Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:49, 21 September 2012

Disambiguation

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

• WT:MOSDAB

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Use of {{USS}} and similar templates on disambiguation pages

The following is copied from Talk:Defiant:

Editor ShelfSkewed recently reverted an edit that used the {{USS}} template to format the link to USS Defiant (YT-804) with this edit summary:
untemplate entry--not useful on dab pages as it "hides" the link from some editing tools

Editor ShelfSkewed, can you please elaborate? The disambiguation MOS specifically alludes to the use of this kind of template to properly format ship names. There is no mention of link "hiding" (not really sure what you mean by that) in the MOS, nor in the template's documentation. Can you elaborate and provide supporting documentation showing how the template isn't useful on disambiguation pages?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The templates are a convenience to ensure proper formatting, but they are not obligatory and they should be used subst'ed to create an actual link. The reason for this, as I intended to explain (obviously too briefly; my apologies) in my edit summary, is that entries that remain templated are not accessible to some editing tools used by editors who disambiguate links to dab pages. The tool I use, for example, is Popups. When I encounter an ambiguous link, Popups accesses the dab page and offers me a choice of the links listed there. But the tool can't interpret an entry in a template, so that choice is unavailable. I understand that these templates are quite useful in articles, both for their convenience and to insure a uniform and correct display. But they have the potential to be counterproductive when used unsubst'ed on dab pages, and if someone (in this case, me) is willing to take the time to create a direct link, properly formatted, there is no reason, I think, to insist on the template.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This editor believes that the use of templates, like {{USS}}, in disambiguation pages is allowed and serves a legitimate purpose.

• MOSDAB §Where piping may be appropriate specifically identifies a document (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Ships/Tools) that lists {{USS}} and similar templates that can be used to properly format page links on disambiguation pages.
• MOSDAB §Where piping may be appropriate does not require editors to subst: such templates when they are used on disambiguation pages.
• Shortcut templates like {{USS}} are an aid to editors that make the typing easier, the edit window less cluttered and therefore easier to read, and assure that the resulting format is correctly rendered for readers.
• The limitations of a particular tool or tools (in this case Popups) should not dictate how all other editors conduct the creation and maintenance of disambiguation pages.

I will post I have posted notice of this topic on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships and Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation pages with links.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If we (at SHIPS) are getting in the way of what gnomes do, then that means we have to do the gnome work ourselves. Are we getting in the way? Can "popups" and other tools be fixed? If not, are SHIPS people willing to take responsibility for doing the work? I don't know. I'll keep an eye on the conversation. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I also de-template any {{USS}} et al. templates I find on disambiguation pages. The templates are available for properly formatting the links if the editors don't know how to do it themselves. If a gnome comes along later at gets the formatting right without the template (but substing it or otherwise), no problem. I do not mind editors using the templates on dabs, but I don't mind me removing them either. I would not ask any editor to stop using the template to add entries to a dab, but I don't see the need or legitimate use of introducing the template to an untemplated entry that is already properly formatted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've inserted a line break between Editor Dank and Editor JHunterJ for readability.

Just for clarity, I was the editor who placed the USS Defiant (YT-804) entry into the Defiant disambiguation page. I used the {{USS}} template.

If I understand you correctly, you are ok with editors using template but if you find templates in a dab you will untemplate the entry. That sounds to me like you really aren't ok with other editors using templates. Have I got this right?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Any editor who wants to add an entry to the dab page can:

• Add it without any formatting. A subsequent editor might later
  • Format it with a ship template. A subsequent editor might then later
    • Replace the ship template with the entry formatted with wiki markup
  • Format it with wiki markup
• Add it with the ship template. A subsequent editor might then
  • Replace the ship template with the entry formatted with wiki markup
• Add it with wiki markup formatting.

