Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Could we brighten up disambig pages a bit? (Use of image tables)

(NB: This conversation was pieced together, refactored, and moved here from debates at Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals) and Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. I was a bit clueless about the proper place for it. My apologies. --Ashenai 14:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC))

I had a thought for improving disambig pages. How about putting the disambig options into a table including a small image next to each option (where a relevant picture exists)? I created a proof of concept at the disambig page for Roma, please have a look. (In case it's reverted, here's my original version). In my humble opinion, the result is both more useful, and more pleasing to the eye. I believe the specifics of my suggestion could be improved upon considerably, but I do think the core idea has merit. Please do comment and/or improve on my contribution! --Ashenai 12:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

While I certainly appreciate the effort that went into this, I see several problems. First, we only have pictures for a small minority of pages (something I would like to see change, but probably won't happen soon).
Understood, but there are very relevant pictures (icons, if you will) that could be included even for articles which have no good pictures of their own. An icon for {{stub}} would be neat, for instance. Category icons could also be used. And if nothing works, you could just, well, not have a picture for that particular link. :) --Ashenai 13:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Second, it makes it more complicated to edit, and it's already hard enough to keep these pages under control.
Well, I'm definitely not an expert on Wikipedia, but I'm certain things could be set up to generate the table automatically for disambig pages. Assuming the format of a disambig page is stable enough (something that seems to be true most of the time, though sometimes it's not; a very valid concern), this would mean that editing a disambig page would stay just as simple. The added complexity would only come into play if you wanted to add images, and I can envision even that mitigated to some degree; the proposed {{stub}} or category icons could be generated automatically, for instance.
Lastly, there are enough legitimate variations on how dab pages are laid out (especially some of the larger ones which need some level of organization into groups), that I don't see how we could fit them into a strict table format. --RoySmith 13:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't really have a good answer for this just yet; I'll have a look around and see what kinds of variations are usual.
Thanks very much for your input! --Ashenai 13:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe disambig pages are meant to be rarely encountered, so although I think this is a reasonable idea I can't see that it would be worth the effort. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I must confess, I find that surprising. I encounter dab pages several times a day, during my normal Wikipedia browsing. Am I an anomaly in this regard? --Ashenai 14:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem I find with the example here, and I would expect to see in other uses, is that the pictures aren't really representative. If I'm looking for the diety Roma, and I see a picture of a coin, I'm going to think it's about currency and skip right over that one. Same with the picture of a single woman to indicate Roma people. At first, I thought she was a celebrity named Roma. If I've never seeen the A.S. Roma logo, and I'm looking for the football team, the logo alone is so different from my expectations that I would read the other text entries first, before returning to that one. Using pictures actually makes things more confusing compared to just text. -- Norvy (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

An interesting objection, thank you! It does seem, however, like you're objecting to the specific pictures I selected for the Roma disambig page. I'm not claiming that those pictures are a good fit; just that pictures can often be helpful. Perhaps generic, "iconic" pictures would be a better idea; a picture of a soccer ball instead of the A.S. Roma logo, for instance. Similar to the little icons we have for the various stub categories. What's your take on this? --Ashenai 14:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Our general philosophy in this style guide has been that people don't want to look at disambiguation pages; they want to get away from them as quickly as possible. This proposal just makes the pages load more slowly, undermining that goal. Look at the comments above opposing just the single icon in the dab notice. These pages are just indexes, not real articles, so the plain-Jane look is best. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Is it not possible, though, that the very slightly increased load time (the pictures I put up are only 2-3 kilobytes each) is more than made up for by the pictures helping people find their preferred link faster?
In hindsight, the title for this proposal ("brightening up") was probably a bad choice. Making the disambig pages look prettier is definitely not my main goal; it's merely a nice side effect. I'm just looking to make the "disambiguation experience" less painful and faster, if at all possible, and I'm not fully convinced that a spartan text page with nothing for the eye to latch onto is the way to do that. --Ashenai 15:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the pictures really help, but I'm still listening.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, because I'm all out of things to say. :)
In all seriousness: I'm a newbie here. I still believe that the disambig pages could use something "extra" to help people pick out their preferred link, but it's probably about time I deferred to you guys' greater experience. I've stated my case; I trust your competence in considering what to do with it.
A final suggestion: I deliberately chose a low-profile disambig page for my proof of concept. Perhaps an experiment might be useful? How about I select a higher-profile disambig page or two to "brighten up", with a more carefully selected set of pictures? They would be then be seen and used by Wikipedia users "in the wild", so to speak; if any of them care enough to comment on the new look (or edit/revert it), that will, perhaps, tell us more about whether people find them helpful or annoying. Thoughts? --Ashenai 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the stub icons are a good (counter) example. I find most of them more of a distraction than a help. It's really, really, hard to come up with good icons. A good set of icons should be of uniform visual style and be self-explanitory. For the most part, the stub cat icons fail one or both of these criteria. I suspect dab icons would be even worse, because the set is much larger. --RoySmith 15:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you on the stub tags, Roy. I do find it helpful to have an icon, since the stub tag is otherwise easy to lose at the bottom of the page, but all the stubs could have the same icon; I don't really need to know whether it's a music stub or a linguistics stub or whatever, since that's obvious from the article itself. Maybe we should bring this up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub Sorting —Wahoofive (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Wahoo, if you want to follow up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub Sorting, go ahead, but I'm sort of maxed out on my wikitime at the moment --RoySmith 18:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
At the stub sorting project, I see that the guideline Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_the_stub_template already officially discourages icons in the templates. Now what we need is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Icon Removal. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

