Fair enough, but I was responding more to an apparent
trend to use disambiguations as hatnotes - above
article notes which say things like 'this article is
about the bar with the fubbly fub, know as foo. For
the fub with the bubbly bar, see [[Barfoo]].' etc.
A short 'for other uses, see [[Foo (disambiguation)]]
should always suffice, and if there is only one thing
to link to, then that should be in a section. It costs
an extra click, but spares us article clutter, which I
really dislike.
SV
--- Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/13/05, steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
In that sense, having Disambiguation sections
might be
a hindrance, but its at least more definitive
and
organized than hatnotes, which just obstruct from
the
article.
SV
By hatnotes, do you mean the notes at the top of
pages that
disambiguate? If so, I really see no problem with
these, other then
sometimes the primary disambiguation is set up
stupid. (Imagine band
called USA, and someone decided to give them primary
disambiguation
over the country...). I think a disambiguation
section would be much
worse. If there's more then one other thing the name
could be, and the
article has primary disambiguation, and *really*
should have it, then
there should be a link to the disambiguation on the
top of the page.
I happen to like our current disambiguation setup.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com