I'm really OK with other editors using templates to add entries to dabs, or to format unformatted (or incorrectly formatted) dab entries. Once the entry is properly formatted with wiki markup, however, there's no benefit to replacing it with the ship template. Are you not OK with other editors not using the templates? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me too much if editors wish to use what you call wiki markup in lieu of a template that accomplishes the same thing. I do find that in the edit window, templates are easier to read than equivalent wiki markup; also easier to maintain because there are fewer elements. Consequently, when I find untemplated ship names anywhere, I template them.

I get the sense from reading your posts that you believe that wiki markup is the preferred method for creating links to ship articles even though the output of a template can be the same (the template markup will always render correctly while the wiki markup may not—the template also inserts   between the elements so the whole name stays together). I guess I don't understand why anyone would want to go to the extra trouble of typing everything twice:

] vs.

{{USS|Defiant|YT-804}}

I certainly don't want editors to assert that templates are improper. That is contrary to MOSDAB §Where piping may be appropriate. If there is suitable justification for always using untemplated wiki markup in dab pages, that justification should be defined and MOSDAB amended accordingly. Until such time, templates are permissible and should not be molested.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't typically type things twice when I use the manual formatting; I copy-and-paste. I certainly don't want editors to assert that templates are preferred on dabs, since Misplaced Pages:MOSDAB#Images and templates says to avoid them, while the piping section says that they can be used to get the formatting right. The properly formatted untemplated entries are permissible, preferred, and should not be molested. Untemplated formatting needn't always be used -- if one doesn't know how to do the wiki markup, or if one doesn't want to -- but when an editor does use the untemplated version, it should not be changed to the templated version on dabs. So please stop templating the untemplated ship names on dab pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So that's a problem with the MOSdab, isn't it? On the one hand §Where piping may be appropriate permits template use whereas on the other hand §Images and templates discourages template use. Originally that section was simply titled Images. Editor Dekimasu added the templates terminology on 21 July 2009 with this edit summary: same principle seems to apply to templates—this vague wording suggests that Editor Dekimasu wasn't quite sure about the change. MOSdab talk Archive 38 covers the period October 2008 – August 2009. The change that Editor Dekimasu made is not discussed there, nor has it been challenged. The section was changed by Editor JHunterJ on 10 March 2011 to add commentary about flag icons.

Because tracing the history of §Images and templates piqued my curiosity, I chased down the history of MOSDAB §Where piping may be appropriate with regard to templates:

• 27 September 2010: Editor 28bytes adds text about Dab title templates; starts a discussion on the talk page.
• 27 September 2010: Editor ShelfSkewed reverts
• 29 September 2010: Editor ShelfSkewed self reverts
• 23 October 2011: Editor LittleWink adds reference to ship name templates
• 23 October 2011: Editor NapoliRoma adds bullet formatting
• 24 October 2011: Editor LittleWink changes ship name template link
• 24 October 2011: Editor JHunterJ changes ship name template link
• 24 October 2011: Editor JHunterJ changes bulleted list order

The discussion started by Editor 28bytes resulted in changes to the templates and to their documentation. The changes were made to satisfy the concerns of Editors Auntof6 and ShelfSkewed with regard to the editing tools that they use—the same concern that Editor ShelfSkewed raised to start this discussion. I note that Editor 28bytes's discussion did not result in changes to MOSdab. As an aside, the editors who dislike dab page template use because their editing tool can't interpret templates, apparently haven't raised the issue with the tool developers—the issue may have been raised, but I can find no evidence that Editors ShelfSkewed and Auntof6 have done so.

Your assertion that editors will use templates because they don't know how to create a link using wikilink markup is weak. I venture to suggest that essentially all WP editors learn how to do standard wikilink markup long before they learn about, much less learn to use, templates.

I can see a few of things that ought to be done: resolve the contradictory ok-to-use-templates / not-ok-to-use-templates problem between §Piping and §Images and templates; carefully consider refactoring MOSdab so that other contradictory guidelines are harmonized; as part of a refactoring, create a document of supporting rational so that in future, readers may know why each guideline is the way it is (talk pages are insufficient because they are not concise statements of purpose or of fact); Editor ShelfSkewed should raise the editing tool issue with the tool's developer and report back.

