"Steve Bennett" wrote:
On 2/9/07, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
What you've done is great. However, I did
discover an issue (you may
already be aware of this)...If the transcluded disambig page has
sections, then those sections show up in the TOC of the transcluding
page.
No obvious solution comes to mind, short of eliminating sections from
disambig pages.
I think it's fairly clear that we could not immediately take every
disambig page and just declare it suitable for transclusion at the top
of the relevant pages. Most will need minor reformatting, even if it's
just sticking <noinclude> around certain bits of text like section
headings and what-not.
I'm not sure I see the advantages here. Sure it is kind of cool in a bit of
a geeky way, but you still have to click a link to see the disambiguation
information. Is it a significant advantage to have it show up as a drop-down
thingie rather than as a separate page? I don't see it. And it would appear
to make both adding the disambiguation note at the top of pages and possibly
the actual structure of the disambiguation pages more complex and fraught
with potential for error.
Until the method is relatively idiot-proof [1], and there are clear
advantages beyond a little bit of "gee whiz, ain't that neat", I'm
skeptical.
[1] I realize that since *anyone* can edit wikipedia, idiot-proof is at best
a sliding scale
bkonrad