Well, think of it like alternate handling. Consider
also the fact that disambiguations (and redirects) are
often anomalies in the encyclopedia model: They arent
entirely encyclopedic (though they are close) nor
Wikipedia pages. Theres the other issue that
disambiguations are in essence "choice redirects", and
have the potential to someday be integrated into
metadata article organization.
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
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is that in case of say for example a
name disambiguation
for John Smith. This section would need to be
duplicated for all
articles and if edited, again edited on all the
pages having the dab
section. Having it seperate makes editing it easier.
Adding it as a
transcluded section could perhaps cut on the number
of clicks someone
needs to get somewhere, but it's little gain for a
major change like
that IMO.
On 9/13/05, steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
In some cases, I have used the same
disambiguation
link at top, only it links to a Disambiguation
section
at bottom, rather than on a separate page. The
link
looks the same. In other cases, where the
"disambiguation" is misused for overly specific
links,
I will used the {{fn|1}} footnote tag. Thats for
linking to a Notes section, put before External
links.
[[Monica Lewinsky scandal]] now has this, and I
note
that people are using these more consistently.
Disambiguation could benefit from the same thing.
Whoever said that disambiguations needed to be
exclusively pages, and not sections? In cases
where 98
percent of traffic links to a main article, or
where
only one separate entry (which people try to
stick
at
the top) a simple disambiguation section seems
justified.
SV
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Disambiguations are there to make it easier for
> people to find the
> article they're looking for and have a similar
name
> to the article
> they end up at. Shortening to a regular "For
other
> uses see Foo
> (disambiguation)" seems better than hiding them
at
> the bottom, which
> defies the entire point of having them.
>
> Only expand such top dab notices for stuff
that's
> searched for really often.
>
> --Mgm
>
> On 9/13/05, steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > There has been a dislikable tendency to
use
large
> > notes -- often dealing with superficial
aspects of
> the
> > name -- as disambiguation headers.
> >
> > As a solution, I suggest using the footnote
tags
> > {{fn|1}} (top) {{fnb|1}} (bottom),
under a ==
> Notes ==
> > section, to move such things down as footnotes
> rather
> > than hatnotes. Hatnotes should be substantial
and
> as
> > brief as possible, not links to punk bands, or
any
> > other thing other than disambiguation,
or
exactly
> > similar titles.
> >
> > In some cases, using a Disambiguation section
> (after
> > links) seems a better compromise than even
> creating a
> > disambiguation page.
> >
> > SV
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
__________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> >
http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
_______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.