Yeah, I copy / paste too (though that's still more work than a template).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that I asserted that editors will use anything is weak. I said they can, and I believe that is accurate. I have clarified the not-really-contradictory sections -- they did not contradict unless you further restrict them so that the formatting templates cannot be subst'ed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can. Will. May. What does it matter? You didn't use any of these words (here and here). Why choose that relatively minor point from my post to dispute.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Because you're choosing to wikilawyer over what I said rather than work with the consensus. Why choose to attack my correct assertions as weak in the first place? And what kind of weak assertion is showing where I didn't use words in other places after your attack on my assertion here. (Normally we use diff links rather than inserting anchor templates into other users' talk page comments.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

<ec>I'm still puzzled by the insistence that the template always be used in preference to direct linking. As I said in my original comment, the templates are a convenience, but they are not mandatory. The purpose of the templates, as I see it, is to make uniform formatting easier, but as long as the goal of proper formatting is achieved, why not prefer direct linking on dab pages to ensure that the actual link is always available? I'm not swayed by the "less cluttered edit window" argument. In general, dab pages already have a more straightforward edit-window presentation than most articles; a few extra characters is not significant, in my opinion. If direct linking makes it easier to disambiguate links to dab pages, and is completely invisible to users, why insist on the template if another editor is willing to do the extra work?--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess I don't spend enough time on talk pages. What is <ec>?

Just so we're clear here, I have never "insist that the template always be used in preference to direct linking". I will, however, insist on my right to use a permitted format. If template use is ever disallowed, I'll comply. Yes, templates are a convenience; yes, templates are not mandatory; yes, templates make uniform formatting easier. Why not prefer direct linking? Because templates are convenient, because templates get the formatting right, because templates are easier to type, to read; all of which I've said before (and so have you—except for that last bit about reading).

It appears that your need for Wikilink markup is driven wholly by the limitations of your editing tool. A handicapped tool is not sufficient cause to impose restrictions on all other editors who don't use the tool—that sounds like tyranny of the minority over the majority, eh? Fix the tool, or by consensus, disallow templates in dab pages by properly amending MOSdab.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

ec = edit conflict. Now that we've had this conversation, if you continue to insist on your supposed "right" to replace properly-formatted entries with entries that use a template instead, based on some over-broad reading of a permission to use the template in order to format the entry, that may then be viewed as needlessly disruptive. Just so we're clear here. There is no convenience in taking a properly-formatted entry and replacing it with a template that yields exactly the same formatting. If needed, I'll be happy to put that explanation in the guidelines, but the guidelines I've already linked already indicate a preference against templates in general on dabs, and the section you've linked about using templates for formatting an entry has no application on its use on an entry that is already formatted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're stuck on one line that I wrote and are ignoring or misreading everything else I've written. I am not insisting on a right to replace wikilink markup with templates—I don't think that I ever have. I want to be able to use templates as permitted by MOSdab without later being told that I was wrong to do so.

For my part in this conversation, I've gotten beyond all of that as is reflected in my previous post in our conversation. I have pointed out changes that were made to MOSdab without consensus or discussion; I have pointed out discussions that could or should have resulted in amendments to MOSdab; I have suggested how MOSdab can be improved. All of this you have ignored.

Yes, I do know that since my last post you have made changes to MOSdab §Where piping may be appropriate and §Images and templates. These are mostly cosmetic and don't answer the why questions regarding the prohibition of transcluded templates.

And now our "conversation" has devolved to the point of threats. No one was twisting your arm to participate. I am disappointed but can see no reason to continue a conversation with you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

<ec>The <ec> signifies an edit conflict; another editor posted a comment while I was writing mine, so I had to re-post (and as you can see, it just happened again).