"refers to"

I have been using "Foo may refer to:" as the opening line of disambiguation pages I edit. I do this because it is a quick and easy way of introducing the dab, and it allows nice flow through the dab (ie: "Foo may refer to: Foo (comics)").

It has been pointed out to me that using "refer to" in unencyclopedic, (take a look at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use of 'refers to'). I agree with that, but dabs are not articles, they are naviagtional aids.

So what do I use? --Commander Keane 16:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I always use "Foo may refer to more than one article:" to make it completely unambiguous what the page is about. Like you've pointed out, these things are navigation aids, not articles, even if they may contain very compact summarizes of the lead of the articles they refer to. I'd say that complaining about the use of any form of "refer to" in a dab page is splitting hairs.
Peter Isotalo 12:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I almost always use a "Foo may refer to:" type of formulation. This has always seemed clear to me. older≠wiser 22:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I find myself using the "Foo may refer to:" formulation if "Foo" is an abbreviation or acronym most often. If "Foo" is a word like "lawn" or "grant", for instance, where there are several parenthetical article titles, then I'm likely to use the "may mean" formulation. In other cases I think I use "refer to" more often with some exceptions. Courtland 00:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Just a further comment--not in any way a critique--Perhaps it is just the types of disambigs that I am likely to come across, but "may refer to" sounds better to me when the disambig involves people or places. To my ear, I would expect the list following "may mean" to be a purely definitional list. I guess I don't think of the names of people or places as defining them. older≠wiser 01:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
"May refer to" is my favorite default, but I find that "is the name of" works well for lists that are solely people or places. — Catherine\talk 17:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Detailed consideration of the leading line guideline

Perhaps we can move this forward so that this turns from a group of comments to a qualified consensus of some kind? I'm prompted to suggest this based on a recent interaction that tells me "don't just let the concerns of some folks fester ... lance the boil!" The brief discussion @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#"refers to" should be included as well.

The guidelines currently call for

  • bolding of the word/phrase/string being disambiguated (this is non-controversial and accepted best practice)
  • the leading line should be a sentence fragment
  • the leading line should end with a colon

Other than these three things, there are no guidelines, only precedent ... which is hotly contested and a source of editorial friction. The question is what guideline can be put in place that will reduce friction on this matter? Also, there does not appear to be a guideline that distinguishes between "word/phrase" and "word/phrase (disambiguation)" titled pages, but some precedent for an additional line before the leading line in the latter case. Further, there is no consideration for multiple forms (captialization variants or non-Roman character variants) in the "leading line space", which we could refer to as the "DAB header" for convenience (unless there's already an established term for this).

What I propose is that a dab page anatomical term be introduced ... DAB header ... that includes

  1. leading line
  2. primary link (for pages with titles of the form "word/phrase (disambiguation)")
  3. variants listing (for pages that include consideration of variants on "word/phrase")
  4. parts of speech addressed

Now here's the really weird part of my suggestion ... let's take a lesson from Wiktionary. There are two reasons for this: a) there is a well structured header precedent in Wiktionary and b) using such a guide would allow us to further distance dab pages from regular articles, as there is considerable confusion about the relationship between the two types of entries in Wikipedia.

To illustrate my suggested, granted major, change, consider Sunbeam, which spurred me to write all this. Present form has it as: 

Things commonly known as Sunbeam or as a sunbeam include:

This is perfectly fine according to the current guidelines, but is not fine according to precedent ... which is OK. The "wiktionaried" version would look like this (perhaps): 

Sunbeam
parts of speech: noun; proper noun
variants included: Sunbeam, sunbeam

Now before reaching for the Malox or your blood pressure medication, consider the things this can help solve. First, we remove natural language variation from a header whose very existence has been prone to discussion let alone its format. Second, we drop the variants right up front so a person looking for navigation assistance knows whether or not what they are looking for might be here (a definite plus). Third, it definitely distances dab pages from articles in format. Fourth, it provides an index to incoming redirects that facilitate splits and mergers as needed.

