Talk:VGA (disambiguation)

edits that did not conform to MOSDAB
Please see MOSDAB: I reverted your edits due to these multiple errors to the last version that conforms. Widefox ; talk 23:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "an acronym, initialism or alphabetism, links should not use redirects to conceal the expanded version of that initialism."
 * 2) " For description sections, redirects or piped links may be used; follow the normal Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Piped link guidelines." piping is correct / section link without redirect at start of line is not correct
 * 3) section headers are not incorrect - either is OK
 * 4) Not bolding the term also incorrect
 * Hi. Thanks for my talk page notice. Please allow me to number your items, so we can discuss them at ease. Here it is:
 * You are right. I see this in the MOS now. I have been looking under "At the top of the page" section earlier. Sorry.
 * Alright, let's see. MOS:DAB says:"Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages"I think you are referring to this exception:"When the link is part of the description, rather than the actual entry name, piping can be used more freely. However, the text of the link should still be very similar to the title of the target article, to avoid confusing the reader. [...]"So, I am afraid I think at least 640x480 must also be part of the link.
 * Alright, let's see:"On longer lists, section headings should be used instead of, or in addition to, bold headings."Well, this list isn't long.
 * Oh, sorry. My mistake. I forgot.
 * As for what you said in my talk page, well no, I actually didn't mind your revert. But recently, I have noticed something: When someone reverts me, I always discuss in his talk page while when I revert someone, regardless of whether I start a discussion or not, he or she reverts me again. I am starting to feel a little bad about this. WP:BRD says there is no second R before D but somehow people don't give it some consideration. To tell the truth I don't know why it has been bothering me recently.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for the full reply,
 * 2. seems you're interpreting "title of the target article" differently - you're including the section header/anchor part of the link which isn't part of the title - 640x480 is not included in the article title...in fact..the visible text "graphics display resolution" and title Graphics display resolution match 100%. MOSDAB does cover 2. in several points, but without going into more details...2. is moot - before seeing your reply I created a redirect - as I prefer to link subject rather than the description - and this is the most correct approach per WP:DABREDIR.
 * 3. If the list isn't long, then the whole MOSDAB section you are quoting from "Organizing long lists by subject" does not apply! If it is a long list, then either is OK. Saying that, there is a tendency for some DAB editors to use bolding for shorter "long" lists which has the benefit of keeping the page short, but I don't do that, as I consider headings more clear and a single style easier for navigation, as well as having the bonus of accessibility (ie screen readers for the blind etc).
 * As for reverting, I understand what you're saying, it really isn't easy for either side. Widefox ; talk 02:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * Judging from what I read in MOS:DAB, I think we have short lists, which don't get organized, long lists which get organized but not using headings and longer lists which get organized using headings. This DAB pages is the second kind. As for the pipe, have it your way. My philosophy is taking it easy. I said my opinion but I am not going to make a fuss over it; at least not now. See you around.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point to where in MOSDAB the short lists are defined


 * The pipe isn't my way, it's exactly WP:DABREDIR, wouldn't you agree?


 * Hope I've helped in some way, Widefox ; talk 11:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"VGA (dis)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VGA_(dis)&redirect=no VGA (dis)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)