No one is trying to stop you from using the templates, if that's the way you prefer to enter the ship names, in articles, disambiguation pages, or anywhere else. I'm not on a crusade against templates in general or the ship templates in particular. As I said, I fully understand and accept their usefulness in articles. What I don't understand is why it bothers you so much when another editor comes along and says, "This is sometimes a hindrance on dab pages, so I'm going to expand it to regular code." I'm not trying to place any restrictions on anyone. I'm not trying to stop you from adding an entry to a dab page in the way you prefer to do it, and I'm not accusing you of poor editing practices or disruptive behavior. So I don't understand why you object to another editor making a small change that preserves the entry display exactly as you intended it to be displayed but makes things a bit easier for others? I'm trying to understand, but I just don't get why this is such a thorn in your side.--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've given quite a bit of thought to your core question. I think the answer is: I bothers me to read a guieline that says I may use a formatting template and then to be told by an editor that I was wrong to do so. Even though you were polite when you did tell me, you did still tell me that I was wrong. It is this realization that has lead me to elsewhere in this topic suggest changes to MOSdab.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The intention of creating {{USS}} (and others) was only to save the amount of typing required. Ship names are supposed to be in italics therefore without the template you have to type: ]. The template only requires: {{USS|Defiant|YT-804}} for the same results therefore serving its intended purpose. It does not matter how an editor goes about italicizing ship names; only that ship names should be in italics. As long as the result is the same it does not matter how it's done; just that it is done. Brad (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

By "disambiguation pages" do you mean shipindex pages, or other disambigation pages? The use of the various templates as a means of saving typing is fine, but IMHO, they should only be in full on shipindex pages. Where a shipindex page houses a number of ships with the same name, then a link to that ship name from a dab page using the shortcut template is fine. See Rhenania, which has a link to SS Rhenania, where four ships are identified that carried the name Rhenania. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, shipindex pages aren't dabs. For instance, when I find ship templates on ship index articles, I don't "molest" them. But there is usually no need (and often a detriment) to linking from a dab page to a shipindex. The shipindex might be listed on the dab page along with the links to the individual ship articles, but there's no benefit to sending a reader who is seeking one of the ships from the dab through a shipindex before getting to the ship -- if the ship is ambiguous with the title disambiguated by a dab page, it should be listed on the dab page, even if that's redundant with the shipindex, since that better serves the reader. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Trappist, I don't understand why you are going on and on about this. You say you were misled by the guidelines; fine, that's our fault, not yours, and JHJ has now clarified the guidelines (in a way that I completely agree with) to avoid any future misunderstandings. Your honor is intact and we all thank you for pointing out the problem. As for your issue with the substance of the guidelines, is it really that big a deal to type {{subst:USS|Foobar|NCC-1701}} instead of {{USS|Foobar|NCC-1701}} when editing a disambiguation page? The result seen by the reader is exactly the same in either case, and if I'm not mistaken, delivering information to readers should be our primary concern. Now, I note you also argued that you find it easier to read templates in the edit window than the formatted text. Personally, I disagree; although {{USS}} is perhaps one of the lesser offenders, I generally find it disconcerting when I want to edit a particular line of text and I look in the edit window and can't find that text where I expect it because someone used a formatting template instead. But that's an issue of personal preference and not something we need to base style guidelines around either way. Finally, it is highly unlikely that the "correct" or preferred way of formatting ship names is ever going to change, so that keeping the template un-subst'ed has no particular value for future maintenance (unlike, say, an infobox template where if the preferred styling changes we want all infoboxes to update to the new style for consistency). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No one else seems to understand either. I've spent a lot of words not talking about what you and others seem to think that I have been talking about. My longest post was not about my opinion regarding the use of formatting templates—yes, I mentioned that, but it is a small part of the post. Rather, the post was about what I see as problems with MOSdab and what I thought might be done to correct them. Yeah, this topic started out as a template vs. no template discussion but I left that behind to address the MOSdab problems.

As you've noted, Editor JHunterJ has made some adjustments to the document. He has, in my opinion, simply put a plaster on the wound. There has never been an explanation or justification for the template restrictions. The "templates is discouraged" language was added without discussion, without challenge, without consensus. Even the editor who added it didn't seem convinced that it should be added—if one can read that into his vaguely worded edit summary.