Consider a more complicated example, such as Bee (disambiguation), the present leading line being "Bee may refer to:"; the "wiktionaried" version would look like this: 

Bee
primary usage: Bee, an insect
parts of speech: noun, proper noun, surname, abbreviation
variants included: bee, Bee, BEE, Bees

Another example, consider AA: 

AA
parts of speech: abbreviation, proper noun
variants included: AA, Aa, aa, aA, A∴A∴, 'A'a

I don't have any illusions that this suggested guideline will replace the current guideline. Rather, I'm providing food for thought that might go toward an evolutionary step in the guideline toward something that is more structured and more flexible and less prone to create friction among editors owing to stylistic differences ... it's good to divorce style from content when possible, in my opinion, when trying to discuss what requirements each should meet.

Regards, Courtland 21:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is worthy of consideration, although I'm generally suspicious of proposals which don't correspond to any existing pages. Where we part company, though, is the "parts of speech" line. All articles in WP are nouns. Sure, some are proper nouns and some are abbreviations, but I think we're departing too far from WP's purpose to identify "parts of speech". Let's find another way to separate abbreviations. I don't think it's necessary to break out proper and common nouns in a "dab header", although they can certainly be separated in the list of items. However, the list of variants and the "primary usage" have some potential. We wrestled with the "primary usage" situation extensively when this guide was first created, and I don't think anyone's really satisfied with the result. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Piping and title technical limitations

A discussion has ensued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Please_respect_naming_conventions_and_the_Manual_of_Style regarding piping of links on disambiguation pages and the text style properly used for ship names. I would like to add an "exceptions" list to the piping section so that the section would read as follows:

begin sample revision

Piping means concealing the actual title of a linked article by replacing it with other text, typically to suppress parenthetical expressions.

  • Don't pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed, e.g. Moment (physics). In many cases this may be all the user needs to find what they're looking for.
    • Exceptions
      1. Use piping if you're linking to an anchor point on the target page.
      2. Use piping if the article title differs from what it should be due to technical limitations per {{Wrongtitle}}; for instance USS Adder (SS-3) or LATEX.
  • If a word in the description is linked (an unusual occurrence), you may use piping in that link.

end sample revision

Thanks for considering this alteration to the Manual of Style. Courtland 23:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
No objections. —jiy (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine by me. Neonumbers 06:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Got my voite. Josh Parris # 07:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Done —Wahoofive (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Courtland 16:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with adjectives as titles

I've recently been looking at pages like Unimodal and Unipotent and ran across two discussion threads related to adjective article titles and disambiguation: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (adjectives) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ambiguous adjectives). I proposed at the former that one might create something like {{Adj-disambig}} that would place adjective-titled disambiguation pages into a category such as Category:Disambiguation pages having adjectives as titles, that category being a child of Category:Disambiguation. My thinking is that this would be a step toward formalizing a guideline exception for dab pages with respect to article naming conventions; it would have the further consequence of reducing the size of the main category by a small amount.

Thanks for giving this proposal a few minutes thought. Regards, Courtland 02:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) essentially says adjectives should just be redirects, I can't see why we should violate that by having a formal standard for such pages as articles. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, but disambiguation pages are not articles per se, they are navigational aids, part of the help infrastructure but oriented toward content rather than formatting (as most of the Help addresses). Courtland 00:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
True. In fact, disambiguation pages are in the same category as redirects: they can be seen as a redirect to two or more pages at once. So I'm not against adjective-titled disambiguation pages, but I don't yet see why a separate standard is needed for those. Eugene van der Pijll 08:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

