I recently moved Python (Disambiguation) to Python, which was previously the redirect to said page, out of simplicity's sake. There are 6 other pages with such a title; would it be all right if I changed these over as well? Spaz Kitty 23:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Be careful that you don't overwrite a page if there is already a good article there. Also, should we consider a policy about where to apply disambig pages (whole pages of pointers) versus disambig text (pointers within an article)? -- Siege(talk) 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I see we now have a few Name (disambiguation) items. My understanding is that the idea is for a link to an imprecise term to go to the disambiguation page--so all disambiguation pages should be located a Name. Y/N? -- Sine 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes though a term has a common meaning. Wolf for example. 99% of people linking to wolf are talking about the species. However, there's that offchance that they may be referring to something else. So Wolf gets a page about wolves since that is the likely topic, but a disclaimer goes on top that if you're looking for something else, here's a link to a disambig page so you can find what you're looking for. Wikipedia does it all the time.--Kendricks Redtail 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Copying talk previously at Talk:Clydesdale
The disambiguation page also needs a official layout. I have seen:
- "XXX may refer to:"
- "XXX could refer to:"
- "XXX may be:"
- "Are looking for?:"
- "Could XXX be?:"
Just FYI - Spirou 17:44, 3 January 2012 (EST)
- I think I usually opt for "could refer to". Anyone who wants a task can survey which is most frequently used and declare that the official layout, I suppose.--Higgs Raccoon 17:47, 3 January 2012 (EST)
- Wikipedia appear to prefer XXX may refer to, if that sets a precidence.--Higgs Raccoon 17:55, 3 January 2012 (EST)
OK, "XXX could refer to:" seems to be becoming the standard. Before we go through and standardise all the disambig pages, I have another question. On a disambig page, when we have a list of possible people (or whatever), do we only wikilink to the articles suggested, as in:
Chinook could refer to:
or do we also wikify the incidental words, as in:
Chinook could refer to:
(Looking at the disambig pages, both forms seem to be used.)--Higgs Raccoon 07:40, 4 January 2012 (EST)
- I'd think only link the articles, but I don't have strong opinions on the matter. -- Sine 14:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)
- I'd have agreed (to linking only the suggested articles), but Spirou seems to have other plans so I guess we'll be wikifying all the words.--Higgs Raccoon 04:38, 6 January 2012 (EST)
Linking, (?) and others
So far we are going with:
"XXX could refer to:"
But there have been a few other formatting items probing up:
- As discussed above, do we link others words? (most of the articles have a majority of pertinent words linked, but it can be undone).
- Do we add bolding to the main link? Fox vs Fox? (the norm seems the be the first one).
- Punctuation (.): 50/50 on the paragraphs' end. We go with or without?.
The more editor/colleagues adding their input, the faster I can restart - Spirou 17:10, 6 January 2012 (EST)
- I'd opt for bolding the main link, and not putting a "?" on the end. I don't have any real opinion on the "." at the end of each paragraph.--Higgs Raccoon 01:02, 7 January 2012 (EST)