User:Theoldsparkle/dab

This MOS says, under Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages:"Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary."

I consider this to be a pretty central tenet. An ideal disambiguation page allows the user to quickly find the topic they're seeking. As the text on the page increases, it becomes harder for the user to quickly read and navigate the page in order to find their sought topic. Therefore, disambiguation pages should not include text that does not help the user to find the topic they're seeking. I don't see why any of these three statements should be controversial.

I am definitely aware that opinions can differ on what text is "sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link", and I know that my approach tends to be more minimalist than other editors. For example, if "Foo" is a term used in baseball, and a user goes to the Foo (disambiguation) page looking for the baseball usage, and the disambiguation page includes one entry that looks like "Foo (baseball)" and no other entry that appears to have anything to do with baseball, I think "Foo (baseball)" is sufficient for the user to figure out he wants that link. I know others disagree.

What's leading me to post this entry is a fundamental conflict that I seem to keep re-encountering, even though I can't see how the MOS supports it, and I don't think the MOS should support it. From my understanding, the position of some others is that every entry on a disambiguation page should include a complete definition of the term; e.g., instead of "Foo (baseball)", it would be "Foo (baseball), a baseball strategy in which the shortstop and pitcher waltz together briefly after each strike." To me, the directive that the description should be "just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link" seems quite incompatible with a directive that the description should include a complete definition of the linked topic; it seems like it would turn a disambiguation page from a navigational tool into a list of definitions that also includes links. It also seems like there'd be a lot more text for the user to wade through to find the link they want.

I was prompted to post this by a recent dispute at Ace (disambiguation), in which User:Bkonrad and I disagreed on many (many) entry descriptions. I've posted some representative examples below to show the kinds of descriptions that, to me, seem unnecessary and noncompliant with the MOS. (Please understand I do not mean this as a specific attack on Bkonrad; it was just easier to take a bunch of examples from this one page rather than collect or come up with a list of other examples.) Really, though, I think they all come down to the core issue of whether each entry should have a complete definition of the topic, and, secondarily, whether the MOS should be revised to clarify this point, since it's apparently not clear at the moment. I would very much appreciate community input on this matter.

(Note that for all of these examples, as far as I can tell, there were no other entries on the page likely to be confused with these. Obviously, if there are two similar entries, more description can be necessary in order to distinguish.)

Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)