use of structural templates should be dropped in favor of listifying, as such lists do exist today, and/or categorizing, which would require a second change to the Guideline that would relax and clarify the dab-page categorization guidelines)[reply]
  2. Make them lists, per Ceyockey, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Noisy | Talk 23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Yup, lists.[reply]
  4. I'd prefer this poll to read "All *LA* letter templates should be removed", so "support" and "oppose" would make sense. As written I would answer "yes." Tedernst | talk 02:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Russ Blau (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per Terernst Josh Parris#: 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. These are useless except as lists. But shouldn't this go to WP:TfD? Or is the idea that we poll here, and then bring it up in WP:TfD saying that we reached consensus on it here? --TreyHarris 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes --- Charles Stewart 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. William Allen Simpson 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. bd2412 T 02:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A Y Arktos 08:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should all *LA* letter templates be merged into a single one?

[edit]

Thus 2LAs, 3LAs, 4..., etc are in one category/template (for example {{abbrevdisambig}})?

Support
Oppose
  1. Whatever value they provide comes from dealing with the different-length acronyms separately.--Srleffler 00:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. After the discussion about lists, I see why folks wanted to use the specific numeric sizes. Different lengths help generate clearer lists. --William Allen Simpson 06:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A Y Arktos 08:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Two and Three letter templates be named {{TLA}} or {{TLAdisambig}}?

[edit]

Current guideline is TLAdisambig. ("Support" should list the one desired.)

Support
  1. William Allen Simpson 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC), weak, but prefer simple TLA instead.[reply]
  2. prefer TLAdisambig — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (if measure to continue use of *LA templates is upheld)[reply]
  3. agree with Ceyockey TLAdisambig, but only if use of *LA templates upheld. Tedernst | talk 02:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Two and three letter templates should be separate. This question is so vague/unclear that any votes from it should be discounted, as I'm not sure that everyone reading this question is interpreting it the same way. What exactly was intended here?--Srleffler 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. as per Srleffler, Two and three letter templates should be separateA Y Arktos 08:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Two letter templates be named {{2LA}} or {{2LAdisambig}} or {{2LCdisambig}}?

[edit]

Contrary to current guidelines, all three are in use at this time. ("Support" should list the one desired.)

Support
  1. William Allen Simpson 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC), strong {{2LC}}, but only in conjunction with a change to {{3LC}}.[reply]
  2. {{2LCdisambig}}, with {{3LAdisambig}}, etc. Note that two-letter combinations are not always acronyms, while three-letter combinations are much more likely to be acronyms, hence the difference in template name and text. This question is also vague.--Srleffler 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. prefer {{2LCdisambig}}--A Y Arktos 08:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not clear on the question. Is my oppose vote saying I don't want 2 letter templates in a category of their own? That's how I reading this. Please let me know if it's incorrect. Tedernst | talk 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Three letter templates be named {{3LA}} or {{3LAdisambig}} or {{3LCdisambig}}?

[edit]

None currently used. ("Support" should list the one desired.)

Support
  1. {{3LAdisambig}}--Srleffler 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. {{3LC}} --William Allen Simpson 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. {{3LAdisambig}}A Y Arktos
Oppose
  1. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not clear on the question. Is my oppose vote saying I don't want 3 letter templates in a category of their own? That's how I reading this. Please let me know if it's incorrect. Tedernst | talk 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Four and Five letter templates be named {{FLA}} or {{FLAdisambig}} or {{FLCdisambig}}?

[edit]

None currently used. ("Support" should list the one desired.)

Support
Oppose
  1. William Allen Simpson 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not clear on the question. Is my oppose vote saying I don't want 4 or 5 letter templates in a category of their own? That's how I reading this. Please let me know if it's incorrect. Tedernst | talk 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vague question, but I oppose any literal interpretation of it. Either {{4LAdisambig}} and {{5LAdisambig}} or the current names.--Srleffler 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Four letter templates be named {{4LA}} or {{4LAdisambig}} or {{4LCdisambig}}?

[edit]

Contrary to current guidelines, 4LA is in use at this time. ("Support" should list the one desired.)

Support
  1. {{4LA}} only for acronyms --William Allen Simpson 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. prefer {{4LAdisambig}} A Y Arktos 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not clear on the question. Is my oppose vote saying I don't want 4 letter templates in a category of their own? That's how I reading this. Please let me know if it's incorrect. Tedernst | talk 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Five letter templates be named {{5LA}} or {{5LAdisambig}} or {{5LCdisambig}}?

[edit]

Contrary to current guidelines, 5LA is in use at this time. ("Support" should list the one desired.)

Support
  1. {{5LA}} only for acronyms --William Allen Simpson 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not clear on the question. Is my oppose vote saying I don't want 5 letter templates in a category of their own? That's how I reading this. Please let me know if it's incorrect. Tedernst | talk 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A Y Arktos 08:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should {{6LA}}, {{7LA}}, {{8LA}}, {{9LA}} letter templates be used?