Much work is needed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I just converted a redirect page, Newport News, to a disambiguation page. One entry points to Newport News, Virginia and the other to a USS Newport News ship list. I tried subst'ing a {{USS}} template:

• {{subst:USS|Newport News}}, any of several US Navy ships

which produced this:

• {{ship|USS|Newport News|{{#if:|{{{2}}}}}|{{#if:|{{{3}}}}}}}, any of several US Navy ships (which see)

Subst'ing apparently doesn't work; well, it does, {{ship}} was subst'ed for {{USS}}. The link works and the reader can't see the result of the subst, so no harm done. But this isn't quite the result expected by those who have argued for always subst'ing permitted formatting templates, is it?

It seems that the requirement to subst permitted formatting templates {§§Where piping may be appropriate) should be properly reconsidered.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you might have accidentally done mis-typed something, but I just used {{code|{{subst:USS|Newport News}} at User:Bkonrad/Sandbox2 to produce just what one would expect. older ≠ wiser 03:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks correct from the readers point of view, but look at it in the edit window:

{{ship|USS|Newport News|{{#if:|{{{2}}}}}|{{#if:|{{{3}}}}}}} (code formatting and nowiki tags added)

You got the same result that I got so we both typed the subst correctly or be both got it wrong. I'd like to think that we both typed it correctly.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see now. This would seem to be a defect in Template:USS. Should be mentioned at that talk page. There might be a relatively easy fix. older ≠ wiser 11:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it took a while because {{USS}} transcludes {{Ship}} which was decidedly unfriendly to substitution, but I think I've now fixed both of them so that the result of {{subst:USS|Newport News}} is now ]. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed @ User:Bkonrad/Sandbox2. Actual result is ] with the non-breaking space.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding MOS:DABENTRY's edits

I'm seeing an issue with MOS:DABENTRY regarding a good example of how there should not be more than one link to a WikiPedia article per entry. Here's the thing with the example that is on this page: this example also includes/included piping ("Dark Star" (song)). Piping is not addressed until later in the article; as far as the reader would have to assume at that point, by seeing this example with "Dark Star" (song), piping is allowed in all disambiguation articles. This example needs to have no piping to meet what has been stated in the article until that point. This article is supposed to be a guideline for correctly creating and writing disambiguation pages, and piping being in that example goes against this. For this example, the link should appear as Dark Star (song). Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. However, an example in a guideline should never be improperly formatted unless it is marked as wrong one way or another. I took the liberty of restoring the example links and of rearranging the content of that particular section. Now reference to link formatting is mentioned before the example containing piped links.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of correct formatting. The guideline shouldn't be written as a lesson plan, with examples only covering the part above it. The examples should be accurate throughout. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Prince Caspian

Are their any guidelines on how to name fictional characters who's names match the works they appear in. There is an ongoing discussion at Caspian X, Prince Caspian is the name of a book, and the proposed new page would be called Prince Caspian (character), any advice would be welcome GimliDotNet 17:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Abram and Abram (disambiguation)

Abram redirects as a alternative spelling to Abraham, whereas Abram (disambiguation) contains links to actual Abrams, what is the correct procedure for cases like this, surely the Abram should be a disambiguation page with a note on the alternative spelling? GimliDotNet 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The correct procedure doesn't change: "Abram" should lead to the primary topic for the title "Abram". It is not surely a disambiguation page, and the current arrangement is correct if the topic at Abraham is the primary topic for the title "Abram". Many, many ambiguous titles redirect to an alternative version as the primary topic, leaving one or more disambiguation pages with links to actual "title"s. The two questions: what topic is best for this title? and what title is best for this topic? are largely independent. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

TOC right

I just slightly strengthened the wording "may" -> "should" per my opinion at User talk:Krenakarore Widefox; talk 07:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am reverting the change as I think "may" is more appropriate than should in this case, particularly given the conversation over at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles where it is clear that some dialects of English take "should" to be an imperative close to "must" rather than "ought". Given the ambiguity in the word "should" I think you need to build a case on this talk page and see if there is a general consensus for change rather than jumping from a user's talk page straight into changing the MOS. I personally do not think that the wording is an improvement, but maybe the consensus on this page will go against me. -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As per my edit summary "may -> should - as TOC right always seems to improve whitespace / speed of DAB, and goes hand-in-hand with the section header "should" above it" ...

