Template talk:Disambiguation
What's wrong with the pic? eo: have it? Archer7 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The current text of the template seems to be wrong.[change source]
The current text of the template is:
This is a disambiguation page—a page which lists articles with similar names.
It seems to be a wrong simplification of the non-simple English text:
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.
The disambiguation pages do not necessary list only articles with similar names. They often can include synonyms.
For example, the en:Tail (disambiguation) page contains the link to the en:Empennage (in non-simple English Wikipedia).
On the other hand, en:List of counties in Indiana lists articles with similar names, but it is not a disambiguation page.
I propose to take the same text as in normal English template. If the word "associate" is not simple, there is another proposal:
This is a disambiguation page, a list of articles that might share the same title.
Ufim (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since no one objected, I changed this text. Ufim (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the current wording is simple at all. "Might share the same title" would be better. (Of course, I don't think the word "disambiguation" is simple, either.) --R'n'B (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Template style[change source]
|
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If a page link brought you here, you might want to go back and fix it so that it goes directly to the correct page. |
|
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If a page link brought you here, you might want to go back and fix it so that it goes directly to the correct page. |
TEST: User:Weltforce/test
Yes, I'm doing it for the looks, and I think that the second one looks definitely better. --weltforce (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- The first one looks better as it blends into the page and doesn't stick out too much. With the second the background clashes with the page and makes it jump out at you too much and draws your attention away from the important parts of the page. Change just for the sake of looks is discouraged, remember taste is subjective, we try to be as neutral in decoration as possible so that we cater to the widest group of people possible. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- This template is used on disambiguation pages. That means, the template is below the text. Readers can exactly distinguish when the template starts. --14:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes and the colouring automatically draws the eyes past the important information on the page to the template at the bottom, which is the opposite of what should happen. It should be like a stub template message which is at the bottom and lets people know its a disambiguation page if they are looking for that info, but it shouldn't draw people there right off the bat. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the message should be placed at the bottom of the page. Nothing, or as little as possible, should distract from the introductory section at the top of the page. Also, the wording should be much shorter and simpler. Macdonald-ross (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes and the colouring automatically draws the eyes past the important information on the page to the template at the bottom, which is the opposite of what should happen. It should be like a stub template message which is at the bottom and lets people know its a disambiguation page if they are looking for that info, but it shouldn't draw people there right off the bat. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- This template is used on disambiguation pages. That means, the template is below the text. Readers can exactly distinguish when the template starts. --14:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
My first preference would also be to the first one. Kennedy (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)- Actually, after Osiris' comment below I would prefer a version of En's:
 |
This page lists articles associated with the same title. If a page link brought you here, you might want to go back and fix it so that it goes directly to the correct page. |
- It blends in even better and think that would be the way to go... Kennedy (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I have no problem with en's version I was thinking that myself. It was mostly the colour I had issue with. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- It blends in even better and think that would be the way to go... Kennedy (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the white background also. However, I also prefer the styles used at en.wiki and ru.wiki over ours. Something to divide the template's text from the actual text. It's not a big deal though. Osiris (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is really better. --weltforce (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Wording[change source]
Compared to the immediate above, I suggest this simpler wording:
- This page lists articles with similar titles.
If a link brought you here, you can go back and fix it so it goes straight to the right page.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is good; a very good simplification. --weltforce (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a very good simplification. However, it is also wrong. The disambiguation pages do not necessary list only articles with similar titles. They often can include synonyms. For example, the en:Tail (disambiguation) page contains the link to the en:Empennage (in non-simple English Wikipedia). On the other hand, en:List of counties in Indiana lists articles with similar titles, but it is not a disambiguation page. Since my proposal was not simple, and the current one is simple but wrong, I will agree with the old proposal of R'n'B :
- This page lists articles that might share the same title.
If a link brought you here, you can go back and fix it so it goes straight to the right page.
- This page lists articles that might share the same title.
- Ufim (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)