Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Wahoofive

Although the disclaimer on the page says it's not intended to change policy, I've made the following changes: &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 04:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Deprecated the multiple-stub type page
 * Put a disclaimer on the Fraction option
 * Assumed that the Michael controversy was going to result in a consensus to put the list of first-name Michaels on a separate page (of course, if that reaches some other solution I'll change it here. I'm hoping that will get resolved before this page has been entirely discussed.)
 * Put a disclaimer on the Horse (heroin) example.

Unresolved issues
I dunno if the wikipedia page on Disambiguation should be mentioning that a proposal is still forming a consensus. Part of this rewrite will require forming that consensus. Put it in as a statement of "this is how it is" and the standard "of course, do whatever you want" that wikipedia shoves everywhere.

BTW, I think the best way to roll out this proposal is to replace the current Wikipedia:Disambiguation page entirely, then revert. Then HTML link to the diff page so people can see the damage you're proposing to make. Easier to see the differences than read the whole thing all over, but I think it'll result in a lot of nit-picking arguments. Josh Parris &#9993; 05:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what your first sentence is referring to. Can you be more specific?
 * The revert technique is an interesting idea. I suspect, however, that virtually all the page will end up showing as changed, since I've rearranged a lot of it, even when I've kept the original text. I'll try it in the Sandbox. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 17:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ...the Michael controversy... which then lead to a note to that effect in the guideline. Josh Parris &#9993; 03:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Always have a (disambiguation) page
How about:
 * Always have a (disambiguation) page - to faciliate the separation between Ambiguous Pages and Disambiguation Pages. The (disambiguation) page may redirect to the topic page, but make sure there's two pages.

Josh Parris &#9993; 00:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This would be a policy change. Why not put this on the main Disambig talk? I'm trying to minimize the policy changes implemented in this rewrite. Also, I've avoided your "ambiguous page" term because it's the title that's ambiguous, not the page. I'm using the phrases disambiguation links and disambiguation pages, although there may be better terms. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 17:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TLAs
TLAs have their own dab notice, such as at ISP - this was recently changed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_14#Category:TLAs Josh Parris &#9993; 06:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation vs Style
Perhaps the Disambiguation page should now concentrate on the structure of disambiguation, and all the appearance of a disambiguated page should be on the Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) page. Josh Parris &#9993; 06:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I was trying to strike a balance by providing highlights, but if others agree with you, we can certainly dump them. Remember that disambiguation links aren't treated on that MOS page.&mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 06:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reckon highlights are fine. And we've got to think about where to put style information. Josh Parris &#9993; 06:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it should state explictly on the page that that's what the page is about? Josh Parris &#9993; 05:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

section "CSS"
Perhaps the section "CSS" should be renamed or even merged into another section? I think "CSS" is a rather inappropriate title for the message that section is (or should be) trying to say. Neonumbers 11:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right; it should go. A reference to the category should go on the MOS page. The link is pretty useless since that page is almost exclusively about stubs.&mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 15:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yoinked. Josh Parris &#9993; 05:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyone noticed....
The contents of special:whatlinkshere/Mercury? How embarrassing. Josh Parris &#9993; 05:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not anymore.&mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It'd be great if there was somewhere we could record all the dab pages that had been disambiguated. Like a wikiproject subpage or somesuch. Then there'd be some awareness as to what was finished and needed monitoring, and what was yet to be done. Josh Parris &#9993; 00:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Voil&agrave;: Disambiguation pages with links&mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 04:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking Disambiguation pages maintenance. Except, I suppose the struck-out entries could be monitored. Josh Parris &#9993; 05:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm about to be bold
Look out, I'm moving to change the Disambiguation page with this. Josh Parris &#9993; 01:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I was planning to, but I've been out of town (and out of internet contact) for several weeks. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)