If I may park the semantics debate of "should" for a second. As I detailed in my reasoning, the TOC appears on longer lists, where "should" is used. To match this, using "should" is required, so it is clear that on long lists TOC right is highly preferred rather than optional. So pulling back to the central point, I don't know examples where omitting TOC right (i.e. leaving or TOC (left)) is better or doesn't impede DAB, and consider TOC right significantly improves speed/readability (on lists of any length). Anyone else? Coming back to the "should" semantics issue, that is a widespead (and cultural) issue that is important, but secondary to being logically consistent. Widefox; talk 12:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of TOC has always been entirely optional. I don't think it can be made obligatory based on what amounts to aesthetic preference. Is there usability research to support claim that omitting toc right impedes readers in finding the desired topic or conversely that using toc right enhances usability? FWIW, I personally prefer using toc right, but I don't see any basis for making its use obligatory. older ≠ wiser 13:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I find the TOC superfluous on DAB pages, in fact for a while I was adding the no toc special word to articles thinking we shouldn't have them - till someone pointed out the current guidance. GimliDotNet 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with "should". It is optional, and if someone opts to TOCright a dab, that shouldn't be reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT you have just used should in two different ways in one sentences! -- PBS (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely superfluous. But, if disambiguation pages are going to have a table of contents, putting it on the right gets it out of the way. With today's wider monitors I suspect that most readers focus left and miss the table of contents, I know I do. I have to intentionally look over to it (and to the wiktionary template which I'd rather see at the bottom of the page as part of §See also—but that's another topic).

Frankly, having a table of contents for a disambiguation page that is a couple or three screens long doesn't make sense. Better, I think would be to sort the individual sections in alphabetic order (except §See also which is always the last section—and no section called Other). Because section titles are in larger, darker font, they are visually distinct from the item lists so scanning them is just as easy as scanning a table of contents and the reader's eyes stay on the left side of the display.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"With today's wider monitors" you are forgetting about mobile devices. -- PBS (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I did. Just another reason not to clutter up a disambiguation page—it has to be displayed on today's smaller monitors.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there's discussion about whether the TOC is useful at all, I just want to point out that one relevant issue may be blind readers using screen-reading software. My understanding is that the TOC can be of use to them, even when it's superfluous for most or all sighted readers. (This is also why the TOC should never be placed at the very top of the page, especially when there is a primary topic, because the software would go through the TOC before the primary topic or any other text following the TOC.) Personally, I like TOCright and I don't see a problem with saying it "should" be used on longer pages. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I forgot about that. I wonder how a reader would handle a right floating TOC however GimliDotNet 17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to the point - I agree with JHunterJ that if TOC right has been added, it should not be removed. See for yourself...this has come up because TOC right was removed from Mojave - compare removed and replaced . (This being an example DAB mentioned in MOSDAB). As for TOC or no TOC, I definitely don't ever use the TOC myself, despite adding it to all longer list DABs - that's not the point - it is to prevent/remove it from being placed automatically on the left (my preferences being set to add automatically). Widefox; talk 18:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The table of contents is set to appear on the left side of the page for some good reason. Why "should" it be any different as for the DAB pages ? Use of TOC has always been entirely optional. I don't think it can be made obligatory based on what amounts to aesthetic preference. Per Bkonrad... older means wiser. Krenakarore 21:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the dab pages aren't articles, and their sections aren't paragraphs of prose (like in articles) but bullets, and dab pages are optimized for navigating the reader to their sought article, which the TOC often hinders more than helps. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

