Template talk:Disambiguation/Archive 3

Suggestion for change of message's wording
I added some text to this message in response to WP:ASR, but it's commented out right now because I don't want to immediately add it and risk it getting removed before the addition was discussed. I'd like it to read:

"If you are viewing this page online as opposed to as a hard copy and an internal link referred you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article."

--  Denelson83  07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably best to discuss any change first when a template is used on something like 40,000 pages (I wonder if it effects the job queue with html comments?). Anyway, bring this up at Disambiguation to garner some attention, it's little quiet here usually.


 * Now, back to business. I don't think the addition is necessary. If you want avoid self-references perhaps remove the whole internal link sentence? I'm also a little unclear of the aim - is this for the tiny proportion of people who print out our disambiguation pages? Or is it for the printed version that we are going to make one day? In the printed version we will simply remove all self references, rather than this "hard copy" mention.--Commander Keane 07:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also don't quite see what this accomplishes. WP:ASR has some specific declarations regards template usage and disambguation: Limited use of self-references are sometimes found in the Template namespace and the Category namespace, such as with disambiguation and stub notices. Also, the commented out text appears to add a small amount of extra space. older ≠ wiser 13:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Image
I suggest a image in the template so the readers easy can se what a disambiguation page is about. I know that this earlier suggestions like this has been bringed up and rejected, but I attempting to make a compromise.

The current template:

''This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.''

Disambiguation template with a image:

''This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.''

--89p 12:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before, I think - the reason for no image is that the template is so heavily transcluded that it would put a strain on the servers. bd2412  T 14:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

''This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.''

The issue of server-straining images has been brought up and dismissed by stub sorters concerned with icons on heavily-transcluded stub templates. Including this image would not really have any significant bandwidth impact - it's only 1050 bytes, and thanks to browser caching, no one is even going to download it more than once. It's a good, simple image, and I think it will help make disambiguation pages more consistent-looking. Requesting that an administrator make this change. ~ Booya Bazooka 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we could have an image. I would personally prefer the colored disambiguation fork [[Image:Disambig.svg|30px]], but I will wait for some more discussion before implementing such a change. Kusma (討論) 11:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also like the colored version and agree that 'server strain' is not an issue. I do worry about making the template bigger though, and would thus suggest using the smallest image size at which the picture is still viable. Perhaps 25px;


 * Here is someone else who favors the colored image. :) -andy 80.129.122.8 06:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

''This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.''
 * If the image 'hangs down' past the bottom of the template it may force indentation of text below the disambig notice (as happens above with Booya's comment at small font settings). --CBD 12:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps adding a min-height value appropriate to the size of the image to the div style would fix that? --80.176.94.69 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe some browsers don't support min-height. I think putting it in a table would do the trick, though:


 * And I'm still a fan of the gray, but I could go either way. ~ Booya Bazooka 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer the monochrome version too: less distracting, and totally gets the point across, and the 35-px image is just right. Colour might be okay, but I think it would be better if it was subdued, like the rest of the monobook skin.  A &lt;br clear="all" /> should be all that is needed to keep the image inside the borders:

''This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.''


 * I put in the grey version for now. Can re-evaluate if that brings more people here with opinions on this matter. --CBD 20:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm here to voice my support of the image. It makes identifying a page as a disambiguation page to an experienced user much faster. I know instantly when that image is present that I'm looking at a disambiguation page—no reading required. Nohat 00:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really like the new image, too. Question: is this image meant to be used on the other disambig templates as well? (geodis, hndis, numberdis, roaddis, and schooldis) --Mark Yen 01:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I only question the formatting; the vertical alignment looks funny. What was wrong with the table setup I proposed? ~ Booya Bazooka 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with it. Since there were alot of different ideas I just took the most recent to get the ball rolling / see if other users would show up to dispute the use of an image at all / et cetera. If people prefer a different version, want to put the image on other disambig templates, et cetera... it's all good by me. Just need to work out some sort of consensus and implement it. --CBD 14:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I Like the color one better. It gets across the idea of "disambiguation" better IMO. Many of the other WPs seem to use it... anyone else agree? ... Though I'm not sure if it would be approperate for other disamig templates.... -Aknorals 00:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe colored, but lighter? [[Image:Disambig bordered fade.svg|35px]] ~ Booya Bazooka 03:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Another vote of support for the new grey image, I think it looks great. --SevereTireDamage 05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Aknorals, I don't see how the coloured one gets the idea across better, as long as the grey tones have enough contrast to distinguish the alternate arrow—perhaps that needs to be improved. All that adding colour accomplishes is to needlessly catch the eye from way across the page.  —Michael Z. 2006-08-14 06:44 Z 
 * At my resolution, I can't even see that the darer grey one is even an arrow. =P For the record, I just saw the ligher one, and actually it looks nicer than the other options (and is more clear, sense it's outlined). -Aknorals 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the contrast in the monochrome template should be increased, by darkening the darker arrow. —Michael Z. 2006-08-14 13:17 Z 

