Talk:Danzig (disambiguation)

See also: Talk:Danzig

the best solution?
surely this is a classic case of what disambiguation pages are designed for? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed and decided against. Look at the edit history of changes. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic wording
If I understand correctly, as currently worded we're referring to the word, so use–mention distinction means we should italicise it. Done. This could do with some scrutiny as we must have many similar dabs with alternative titles (different languages, transliterations e.g. there's discussion at Talk:Baykal (disambiguation)) so it may be useful to have one or two style examples (of wording that isn't awkward or grammatically incorrect) to help the others. Widefox ; talk 08:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC) All our base dabs should be italicised... per REFERS (an essay), but none of them are per WP:MOSDAB (style guideline). Widefox ; talk 11:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Use–mention distinction might have some currency in analytic philosophy, but it is without relevance for disambiguation pages, so far as I'm concerned. However, italicization in the case of Danzig seems appropriate because it is a foreign language term (though place names that are widely recognized in English might be exempt from such italicization). older ≠ wiser 12:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I mention it as it's from WP:ITALICS. Concur it covers the foreign too, and neatly is (or should be) directly from the articles. Widefox ; talk 22:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Applicability of use–mention distinction to disambiguation pages is described at WP:REFERS. I don't care too much about isolated italicization of the foreign name of a city. It is worth noting though that after the first mention in the opening sentence, "Danzig" is not italicized elsewhere in the article. older ≠ wiser 22:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the REFERS link, yes, which leads to the elephant in the room .... which is the conclusion I came to from ITALICS / use-mention distinction...
 * "Ambiguous term may refer to:"
 * "Ambiguous term may also refer to:"
 * My opinion is that the use-mention distinction is pedantic and of little benefit or significance for most readers. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that adding italics complicates, without benefit to navigation. The foreign words is useful, maybe a foreign word example. Anyhow, as ITALICS (and REFERS) mentions it, and MOSDAB is silent and opposing, maybe worth heading off any pendants with a mention of it at MOSDAB.
 * I'm thinking especially primary topics where we have full sentences and folk seem to care about wording (maybe because of the counterintuitive nature of the primary topic entry being "hidden at the top"?). Widefox ; talk 19:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)