To be or not to be, that is the question (yet, it remains) Krenakarore 05:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Krenakarore - DABs are not articles, hence a separate MOS. Please give your reasoning for stating the left default is good, as MOSDAB does not mention it. Using "should" is consistent with the lede of MOSDAB - giving disambiguation pages a consistent look and by avoiding distracting information - twofold - consistent TOC right and no TOC left lengthening the page. Bkonrad has a fundamental point - are there any usability studies? As the TOC gets in the way, I think of it somewhat similar to google hits, which are more distracting - adverts above or to the right? For me, right is better. Widefox; talk 15:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Non sequitur. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My dear friend Widefox, honorable Admin JHunterJ, I have already. I can't say anything better than what was said by Bkonrad. Please understand, I can not go against such a strong statement from his part. Besides, my preference as for TOC left here is totally irrelevant. Another sensible thing said here was that by Theoldsparkle who approached the topic from the right point of view. I disagree with if TOC right has been added, it should not be removed for the same reason that once it was set left, it should not be removed either. So then again we've come to the starting point.

Frankly, the story that DAB pages are not articles, does not convince either. Really, I believe you can scroll down to what you want with or without a TOC. Next time, begin this conversation under the title "Removal of headings from DAB pages" ! My regards to you all, Krenakarore 20:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• comment - the TOC is automatically shown after 3 (or 4 depending on which thing you read) headings by default. Widefox; talk 11:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What disambiguation is and what BRD is not

Re this re-revert: WP:BRD-NOT: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And the edit war continues with this. As to "where?", see the introductory text at WP:D. For others new to this, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Broadsword and Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation). ZarlanTheGreen, take this opportunity to learn how Misplaced Pages is already working without demanding that it stop until you are satisfied or that everyone but you discuss first, and instead if there are topics you believe are ambiguous with "broadsword", add that information to the topic article(s) and I will add links to the articles to the disambiguation page myself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You can also look there: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User ZarlanTheGreen --Trofobi (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...where the only comment so far has been that "It's far from clear what administrator intervention is required." and "While Zarlan does not seem to have conducted himself impeccably, I see no ongoing problem here". Both of which I would agree with (including the bit about me not being impeccable, but then I've said as much myself). Why do you link to it here? Please note that the syntax errors were dismissed as a non-problem, for the same reasons that I dismissed them. Just because you think that you are being attacked, doesn't make it true.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD-NOT: "Note:"BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow." (and you have clearly gone against that policy. I did revert again, but only because of breach of policy ...though now that I think about it, that may have been against the policy too...) Also WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source."

I will admit that I may (though probably not, as I'll explain) have used BRD inappropriately, but I would point out that it says that it's "not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes", and I'd say that I didn't revert for only that reason. As for what my reasons are... well I've already stated them to an extent, though not here. If I am wrong on that (and that would, in that case, mainly be due to how I've seen BRD used), I would point to WP:IGNORANCE and WP:GOODFAITH. I would point to Misplaced Pages:BRD#Cases_for_use however: "When other methods have failed, when cooperation has broken down, when it is not clear that a talk page request for discussion will generate any significant response, or when no editor is willing to make changes that might be perceived as controversial, BRD should be considered as an approach to achieving consensus." with examples such as "Two factions are engaged in an edit war" and BRD being especially successfully if: "people haven't really thought things through yet." (and how could you, if the reason hasn't been shown) and "people are only discussing policy, and are not applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus (see above under "haven't thought things through")" (so far discussion hasn't happened. You have just bulldozed you edit through, regardless of the circumstances, and I insist on discussion which you refuse). Also is says: "In short: boldly negotiating where no-one has negotiated before."

Thus I cannot see how I am in any way wrong, in invoking BRD here. I tried other methods, and you have repeatedly refused to engage in discussion or give any explanations.