Whatever image/style we decide on, Disambiguation pages with links/Userbox and other 'disambig image' uses should probably be set to match. Overall it seems like the grey has the most support currently. --CBD 12:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hrm, try asking the people who work on disambiguation link repair what they like... they should probably have their say =P -Aknorals 12:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation link
As this page is a disambiguation page could the disambiguation link be to Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) instead of Disambiguation. Rex the first talk 12:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the Editprotected. That change seems a little controversial, you need to have a discussion to see what the consensus is.--Commander Keane 15:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I get some discussion on it then! Rex the first talk 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) more or less refers to styling the page and is more aimed at editors of Wikipedia. The template gets viewed by all viewers and there are many people who aren't aware of the concept of disambiguation. Disambiguation deals more with the concept rather than the style and is more suided to all users. Harryboyles 13:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Page-specific disambiguation?
After reading an article about kudzu, it occurred to me that a disambiguation along these lines could help some readers:

"This article is about the kudzu plant. To read about the comic strip of the same name, see Kudzu (comic strip)."

Does a template already exist for page-specific disambiguations, or do they need to be added manually? Please let me know; I couldn't find the information in the editing help manual. ISNorden 23:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Try . (…No, I don't like its name, either.)
 * Keep in mind: Wiki etiquette dictates that it's better to link directly to a disambiguation page than to "play favorites" with a specific alternate article link. — Down10 TACO 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems as if I should create a disambig page from scratch and rename the plant article accordingly. Is that the suggestion you had in mind, and will I need to correct individual links to "Kudzu" after this change?  The "What links here" list is very, very long for that page...

--Ingeborg S. Nordén 15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the plant kudzu is very likely the primary meaning for the term. I think the suggestion was to create Kudzu (disambiguation) containing links to all the alternate uses of the term and then add a not to the top of the kudzu article saying For other uses, see Kudzu (disambiguation). This is the typical course where there are multiple alternate meanings. However, if there is only the plant and the comic strip, then you can use to add a different note to the top of Kudzu. for example something like this:
 * would add the following note:
 * older ≠ wiser 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The plant and the comic strip are indeed the only uses, as far as I know. I'll go ahead with the {{ edit, since it uses the least space and won't disrupt links.  --Ingeborg S. Nordén 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The plant and the comic strip are indeed the only uses, as far as I know. I'll go ahead with the {{ edit, since it uses the least space and won't disrupt links.  --Ingeborg S. Nordén 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Eu InterWiki
Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Txantiloi:Argipen. Thanks.--Berria 21:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done.--Commander Keane 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Lines
I'm trying to convert this for another wiki. How were the lines at the top and the bottom created? --Liface 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Using the CSS class id="disambig". At MediaWiki:Common.css you can see

border-top: 3px double #cccccc; border-bottom: 3px double #cccccc; }
 * 1) disambig {
 * That's how it is done :-) --Commander Keane 01:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The new image
I disagree with the newly added image added to the disambig (see left). While images are suggestive, I believe it it is distracting, and we would be better off with a text-only note. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the image. Having an unobtrustive icon is just good user interface design. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the image too. I have long wondered why English was the only large Wikipedia project whose disambig template didn't have this image on it. (We're still the only ones to have it in black-and-white instead of color.) User:Angr 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right. The German one also has the colored one, and I'm happy we're still sticking to it! :P The grey one looks so ugly and technical. This is an encyclopedia, no dissertation (*yawn*).-andy 80.129.122.8 06:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

kn Interwiki
Please include the interwiki to Kannada language articke, kn:Template:ದ್ವಂದ್ವ ನಿವಾರಣೆ Thanks. - KNM Talk - Contribs 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. — Mets 501 (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Image alignment
I suggested this earlier, but I think it got ignored amongst the discussion of whether to include an image. The vertical positioning of our new icon is bugging me, and I'd like to propose this change to make it line up with the text:

