Changes: Forum:Disambiguation articles

Latest revision as of 09:06, 16 September 2012

Forums - Disambiguation articles

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page.

Comment: Mykheh's idea should be used.

I've been thinking about our disambiguation pages and how they don't have a manual of style. Which is why I propose that we have a manual of style for disambiguation pages. I have made a possible layout for disambiguation pages here. The image on the right is to make the article more colourful and to show the reader what the physical term looks like. This image could be the latest variation or use of the term, or just an image that best fits the article. I also feel that when someone wants to know all the products that a certain term appears in, they also want to know what year they appeared in each. Hence the (released in 1999) etc... As for the lead description, I'm really not sure how to lay that out. I would really appreciate all of your opinions on this. Thanks, kind regards.
SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 11:58, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

What you did is wonderful. :D I've always thought they look kinda' horrible. I like it how you made it. :) Drewlzoo^{(talk) (blogs)}
That looks good. When the minifigure/set spans over multiple themes (for example Frankenstein), I say the theme instead of the year. Also, for the lead section, how about just a little description about what the subject(s) are, give a little background. --Berrybrick ^(Talk) 15:42, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
Can't see alont different from the current way, but it'd be good to document it. (Added a wee description.) - nxt
- I do have to say that the description doesn't really visually fit in... Drewlzoo^{(talk) (blogs)}
Looks great. - 18:08, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could put the description/background in the lead section or under a new header?

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 20:12, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

- I've put it in the lead section in the past. --Berrybrick ^(Talk) 23:13, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
We do need a MOS for the Disambiguation pages. The image that appears on the right side of the article is a great addition. Isn't there two type of disambiguation pages? One for sets with same number, and one like the Naboo Fighter (disambiguation)? Because of this, we cannot include descriptions in all the disambiguaiton pages right? •myk 07:37, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
Pending closure - There is consensus to adapt Mykheh's change here, so in 24 hours from 12:28, August 27, 2012 (UTC) I will implement this change, unless there are objections. a jr 12:28, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Forumheader/new|archive=false|reason=may be a long discussion}}
+{{Forumheader/new|archive=true|reason=Mykheh's idea should be used.}}
 <!-- Forums are automatically archived 7 days after the last edit. To force a forum to be archived or not, use "|archive=true" or "|archive=false". Use "|reason=<reason>" to give a reason. -->
 I've been thinking about our disambiguation pages and how they don't have a manual of style. Which is why I propose that we have a manual of style for disambiguation pages. I have made a possible layout for disambiguation pages [[Naboo Fighter (disambiguation)|here]]. The image on the right is to make the article more colourful and to show the reader what the physical term looks like. This image could be the latest variation or use of the term, or just an image that best fits the article. I also feel that when someone wants to know all the products that a certain term appears in, they also want to know what year they appeared in each. Hence the {{C|released in 1999}} etc... As for the lead description, I'm really not sure how to lay that out. I would really appreciate all of your opinions on this. Thanks, kind regards.<br/>{{User:SKP4472/sig2}} 11:58, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
+* What you did is wonderful. :D I've always thought they look kinda' horrible. I like it how you made it. :) [[User:Drew1200|Drewlzoo]]<sup>([[User talk:Drew1200|talk]]) ([[User blog:Drew1200|blogs]])</sup>
+*That looks good. When the minifigure/set spans over multiple themes (for example [[Frankenstein]]), I say the theme instead of the year. Also, for the lead section, how about just a little description about what the subject(s) are, give a little background. {{User:Berrybrick/Sig}} 15:42, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
+*Can't see alont different from the current way, but it'd be good to document it. (Added a wee description.) {{User:UltrasonicNXT/Signature}}
+** I do have to say that the description doesn't really visually fit in... [[User:Drew1200|Drewlzoo]]<sup>([[User talk:Drew1200|talk]]) ([[User blog:Drew1200|blogs]])</sup>
+*Looks great. -{{User:King of Nynrah/sig1}} 18:08, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
+* Perhaps we could put the description/background in the lead section or under a new header?<br/>{{User:SKP4472/sig2}} 20:12, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
+** I've put it in the lead section in the past. {{User:Berrybrick/Sig}} 23:13, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
+* We do need a MOS for the Disambiguation pages. The image that appears on the right side of the article is a great addition. Isn't there two type of disambiguation pages? One for sets with same number, and one like the [[Naboo Fighter (disambiguation)]]? Because of this, we cannot include descriptions in all the disambiguaiton pages right? {{User:Mykheh/sig}} 07:37, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
+*Pending closure - There is consensus to adapt Mykheh's change here, so in 24 hours from 12:28, August 27, 2012 (UTC) I will implement this change, unless there are objections. {{User:Ajraddatz/sig}} 12:28, August 27, 2012 (UTC)