Disputatio Vicipaediae:Discretiva

Convention for "discretiva"

Moved from Vicipaedia:Taberna/Vetera#Convention_for_.7B.7Bdiscretiva.7D.7D to here. --Roland (disp.) 12:40, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Is there a convention where to put the {{discretiva}} template? At the beginning or at the end of an article? --Roland2 00:25, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

We have both in the articles. Personally, I think it is better at the beginning, but I don't think there is a rule. --Tbook 20:08, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is a convention: "discretiva" at the end (but some intro text before, e. g. "Multi homines nomine Caroli utuntur. Alii praecipui hic nominantur.") and "disambig" at the beginning. I added a dashed line to both templates to signal this. --Roland2 23:01, 1 Martii 2006 (UTC)

In the English WP I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages:

• Put the article title in bold as an intro.
• Start each line with the link to the target page.
• Don't wikilink any other words.
• Only include references to related subject articles when the term in question actually is described on that page. (For example, Canton legitimately has a link to Flag terminology.)
• Include the template {{tl|disambig}} at the bottom.
• ... and some more rules

I have just changed some discretiva pages and it seems I have applied the wrong changes ... :-(

What of these rules do we want to follow? All of them? Some?

1. In the en:WP they use "*" instead of "#".
2. The {{discretiva}} is at the bottom.
3. They start the list with "Lemma may refer to:"

--Roland2 21:40, 1 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

I think the main thing is to be consistant. Currently we are not. I don't see any problem with those arrangements. The "*" vs "#" might reduce debates over which meaning is more important. "Verbo significari potest:" might be a way to start. --Tbook 23:53, 1 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Maybe better on the top ...

Meanwhile I have changed my mind. ;-) I think the {{discretiva}} should be placed on the top of the page:

• It looks better if the authors forget to start with an introducing sentence e. g. "XY haec dissimilia significat:"
• In fact these pages are not "normal" pages (see below).
• These pages often cannot have interwiki links since the concepts of different languages are different.
• These pages should not be categorized. There should be a note in the template about this.
• These pages shall not keep real content but just references. It is better to explain this at the top of the page.
• There should be a note to use the corresponding {{fn|disambig}} {{videdis}}.
• We can avoid this dashed line which should help the user to guess the right position of the template (top/bottom).
• When a page becomes complicated (vide etiam, etc.) it is not always clear where on the bottom someone should place this template.
• When the template is on the top, the user does not have to read until the end of the page to know why it has no content but just references.

I am aware of the fact, that other wikipedias place this template at the bottom of the page. ;-)

If it's ok, I'd adapt those discretiva pages, so nobody will have to do anything. It's just the question whether you like this change. --Roland (disp.) 13:08, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

No objection against the change, but this template is used on about 250 pages, which means quite a lot of work to change it everywhere. Perhaps you would like to try pywikipediabot or ask some bot owner to make the change? --UV 22:50, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for the layout

Disputatio mota est ad 
Disputatio Formulae:Discretiva.
Sententias ibi profer.

As said above, the discretiva-template could offer more information. I'll try to give an example:

Haec est pagina discretiva. Scilicet, quae indicat alias paginas quae nomen idem habere possent. Haec pagina categorias non habet. Non semper potest ut haec pagina nexus intervicos habet. Haec pagina solum nexus et breves descriptiones habet. Adde formulam {{fn|disambig}} ad paginas relatas. Quaeso, pone hanc formulam in initio paginae (quid est consilium novum).

The template shall clearly indicate that this is a special type of page. The green background shall indicate that everything is ok. The grey icon is good, in my opinion, because red colours might irritate the reader. What do you think? --Roland (disp.) 23:01, 1 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

P. S.: After all cleanup is done, we might want to have a smaller template. --Roland (disp.) 09:54, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

It looks very good, and I like the colours, but I agree it could be smaller. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

Haec est pagina discretiva alias paginas eiusdem fere nominis indicans.

Ok, so smaller. ;-) I've moved the hints to Vicipaedia:Discretiva. Now I'll start to move the templates to the top of the pages. The layout of the template can be changed at any time, if someone wants: {{discretiva}} --Roland (disp.) 13:27, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that possent be possint? But why subjunctive? Would possunt be better? But then, for habere possunt, would habent be better? (We know that the pages do, in fact, have the same name.) And why are you saying alias paginas instead of just plain paginas? For alias, would varias be better? But can't paginas all by itself suffice? (Sorry I don't have answers today: just questions!) IacobusAmor 13:49, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

It seems there have some things to be corrected ... ;-) --14:33, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

Disputatio mota est ad Disputatio Formulae:Discretiva.