~ Booya Bazooka 04:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. -b 05:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Kusma (討論) 11:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia
Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is: sr:Шаблон:Вишезначна одредница Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 11:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Kusma (討論) 11:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again. --Branislav Jovanovic 06:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link for Romani Wikipedia
Please add also the interwiki link for Romani Wikipedia: rmy:Sikavno:Dudalipen Desiphral-देसीफ्राल talk-फेन मा  10:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. --Fang Aili talk 15:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Some disambiguation pages have no image at all!
Example: Plant. Don't you guys think we should use EITHER version of the trident symbol for these better than none at all? Currently all those articles (and there are 100,000s of them!) look as if there is something missing. :/ -andy 80.129.122.8 06:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your qualm; Plant is not a disambig page. Perhaps you are confusing disambig with dablink? ~ Booya Bazooka 06:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Change Background colour of table
Currently the code of the template is: This means that, because I've customised my monobook skin, the table is white all the time. Can we add the code: style="background:none" so that it is: and the table is transparent. Harryboyles 06:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done --  Netsnipe  ►  16:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Improving template code
Please see MediaWiki talk:Common.css for a suggestion as to how this template can be improved. —Michael Z. 2006-11-06 22:03 Z 

Interwiki for bs wiki
Please add the following code for bosnian interwiki: bs:Šablon:Čvor Thanks, --Emx 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep it simple!



 * Done. —Centrx→talk &bull; 14:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatting text size
Since most users won't be concerned with the following text: If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. perhaps it could be inset in tags. Maybe even (but probably not)  tags, to make it even less noticeable. A skilled editor will still see it, and respond as intended - Jack (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a user-written encyclopedia. People should be encouraged wherever possible to help out, and this is a relatively simple thing for any inexperienced reader to do. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Internal link text
Should there be a version of this template without the "If an internal link led you here..." text? Is it likely than an internal link will lead you to Article (disambiguation)? I can see that it's quite necessary if the dab page is at Article, but if it has the "(disambiguation)" in the name, I'm not sure it's needed. (Or is that for cases where, maybe, the page has been moved from Article to Article (disambiguation)? - Cafemusique 14:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is possible that there could be a redirect to the disambiguation page, but regardless it might be better just have a uniform, simple one template. The text could also be changed to something like "if a link within an article led you here" or "if an article link led you here", which would be more accurate but might take up more space and push the text onto the next line. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledge Automatic Categorization
I don't know if this has been suggested before, but it could be useful to add a message about the automatic categorization that occurs when adding disambig. Category:Disambiguation reads, "Do not include this category manually in articles; the disambig template automatically does this," but I think it's advisable to list it both places in order to warn anyone that shows up here directly.

Just my twopence. PaladinWhite 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * editprotected. I did this; you could have done it, since the doc subpage is not protected. CMummert · talk 11:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatlinkshere on main namespace only
sudo

It is now possible to filter Special:Whatlinkshere by namespace. The "If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article" sentence is really only referring to links in the article namespace – these are the only ones that should be changed to bypass disambiguation pages. It might therefore be a good idea to link to Special:Whatlinkshere filtered to show only the main namespace. Replacing  with   and changing   to   would achieve this. Thanks – Gurch 15:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * done. CMummert · talk 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The size of the table of the template
Minimize the width of the table because is bigger than 100%. (Puntori 07:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Template for top of the page
What is the disambig. template that goes on the top of the page? - Sox 207  19:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean hatnotes, there isn't just one. Otheruses4 appears to be the most versatile. Though for those (like myself) who can't keep what all the parameters mean straight, there is dablink.