TOC

If a dab is long I think it's appropriate to have a table of contents (TOC). I use the template {{TOCright}}. Someone has just reverted my introduction of a TOC to Norman, citing this MoS as a reason not to have it. The reason why I will use a TOC is that it aids speedy naviagtion. What's the feeling about a TOC for longer dabs, and should we include it in the MoS? --Commander Keane 17:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation (policy page) seems to support not using section headers, and ergo no TOC's. Stbalbach 19:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Unless the header has been changed recently, Wikipedia:Disambiguation is not policy, but a guideline, and should be treated as such. Courtland 16:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, {{TOCright}} should be there. I was actually reverted once for putting it on ABC (I think it was that page), and the reversion was accompanied by a note on my [[User talk:Neonumbers#{{TOCright}}|talk page here]], pointing out that there were discussions elsewhere.
The manual here actually says in long pages to use {{TOCright}} or to suppress the TOC completely. If anyone wants to change that to say just use {{TOCright}}, I'd be all for it. Neonumbers 22:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I also agree that section headings and a TOC are OK on longer dab pages. I don't see anything at all on Wikipedia:Disambiguation that would preclude section headings or a TOC. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) explicitly says they may be used: If the list is extremely long (more than thirty entries), you may use section headers instead (or in addition), as on John Taylor (disambiguation). To shorten the page suppress the table of contents by placing __NOTOC__ (No Table Of Contents) near the top of the page or use {{TOCright}} to place the table on the right hand side. Personally, I think thirty entries is a rather too high threshhold though. I think section headings make sense when there are is a long list of entries that fall into distinct groupings. older≠wiser 00:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, Manual of Style is a guideline, so anything related to that should be discussed on a per individual article talk page. But there does seem to be an inconsistency since the disambig policy page, which carries more weight, makes it pretty clear, by example, that you dont use headers in disambig pages. Personally I find headers and TOCs distracting it makes them look like real articles and encourages newbie editors to treat them as articles requireing a lot more maintaince overhead of deleteing in-appropriate additions. Stbalbach 01:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused. What exactly does the policy page have to say about the use of section headings? Nothing at all as far as I can see. It's a rather slippery slope to construe silence as an argument against something. older≠wiser 01:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, it shows how to create headings, using bolded text and a colon, as you find in most disambiguation pages. Seems pretty clear to me *shrug* .. its not what it doesnt say, its what it says. Its a slipperly slope to change the disambig page style just because it says you cant. Stbalbach 03:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same page? I do not see anywhere on Wikipedia:Disambiguation that describes using bolded text and a colon. It refers all questions of style and formatting (except for the most basic rudiments) to this page. older≠wiser 12:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I guess your right now I read it more closely. Actually the Multi-stub pages section seems to say sections are used when sections are stub articles, and then to break off new articles when the sections get bigger. I think this is a bad idea. It does however suggest when its appropriate to use sectioning. Stbalbach 14:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Long dab'g phrases -- and turning Dab pages into lists of everyone sharing a given name

_ _ (I guess i should start by explaining that the detail in this is not for the sake of ensuring chastisement of those concerned, but rather of avoiding the impression that i was predisposed to do a dump job with this situation. What i seek is for someone to pick up a disputed attempt at cleanup, that i have abandoned.)
_ _ It's perfectly clear from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision) that Dabs "having the simplest possible title that is not misleading" was supported 4 to 1, and could have been included in the guideline. I knew w/o having to hunt down that discussion that the only plausible arguement against including it would be that it might be considered obvious without explicit statement.
_ _ My primary work here is on the hundreds of LoPbN pages, and while working on the Bells i consulted William E. Bell (author) seeking his missing vital statistics. I was suspicious about Zack being the only blue lk among his works, and indeed found that title to be

  1. a redirect to Zack (Final Fantasy VII), and
  2. the subject of a question on the corresponding talk page (which BTW is now lost as the talk page of a rdr at Talk:Zack (Final Fantasy), as a result of at least one editor working beyond their depth).

