Fair enough, but I was responding more to an apparent trend to use disambiguations as hatnotes - above article notes which say things like 'this article is about the bar with the fubbly fub, know as foo. For the fub with the bubbly bar, see [[Barfoo]].' etc.
A short 'for other uses, see [[Foo (disambiguation)]] should always suffice, and if there is only one thing to link to, then that should be in a section. It costs an extra click, but spares us article clutter, which I really dislike.
SV --- Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
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
By hatnotes, do you mean the notes at the top of pages that disambiguate? If so, I really see no problem with these, other then sometimes the primary disambiguation is set up stupid. (Imagine band called USA, and someone decided to give them primary disambiguation over the country...). I think a disambiguation section would be much worse. If there's more then one other thing the name could be, and the article has primary disambiguation, and *really* should have it, then there should be a link to the disambiguation on the top of the page.
I happen to like our current disambiguation setup.
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