Link to search results on disambig pages
See my proposal at Village pump (proposals). — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 18:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin action requested
Per the following discussion at WP:VPR, please change the wording of the Disambig template:
 * {| class=wikitable


 * When a disambiguation page exists, it may prevent some users (novice ones especially) from finding other relevant pages that show up in the search results for that term. For example, the disambig page Beds lists two items and a link to Bed (disambiguation). If you search for Beds, however, you get 23,000 results, at least some of which are probably of interest to someone who types Beds into the search box and hits Enter or clicks Go.
 * When a disambiguation page exists, it may prevent some users (novice ones especially) from finding other relevant pages that show up in the search results for that term. For example, the disambig page Beds lists two items and a link to Bed (disambiguation). If you search for Beds, however, you get 23,000 results, at least some of which are probably of interest to someone who types Beds into the search box and hits Enter or clicks Go.

The current Disambig template is worded like this:
 * This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Between those two sentences, I propose that we add:
 * You may also search for Beds in the full text of all articles.

I'm not sure on the most succinct way to word this. Any other thoughts? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My only suggestion would be to make it
 * You may also search for Beds in the full text of all articles.
 * So as to look better. Other than that, I agree.-Ljlego 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes perfect sense to me too. -- OES 23 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Any opposition to this change? If there is none within a week, could an admin please make the change? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 19:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very sensible! Approve--Tallard 08:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no... First of all the problem to solve (in my understanding) is that user enters Beds into search box and intuitively clicks  expecting a Good Thing to happen. Ups, it is not happening! The root cause is not the broken disambiguation pages, but the   button acting not so intuitively.
 * Your solution will only help a little, because reader remembers he/she have already searched for Beds, why to search again then? I think this hint should be displayed, but not hidden somewhere inside the disambig. It should be displayed as a separate line on any page, but only as a result of Go-search user action. --Kubanczyk 08:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * }
 * Well, User:Kubanczyk seems to have opposed to some extent. I'll ask them to comment here, and I'll also delay a bit in case anyone has any issues with the exact wording, or someone else wants another change to this template. (Changing a widely used template like this one is heavy on the servers, and it helps a lot if changes are got right first time.) --ais523 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How does apply in regards to Avoid self references? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per my comment above. Problem is surely well defined and important. But this change would only increase the overall visual "confusion" level. Lesser evil is to leave disambig as is. I guess my alternative idea requires changes to wiki code behind  button, hence it's off-topic here. --Kubanczyk 14:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:X mark.svg|px]] N Not done - Including my personal opposition to this change (not helpful for the vast majority of pages, ugly, conflicts with "Go function", et cetera), I don't think there's enough of a consensus to make this change at this time. Nihiltres ( t .l ) 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

make more ambiguous :)
Could the phrasing of the disambig template be made more ambiguous? Specifically,
 * ... lists articles associated with the same title.

to something that would be flexible enough to allow something other than "the same title." Perhaps...
 * ... lists articles associated with .

which yields ... lists articles associated with SUBJECT if subject=SUBJECT is specified. If not specified, the template displays the old message.

It could be perhaps be even more flexible (and might so also discourage the proliferation of disambig-style templates) with something like: (NB: I haven't tried this, I'm just thinking out loud)
 * ... lists articles associated with

So, for example:
 * Numberdis could be ;
 * which would read ... lists articles associated with the same number.


 * Geodis could be ;
 * which would read ... lists geography-related articles associated with the same toponym.

and ... (what my initial object was):
 * de generis "name" could be ;
 * which would read ... lists articles associated with foo.
 * note that "with the same" doesn't appear because the argument for subject= is wikified (not plain).

