On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
So far, so predictable. I see the message, once toned down, has been edited back to be (if possible) even more dogmatic.
The template was the same as it was before you edited it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Disambig_editintro&ac... and the MOS line beginning "To avoid confusing the reader..." is the same as it was, so I don't know what you mean by "even more dogmatic". Almost all of the rest of the changes you made to the MOS are still there. Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambi...
I've just now edited the template {{Disambig editintro}} to say "aim for" instead of "exactly". It would seem better to clarify the original, rather than to just contradict it in a footnote.
A very public expression of the idea that dab pages are responsible only to a group of hardliners who believe their primary function should be their only function. As we know, that kind of isolationism isn't a strength of Wikipedia, but a weakness.
This isn't "hardliners" trying to control all the dab pages (and that's a really depressing synopsis to read coming from an arbcom member).
This is the few folks who care enough about the 100,000+ disambiguation pages to spend part of their lives keeping them clear, consistent, and useful. And they're watching the related project/talkpages in order to communicate, and to try and develop a communal consensus as to what the best-practices and styleguides should be. Isn't that how it works everywhere?
I asked (at 04:30 Oct 8) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_... for you to edit a longer example, such as [[Blue (disambiguation)]], into the style you envision, to illustrate your proposed level of recommended wikification. *These* are the kinds of pages where cleanup is most often required, and where reader-confusion/frustration is most likely. The example you picked, [[Governor of Punjab]], is only 3 items long. Can you see how that doesn't help us understand what you mean?
Quiddity