[edit]

None currently used. ("Support" indicates creation of one or all as shown or with a variant title.)

Support
Oppose
  1. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not clear on the question. Is my oppose vote saying I don't want 6, 7, 8, 9 letter templates in a category of their own? That's how I reading this. Please let me know if it's incorrect. Tedernst | talk 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is no need for these. There are not enough 6LA's to justify it.--Srleffler 00:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A Y Arktos 08:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambiguation subcategory and template poll

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived result of the poll below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The overwhelming consensus was remove all disambiguation subcategory templates, and carried to every specific template currently in use. --William Allen Simpson 14:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should all disambiguation subcategory templates be removed?

[edit]

This is a significant change to these guidelines, and several templates and subcategories have been added in other guidelines.

Support
  1. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Catherine\talk 21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - According to Aevar, there is no technical reason to divide Category:Disambiguation into subcategories; there's no extra load on the servers by having so many pages in one category. I don't see what advantage of the different templates and subcategories (other than cleanup) is. Another consideration: at least some of the templates break the dab-handling aspect of Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, which I use constantly.[reply]
  3. Tedernst | talk 02:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Russ Blau (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC) — I haven't seen any good reason for any of the subcategories or their associated templates. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but in the absence of any good justification, I say get rid of them.[reply]
  5. per Russ Blau Josh Parris#: 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. These templates add unnecessary complexity with little or no additional benefit. One disambig template is plenty. CDC (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fewer useless templates, less useless maintenance. Chris the speller 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neonumbers 05:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. dpotter 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. William Allen Simpson 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Docu

Should geographic place name templates be used?

[edit]

Defined elsewhere, {{geodis}} has nearly 1000 entries at this time.

Support
  1. William Allen Simpson 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC), but prefer {{Place disambiguation}} for clarity and consistency.[reply]
  2. User:Docu - optional, a disambiguation page with place names rarely only includes place names. The townships below would only include place names.
  3. I also would prefer {{Place disambiguation}} Donar Reiskoffer 10:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Catherine\talk 21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tedernst | talk 02:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Russ Blau (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Josh Parris#: 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Chris the speller 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neonumbers 05:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. dpotter 13:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. A Y Arktos 08:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should human name templates be used?

[edit]

Defined elsewhere, {{hndis}} has nearly 800 entries at this time.

Support
  1. William Allen Simpson 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC), but prefer {{Person disambiguation}} for clarity and consistency.[reply]
  2. User:Docu -- disambiguation pages with a "First name -- last name" title are quite specific.
  3. I also would prefer {{Person disambiguation}} Donar Reiskoffer 10:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Catherine\talk 21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tedernst | talk 02:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Russ Blau (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Josh Parris#: 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Jethro Tull" is a good reason to oppose. Chris the speller 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neonumbers 05:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A Y Arktos 08:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should number templates be used?

[edit]

Defined elsewhere, {{numberdis}} has 169 entries at this time.

Support
  1. William Allen Simpson 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC), but prefer {{Number disambiguation}} for clarity and consistency.[reply]
  2. I also would prefer {{Number disambiguation}} Donar Reiskoffer 10:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Catherine\talk 21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tedernst | talk 02:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Russ Blau (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. But maybe the mathematics wikiproject could shed light on this Josh Parris#: 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Chris the speller 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neonumbers 05:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. dpotter 13:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. A Y Arktos 08:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should township templates be used?

[edit]

Defined elsewhere, {{townshipdis}} has nearly 400 entries at this time.

Support
Oppose
  1. William Allen Simpson 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC), would easily be handled with other placenames, at best a subsubcategory.[reply]
  2. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Catherine\talk 21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tedernst | talk 02:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Russ Blau (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Josh Parris#: 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Chris the speller 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neonumbers 05:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. dpotter 13:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. A Y Arktos 08:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should templates with subcategories also include the main "Category:Disambiguation"?

[edit]
Each subcategory template would have two categories. Where the page has more than one subcategory, the page would be listed in each subcategory, and once in the main category.
Support
  1. User:Docu
  2. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (this looks like an question added late to the poll, but not an unreasonable one to include)[reply]
  3. Tedernst | talk 02:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Russ Blau (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (assuming that any such templates survive this vote).[reply]
  5. Jsmethers 23:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (the disambig category should be added to each subcategory template instead of each disambig page, see template:TLAdisambig)[reply]
  6. Whilst Srleffler is right, I don't like disambig subcats Josh Parris#: 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Though, still opposed to subcats. Neonumbers 05:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. IF subcategories are to be used (which I oppose), then doing this would ensure all dab pages are still listed in the main category. — Catherine\talk 03:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. No. Make the subcategories subcats of "Category:Disambiguation". Articles in a subcat should not also appear in the parent cat. --Srleffler 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Complicates the template code. Contrary to practice elsewhere. There is no technical reason to have all pages in the main category. --William Allen Simpson 16:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As above Donar Reiskoffer 10:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages/Disambiguation_subcategories&oldid=1109890906"