Category talk:Political party disambiguation pages

Naming
It seems to me this category should be called "Political parties by generic name"Bensaccount 01:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It includes exclusively lists, which why I called it "Lists of". Currently it doesn't include articles on specific parties with generic names. -- User:Docu
 * I would be rude if i failed to note (before asking my question below) that Docu's much more recent step of making Category:Lists of political parties by generic name a sub-cat of Category:Disambiguation follows logically from what is discussed above. (While it offers much less impact than the cases i discuss below, it is closely related.) As lists falling short of articles, these do offer some value beyond navigation, but need no further justification than dab-nav, and can be expected to share the traditional properties (notably usually being near-orphans and usually moving back toward orphanhood) of typical dabs.
 * --Jerzy·t 03:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Templates
I propose to make this talk page's cat a prototype for other dab sub-cats, of which i have two cases in mind:
 * Category:Lists of people sharing a name
 * Category:Lists of geographic entities sharing a name

(The vagueness of "entity" is intentional, embracing everything from neighborhoods to empires, not to mention continents, islands, mountains, valleys, rivers, and i suppose streets and more. I think it's far easier to be that broad than to draw any sensible narrower line.)

This page's cat is useful mainly to those with an interest in parties, and the two i mention will similarly be useful to those with the corresponding interests. But in addition, if my glance at fairly typical dabs is representative, these two will embrace many tenths of the list of Dabs, and offer the usual uncluttering affect of sub-cats. Or rather, use of these subcats will reduce the dab cat's size provided Which brings me to my point: no one (or at least nearly no one) enters an invocation of the dab cat, but instead we invoke the Template:Disambig, which includes the Cat invocation in its text.
 * they are widely used, and
 * the usual practice of forgoing the redundant parent of the subcat is applied.

We now have what might be called sub-cat stubs, whose various visible texts are nearly identical and differ in large part by the Cat that they go hand in hand with.

I propose that at least the party cat and the two i mention have their own templates, that assign the sub-cat and omit the redundant parent. E.g. (emphasis added for purpose of demonstration on this page):

If there is no objection on this talk page, i will set up such a template, (including this talk page's cat), and put it in place of in the 80 such party dabs. The discussion resulting and experience gained should be valuable if we proceed to scale this idea up from this first case to the other two i've mentioned.

I also note, at the last minute, that Template talk:Disambig proposes something less specific but related. --Jerzy·t 03:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd keep the articles in Category:Disambiguation through the standard template and just add this specific category where applicable. It's much easier if all disambiguation pages are in Category:Disambiguation rather than somewhere else. If you think a customized template is needed, you could just add both categories on the template. -- User:Docu

Either meets my currently foreseeable needs, so i'm more than happy to defer to yr probably better insight. But mostly for the sake of my overall Wiki-saavy (and the general "parent Cats are redundant" principle aside), why wouldn't you prefer having both Category:Disambiguation and Category:Unclassified disambiguation in the std Template:disambig, which would give users the choice (as to what Cat to look at) between the existing omnibus dab Cat and one equivalent to the all-but-people-and-places one (which i initially proposed above to convert it to)? --Jerzy·t 17:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Oh, careless me: i didn't notice until now that you don't like the separate template, which makes it less work to use, hopefully better encourages its use by others than we two, and makes it far easier to clean up (re-write the new templates to match the existing one, rather than edit each article using them). Why not? --Jerzy·t 17:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's try the suggested solution with specific templates. If we all start them with Template:Disambig.. it might be easier to track them. We could start with something like Template:Disambig_(party _name).
 * If we agree on a format, I can have my bot do the template replacement.
 * A detailed analysis might prove me wrong, but I assume that most pages in Category:Disambiguation would remain in Category:Unclassified disambiguation. Thus the advantage of having all of them in category disambiguation. Parties and personal names (both with more than one word in the page name) are clear groups, but geographic names are likely to be found together with other meanings. -- User:Docu


 * BTW there already is . -- User:Docu

"Experience Party"
I'm seeking information on the "Experience Party". 69.205.166.241 06:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dab page style
Many pages in this category, for instance larger pages like Liberal Democratic Party and Freedom Party, have a style which contradicts the MOS:DABENTRIES as far as I can tell. Some issues are listing the country name first (most dab pages list the article name first and then the context or description), needless linking of country names, and hiding the full (clarified) article names behind pipes. Perhaps the pages, and/or the MoS, should be changed. Vadmium (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC).