On 9/13/05, Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com> wrote: If we are talking about an AfD discussion that goes on over multiple pages, then it is, I guess, OK to break it up a little. This should be done by an uninvolved user, preferably an admin with a mind to closing the debate themselves. But this was hardly necessary in this instance. Sam

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

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: __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com