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@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@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@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@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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@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. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/