Does that make sense? Is that do-able? -- Fullstop 23:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation pages list articles associated with the same title, not the topic or subject that would be named in the parameter. So, I think adding this parameter would enable and encourage incorrect usage. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, the current text is not adequate in many cases. For example, Stokes equation links to two articles, neither of which has "Stokes equation" in the title (and once the subsequent redirects are followed, not even "Stokes" or "equation" exactly). The current text could be regarded as incorrect for all disambiguation pages other than those called "x (disambiguation)" that link solely to articles of the form "x (other)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.223.66 (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected template
Please add  . Thanks. Rocket000 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture...
editprotected Should have alt text. I would recommend something simple, like "disambig" or the like. The same applies to all the other disambig templates. Thanks... l' aqúatique    talk to me   18:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please specify the code to be added, to help out the admins who are poor on markup ... Sandstein (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Like this: [[Image:Disambig gray.svg|30px|Disambiguation Notice]] . Thanks!  l' aqúatique     talk to me   23:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done for this template, the others would need someone with WP:AWB (see WP:BOTREQ). Please consider reducing the code size of your signature, as it is disruptively long. Sandstein (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Signature fixed. Sorry, I was unaware that it was causing troubles. Thanks,  L'Aquatique    talk  20:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the alt text be nothing, "", because the picture itself is just a superificial design that does not contain any actual content? —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that leaving it blank would still cause a screen reader to read the image name. However, I don't know what the result of using quotation marks would be... I'd read this for more info on this subject. l'Aquatique   talk  03:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I only noticed this just now when the edit was made. is appropriate for an interface image which doesn't represent any text. This is recommended in, e.g., the WCAG Samurai Errata: “You can leave a text equivalent blank – e.g., null alt text, alt="" (no space inside quotes) – if the text that immediately surrounds, precedes, or follows the image has the same function as a text equivalent.”

To put it another way, if the folks using visual browsers don't need a label that says “disambiguation notice”, then neither do those using screen readers. —Michael Z. 2008-10-28 05:17 z 

Bug:
There's a bug on this page with the disambiguation tag. Is there anything we can do?   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the error by adding around the . . Overriding it with the page's title solves the problem, so *** is currently using  .  Nihiltres { t .l } 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Message
Suggest the first sentence of this template's message amended to "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same or similar titles." as this seems to be the norm on disambiguation pages. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence in question refers to the title of the disambiguation page, not to the titles of the articles listed therein (which needn't even be similar). —David Levy 04:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see. Thanks. Would changing "same title" to "same name" make no difference / create confusion / possibly be worthwhile? Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Linking from from base name dab to (disambiguation) redirect
It has been suggested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation that this template be modified to include a link to a (disambiguation) redirect on base-name dabs (dab pages whose titles don't end in "(disambiguation)"). This will help popup repairs of link to the dab page that intend to link to the dab page. Something yielding


 * This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Use PAGENAME (disambiguation) for intentional links to this page.

if the page title doesn't end with "(disambiguation)" but still


 * This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

if it does. Would this cause any issues elsewhere? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Combining this with disambig-cleanup
it seems silly to have a wholly separate for adding a single line of text and categorization. Also, not to mention that some tools, like the one here aren't compatible with pages not using.

I propose adding the functionality with something like "|cleanup=yes}}" and inserting the following lines of text:

Note: This page may need to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. See WikiProject Disambiguation for more information. and

We can then rewrite to use this template with the optional parameter, and then have a bot go through and replace all defunct uses. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. PeterSymonds  (talk)  06:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, since there's so little disc on this page i thought it would prolly take too long, and it seemed likely to be uncontroversial, but i'll submit it to RFC in order to ascertain support. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that there are many dab-templates (listed at MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage), I'm not sure if this is particularly necessary for the fixer-program problem you mention? Are there any other problems this change would fix?
 * Side-note: generally you should only use editprotected when you have an exact change all ready to be made. The template attracts random admins, not necessarily admins that are familiar with the page itself. (Your suggestion above requires a lot more work than a simple copy&paste!) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was assuming a passing admin would have some basic knowledge of templates and be able to construct a simple #if funtion. But i understand if they just want something they don't really have to work with.

This code adds the functionality without breaking existing usage. As for the other templates - personally, there are plenty of dab pages out there using this and that i'm not personally worried about not accessing the others. The main point is to decrease redundancy - this example has already encouraged another redundant template at, which hopefully can be merged following a precedent here, the added usability is icing on the cake. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this makes the regular disambig template more complicated, with not much benefit.
 * Personally, I find it easier to type "-cleanup" than "|cleanup=yes", plus that's what everyone is used to doing. So, unless there is a big problem that this is the solution to, I'd still have to disagree with this merge/change. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)