Talk:Diabetes (disambiguation)

Style problems
It seems that some users consider a good approach to avoid a reference to Diabetes Insipidus in the introduction. The main arguments they propose is that a short introduction is good and that it is needed by the wikipedia policies about the principal item.

The second argument is not correct. Or at least I have not found any policy there that prevents to stablish the disambiguation in the introduction. Instead, the Manual of style, in the section about disambiguation pages, states : "The term being disambiguated should be in bold (not italics). It should begin a sentence fragment ending with a colon, introducing a bulleted list (here comes an example removed) ... Where several variants of a term are being disambiguated together"

Anyway, except in the case that anybody finds a document stating that disambiguation in the introduction is clearly against wikipedia rules, I think that it should be stated there.

I agree that disambiguation pages should be kept as terse and concise as possible, but they should not avoid the disambiguation!!! I think that is obvious!!!

Just check again the Manual of style (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Introductory_line)

And to have disambiguations in the intro does not contradict any policy about the primary topic issue. --Juansempere (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, Juansempere, I did check the MOS, and it specifically states:


 * The above specifically states that nothing in the TOP sentence should also be "mixed in with the other links". Placing DI in the lead is confusing to readers, because it makes it seem that there are two "primary topics" (which is impossible since there can be only one primary topic), as well as the fact that the link to "Diabetes Insipidus" is also "mixed in with the other links", which according to the above, it should not be.


 * As for the introductory line that begins with the title in bold and ends with a colon, this page did not have one previously, but it does now.  If you are still unhappy with the status quo condition, then please leave the page as it is and choose the next step in dispute resolution. – Paine  16:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I really think there is no need to go for the next step in conflict resolution because the last link you gave me has a very clear example about how to apply the rule:

Linking to a primary topic
Since it is unlikely that this primary topic is what readers are looking for if they have reached the disambiguation page, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended that the link back to the primary topic appear at the top, in a brief explanatory sentence. For instance:


 * {| style="border: 1px solid black" width=80%

A school is an institution for learning.

School may also refer to:
 * School of thought, a number of individuals with shared styles, approaches or aims
 * School (fish), a group of fish swimming in the same direction in a coordinated manner
 * }
 * }

As you can see in the example, they keep a brief explanatory sentence in the first line, but do not avoid to put several links to the distinct meanings, without moving them to sections.

Tell me if you agree with this interpretation, so that we can avoid moving further in the conflict resolution process.

Regards, --Juansempere (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I agree that the primary topic goes at the TOP followed by the intro line and then by links to disambiguate the page title. The example shown is a much simpler one, and this page actually used to be that simple.  Then editors added more links that needed disambiguation thereby improving the page.  At some point, one contributor took the time to organize all those links into sections, so this complicated page became what it is today – an organized, sectioned dab page with the primary topic briefly described at the TOP and other dab links given below in organized sections.  None of this changes the fact that only the primary topic should be in the lead followed by an intro line with the page title in bold that ends with a colon, such as "Diabetes may refer to:".  That intro also was in the article at one time, but somebody removed it in error.  It has again been included just after the brief lead sentence that links to the primary topic.  You'll notice that the link in that first sentence is not mixed in with the other links as we are guided by the Manual of Style. – Paine  18:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I did just have a thought you might like: It is usually customary to alphabetize topics, both those in links and those in headers.  I believe that some editors would probably like to see the various links to DM-related subjects come first on the page; however, the "I" in "Insipidus" comes before the "M" in "Mellitus", so perhaps we can at least try to place that section first and see if it is challenged.  I'll go ahead and do that, and hopefully that will be something you can live with? – Paine  19:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. I like this. My concern was that some patient diagnosed with a rare case diabetes reaching the disambiguation could miss the link, and leave the page thinking that her problem is related to sugar metabolism.--Juansempere (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad to see that it works for you, Juansempere. Hopefully, we aren't the only ones who like it, and it will not be changed back. Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine  19:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead vs. individual entries
our choices are clear – first, we must stop this useless edit war before we both get blocked from editing – second, you need to realize that your change in the lead of this page is neither policy- nor guideline-based, which means that redirects are not allowed in individual entries and are allowed in the lead. Your edit proves that perhaps the "help pages" are not clear enough if you continue to think that redirects are not allowed in the lead. The redirect is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC redirect for this page and should be used as it has been used for a long time. If you disagree with any of this, that's okay; however, you need to self-revert to status quo while we discuss it. If you would like to get an objective third opinion, then that is also an option. The main thing is to stop this useless edit war and bring this issue to this discussion page. Temporal Sunshine  Paine  04:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

See also section
think you're supposed to discuss this before you re-revert an edit; however, what's done is done. Including those deleted entries does not go against any policy or guideline. They were not there because they are ambiguous nor because readers might be looking specifically for them. They were there because they might interest readers in subjects that are related to diabetes. They definitely should not be "trimmed" out of the page. Please self-revert.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not the purpose of the Diabetes (disambiguation) section. That's the purpose of the Diabetes section. And arguably no see also section belong here, save perhaps for lists of pages with 'Diabetes' in the title. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You make it sound as if all that is in the guideline, but it's not. Those items belong on this page in its See also section. Since we appear to be at an impasse, I'll seek a third opinion.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  08:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this discussion has been entered at WP:3O.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  08:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, thanks. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pleasure!  Paine 

3O Response: I wouldn't normally want those see alsos on a dab page. DAB see alsos are usually alternative spellings, forms, commonly confused words, or search links (MOS:DABSEEALSO). However, this dab page has grown into something else... a broad concept article or a set index article, I'm not sure. I think they are useful and fit for what the article is (which is not a simple dab page). There's some discussion going on at Articles for deletion/Diabetes (disambiguation) about what the article is and how it should possibly be retitled. A move discussion may follow. There are already more editors involved, so we'll see what the consensus is. Stay tuned! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * tend to agree that this page has evolved into more of an index of diabetes-related subjects. Thank you very much, Reidgreg, for your opinion and recommendations!  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  14:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest those that want to create a list (e.g. WP:SIA or other) go ahead, but this title here should be cut right down to a normal dab which is solely for navigation per WP:MOSDAB, specifically WP:PTM - only entries known as "diabetes" should be listed. I've tagged for cleanup. Widefox ; talk 13:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)