The question was an objection to a change of the article's title (which change had been reverted by the time i read of it) to Zack. I devoted 3 'graphs to answering that question, made the move to Zack (Final Fantasy), fixed the dbl redirs, and changed Zack from a rdr to a Dab.
_ _ Mention had been made in the talk-page question of Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII): in support of the long title, it suggesting that this long title was if anything less needed than Zack's. To the contrary, i learned that Sephiroth is an indispensable Dab due to Sephiroth being the plural of Sephirah (in contrast to the only other candidate for the article title "Zack" being not an actual article, but a potential article about the novel). However, the (shorter but still non-ambiguous) title Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) would not do, since the article names the other 60% of the games where the same character (apparently not a similarly named character) appears, which are not Final Fantasy games. I proceeded accordingly with renaming that article, and bypassing dbl rdrs.
_ _ I had explained myself before starting the main-namespace moves and edits, but my first move was reversed after 6 minutes without supplementing the boilerplate summary and without any talk page comment (nor has that editor ever acknowledged my reasoning).
_ _ About an hour after my doing the Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII) move, the same editor reversed it, and then (bookended by please and thank you) demanded that my actions on those articles conform to standards set by Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy. I protested on principle on that editor's talk page, in withdrawing from working in that (twice removed from my interests) area.
_ _ I found before long that the Dab Zack had accumulated, beyond the articled character Zack and the rd-lk'd novel Zack, 6 bios titled with "Zack..." followed by a surname (not to mention cases with piping of Dab targets, multiple lks per entry, and several times the detail needed to accomplish dab'n). (Not noting a hidden hint that the additional bios were WP:POINT, i reverted back to the good dab; not wanting to fight the issue of whether lists of people called but not known by their given name have any place on WP, i preserved the information by splitting them off into a new People with Zack as given name. Zack has been counter-reverted, and extended by another 3 non-dab-relevant names, while the new article has been hidden under a rdr, rather than requesting a history merge.
_ _ Aside from my impression that the several dozen participants are probably a single-interest clique (the only name that is at all familiar to me is one who spammed my talk page (admittedly in another context) and likely to be largely meat-puppets, it seems clear to me that where clear MoS guidelines exist, and are widely followed and seldom protested, projects setting contrary ones need to justify it on the corresponding MoS talk page.
_ _ As always it's a shame that no one has enough energy to fight every worthy battle, but this one will need someone else to care about it for the mess over there to be cleaned up.
--Jerzy•t 03:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The huge amount of detail above I find very confusing. Are you asking what the policy is? Are you insinuating that this page doesn't conform to "Naming conventions", or did you mean the WikiProject you mentioned? Or are you asking for support (a request which really belongs at WP:RFC)? The page WP:D, to which this page refers, says this:
The considerations of what Wikipedia is not are not magically invalidated for disambiguation pages. Dictionary definitions don't belong here, nor do lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms a part of the article title. If there is a separate list article, however, it makes sense to have a link to it in a "See also" section; for example, List of people whose first name is Michael should have a link from Michael.
Does that help? —Wahoofive (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

_ _ Thanks for yr help in getting out what i'm really trying to say, and thanks for your patience when i'm being difficult to follow.
_ _ Your clarifying questions, with my responses inserted, are:

Are you asking what the policy is?
No, i already thot the guidelines i'm aware of were clear enuf.
Are you insinuating that this page doesn't conform to "Naming conventions"...[?]]
I am asserting that all the "...(Final Fantasy VII)" titles i have seen or can imagine are unacceptable, and should be at least shortened, per common sense, and probably per naming conventions and other guidelines.
... or did you mean the WikiProject you mentioned?
I imagine "WikiProject:Final Fantasy" would conform to naming conventions; i think such a project is a good idea; i think the evidence is that this one's participants imagine it owns some articles and some text in others and that it can make policy about anything that affects them; i think it is unlikely that its participants are typical WP'ians, or see the issues they are dealing with in a way that is compatible with WP's need; if true, i, uh, think these might be, uh, bad things.
I mentioned that project to avoid leaving the impression that the Dab problem is likely to have a quick & easy solution: there may be hotheads i haven't met who will be involved before the page settles down to a normal existence.
Or are you asking for support (a request which really belongs at WP:RFC)?
I am not asking for support bcz it was hard to imagine my doing more than i had about this, and it's hard to imagine my doing more beyond that than answering these questions. I came here bcz i've seen evidence of those who contribute to this talk page sharing my concerns about Dab-page stds, and it seemed likely someone would pick up the ball that i am dropping. I suppose that'd be support for my previous eds to Zack, but it's not support for me bcz i am done with Zack: i fixed it, and tried to maintain it. But succeeding at that may require more effort than i am willing to make, and even if just one more contrib were to "close the deal", that seems unlikely enough to me that i'm not gonna try.
What i'm willing to contribute is to visibly drop the ball, in this small forum, and answer questions like these.
I think engagement with the Dab aspects of this, by others who contribute here, are reasonably likely to resolve those aspects. I don't envision a "solution" to the W'project's "problems", but i think dealing with the Dab issues, and maybe the excessive-length ones, can't help but make a little progress on the W'project deeper ones.
If the Dab aspects take an entry at RFC by me, and eliciting questions in that larger forum, then it's not gonna get done; i have no particular intention of participating there even if someone else initiates it. I'm concerned for WP as a whole and its wider implications, but i can't take responsibility for the whole thing. I'm going back to the part that i've been taking major responsibility for.
Does [the content of WP:D] help?
IMO it will significantly help anyone who chooses to pick up the ball.

_ _ Sorry if i've degenerated into petulance; i appreciate Wahoofive's attn & that of any silent observers, and i regret the burden i'm imposing on you-all.
--Jerzy•t 16:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages/Archive_8&oldid=448572225"