Even should I be wrong in invoking BRD, this would only indicate that my reverts were inappropriate. My tags, however, where completely in order and their removal was clearly wrong. It is an addition to the page and showing why it would be good, or showing that it is (as JHunterJ claims) merely stating what is already accepted guideline is something that needs to be done (again: WP:BURDEN).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You are warring here against multiple editors. Stop, and build consensus. Building consensus does not involve demanding that everything else stop until your questions are answered to your satisfaction; you are expected to assume good faith in the other editors as well, and to learn civilly when encountering parts of Misplaced Pages you are unfamiliar with, and some of that learning will be simply reading existing pages to figure out where you're wrong. Note that this edit includes the insult "like a kindergartener ". We do not need citations on Misplaced Pages-space pages -- citations are for articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't use edit summaries as a forum. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You are the one that has to stop and build consensus! (or have you forgotten your WP:BURDEN of evidence?)

You say building consensus does not involve demanding that everything else stop until my questions are answered? Actually you are completely wrong in saying that. Building consensus does involve stopping things until it is discussed and one cannot discuss unless questions are answered and edits explained, now can you? For more information (or confirmation) please see Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion and Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus-building_in_talk_pages. Especially the part where it says "and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.", which indicates that you shouldn't edit the relevant parts while the discussion goes on, until it is approved of in the talk page. I.e. one cannot make edits to the relevant parts until it is discussed. This essentially means that things do, indeed, stop until the questions are answered. As to the insult: Yes there was an insult and I was wrong in denying that. You are right and I thank you for pointing that out.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You may not have realized that the reverts and summaries of Bkonrad and France3470 are evidence of that existing consensus that Misplaced Pages disambiguation pages disambiguate Misplaced Pages topics as determined by their coverage on Misplaced Pages articles. WP:D says so, although not as straightforwardly as the newer addition here. So, no, I haven't forgotten the burden of evidence. Things have been discussed, but you are not happy with the result -- we are not obligated to stop until you're happy. And your tone and approach do not encourage editors to spend the time it would take to make you happy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree --Trofobi (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a few editors agree with you, doesn't make your view the consensus one. That's not how consensus works. Misplaced Pages:Consensus: "This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's norms.". I.e. Even if not all editors have to agree on the decision or conclusion, you still have to address all legitimate concerns.

Also Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Level_of_consensus: "Misplaced Pages has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others." I.e. two or three editors on your side is hardly enough, anyway. There needs to be more thorough discussion and more editors involved ...at least unless you can demonstrate that this actually is an already accepted guideline, that you are merely clarifying. (do so and I will back down on this issue, as I've said before)

...and again: WP:BURDEN.

As to your claim that WP:D says so: Where? (and why haven't you said so before?)

As to your claim that it has been discussed... Again, it is not that I am unsatisfied with your explanations or answers, but rather that you do not give any. You have answered on the issue of the organization of topics on the Broadsword DAB page, but you have not answered the question of why the topic linked, must mention the dis-ambiguous use in its own article, other than to refer to MOS:DABMENTION (which deals with a completely separate issue) and, now, talking about WP:D without pointing out where in WP:D (which is like saying that a person is in Africa, but not explain where or even in which country they are. Sure I could still find the person, but it is unreasonable to require I do so with such lacking information).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I will stay out of it, and you may convince Trofobi, Bkonrad, France3470, and the rest of the disambiguation project of the wisdom of your approach, and make the appropriate changes to the guidelines and the disambiguation pages. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:D is easy to find, at WP:DABRELATED, and pretty straightforward: "Do not include articles unless the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article."--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You are quite wrong indeed ...in that it isn't easy to find. It's in the section named "Related subjects, abbreviations, initials and acronyms", which doesn't make one think of the related issue. Also, I should not be required to look through that, rather long, page either way. As to it being a guideline, you are completely correct! Is is, indeed, a long-standing and accepted guideline. Thank you ShelfSkewed, for pointing that out and thus enlightening me! The fact that the information corrects a misconception of mine, makes it all the better. I can now, thankfully, put that bit of business to rest.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• WikiProject Disambiguation pages